Dash Cam Saves Citizen From Lying Trooper

Welcome to audit the audit where we sort out who and what in the right and wrong of police interactions. This episode covers lawful orders, the fifth amendment, and officer conduct and comes to us ensuring channel transparency. Be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit they deserve on November 13, 2020 Trooper Jackson Little of the Arkansas State Police pulled over an individual who only identified himself as James for allegedly speeding, there is very little information available on This interaction and James' identity could not be definitively confirmed, however, for the sake of clarity, I will refer to James as Mr.

Transparency in this episode. Hey, rules all the way, man, why is he wound up all the way so he can talk to you better? We can talk until the end, don't ask me. I'm telling you what the law is, why are you starting with this man? Well you're telling me to roll my when we can talk good, yeah, turn it down more, but why so I can talk to you better? I'm not going to talk to you. Through a crack like this we can talk. I'm not trying to be rude about anything. I'm not really trying to be rude to you either, but what's the problem?

Why don't you want to lower it all the way? I don't want to, you just find me difficult. I'm not trying to be difficult. I want registration of my license. Yes, if you don't mind, Private Little orders Mr. Transparency to roll down the window all the way, but Mr. Transparency refuses. While Arkansas Code Section 27-49-107 states that no person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer, no guidance is offered as to what constitutes a lawful order, the issue Whether the order to roll down a window is a legal order that would be covered by the statute is complicated, and while there is no case law available in Arkansas analyzing the statute, other states have reviewed similar statutes and reached conflicting conclusions. for example in the 1975 Coughlan case. v.

State, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed an identical legal order statute and determined that for an order by a police officer to be lawful under that section, such order must be directly related to the direction, control and traffic regulation and that the law was not intended to and cannot give police officers unbridled power to arrest for refusing to obey any order they choose to direct to a

citizen

; However, in the 2016 case of State vs. Thigpen, Ohio's 8th District Court of Appeals reviewed a similar warrant statute and concluded that because there is nothing in the plain language of the statute that limits it solely to warrants or signals from police officers actively engaged in controlling or regulating the direction of traffic, the duty to comply exists even if the police officer's order is not given in the context of enforcing any traffic law.

I've covered this topic in more detail in previous ata episodes, but there is little clarity on the issue without a direct ruling from a higher court. What is the reason for stopping me? Trooper Jackson Little with the Arkansas State Police okay, I appreciate that I'm pulling you over for speeding you know how fast you're going, I am, how fast are you going? I'm not going to answer that question, okay, I've got you going 87 on the 65 man, well that's a little fast, I have this

dash

cam here, yeah, and it records my speed, okay, how fast would you say you're going? ?

I'm not going to answer that question, but I know it wasn't like that. Uh, record, I'm not going to answer that, okay, I'm not really trying to be difficult with you, sir, so what's the deal? Well, what's the deal? Why is it being like this? Why are you so defensive and arguing with everything I'm saying, well I don't think it's not profitable with the window open, no big deal. I would like to talk to you better. You know, I think we're talking well. It is not like this? Just no, it's No, it's not right, wait, wait, let's start again, we're not going to argue, I don't want to argue with you, but let's start again, can we do it?

Yes, my name is James, you have my ID here and I alone. Isn't that the reason for the window? I'm not trying to be defensive or argumentative or anything. Yeah, I just don't like having it all the way down. Why don't I just do it? Why don't that man just do it? It's not okay, it's okay, everyone's different, I guess everyone's a little different, yeah, yeah, you like it. Don't know. Okay, everything looks good here, so don't think you're speeding. I don't want to answer any questions about why doesn't Private Little ask Mr. Transparency if he thought he was speeding and Mr.

Transparency responds that he doesn't want to answer any questions on that topic invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. amendment states that, quote, no person shall be compelled to do so in any criminal case to be a witness against himself in the 1951 case of hoffman v. united states, the supreme court of the united states determined that this privilege against testimonial compulsion not only extends to answers that in themselves would support a conviction but also encompasses those that would provide a link in the chain of evidence necessary to prosecute the plaintiff, the court also explained that people do not need to answer questions when they have reasonable cause to apprehend the danger of a direct answer and that to claim the privilege it need only be evident from the The implications of the question in the context in which it is asked are that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered could be dangerous because it could result in a damaging disclosure based on the Hoffman decision that the Supreme Court held in the 2001 case of ohio v. reiner that the privilege against self-incrimination applies to both the innocent and the guilty because quoting truthful answers from a An innocent witness as well as those of a wrongdoer can provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth and that as the suspect in an investigation, it was reasonable for an individual to fear that the answers to the questions could incriminate him in this situation.

