Woman Goes Irate Over Questionable Traffic Ticket

[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 lawful orders distracted driving and free speech and is brought to us by columbus police body cameras channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve before we dive into the interaction i would like to invite you all to check out the ata patreon page where you can find ad-free uncensored and exclusive content that you can't get anywhere else and right now we're offering a limited time one-year membership with two months completely free the details surrounding this interaction are scarce what is clear from the body cam footage is that this interaction took place at the bp gas station on west henderson road in columbus ohio at one point the citizen refers to the officer on the scene as officer connor but i cannot confirm with absolute certainty that this is actually the officer's name as the officer was attempting to exit the gas station he allegedly witnessed the driver texting as she made her way down henderson road i'm watching you drive all the way up the street with your head buried in the phone all the way up the street no it was not okay you know what i'm gonna go ahead and pull you over i have it on my camera i have everything and i mean and don't tell me you're on on directions no i'm not i'm directions do you really have nothing else into the pull over into the bp lot just call me a douchebag [Music] don't take your picture in case you bring me to the ground police brutality i need your license registration and insurance can you please put your feet in and close the door why because it's for my safety and your safety well you see my hands at all time is this against the lorry there am i not liking your license insurance man the officer orders the driver to stay in her car put her feet in the vehicle and close the door which he says is a safety precaution as we've discussed many times on ata the u.s supreme court decisions of pennsylvania versus mims and maryland versus wilson allow police officers to order drivers and passengers to exit a vehicle during a traffic stop without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity these decisions concluded that police officers safety concerns at a traffic stop outweigh the minimal intrusion on an individual's freedom caused by stepping out of the vehicle in the mims decision the court pointed to a study that found that approximately 30 percent of police shootings occurred when a police officer approached a suspect seated in an automobile and concluded that the inordinate risk confronting police officers as they approach a person seated in an automobile justified ordering drivers to step out of the vehicle as a safety precaution the wilson decision expanded on mims to allow officers to also order passengers out of a stopped vehicle based on the reasoning in these cases courts have generally concluded that officers can also order citizens to remain in their vehicles during a stop for example in the 1997 case of united states vs moorfield the third circuit court of appeals held that quote just as the court in wilson found ordering a passenger out of the car to be a minimal intrusion on personal liberty we find the imposition of having to remain in the car with raised hands equally minimal we conclude that the benefit of added officer protection far outweighs this minor intrusion based on the previous court decisions on this subject a court would likely determine that the officer's order to remain in the car with the door closed was lawful you're willing to text with your daughter in the back seat dude i'm not texting we're typing and you look there's a picture there and you're typing under with a green text bubble comments on it comments on a picture this is a little thing you know what you're maybe go ahead and give me so i use this little thing yeah i don't need your insurance i'll pull it i'll pull it up man you are going to be issued a citation in my phone like this the officer informed the driver that she would be issued a citation for texting while driving which is considered to be a form of distracted driving according to the national highway traffic safety administration distracted driving killed 2841 people in 2018 including 1 730 drivers 605 passengers and 506 non-occupants such as pedestrians and bicyclists 13.2 percent of these fatal distracted driving accidents occurred when the driver was text messaging or otherwise using an electronic device resulting in the deaths of 385 people these statistics were based on police reported crash data and likely understate the prevalence of texting and driving as people often don't self-report distracted driving behaviors due to the associated dangers of texting while driving the majority of states have drafted legislation banning the act in 2007 washington was the first state to pass such a ban and according to the governor's highway safety association as of january 2021 48 states have passed laws that prohibit text messaging for all drivers montana has no texting ban in effect and missouri only bans texting and driving for individuals under the age of 21. section 4511.204 of the ohio revised code prohibits any individual from driving a motor vehicle while using a handheld electronic wireless communications device to write send or read a text-based communication however ohio law defines texting while driving as a secondary offense which means that the police can't stop individuals solely for texting while driving the statute states that an officer cannot conduct a traffic stop for the sole purpose of determining whether a texting while driving violation has been or is being committed or for the sole purpose of issuing a ticket citation or summons for a violation of that nature however this restriction may change in the near future on february 18 2020 senate bill 285 was introduced in the ohio senate if passed the bill would make texting while driving a primary offense meaning officers could initiate traffic stops based solely on texting while driving violations as of the date of this episode three hearings have been held but the bill is still in committee in the ohio senate therefore when this traffic stop occurred ohio law did not authorize the officer to stop the driver based solely on his observation of her texting while driving [Music] excuse me is this part of the law and part of getting pulled over i'll tell you what is it i'm just asking because you're being pretty forceful about it and i would like to know the truth is that along there's your drive there's your driver's license officer what you're being what you're being excited for is texting while driving today going to give you a copy of the law today you're not going to answer my question about the law what is your question again is this illegal to have my door open it depends on my my feeling of the safety and you've been very aggressive for absolutely no reason the driver calls the officer bro which is an exercise of her first amendment right to free speech even though the officer seems to take offense under the first amendment the government cannot punish people for their speech unless it falls into certain categories of unprotected speech in the 1942 case of chaplinsky versus new hampshire the supreme court held that quote the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances there are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem these include the lewd and obscene the profane the libelous and the insulting or fighting words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace in regards to the fighting words exception which includes name calling courts have generally concluded that police officers must have thicker skin than the average citizen in the 1987 case of houston vs hill the supreme court held that quote the first amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers speech is often provocative and challenging but it is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest in reaching this decision the court reviewed its 1974 decision in the case of lewis versus city of new orleans in which a conviction for yelling obscenities and threats at a police officer was overturned the houston decision pointed to a concurring opinion in the lewis case where justice pal stated that the fighting words exception might require a quote narrower application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer because a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to fighting words in this situation a judge would likely determine that the driver's speech did not constitute fighting words but her words also would not present her in the best light if she chose to contest the citation your small child is dependent on you and their life is in danger their their life is in danger because of what you're doing you're endangering all our lives today and that's why you're being excited that i was texting when i'm using voices well ma'am you can go to court on that you want to see me again yes nine o'clock in the morning and i would love to play this for the judge this would be absolutely outstanding this will be entertaining for the judge you can go on the 19th at nine o'clock in the morning this address courtroom 1b to plead not guilty in front of a judge sure your second option you can actually pay for it in person downtown making us all unsafe on the road i'll tell you what you know what are you going to stop the traffic i'm going to go ahead and give you a copy of the law today i don't even need you to sign this i'll go ahead and say don't do that in my car please excuse me that's my property do not do this on my property unwilling do you have any questions for me today man plenty of questions there you go are you gonna stop the traffic so i can take your legs out of here not a chance why do you have any other questions have a great day you know my daughter well at least she's alive today because because of me [Music] i'm a douche bag your honor i'm a douche bag after issuing the citation and sending the driver on her way the officer returned to his cruiser as he began to exit the gas station parking lot two citizens who had witnessed the interaction stopped the officer to inform him that the driver had continued to text and drive after he pulled her over into the parking lot due to the limited information available about this incident it is unclear if the driver contested the citation filed a complaint or pursued any legal action overall the columbus pd officer gets a b-plus because although it is clear he was acting in good faith the ohio code prohibiting texting while driving clearly states that it may not be the sole purpose for conducting a traffic stop and likely rendered this encounter invalid this interaction highlights the importance of officers knowing the law in its entirety there is no doubt that this officer was concerned for the safety of the driver her child and the other citizens driving nearby and if he had waited to initiate the stop based on some other traffic infraction then the legitimacy of this citation would be unquestionable there is a high probability that the driver would have committed some other infraction if she was texting and driving as the officer claimed and the supreme court has ruled that stopping vehicles for traffic violations with the intent to investigate other crimes is lawful in the 1996 case of ren vs united states other than the questionable lawfulness of the stop the officer remained calm and professional throughout the interaction despite the driver's hostile attitude i commend the officer for keeping his emotions in check but i also believe that he should have done his due diligence before stopping the driver proactive police work can serve to further the safety of a community but it must be done according to the law the unnamed citizen gets a c-minus because although she may have been the victim of an unlawful stop she maintained a rude and condescending demeanor throughout the encounter failed to exercise her right to silence and allowed her emotions to dictate the outcome of this interaction the dangers associated with texting and driving are undeniable and there is no doubt that the driver's conduct placed others at risk even texting while sitting at a red light is inherently dangerous and there is no excuse for subjecting a child to unnecessary risk all that said subsection b10 of section 4511.204 provides an exception for handheld electronic wireless communications devices that are used in conjunction with a voice operated or hands-free device feature or function of the vehicle so if the driver was using the speech-to-text function on her phone as she claimed then she may have a legitimate defense against this case beyond the fact that driving while texting is a secondary charge however the code only provides an exception for texting while stopped if the vehicle is not in a lane of travel and the driver was sitting in a turning lane when the officer approached it is clear that the driver did violate the texting while driving code but she may be able to build a legitimate defense against the charge due to a technicality in the language of the law be sure to give your support to columbus police body cameras channel for publishing the original video you can find a link to their channel 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 [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 605,655

