Police violence has shaken the US to its foundation multiple times in the past decade, but the problem has not been solved and only grows with each passing year. In the face of this, intrepid cop watchers across the country have stepped up to defend working people and communities. Why does the cop watching movement matter, and what can the rest of us learn from activists who have done this vital work for decades? On the sixth anniversary of the launch of Police Accountability Report, Taya Graham and Stephen Janis speak with a panel of cop watchers, including James Freeman, Tom Zebra, Otto The Watchdog, The Battousai and Laura SharkCW.

Pre-Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Written by: Stephen Janis
Studio: Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Today we are not only going to be celebrating the sixth anniversary of our show, but we will also be seeking to answer a fairly profound question about a form of activism that has as much to do with the evolution of our show as policing itself. And that is cop watching. That’s because during the last six years as we have produced hundreds of shows, many have featured the work and personalities of this uniquely American art form. So we thought as we celebrated this special anniversary, we should do so in tandem with the people who have shared their work with us, which is why over the next hour we’re going to try to answer several important questions. First, why does Cop watching matter? In fact, why does any sort of activism matter and what makes it matter? It’s a question that I think is not asked enough, an idea that we feel must be explored in light of all the challenges we are facing.

And we’ll be trying to address it by examining the work of one of the people who literally helped invent it. He’s a man who started watching cops when VHS tapes were the dominant technology, and he’s a person who’s impacted Steven and my life in ways that are hard to measure. And of course, to help us unpack all of these ideas, we’ll be joined by cop watchers who are legends in their own rights. James Freeman, out of the Watchdog and Laura Shark, and they will be with us later to discuss their work. And at the end of the show, we’ll be making a big announcement about something Steven and I have been working on for quite some time. So please make sure to stay tuned. But of course, all of this begins with this show, the police accountability part. I mean, when we started it six years ago, we had no idea where it would lead.

I mean, sure policing was front and center as an institution that needed serious reform. Examples of police brutality were everywhere. And in our own hometown, we had just experienced the uprising after the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, which engulfed our city and led to even more recognition that law enforcement was basically broken. But really, if we’re honest, there was something else, not just immediate concerns that prompted us to launch this show. Instead, I think our impetus was about something deeper. Remember at the beginning of the show, we always made clear it’s not just about the bad behavior of individual cops. No, it was and is more than that. It was a way to examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And it was that system which allows rogue law enforcement to be pervasive, which has divined our work, prompted us to dig deeper and to explore the underlying imperative that we will interrogate further as we celebrate our anniversary. So Steven, can you talk a little bit about that idea and how the show came together?

Stephen Janis:

Well, every time we looked at policing, especially the worst parts of policing, or there’s some of the worst policing we’ve seen, it occurred in communities where there was an absolute underlying unfairness to the way the community was situated. And when I say that, I mean a community which was beset by poverty or a community that had unfair economic and unfair economic inequality. And so we said, why is bad policing always part of this equation? Well, it’s because policing in a sense, enforces the idea that unfairness is okay, that unfairness is actually a natural outcome of what we call late stage capitalism. So the idea was saying if we just look at a bad cop and take what they do and just show it on the screen and not really give some context, and we’re not doing our job as journalists. So the idea was to expand the palette and say, look, this is part of a system of unfairness. Please enforce that ideology that this is actually inevitable. And so we wanted to go beyond that. That’s why we look at the system.

Taya Graham:

Really well said, Steven. Thank

Stephen Janis:

You.

Taya Graham:

And just as he was saying, back in February, 2019, we just kind of launched the show. Just sort of did it. I mean, I wish I could say it was all planned out and we were sort of working in trial and error mode, but we weren’t winging it, but we just didn’t really know where it would lead. Maybe let’s watch a brief compilation of some moments from our first shows.

Stephen Janis:

The audience is small, we’ll be out of business pretty soon. So we got this idea that we need to focus on what we did best on what we knew best.

Taya Graham:

So one thing about Baltimore City is that policing is everywhere. You’re probably familiar with the death of Freddie Graham police custody in 2015, or you might know that my city is under consent decree for racist and unconstitutional policing.

Stephen Janis:

We had to pick what we knew and make it something special.

Taya Graham:

So when Steven said he wanted to do a show called the Police Accountability Report, I thought it really made sense.

Stephen Janis:

I think that came up at the same time I’d been teaching journalism at a local university and I was trying to teach the next generation of journalists to survive. I came up with this idea of subject matter expertise, like do a show or report on what you know the best. And to us, well that was policing.

Taya Graham:

And honestly, I think it was like a last ditch attempt to really make this work to find an audience for our reporting.

Stephen Janis:

So in January of 2019, we shot our first show. We just went ahead and did it.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report on the Real News Network. Honestly, I was just hoping we could break 10,000 views.

Stephen Janis:

I would’ve been perfectly happy with that. We’re talking about 10 years. These police officers were robbing people,

Taya Graham:

So we kept going and doing more shows. This is Taya Graham and Steven Janis for The Real News. Welcome to the Police Accountability Report.

Stephen Janis:

And it seems like T’S talent hosts a show and the topic was working, and we finally found a way to get a broader audience.