Mr. Transparency was clearly entitled to invoke his right to remain silent in response to questions. The policeman asked little about his speed, as he could very reasonably do so. I fear that his answers could be used against him. It's just no big deal, man, it's just me. I get it and I don't think it's a big deal tonight. You know, if you don't think you're going to do that. Quick, something could be wrong with your car or something, man, you know, you never know it's 2021. None of that, I'm not trying to be rude either, I know you're being nice now, so I appreciate feeling like I've been nice. , yeah, it's the deal, man, come on, you know, yeah, we, you give us signals by not being qualified for the little things, we're not cooperating, just listen, let me talk, okay, sure, okay, those little things for me many.

Sometimes man, for all you know, you could be trying to hide something like that, those are just little clues, I'm not saying you're not okay, we're just operating within the confines of the law right now, what do you say? operating within the confines of the law right now, but those are just little clues, man, I mean, it's a little weird when you don't really want to win on the road, it's just a little weird man, it's a little weird. that you're just demanding that I do something, you said no, you're not asking, you're telling me and you don't have the legal basis to tell me to roll the window down all the way, that's the only thing.

That was a lie, a lie, yeah, it's not much. Do I have to lower the window? I can't give more importance to that. I'm not going to go through that. Do I have to roll down the window completely? That's all. I know what I asked you is that any law, if you think that's violating anything, we can take it to court, if that's the way we can take that to court, that's not much, I have to have my window for something like that. but like I said, it's speeding man, it's no big deal and I get it and that's why I feel like we got off on the wrong foot because you were telling me to do something I don't have to do, I can tell you that. do whatever I want if you think it's violent you can tell me to do whatever you want if you think it's a violation whatever you're talking about we can take it okay I don't think you've violated anything at this point okay okay deal good deal no, just no I think we have a disagreement about what the law says on the window, like what's the only one, honestly, like what's no deal, okay, so just what you've got me on, yeah, you're accusing.

I, for speeding, you say yes, I gave you my documents. I am doing everything I am legally required to do. The little soldier continues to question Mr. Transparency about why he doesn't roll down his window all the way and seems to interpret Mr. Transparency's reluctance to assist in the investigation as a form of hostility in many situations. An officer fails to give the officer reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, for example in the 1983 case of Florida v. Royer, the United States Supreme Court held that when an officer approaches an individual appointment, the person approached approaches him he does not need to answer any question asked of him; in fact, he can refuse to listen to the questions and can go on his way.

He cannot be detained even momentarily without reasonable objective grounds for doing so. and his refusal to listen or respond does not simply provide those reasons; However, an individual's refusal to answer questions can later be used against him in a criminal proceeding if he does not expressly invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege in the 2013 case of Salinas vs. Texas. The Supreme Court held that a defendant who simply remained silent in response to an interrogation had not invoked his right to remain silent because, quote, the privilege is generally not self-executing and a witness who desires its protection must claim it.

A suspect who remains silent has not. enough to alert the police that you are re

lying

on your Fifth Amendment privilege, the court also noted that popular misconceptions, even though the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one can be forced in any criminal case to be a witness in his con, it does not establish an unconditional right to remain silent. A witness's constitutional right to refuse to answer questions depends on his reasons for doing so and courts need to know those reasons to evaluate the merits of a fifth amendment claim using this reasoning, The court determined that because an individual is the only person who can know why they do not answer a question, it is their responsibility to timely assert the privilege and, if they do not do so, their silence can be used as evidence of their guilt, so Therefore, people who wish to invoke their right to remain silent must say so explicitly. who want to do it, yeah, I don't understand why you think I have it, I just don't, I can't really like it, what is this?

What's so hard about just clicking? Well, what's wrong with you? You said that so we could talk. but we are talking right now there is nothing, what other reason is it? I'm just curious, honestly, why you can't turn it down all the way. I don't know why, I'm just curious why you're so stuck on it, it just blows my mind, why can't you just roll it down? Man he blows my mind, you can't let him go. I thought we were over this. It's kind of fun for me. man, I'm just behind the whole police thing. I'm a little curious as to why you don't do it.

I just don't think he's legally obligated to do it. Yeah, what I'm saying beyond that, why don't you do it? I just want to like what the problem is that you see, are you afraid or what do I like about my window? Well, I think so, a man approaches my car with a gun and yes, I'm not here to hurt you, none of that, I fully believe that. You know, but no, I don't like my defense to be very high. Do you think I'm going to hurt you? Well, no, but you have your defenses up, yes, it is natural that everything that is happening.

I guess yeah, yeah, I don't have anything against you as a person, yeah, but you just gotta think, man, not all cops are cops, I'm not here, no, and I'm completely on the side of the police, um, yeah, but I. I just appreciate it, yeah, I have my ways, I have to do things, yeah, I was just saying behind the whole cop thing. I was a little curious if he didn't want to go after the whole cop thing. you're the one you know how to rape or whatever but I'm kind of curious why he didn't want to put it down so yeah I just like it where it's okay yeah we're all different right anyway man this ain't tight. here, okay, sure put your stuff back, man, this is what we're doing.