Rating: 4.7826772 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: eLevtLoOO4M

Length: 13min 48sec (828 seconds)

Published: Thu Feb 04 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/DefendCharterRights]

I'm unsure why AtA goes off on a tangent at 7:18 about the driver calling the officer "bro." The officer clearly isn't retaliating against her for using that term, since the officer already is in the process of handing the driver a distracted driving ticket. It's not like the officer added additional charges after being called "bro."

AtA always seems to list (at 0:18, this time) three topics that his videos cover, so perhaps he needed to throw in a "Free Speech" discussion to get the list up to three items. If AtA wanted to have this discussion, then he should have inserted it at 1:55, after the driver called the officer a "douchbag."

I understand the officer's frustration with this driver, but he still was wrong (at 9:59) to indicate she was "unwilling" to sign the ticket when he never even asked her to sign it. First, it's false (as far as we know). Second, it could prejudice a judge (if one ever hears this case).

[u/DefendCharterRights]

Here's Columbus Police Body Camera's original video, which is (mostly) edited body-worn camera footage.

I'm surprised the footage doesn't contain the standard date and timestamp information. Whoever released this recording also did a poor job of blurring what I assume is protected personal information. From 3:30 to 3:35, for example, the ticket is mostly unblurred. Starting at 5:31, the faces of a couple citizens (including, probably, a child) are unblurred as well.

[u/Magjee]

This lady is so entitled and she might even be able to get away with it, wow