Informed Sergeant Orders Officer To Release Citizen

Welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. This episode covers disorderly conduct, personal privacy and silence and is brought to us by the IDC Chris channel. Be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit they deserve, let's dig in and audit the audit On July 4, 2019, YouTuber and First Amendment auditor Christopher B. der stadt was conducting a First Amendment audit on a public sidewalk outside the Mendota Lutheran House in Mendota, Illinois, when he was contacted. By Officer Holland of the Mendota Police Department, MPD had received a complaint from residents of the Lutheran home that Mr. beter stet was trying to film the inside of the building from the outside Chris, what's going on?

Why are you recording Chris? Stop at this point, Mr. Beter Stet is officially detained and must obey the

officer

's

orders

. In the infamous Terry v. Ohio case, the Supreme Court recognized that when an

officer

by physical force or display of authority has in some way restrained the freedom of a

citizen

that a seizure occurred at the time Officer Holland ordered Mr. best to stop him, he was officially detained and subject to the lawful

orders

of the officer, whether the officer's orders are legal or not, must be interpreted by a court and in our current justice system, even if the officer's orders are illegal , must be obeyed when issued and challenged later in court.

I've covered the topic of detention in many of my other videos and I won't spend much time on it in this episode, but I highly recommend checking out previous episodes to better understand how a detention works and how it relates to the Fourth Amendment. to the people who work here so stop working for me I don't work for you I work for the public because I do anything illegal you are bothering the people I live here I did something illegal 27:56 to help you I need a sound I want to know what is going on why are you bothering these people I want to know what you did I did something illegal I don't answer questions definitely not disorderly conduct how am I allowed to photograph on the sidewalk? or no section 26 - one of the Illinois Penal Code states that a person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly does any act so unreasonably as to alarm or annoy another person and causes a disorderly conduct this is an excellent example of a code whose language is written so vaguely that almost any action could be perceived as a violation the fundamental principles of the code are completely subjective and inherently flawed, codes like this exist in almost every state and are usually just as vague: these Codes essentially authorize officers to take anyone to jail for any reason, and are often used by officers to arrest civilians who have not broken any other laws.

We will discuss whether mr. beter stet was committing a crime later in this episode I'm going to put you in because if you don't stop you could put a handkerchief on me okay no you could handcuff me this is not legal for this is not legal this this is not legal Chris this is not a stop Terry, is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based on reasonable suspicion that a person may have been involved in criminal activity. A better statistic is correct: Officer Holland is conducting a stop on Terry based on reasonable suspicion provided by the 911 apartment received.

The Supreme Court has ruled that 911 serves as reasonable suspicion and I have covered that topic in different episodes which I will link to in the fact card above. It is impossible to know what the 911 caller reported to Mendota police, but officers They mentioned that the caller was concerned about mr. To improve Stetz's mental stability due to his strange actions, a court will likely determine that the officers were within their authority to detain Mr. Best Stet based on information provided by the 911 caller, as the Officer Holland locates Mr. Better put the handcuffs on him Sergeant Stewart arrives on the scene Why are you recording them inside?

Okay, I'll hold it, shoot, they'll say I'm playing for this early behavior. Why are you there when you could walk? They were, they were. worried that you were photographing the residents inside no you weren't just photographing here and I don't know if they aren't go check it out why didn't you stop when she asked you to? I have to do it, yes it is. a common misconception that officers need suspicion of a specific crime to stop an individual; The legal doctrine established by the Terry case dictates that officers only need a suspicion that criminal activity is underway.

If an officer can point out specific facts that led them to believe that some crime may have been committed, then the officer can arrest an officer. person to investigate further, although photographing on a public sidewalk is not a crime in itself, there are limitations to the protections offered by the First Amendment,

citizen

s are entitled to a reasonable time. expectation of privacy in certain places and in the 1967 Supreme Court case Katz v. United States Justice John Marshall Harlan established a two-pronged test for determining whether an individual's expectation of privacy is reasonable the Katz test considers whether an individual has exhibited a real subjective expectation of privacy and whether the expectation is that society is willing to recognize as reasonable that, that said, the First Amendment protects the act of public photography and the public domain extends to everything that can be viewed from a public place, while citizens may assume that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy within their homes.

