Undercover Cops Didn't Know They Were Being Recorded

[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 pedestrian violations undercover officers and impeding an investigation and comes to us from james mclinnis for pinellas county sheriff's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve james edward mclinnis is a new york city native who was raised in detroit and eventually decided to retire in pinellas county florida after a destructive and emotionally taxing divorce mr mcclinist was awarded full custody of his young daughter and he claims that after their divorce his estranged ex-wife started dating deputies from the pinellas county sheriff's office mr mcclinist claims that this launched a campaign of targeted harassment against him that resulted in over 150 false police reports seven fraudulent domestic violence injunctions 22 false child protective investigation reports and four false arrests from 2009 to 2015. during these events mr mcclinist began recording his interactions with the sheriff's office and this eventually led him actively exposing misconduct within the department and advocating for police reform as a whole when his complaints were consistently ignored by pinellas county sheriff bob gualtieri mr mcclinist decided to run against him for sheriff in 2016. and although he did not win the election mr mcclinist did manage to garner over 100 000 votes as an independent candidate and has publicly stated that he plans to run again the interaction featured on today's episode occurred sometime around january 5th 2020 and features several deputies from the pinellas county sheriff's office who were parked along a residential street as they conducted an investigation at a nearby residence mr mcclinist began filming as he approached the scene from the middle of the street just all the undercover police police cars at this house undercover i don't know take a video and this one here does not look like a police vehicle it's the first amendment protected activity it's a first amendment protected activity hey sir you know what else has no i don't need to id if you're coming into the middle of our investigation you do actually this is the middle of the street and i'm walking around public street to be in the middle of the street so that's a violation actually there's no sidewalks here so it's not you cannot be in the middle of the street well you notice you're blocking the way on the side of the street all right let me get a pad you have your you have id at all i don't have the show id i've not committed a crime did you drive here no but you have to id who you are no i don't yes you do under under florida statutes we're not a id upon demand state when an officer informs mr mcclinnis that he cannot walk in the middle of the street mr mcclinist argues that he can because there are no sidewalks and the officers have blocked the side of the road with their cars section 316.130 of the florida statute states the quote where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the shoulder on the left side of the roadway in relation to the pedestrians direction of travel facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction although the statute creates an exception to the rule for when walking on the shoulder is not practicable the officer's vehicles were blocking the right side shoulder and not the left where the statute required mr mcclinist to walk because it was practicable for mr mcclinist to walk on the left side shoulder he was committing a type of non-criminal traffic infraction known as a pedestrian violation by walking in the middle of the road under these circumstances despite this florida's stop and identified law did not authorize the police officers to detain mr mcclinist and demand his identification section 901.151 of the florida statute states quote whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed is committing or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person because walking in the middle of the road was a non-criminal pedestrian violation and not a violation of criminal law mr mcclinist could not be detained under florida law and was permitted to refuse to identify himself am i being detained hey are you writing him a ticket you do understand when there's not a sidewalk there's a certain direction that you need to ride you need to walk on the street right you can't just walk down the middle well when you have all the cars blocking the side of the road makes it kind of difficult okay well guess what perry mason since you're so excuse me i'm asking you to identify yourself are you a police officer yes i am can you please give me your name and badge number no are you refusing to identify yourself is there a florida state statute that says i must i think it's a are you a pinellas county sheriff yes i am well is native pinellas county sheriff general order that if when a citizen asks you to identify yourself as an officer what if i want to file a complaint against you how am i supposed to be able to do that you'll get it mr mcclinist asks the officer if there is a pinellas county sheriff's office policy that requires deputies to identify themselves and the officer does not give a clear response unfortunately the pinellas county sheriff's office has not made its policies publicly available so i was unable to confirm whether such a policy exists while law enforcement officers generally do not have a legal duty to disclose their identities some municipalities have passed laws requiring officers to identify themselves if asked more commonly a local police department will create policies or other regulations that require officers to identify themselves in certain situations but a violation of one of these policies can usually only result in department discipline and is not considered illegal the fact that the officers in the situation