Supervisor Orders Officers To Leave Citizen Alone

[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 obscenity free speech and the duty to protect and is brought to us by mr porter's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve in august of 2020 41 year old sean porter was protesting maryland governor larry hogan in the crosswalk of a busy intersection in the city of bowie mr porter was holding a large handmade sign with various insulting profanities directed at the governor and waving at traffic as they honked and drove by after standing in the intersection for a few minutes mr porter was initially contacted by members of the prince george's county police who gave him no issues several minutes later officer mckenzie and officer arnold of the bowie police department arrived on the scene i'm sorry the first amendment protects my free political speech you're live on youtube video and audio recording it doesn't matter you're not the free speech police i have a constitutionally protected right to say whatever i want i'm politically protesting governor larry hogan it's my first amendment right on the right to petition my right to redress of grievances and my right to file a complaint in any manner i feel fit by the way i'm not trespassing i'm on public property i'm on a public uh crosswalk i'm doing nothing wrong i got a sign that you find offensive that's not a lot where in the maryland criminal code does it say you cannot have an offensive political sign because free speech is not open to your your interpretation the relationship between free speech and obscenity has a long history within the courts that stretches back to the revolutionary era just seven years after the founding fathers amended the constitution to state quote congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech the federalist-controlled congress enacted the sedition act of 1798 to prohibit defamatory speech against the government ironically enough the act targeted political speech which is now considered to be one of the most constitutionally protected forms of speech over the years the supreme court developed various doctrines and precedents to regulate which types of speech were entitled to first amendment protections and the manner in which they may be expressed in all that time the supreme court has yet to develop a comprehensive legal definition of obscenity but the roots of its current understanding stretch back to the 1934 case of united states versus one book entitled ulysses in the case the court held that a work investigated for obscenity must be considered in its entirety and not merely judged on its parts 23 years later the court ruled that obscene material was not protected by the first amendment and could be regulated by the states rather than by a universal federal standard in the case of roth versus united states the roth case also established a five-part judicial standard to determine whether speech was obscene which relied primarily on an average person's application of contemporary community standards in the 1973 case of miller versus california the supreme court quantified the obscenity standard previously established in the broth case and created a new three-prong test for obscenity which became known as the miller test the miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria one whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest two whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law and three whether the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary artistic political or scientific value the miller test remains the legal standard of today despite the fact that obscenity is still one of the most controversial and unsettled areas of first amendment law and justices have been relatively vocal about their struggle to define it in the 1964 case of jacob ellis versus ohio justice potter stewart noted that he could provide no clear definition for obscenity but did declare quote i know it when i see it the use of vulgarities has endured a similar degree of scrutiny within the courtroom but with much more palpable results in the 1971 supreme court case of cohen vs california the court held that profanity is protected under the first amendment with justice john marshall harlan noting quote one man's vulgarity is another's lyric given that mr porter's sign contains a political message specifically designed to express dissent for government action it is highly unlikely that the sign would be found to be obscene by a court and the supreme court has plainly upheld the right to use profanity in protest mr porter is well within his rights to protest with his sign regardless of whether it offends other people i understand we just got a call for it i understand you got a call you made your best shot i'm not leaving because i haven't broken any laws i can't hear you there's a thing called this early conduct if somebody finds your sign and your actions to be disorderly in public okay then that is a charge we can ask you to leave and fail to do that you can get arrested uh get your commanding officer out here because because this is a political free speech and i'm protected on the first amendment here officer arnold informs mr porter that if someone were to find his actions to be disorderly then he could be arrested for disorderly conduct like many states maryland has legislated extremely vague and constitutionally questionable laws regarding disorderly conduct maryland criminal code 10-201 states that a person may not willfully act in a disorderly manner that disturbs the public peace and while the code offers a thorough definition of which locations are considered public it fails to elaborate on what acts would be considered a legitimate disturbance many states and municipalities