Unlawful Arrest For Offending People

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what in the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers profanity eminent domain and the public forum doctrine and is brought to us by michael picard'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 skillshare skillshare is an online learning community that offers memberships with meaning skillshare features a catalog of thousands of inspiring classes designed for creative and curious people with skillshare you can learn anything from computer coding to artistic photography and each class is filled with fresh and innovative content that is easy to digest and replicate i particularly enjoyed rich armstrong's class on the basics of web design layout and his class will come in handy as i build a website for this channel a skillshare membership is already super affordable but right now the first 1000 people to use the link in my description will get a free trial of skillshare premium you have absolutely nothing to lose so click on the link in the description and empower your personal growth today thanks again to skillshare for sponsoring this episode on november 14th 2019 self-proclaimed liberty activist michael picard and fellow protester michael friend entered the lobby of the stamford government building in downtown stamford connecticut when mr picard entered the building which holds most of the government offices for the city he was carrying a sign that included a four-letter expletive to protest stamford's potential exercise of eminent domain to obtain ownership of a family's home in order to widen a road after briefly speaking to a journalist in the lobby mr picard was confronted by the chief of security for the building you can't be in here with this sign why not why not yeah because the language is inappropriate you can't be here with this sign this is public property this is public property yes okay it's open to the public i'm the chief of security here right i can deem this inappropriate for this building by what policy mayor's [Music] uh be glad to get i'll be glad to get the director of operations involved but you got it you this sign you've got to put this down right now but the chief of security for the stanford government center informed mr piccard that he could not be in the building with the sign because it was inappropriate and that under the mayor's policy he could deem the sign quote unquote inappropriate for the building although the mayor's policies for the government center are not publicly available under section c 2-10-1 of the stanford city charter quote the executive and administrative powers of the city are vested in the mayor except as otherwise provided in this charter or by law the mayor does have at least some authority to regulate conduct in the building as evidenced by an executive order issued on july 31st 2020 that set forth quote certain requirements that all employees must follow to gain entry to and remain in the government center however regardless of the mayor's authority to establish policies for the government center a blanket prohibition against profanity in the building would likely be unconstitutional in the landmark 1971 case of cohen versus california the supreme court overturned a conviction against paul cohen for disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket in the los angeles county courthouse with a statement that included a profanity despite the fact that there were children present in the corridor the court determined that quote absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions the state may not consistently with the first and 14th amendments make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense the co-indecision also recognized that speech does not simply communicate information it conveys an emotional message to the specific words a speaker chooses and that quote one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process given the fact that mr picard's sign used the same four-letter word as mr cohen's jacket a court would almost certainly conclude that mr picard's speech was protected by the first amendment you've got to leave you've got to leave then i'm not putting let's have a talk come on let's have a talk let's talk right here let's have a talk let's talk right here okay let's go our office i'm staying right here all right so what i'm gonna have to do is i'm gonna have to get the police department involved and they can explain and go further are you all set do you have any idea or anything did i do anything wrong well you're out here with this property sign in front of all these people so you heard uh what was it again to protest to protest the use of eminent domain by statements domain what uh like what what areas are you talking about are you ordering me absolutely yeah i want to hear your side story i just told you i'm here uh that's all i'm here to do is protest i'm in a domain do me a favor can we uh we're going to see these two cameras as evidence right uh so what happened give me five when he's done we'll seize the two cameras as evidence okay all right so am i being arrested no i just want to find am i under arrest then i'm just what what's going on then i'm not i'm not um questions excuse me do you have reasonable suspicion of a crime um maybe maybe that's not good enough i refuse to uh get off the property you can't come back and i just uh we asked you to come out that's the only reason you came out though okay is there anyone that you made an appointment to see to tell them about what your cause is about no so you just show up and you expect to be heard like this mr picard states that he is protesting the potential acquisition by the city of stamford of a private home as part of projects to relieve severe traffic congestion issues by widening several roads as part of the project the city would need to acquire a three-story home owned by roland lesperance who has lived on the property for over 40 years possibly through the exercise of eminent domain the term eminent domain refers to the power of the government to take private property from its owner and convert it for public use under what is known as the takings clause of the fifth amendment the government may only exercise the power of eminent domain if it provides quote-unquote just compensation to the property owners a city can take private property through condemnation proceedings during which the property owners can challenge the seizures legality and the fair market value of the property used for compensation will be determined most commonly eminent domain is used to allow for the development of public projects such as the construction of roads however in a controversial decision issued in the 2005 case of kilo vs city of new london the us supreme court upheld the use of eminent domain by the city of new london connecticut to take private homes and make them available for a private development that included condominiums offices a hotel and conference center concluding that the economic growth the community could experience from the development qualified as a permissible public use for the property in response to this decision more than 40 states added restrictions to their eminent domain laws to limit the government's authority to use it in 2007 the connecticut legislature amended section 8-193 of the connecticut general statutes to somewhat limit the use of eminent domain including a provision stating that quote no real property may be acquired by eminent domain pursuant to this subsection for the primary purpose of increasing local tax revenue while this amendment would likely prohibit the use of eminent domain exercised in the kilo case connecticut law still allows cities to condemn property for the construction of public roads such as in the situation with mr lesperance's home are you a stanford resident i refuse to answer questions [Music] am i being detained i'm sorry am i being detained well you can't go inside the building right now okay but i'm not being detected even though it's a public government center you can't go inside because you're being asked to be remote for the problem okay okay but i'm not being detained no you're not being detained all right we're doing an investigation [Applause] i'm not too familiar does he need a permit to be out there i normally would yeah out there not in here out there as well okay he doesn't have a permit if he's over there and he's probably we could seize his uh is his phone and his and his um and his thing