are either undercover or plainclothes officers complicates the analysis of whether they need to disclose their identity contrary to popular belief undercover officers do not have to reveal their law enforcement status even when they are asked directly in fact the law generally does not prohibit police officers from lying while performing their duties the u.s supreme court has found on multiple occasions that the use of undercover agents does not violate the constitution for example in the 1966 case of hoffa vs united states the court held that placing an undercover agent near a suspect to gather incriminating information was permissible under the fifth amendment while mr hoffa was on trial he confessed to an individual who was cooperating with law enforcement that he had attempted to bribe jury members the court concluded that the statements were not coerced and the fact that mr hoffa had been fooled into thinking the informant was a sympathetic colleague did not affect the voluntariness of his statements similarly in the 1990 case of illinois versus perkins the supreme court concluded that quote an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate need not give miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that may elicit an incriminating response given the discretion granted to undercover officers even if the pinellas county sheriff's office did have a policy requiring officers to identify themselves it is possible it would not apply to the officers in this interaction how am i supposed to file a complaint against you okay what do you want to file a complaint for because if you want it i'll give it to you i do want another that's what let me finish my training before you interrupt me with all your perry mason stuff do you understand that there is a florida state statute against walking in the middle of the road which is what you understand that when you when i come out it's a yes or no question sir do you understand you have to view you walk past actual vehicles that are here yes you just drove by us how are we blocking you exactly you are blocking the pathway on the side of the on the side of the road this is this is the intimidation that the pinellas county sheriff's trying to use if you exercise your first amendment activity they surround you accuse you of crimes uh refuse to identify themselves intimidate yourself why aren't you continuing with your investigation why are you out here bothering me i walked by with my camera video in front of me you got a problem with that there was no civil infraction you're blocking the road i just explained to you what you did walking in the middle of the road is a pedestrian violation and when you have the side of the road blocked and there are no sidewalks here it's not a pedestrian violation but nice try you're right you're the expert you know i've only spent 20 years doing this job you're the expert though right after 20 years you still think it's necessary after 20 after 20 years you think it's actually necessary to come out in the street and bother people who are walking by you can't walk in the middle of the road and when you have the street blocked on the side of the side of the road blocked yourself you have the side of the road blocked stop blocking yeah shine your phone that way because i want to make sure that you see this as well that this is on vehicle i'll show you so from here all the way through past the area that you actually walk through the street is not blocked this is that is on the curb but you actually walk so how is that actually blocking this side of the street is blocked okay and there's no sidewalks so here's the thing right now this is what i would tell you we have an investigation that we're working on here right now and you're impeding that investigation so is there anything else you would like to talk about actually by walking down the middle of the street exactly the first amendment activity is there anything else you would like i didn't want to talk to you any of you in the first place have a good day sir thank you i appreciate it you can leave now thank you appreciate it one of the officers accuses mr mcclinist of impeding their investigation which is not the name of a criminal offense in the state of florida section 843.00 of the florida statute states the quote whoever shall resist obstruct or oppose any officer in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree section 843.01 of the florida statutes also criminalizes resisting obstructing or opposing an officer with violence but we will not discuss it in detail since it does not apply to this situation while it is not clear exactly what conduct by mr mclinnis the officer believed was obstructing him recording police officers in the performance of their duties is considered first amendment protected activity that on its own does not constitute obstructing an officer the only other conduct mr mcclinist engaged in was speaking with the officers after they spoke to him in the 1995 case of dg versus state the second district court of appeal of florida stated that quote if a police officer is not engaged in executing process on a person is not legally detaining that person or has not asked the person for assistance with an ongoing emergency that presents a serious threat of imminent harm to person or property the person's words alone can rarely if ever rise to the level of an obstruction thus obstructive conduct rather than offensive words are normally required to support a conviction under this statute similarly in the 2002 case of de ruthie vs city of miami the united states district court in the southern district of florida determined that a police officer did not have probable cause to arrest an individual for obstructing an officer when he continued to film an encounter after being asked to return to the sidewalk the court