have attempted to use the broad language of similar statutes to bottleneck first amendment rights and one of the most notable cases which draws many parallels to this interaction is the 2011 supreme court case of snyder vs phelps in the case members of the extremist christian cult known as the westboro baptist church were protesting u.s marine lance corporal matthew snyder's funeral in westminster maryland after he passed away while serving in iraq the westboro members stood on a public sidewalk near the funeral and displayed signs with vulgar and disrespectful messages about american soldiers and went on to publish statements on the church's website that denounced lance corporal snyder in particular the soldier's family sued several key members of the church and the case eventually made its way to the supreme court in an eight-to-one decision the court ruled in favor of the westboro members and agreed with the fourth circuit court that the protest science and language on the church's website were rhetorical hyperbole and figurative expression rather than assertions of fact and were therefore entitled to first amendment protection in the majority opinion chief justice john roberts stated quote what westboro said in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it is entitled to special protection under the first amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous alone in his dissent justice samuel alito began his opinion by stating quote our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case and he went on to add that while free speech is essential it should not be used to torment innocent victims nonetheless the court essentially concluded that regardless of the outrageous and offensive nature of the church's speech it was protected all the same although mr porter's sign is highly offensive it is very unlikely that a court would find his protest to be in violation of code 10-201 and officer arnold's suggestion that mr porter's conduct could be perceived as disorderly was baseless and served no lawful or investigative purpose why are you shaking so much are you are you on an influence on anything oh now you're going that route trying to say i'm on drugs sir we're not trying to be nasty or anything like that it's free speech and you can't do anything about call your state's attorney's office i talk to my lawyers every day um in the newspapers every state's attorney's office reviewed it and said you can't do anything about it's free speech you're not even supposed to be talking to me i'm not arguing okay you're right you're right about free speech we have a call because people are offended by your sign but i didn't offend them they offended themselves by not liking the choice of words i have for the governor okay can you live around here i'm not making any statements other than the fact i haven't committed any crimes and you know it hey sir i never said you said i was disorderly in public and i'm not no actually i didn't think i'm engaged in constitutionally protected activity and you cannot make any law that will infringe upon it nor apply any law that infringes upon it all i did would tell you why i'm here okay this guy said uh i'm disorderly if somebody finds their actions to be disorderly then they will be disordered right no absolutely not my my free speech is not contingent upon someone else's emotions okay you know that i'm questioning for you we haven't been massive at all we've come here to talk to you he said he's gonna arrest me for disorderly i didn't say that i said he did find your actions to be distortedly and deserving of the peace i'm sorry but they're not judge jury and executioner could be could be that's all i'm saying i'm engaged in constitutionally protected activity sir oh you're giving me what-ifs and hypotheticals now that's right all right let me explain something to you i'm engaged in a constitutionally protected activity okay and i'm not out here protesting you guys so why are you all so personally pissed off that i don't like governor hogan no i'm not i'm not mad i don't like him i mean is my sign not not is it too subtle i'm entitled to be protected by the first amendment wrapping around me like a big old blanket while i stand out here with my my giant larry hogan sign i don't like the governor oh you're here because you want to be you should have told them there's no crime you should have said there's no crop we have to come out for everything if we get a call we have to come we have to come out here that's it mr porter makes the point that the department could have informed the 911 callers that his protest was legal rather than responding to the call and officer mckenzie tells them that they are obligated to respond to all calls under any circumstances i have discussed the law enforcement chain of communication in a previous episode which i will link in the info card above but mr porter's point highlights specific inefficiencies within the communicative process that appear to have feasible and practical solutions in our current system there are no national regulations for hiring or training emergency dispatchers and states are free to draft their own legislation for ensuring that their dispatchers are competent some states have elected to develop comprehensive certification programs and stringent experience and educational requirements for dispatchers while other states have no requirements at all even in states with more rigorous requirements like florida the training does not include basic legal topics or civilian rights if states were to mandate that emergency dispatcher training programs include information about fundamental civil rights and constitutionally protected expression perhaps less resources would be wasted on calls such as this interaction