Trooper Detains Bikers While Off-Duty

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this interaction covers the authority of off-duty officers identification laws and criminal trespassing and is brought to us by savage moto 24's 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 if digital security is your top priority then surf shark has you covered surf shark's multi-hop feature allows you to connect to the internet via two different vpn servers and most of the time these servers are located in different countries so for example you can make your vpn connection even more secure and private by connecting to servers in the united states and germany instead of just a us server if you're an activist who wants to stay as far away as possible from government tracking or a journalist trying to protect your sources the extra security and anonymity of surf shark's multi-hop feature will ensure that you are safeguarded right now surfshark is offering the ata community an 83 discount with an additional three months completely free with 24-hour customer service and a 30-day money-back guarantee you have absolutely nothing to lose so click the link in the description to claim your exclusive offer now thanks again to surf shark for sponsoring this episode this is yet another interaction where the details are scarce and i was unable to locate any news articles or public cases regarding this encounter the original video was posted on may 16 2020 but judging by the scenery it seems that this interaction happened in the colder months it is clear from the video that this encounter took place somewhere near the town of brookville pennsylvania but the exact location is unknown the video shows 21 year old kyle hamilton and his 23 year old friend jason idom riding their dirt bikes through back roads and gravel paths before deciding to follow a trail off of the main roadway shortly after entering the trail mr hamilton notices a vehicle down the pathway and stops but mr idom continues riding down the path and speeds past the stopped vehicle mr hamilton hesitantly follows his friend but stops when he is flagged down by the citizens near the car take your album you're on my property you're trespassing i'm a state trooper i'm gonna throw you in jail unless you turn it off right now talk i'll just leave right now you're gonna turn it off and talk to me i don't know if i can start this bike back up i don't care your trespass it's defined trespass it's a misdemeanor up to three years in jail turn your bike off now okay can i just set it that like show me your id i don't have any on me who do you live in right off of uh brookville right in brookville right now see all the signs around here yeah then you trespass take your helmet off look i'm just going to leave no you're not going to leave you need to receive [Music] turn your bike up if you turn your bike up i'm going to arrest you turn your bike off just turn your bike off at this point the trooper has effectuated an investigative detention of mr hamilton and mr itam and pennsylvania courts have generally permitted off-duty officers to act within their official capacity in most circumstances many higher courts from all across the country have ruled on the expectations and limitations of off-duty officers and the general consensus is that an officer's authority does not end when they clock out for example in the 1980 florida 5th district case of state versus robinson the court held that quote an officer's off-duty status was not a limitation upon his right to exercise police authority in the presence of criminal activity end quote and the logic of the robinson case was later used by the florida supreme court higher courts from nearly every circuit have reached similar conclusions but some states such as montana and north carolina do draw a distinction between an officer's on and off-duty authority depending on whether the officer is acting as a private person this distinction can become critical when the issues of liability arise from an officer's off-duty conduct in the 2003 texas first district court of appeals case of morgan vs city of alvin the court held that the city was not liable for an officer who was sued while working a side job as a security guard because he was not acting on the city's behalf at the time of the incident new york's first district reached a similar conclusion the same year in the appeals case of shilt vs new york transit authority and held that officers whose conduct is quote wholly personal in nature cannot be said to fall within the scope of his employment end quote the foundation for these state cases is built upon common law which states that quote a police officer on off-duty status is nevertheless not relieved of the obligation as an officer to preserve the public peace and to protect the lives and property of the citizens of the public in general end quote pennsylvania courts lean on the common law's logic and in the 1995 pennsylvania superior court case of pennsylvania vs gomer the court plainly stated that quote we find no explicit limitation of the authority of a state police officer to make a traffic stop or arrest only when the officer is on duty and or in uniform end quote in the 1997 case of pennsylvania versus kiner the court clarified that when an officer makes it plainly apparent that they are a member of law enforcement then they are acting within their official capacity and not as a private citizen some departments have even went as far as drafting policies on off-duty conduct by their officers although it could be argued that the trooper was enforcing a personal interest because he owned the property pennsylvania state police troopers have jurisdiction over the entire state and the trooper did witness what he believed to be a criminal act we will discuss whether mr hamilton and mr idom were criminally trespassing in a moment but it is important to highlight that it is entirely possible that the trooper was within his authority to detain them because he clearly witnessed what appeared to be a crime taking place the trooper accuses mr hamilton and mr adam of trespassing and orders the two to present their identification you both are trespassing we literally just got here nope i got pictures of you driving all over this place okay you've been here many times you were here on saturday we were your defiant trespass if i call the troopers out here you're going to jail all right let me see your ids take your helmets off pennsylvania is one of the few states that has no laws requiring citizens to present their name or identification to officers regardless of whether they have been arrested or suspected of committing a crime at no point during a police interaction are citizens in pennsylvania required to tell an officer who they are or show their id unless they are driving it should be noted that although citizens are not required to show their id refusing to identify yourself can result in a prolonged detention or arrest as officers are allowed to detain citizens until they are identified assuming that a court found that the trooper was acting within his official capacity mr hamilton and mr idom would be under no legal obligation to present their identification but the trooper would be within his authority to detain them until they were identified or police arrived or both given the trooper's intimate knowledge of the land it is likely that he would have reasonable suspicion that mr hamilton and mr adam were trespassing because he knows