concluded that because the individual began moving in the direction of the sidewalk after being asked quote the fact that he continued to film and did not move as quickly as possible does not make an arrest for resisting obstruction or opposing an officer reasonable although the southern district of florida's decision in this case was overturned by the 11th circuit court of appeals for other reasons the court of appeals did not invalidate the district court's analysis of the obstruction issue therefore given the way the courts have interpreted this statute it seems highly unlikely that a court would conclude that mr mcclinist was engaged in obstructive conduct i still can't walk down this side of the street leave now so i have to leave the street leave this investigation right now so where is the investigation where's the blue line is it over here is it over here is it over here is she impeding the investigation too i'm just curious mr mcclinist continued to film the police vehicles as he slowly left the scene without further incident and went on to attempt to file complaints against the deputies involved mr mcclinist began by submitting a public records request for the names of the deputies however his request was denied because section 119.07 of florida's public record law provides an exception for quote any information revealing undercover personnel of any criminal justice agency after speaking to mr mcclinist he pointed out another interesting aspect of this encounter that is easy to miss if you're not watching closely when mr mcclinist initially approached this red suv that appears to be an undercover patrol vehicle there was a handicapped placard hanging on the rear view mirror but at some point in the encounter the officer occupying that vehicle removed the placard and it is no longer visible when mr mcclinist pans in that direction mr mcclinist told me that he also submitted a public records request for the information regarding this placard but that request was once again denied under the authority of section 119.07 which also excludes quote any information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures mr mcclinist told me that he does not intend to file a lawsuit because he is currently wrapped up in too many legal battles to take on another one but he plans to continue his work of exposing police misconduct and running for sheriff until elected overall the pinellas county sheriff's deputies get an f because although there is an argument to be made that mr mcclinist was committing a civil infraction the officers displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of florida's identification laws baselessly accused mr mcclinist of impeding their investigation and maintained a rude and condescending attitude throughout the encounter the most alarming part of this interaction is the fact that none of the deputies even attempted to engage in a productive dialogue with mr mcclinist instead the deputies immediately demanded to see his id and accused him of committing a violation if the deputies were legitimately working undercover their refusal to identify themselves could be considered justified however it certainly does create a catch-22 scenario because without the deputy's name it would be extremely difficult to file a complaint against them but if the deputy were to be required to identify himself upon the demand of a citizen then the advantages of working undercover are dissolved this is yet another component of the american policing system that requires very complex solutions that consider both the legal and ethical implications of either side the courts often lose sight of how their rulings translate practically into the real world but finding a legal solution that properly maintains a balance between protecting the assets of the state and offering the public the level of transparency they deserve is a difficult task nonetheless there is no doubt that there were less hostile and intrusive ways to approach this situation and regardless of whether they were working undercover the pinellas county sheriff's deputies could have been more cordial and respectful while maintaining the integrity of their identities and investigation mr mcclinist gets an a-minus for exercising his rights peacefully and respectfully remaining calm and collected throughout the encounter and following up this interaction with the proper channel of complaint mr mcclinist has been recording police for over 10 years and it is citizens like kim who have laid the foundation for what the auditing community has become today of course there are a litany of other factors that have also contributed to the evolution of first amendment auditing but it was individuals like tom zebra and mr mclinnis who ushered in a new form of citizen journalism and found a home on youtube while it is clear that mr mcclinist has a thorough understanding of his constitutional rights he unintentionally offered the deputies an opportunity to argue that he was committing a civil infraction by walking in the middle of the street whether or not mr mcclenas actually committed this violation is for a court to decide but mr mcclinist could have filmed the deputies from the opposite side of the street and likely rendered the very same interaction without being accused of committing an infraction i commend mr mcclinist for remaining professional throughout the interaction and for his many contributions to exposing police misconduct over the years i highly recommend giving your support to mr mcclinist's channel and be sure to let him know that i sent you 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 you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,541,199

Rating: 4.8575044 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: JyXsyWU6t2s

Length: 16min 33sec (993 seconds)

Published: Thu Mar 11 2021