Courts have ruled many times that photographing the interior of a home through an open window is a constitutionally protected activity. really want to go down that path what we're investigating someone acting in a disorderly manner their video recording a nursing home and look, you're disturbing the residents, we didn't know that, don't we need to talk? Okay, so no, I don't know. Where did you get your law degree? Man, don't I have one? Idea man, you won't cooperate with us and you tell us what's going on, they ask you to operate and the police officers give you a direct order and you're sure you won't stop because I don't. in your opinion, that's not ours, no, okay, okay, the quote from the Fifth Amendment, the right to remain silent, can be a powerful tool for anyone interacting with police and in most cases cases, it is a good idea to remain silent as much as possible, but also within reason.

The right to silence was designed to prevent people from incriminating themselves and successfully invoking that right requires a functional balance between disseminating necessary information to police officers and not answering potentially incriminating questions asked by police officers. , although you are within your right to remain completely silent during most cases. police interactions in addition to identifying yourself, it may not always be in your best interest to do so. Silence often speaks louder than words and it is extremely important to consider how your actions will be viewed within a courtroom after the interaction has occurred. announce your intention to exercise your rights, leave the court open to interpreting what your intentions may have been.

This was the case for Iowa-based auditor Daniel Robbins, who was arrested for photographing a police station from a public sidewalk and lost the subsequent lawsuit because he did not articulate that he was exercising his rights by letting the court draw its own conclusions about his intentions. I will link my coverage of mr. Robbins the interaction of him in the information card above if mr. beter stet had simply announced that he was exercising his First Amendment right to record in public, it could have eased the encounter and served him well later in the courtroom and autographed my OK, that's fine, I mean, if that that's all you were doing, but if you're videotaping and taking pictures of the people inside, that's a different story if you go on their property acting in a disorderly manner, that's your problem dealing with Officer Holland, eventually. returns with what appears to be a member of the facility's staff and informs mr.

Peter stet is under arrest for disorderly conduct. Sergeant Stewart escorts mr. Peter walks away from the patrol car and then something amazing happens, so he walks around videotaping the building, what is that. I know it's not illegal to do that, okay, but timeout is not illegal to do that, so you're not acting disorderly if you're outside. the sidewalk walking next to a video tape on the outside of the building that's the problem we have, but how are they? They are upset. He is walking down the sidewalk recording video. Well, he wasn't. I mean, other than not obeying you, which is a no-no.

I mean, that's what it is, but as far as going over with a video camera, I mean, no, that's not something that, even though a lot of things can bother you there, Sam after Sergeant Stewart intervenes, the officer Holland married mr. Peter Stead and after a calm conversation with the

sergeant

, he is

release

d and the officers leave the scene without further incident. Overall, Officer Holland gets a C-minus because, although it may have been within her authority to detain Mr. Better, she essentially admitted to soliciting a complaint from a facility staff member and had every intention of Arresting officers requesting charges is a relatively common problem that is often difficult to prove.

It is not uncommon for officers to request a charge so they can arrest someone and go about their day rather than taking the time to examine all sides of a conflict. Anyone who has interacted with police can attest to that notion. Officer Holland fell into the typical routine of restoring peace at the expense of administering justice, but fortunately he was corrected by Sergeant Stewart. Sergeant Stewart gets a bonus for interacting with Mr. beter stet in a challenging but cordial conversation and for questioning Officer Holland's tactics and ordering him to

release

Mr. hit his staff, it is increasingly rare to see an officer display a relatively deep understanding of constitutional protections, but it is even rarer to see a supervisory officer object to charges brought by a fellow officer on those grounds.

I commend Sergeant Stewart for having the right knowledge. and conscience to challenge Officer Holland's claims and ensure that peace is restored and justice is equitably served. Knowledgeable officers deserve to be in supervisory positions and Sergeant Stewart demonstrated excellent policing during this encounter. beter stet gets a b-plus because, while it could be argued that he was engaged in constitutionally protected activity, mr. Better Stets' decision to register a retirement center raises serious ethical questions. There is no progress to be made within the constitutional awareness movement. Recording the Lutheran home and alarming nursing home residents only serves to make the movement look bad as a whole.

The residents of the houses are likely to be mentally unstable and pointing a camera at such an establishment is disgusting and disrespectful, and while mr. beter stet did not properly exercise his Fifth Amendment right to silence. He remained calm and collected throughout the entire encounter and was ultimately not charged with any crime. beter stet would also do well to reexamine the terry case and gain a deeper understanding of reasonable suspicion entertainment mr. Beter Stet did a good job overall and as his legal knowledge grows, so will his auditing capabilities and ethical awareness. I look forward to seeing the Auditor he will become and encourage you all to support his channel.

The link is in the description. Please know if there is an interaction or legal issue you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thanks for watching and don't forget to like and subscribe for more police interaction content.