officer mckenzie puts forth the notion that officers are required to respond to all calls no matter what however higher courts have ruled otherwise in the 2004 dc appeals case of warren versus district of columbia the court determined that members of law enforcement cannot be held liable for failing to adequately protect citizens and based its decision on quote the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services such as police protection to any particular individual citizen the logic of the court was that if every crime victim were able to recover damages from their local police department every time a crime was committed it would result in an unproductive policing system no law enforcement agency is capable of protecting all citizens from all criminals at all times but the warren ruling effectively established a precedent that shields officers who neglectfully allow crimes to take place as was the case for broward county sheriff's deputy scott peterson who claimed that he had no legal duty to protect the students inside the high school he was assigned to protect during the tragic incident in parkland florida just under three years ago it is possible that some departments have drafted policies that require them to respond to every call and after searching through the bowie police department's publicly available policies i was unable to locate any but it is possible that the policy exists in the official manual although not required by law it is entirely possible that officer mackenzie is correct that bowie officers are required to respond to every call due to policy but this interaction demonstrates how such a policy could be unproductive what was your name mckenzie arnold b arnold am i being detained no i'm free to go i'm free to continue protesting also absolutely it's a free country i'm glad you know that make sure you recognize that when you try to charge me with disorderly conduct because you don't like the content of my free speech because i don't like it when cops try and tell me what is and is not allowed on a political side this guy did he said that my free speech could be considered disorderly because someone got offended and has been skinned i'm sorry but every person on on facebook named karen doesn't determine my free speech rights i mean seriously i mean i don't know that i i am a nasty dude if you want to get your point across if you're just a little nicer to people why would i care this is my this is my message verbatim this is right from my heart this is my deep felt political belief it's my protected free speech and i'm going to continue to display it the wrong way what's the right way be kind be kind to us we haven't been nasty to you this guy said he's gonna arrest me for disorder remind the tape i said you could be if someone found your conduct to be disorderly and disturbing their peace okay that is the law so as long as you're not jumping in traffic or causing any harm to people or running with scissors or taking candy from strangers getting in the back of a van i know yeah you want to stand here and hold the sign that's what we do okay all right have a nice day hey youtube buddy nice meeting you sir same to you happy day you too after mingling about for several minutes the bowie officers eventually left the scene without further incident and mr porter continued to protest for another three hours with no issues mr porter told me that he filed an unofficial complaint against the officers by sending the video to bowie mayor timothy adams police chief john nesky and the city attorney who assured mr porter that he would look into it mr porter went on to say that he has no intentions of filing a lawsuit and that he has not heard from the department since the incident overall officer arnold and officer mckenzie get a c because although they remained within the bounds of their authority the officers attempted to discourage mr porter from exercising his rights displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment and wasted city-funded time and resources on the scene of a call with no crime officer arnold's insistence that mr porter could have been perceived as disorderly only served to escalate the encounter and could easily be perceived as a veiled threat although officer mckenzie changed her position during the interaction when she initially arrived on the scene she told mr porter that she couldn't let him hold up that sign both of the officers arrived on the scene with the intentions of infringing upon mr porter's constitutional rights and it appears as though both officers believed they were within their authority to do so ultimately the officers did respect mr porter's rights but this interaction leaves little doubt that the bowie police department could use more training on the first amendment and its protections mr porter gets an a-plus for peacefully exercising his first amendment rights remaining cool and collected throughout the encounter and for standing firm in the face of officer arnold's threats mr porter deserves recognition for having the passion necessary to carry out a lone protest and the diligence to ensure that he did so legally mr porter was sure to tell me that he does not necessarily consider himself a first amendment auditor and that his mission was focused on governor hogan but he did retain an attorney in the event that his protest was thwarted by police mr porter has had several interesting encounters with police and i highly recommend checking out 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 like and subscribe for more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,911,420

Rating: 4.796308 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: 9lgLBbhmqpk

Length: 16min 36sec (996 seconds)

Published: Mon Nov 30 2020