Okay, your logs look pretty good. I didn't see a speeding warning or a ticket there. Okay, okay that the warning is going so fast, but the radar said worry about me. "No noI'm writing nothing, that's what I was going to ask if you're on the radar because, oh yeah, I'm not

lying

to you, it wasn't going that bad, how fast, how fast was it, I really can." I don't answer that question, man , it's a warning, so I'm just curious what it is. I understand, but there's a formality that needs to take place there. What do you mean by formality?

My right to remain silent about things I'm not going to do. go back there and write a ticket again now i promise i'm just curious i can promise you i'm not going to do that i promise that's on camera that's on my camera mr transparency continues to refuse to answer questions even after soldier little issues him a warning and assures him that he will not fine him; however, nothing would legally prevent Private Little from changing his mind and issuing a citation after the warning has been given, so Mr. Transparency's privilege against the self-incrimination remained intact. After the warning was issued, in addition, the police could obtain Mr.

Transparency's

dash

cam footage and use it against him in court if he confessed to speeding, provided they obtain a warrant for the digital data in the 2014 case of Riley v. California, United States. The Supreme Court determined that although police could confiscate an individual's cell phone during a lawful arrest, they could not gain warrantless access to digital data without violating the Fourth Amendment, the court explained that, in the absence of a warrant, a Search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the order's requirements, such as mitigating potential dangers in making an arrest or preventing the destruction of evidence in the 2019 case of People v.

Blakely, New York City Court. Tompkins County York applied the reasoning used in the Riley decision to a defendant's decision. While officers obtained a search warrant for the memory card itself, the warrant did not authorize a search. of the digital data stored on the memory card, the court found that the warrantless search of the data violated the Fourth Amendment because it cites the law once Authorities found the memory card and confiscated it; there was no requirement that would preclude obtaining an additional search warrant authorizing the search, preservation and copying of the relevant digital content stored on the memory card due to the potential for self-incrimination and dash cam video. used as evidence against him, mr transparency was within his rights to continue refusing to answer questions oh yeah man what's your name?

My name is James, okay, nice to meet you, I'm Jackson, nice to meet you, you too, what was your badge? number 587. Will any of that be in the oh, let's see, it should be yeah, names right there, license plate numbers right there, okay, perfect man, but yeah, besides that man, uh, just uh, I know it's not Thank you for your speed, said my radar? you were, but be careful, okay, absolutely you too, sure, like I said, not all cops are bad, no, I'm just here for we're here, I think most cops are good, yeah, you know, Some people say that.

The bad apples ruined the group, yeah I think it's a bad case of what's happening after getting their warning. Mr. Transparency requested Trooper Little's badge number and left the scene without further incident. Mr. Transparency shared the dash cam video on his YouTube channel on the same day. incident, but it is unclear if he took any further action. Overall, Private Little gets a B-minus because, although he remained relatively calm and cordial throughout the interaction, he issued questionably legal orders and constantly pressured Mr. Transparency to waive his right to silence while I do so. While there is little praise for the police officer for engaging in a challenging and productive dialogue with Mr.

Transparency, it is clear that most of the intent of the police officer's conversation was focused on convincing Mr. Transparency to admit to speeding in some way, although the police officer's behavior police was almost friendly and casual. Every question she asked Mr. Transparency had the potential to incriminate him and his brazen persistence is a testament to the true tone of his questioning. Ultimately, the cop did not violate any of Mr. Transparency's rights, but that was likely due to Mr. Transparency's refusal to allow him to do so and the accountability offered by the dash cam soldier is not necessarily a bad officer. and many other members of law enforcement do not understand that an invocation of civil rights is not an inherent act of defiance remaining silent is a powerful asset for

citizen

s involved in Encounters with police and members of law enforcement They must respect and defend that right as diligently as any other law they choose to enforce. and a productive dialogue with the police officer, Mr.

Transparency did a fantastic job of refusing to answer police officer Little's questions without being rude or hostile, but his failure to verbally acknowledge the invocation of his right to remain silent could have been used as evidence against him in court outside of this little criticism Mr. Transparency demonstrated a thorough understanding of his rights and obligations during a traffic stop and ensured that those rights were respected and those obligations were carried out without problems. I congratulate Mr. Transparency on his ability to communicate effectively with the police officer without sacrificing his rights and without becoming vulgar or insulting, I highly recommend ensuring Transparency channels his support and letting them know what I sent him.

You can find a link in the description below. Please let us know if there is an interaction or legal issue you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thanks for watching and be sure to check out my second channel for more police interaction content.