as evidence the officers assert that they are going to seize mr picard and mr friend's cameras without first obtaining a warrant to do so in the 1983 case of united states versus place the supreme court stated that quote generally in the ordinary case the court has viewed a seizure of personal property as per say unreasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized where law enforcement authorities have probable cause to believe that a container holds contraband or evidence of a crime but have not secured a warrant the court has interpreted the amendment to permit seizure of the property pending issuance of a warrant to examine its contents if the exigencies of the circumstances demanded or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement include the seizure of personal property incident to arrest and to prevent the destruction of evidence in this situation a court would likely conclude that the police had the authority to seize the cameras if they arrested mr picard and mr friend as well as if they had reason to believe that the footage contained evidence of a crime additionally the chief of security informed the officers that a permit was required to protest in or around the building and policies requiring permits in locations like the government center are generally constitutional as long as they are quote unquote content neutral in the 1983 case of perry education association versus perry local educators association the supreme court identified different categories of government property for the purposes of determining the legal standard for the government regulation of speech we have discussed the concept of public and non-public forums many times on ata but the perry decision concluded that quote in addition to time place and manner regulations the state may reserve the forum for its intended purposes communicative or otherwise as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view as we have stated on several occasions the state no less than a private owner of property has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated given the way the stamford government center is used it is likely that a court would conclude it is not a public forum and therefore falls into the category of public property that is subject to regulation this means that the city government could legally prohibit all forms of protest in the building and on its grounds and also impose reasonable time place and manner restrictions such as the requirement of a permit however it should be noted that the permit requirement that the officers are referring to only applies to organizations not individuals and the notion that individual protesters are required to maintain a 1 million dollar insurance policy in order to express their constitutionally protected opinion is absurd hey luke get his id please id he doesn't want to show it all right so he's going 39 then what i trying to understand he has a right i totally agree with you he has a right to protest but the people in there they ask him to leave there's other kids you know what it is what it is you know i'm saying that's fine in a conversation with the stamford police officers mr friend warned the sergeant not to arrest mr picard for his speech but the sergeant insisted that mr picard should be arrested because his speech was offending people mr picard was placed under arrest and charged with breach of peace and interfering with police but these charges were later dropped this incident was not the first time that mr picard was arrested as a result of his protests on september 11 2015 mr picard was arrested while protesting near a police dui checkpoint in west hartford connecticut the officers seized his camera but left it running and the camera captured several officers agreeing to fabricate charges against him for illegal use of a highway by a pedestrian and creating a public disturbance these charges were later dropped but on september 15 2016 mr picard filed a federal civil rights lawsuit with the support of the aclu and in 2020 the lawsuit settled for 50 000 on april 26 2018 the stanford police also arrested mr picard for breach of peace in a very similar incident to the interaction in this episode when he carried a sign that included profanity from the courthouse to the front steps of the police station next door this charge was also dropped and on april 5th 2019 mr picard filed another federal civil rights lawsuit based on this arrest mr picard told me that he does not intend to pursue legal action against the officers involved in this encounter just yet because he's already involved in multiple federal lawsuits and does not have the time to take on another one overall the stamford officers get an f for effectuating an arrest based on the offensiveness of mr picard's conduct rather than an actual violation of law displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment and free speech and for confiscating the personal property of mr picard and mr friend without a legitimate basis for doing so this is one of the very few interactions where there are legitimate legal arguments to be made in defense of the officer's conduct but it is very clear that the officers were not operating on the basis of those arguable premises while it certainly could be argued that mr picard was not in a traditional public forum at the time of his protest it is plainly apparent that the officers never considered or were even aware of this concept throughout the video the officers repeatedly stated that mr picard was ultimately arrested because he was offending people and none of the charges that were brought against him were based on actual violations the fact that all charges against mr picard were swiftly dropped is a testament to the true mission of the stamford officer's detainment and arrest another troubling aspect of this encounter is the fact that the officers were totally unsure of the legality of mr picard's conduct and assumed that he was subject to the requirement of a one million dollar insurance policy in order to express his opinion not only is such a policy contrary to the very fabric of free expression but it is also contrary to basic common sense and individuals who are charged with the authority to enforce such a restriction on free speech should be more than familiar with the limitations of those policies and their authority mr picard gets an a because although he may not have been in a public forum at the time of his protest he exercised his right to expression peacefully and respectfully invoked his right to remain silent tactfully and maintained a calm and collected demeanor throughout the encounter it is difficult to disagree with the sentiments that mr picard was expressing in regards to the concept of eminent domain and oftentimes the courts pay very close attention to the circumstances at hand and failed to see the product of their decisions working together or the practical implications associated with those decisions being applied to real-life scenarios mr picard chose to protest at the stamford government center because that is where the decision to employ the doctrine of eminent domain will be made and on its face there doesn't appear to be a more appropriate place to express dissent of that notion than where the city leadership will gather to consider the issue there is merit to the notion that in an effort to balance the safety and security of the public at large with constitutionally protected freedoms the courts have unintentionally convoluted the notion of free speech with unnecessary bureaucracy and counter-intuitive regulations however the concept of free expression is extremely complex and even the combined wisdom of many supreme court justices over the years has struggled to rigidly define the appropriate protections and limitations associated with the first amendment at the end of the day no judicial system is perfect and it is absolutely necessary for a society to foster individuals who challenge the status quo of our legal system and promote a perpetual dialogue that is aimed at driving progress i commend mr picard for exercising his rights diligently and i highly recommend giving his channel your support you can find a link in the description below let us know if there's 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 you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 436,930

Rating: 4.9211907 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: sTls_EmXz14

Length: 16min 44sec (1004 seconds)

Published: Thu Apr 15 2021