where his property begins and ends and who belongs on it facts which are not necessarily exclusive to the ownership of the property we will discuss the intricacies of pennsylvania's trespassing laws in a moment but it should be recognized that although the trooper likely does have reasonable suspicion mr hamilton and mr adam are not required to give the trooper their id or tell them who they are we'll take your helmets off i want pictures of you both where do you live how old are you 21 how old are you older than that oh you guys are going to jail i mean we don't can't just ride motorcycles on private property you know i don't care i own it okay i understand i'm sorry and i have pictures of both you you were here saturday give my phone yeah you were here saturday take your helmet off uh why can't we just leave i mean we won't hey matt get my badge all right you want to play that game you're going to lose thank your helmet i'm just asking take your helmet what's the big deal i mean what do you mean who do you think pays the taxes here i understand that take your helmet off people ride people ride at my place all the time yeah well you didn't ask for permission people don't have permission here either well i i so we saw that catch you did you make that sign up there that says respect the area no oh all the yellows posted signs because we figured that sign 600 acres yeah i mean there's you just can't ride your motorcycles your dirt bikes where you feel like it the trooper goes on to say that mr hamilton and mr adam are criminally trespassing by ignoring the posted signs and that they could possibly be jailed for doing so posted properly if somebody tells you verbally not to come on or it's posted it's not a summary offense it's a misdemeanor you can go to jail like most of the state's legal system pennsylvania's trespassing laws are structured differently from the majority of the country section 3505 of title 18 of the statutes of pennsylvania divides the act of criminal trespassing into several categories and subsection b defiant trespassing is the one that would apply to mr hamilton and mr idom ignoring the no trespassing sign the statute states that a person commits an offense if knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespasses given by actual communication posted signage posted notices or identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property considering that mr hamilton blatantly admitted to knowingly entering the property without permission despite seeing the no trespassing signs see all the signs around here yeah then you trespass it is likely that he would be found guilty of trespassing if he were officially charged all that said the trooper is exaggerating the consequences of violating the criminal trespass statute subsection 2 of the statute states that unless a trespasser defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises then the violation is a summary offense which is the most minor type of criminal offense in pennsylvania it is clear that mr hamilton and mr adam were compliant with the trooper and willing to leave the property after having been verbally warned and it is doubtful that they would face any jail time if they were arrested and convicted we saw that sign i thought what did you see the no trespass sign well everyone like i probably know 30 people that come here okay well you tell them get guess what i got willing to stay troopers here i will know she'll go to jail yeah sorry about that well because we've talked to other homeowners before and i don't give them i know i'm just saying i thought maybe i'll throw they're in jail well no no no i'm saying on their pr property because we've gotten permission from other people to ride others you get free if you've asked you just don't trespass yeah matt give me your phone that's dead the trooper proceeded to take a photo of each of the riders and demand that they state their name the writers complied and the trooper reminded them of the consequences of being dishonest what's your name i'm kyle i don't if i find that different guess what the troopers are gonna be knocking on your door after questioning the legality of their bikes the trooper continued to scold the riders for a few minutes before eventually calming down once the trooper regained his composure he and the riders were able to make peace and the riders left the scene without further incident i was unable to locate any further details about the conclusion of this interaction so if you have any updates comment below and i will post them in the description overall the pennsylvania state trooper gets a c-minus because although he was likely within his authority to detain and investigate mr hamilton and mr adam he used his police powers as a scare tactic misrepresented the gravity of a trespassing charge and behaved in an unprofessional manner while acting in his official capacity most of the troopers actions were motivated by the anger of someone trespassing on his property rather than enforcing the law and that was clearly demonstrated by the trooper's attitude and emotional outbursts it is difficult to fault the trooper for being angry that someone was trespassing on his property but when the trooper invoked his official capacity as a member of law enforcement he essentially surrendered his right to act as a private citizen and took on the burden of officer professionalism that comes with the authority while it is likely that a court would find that the trooper did have the authority to detain the riders there is an argument to be made that the trooper's unprofessional attitude and inability to control his anger exhibited too great of a personal stake in the encounter and thereby negated the trooper's official authority in that scenario the trooper would still retain the limited authority of a private citizen but much of his conduct would be invalid and potentially criminal the trooper's demeanor was the deciding factor for this interaction and it would be interesting to see how this encounter would play out if challenged in court mr hamilton and mr idom get a c-plus because although they did remain calm and compliant throughout the encounter there is no doubt that they were trespassing and could have been cited for doing so not only did the writers trespass but mr hamilton openly admitted to seeing the posted signs and entering the property anyway considering that the trooper had identified himself as an officer at that point mr hamilton and mr adam could have invoked their right to remain silent rather than answering that question constitutional rights are severely limited on private property but since the trooper acted under the color of law it would make sense that mr hamilton and mr adam would be entitled to constitutional protection one thing the writers certainly did right was remaining calm and complying with the trooper's orders even if a court were to find that the trooper did not have the authority to detain the riders their compliance with the troopers orders will serve them well if they decide to sue the trooper for unlawful detainment while i commend mr hamilton and mr adam for their patience and courteous temperament the fact that they flagrantly broke the law cannot be ignored 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 you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 732,550

Rating: 4.8167758 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: Tl4OaTQff5w

Length: 14min 14sec (854 seconds)

Published: Mon Nov 16 2020