Taya Graham:

Oh my gosh, Steven, look how young you were. Look how young I was reporting on policing ages. You I think a

Stephen Janis:

Little bit. It was weird because we really did just kind of do it and we just sort of made up was going along. So it’s interesting to see that how the show has evolved themselves.

Taya Graham:

I know it really has. But as we were building the show, we started to hear about a community that we knew nothing about, a group that was in a way doing what we were doing, but let’s just say in a more different and more direct style. It was a slowly growing YouTube based movement that caught our attention. Thanks in part to our mod, Noli d Hi Noli D that we couldn’t ignore. Of course, I’m talking about Cop watchers, the people and personalities that go out and actively watch the police and then post their encounters on YouTube. Now, of course, cop watching existed long before YouTube. We all know the Black Panthers who watch police in African-American communities by taking notes and keeping track of the officers who were problematic. But along with the growth of YouTube, a new type of cop watching emerged. And that’s what Steven and I decided to report on the evolution of this form of digital activism that was different in many respects than what we were used to. And Steven, this version of Cop watching was uniquely formed by YouTube, wouldn’t you say?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I mean, the thing was you had a historic moment where for once an average working person could form an audience or have an audience. Remember before YouTube came along, and obviously the internet, most people who wanted to report the news or report what’s going on in their community needed an intense amount of capital. They needed a broadcast license or they needed a newspaper. But suddenly YouTube had created this alternative form of reaching an audience. It was kind of revolutionary. And I think that’s why Cop watching was so uniquely positioned and why it was so different, because YouTube gave a platform that didn’t exist before, a way of communicating to an audience, a way of forming an audience that didn’t exist before. So it was really revolutionary in a lot of ways.

Taya Graham:

I have to agree. And just to let people know, I will be trying to address some of the folks in the chat. I want you to know I see you, I saw you. Linda Orr. I see you. Lacey R. Hi, Lacey. R Hey, Lacey. So I just wanted to make sure to acknowledge some of the moderators and the supporters in our community are here, and Noli Dee helped introduce me to Cop watching. And I think we can honestly say that without Cop Watchers, this would be a very different show, very different. I mean, not that we couldn’t report on police, of course we could, but reporting on Cop Watchers and the personalities that drive it gave us access to a community that shaped how we thought about law enforcement by examining their work. It changed our perspective on how law enforcement had become more pervasive and powerful than even we could imagine.

And in a way, it gave us a sense of how much policing could affect not just the health of the community, but the entire psychology of it. Meaning the fact that there was a community of people who would literally go out and document police in communities across the country day in and day out for no other reason than it had to be done influenced how we thought about our show and what we needed to report again on the system, which is how and why the idea of making a show that we called Reverse Cops emerge. So let me explain. I’m sure most of you’re familiar with the show called Cops. It’s one of the longest running police reality series ever. The format is also pretty familiar, a bunch of photo follow cops as they arrest working class Americans for generally speaking petty crimes. The show, I believe, is meant to solidify the notion that only police can impose order and that the police are the moral arbiters of right versus wrong, and that working class folks are simply degenerates only worthy of arrest and jail cells. But Steven, I think our experience with Cop Watchers gave us some other ideas on how to, in a sense, reverse this narrative through journalism.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I mean because Cop Watchers and people like Tom Z were had gone out and sort of shifted the narrative, right? Gone out every night and reported from the community perspective, we sort of adopt that into our show where the person, the cops would make look bad. This guy who cops go and arrest for some dumb reason, not always the dumb reason, but a reason that is questionable, let’s put

Taya Graham:

It that way. Or at least maybe for a nuisance crime,

Stephen Janis:

Right? For a ance crime. We thought, okay, let’s reverse the perspective of the camera there. The way cop watchers are. Let’s turn the camera around. Let’s not tell it from the police going in and rushing after some guy and chasing him. Let’s do it the way Tom Zebra and Otto the Watchdog and James Freeman do, where they’re the ones holding the camera and telling the story from their perspective. So we ended up dedicating a huge amount of our show to the people who had been either brutalized, questionably, arrested, whatever. That actually became like the linchpin of our show, which is just as someone from the mainstream media, that’s not the way we report on police. We follow the police around and we follow their cues. So this whole community that created this kind of reverse cops, we just followed their cues and said, we’re going to give 15 minutes to the person who got arrested and let them tell their story, just the way police get to control the narrative. And it was really, again, sort of a revolution of narratology. We are actually looking from the different perspective that the cop watchers have adopted, and I think that’s why, how it influenced our show, what made our show kind of different in some ways.

Taya Graham:

Steven, I think that’s such an excellent point and something that I think you really teased out there is that not only did Cop Watchers show us to turn the perspective around, but they also showed us, you were talking about how you had to have money to be able to control the narrative and to sort of democratize the process.

Stephen Janis:

They absolutely democratize and absolutely took away the need to have other than a cell phone camera and the ability to edit and the ability to be creative, which is what’s really cool about it. There’s so much creativity. It kind of inspired me to say, play around with the show, have the swipes, all the things that we know are signature. Or the police accountability report came from just watching Cop Watchers and what they would do. And I’d be like, well, we can’t just be this blase report. We’ve got to have a little action in there.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, we have to add a little creativity. Absolutely.

So as we built the show, we dedicated a large part of it to the perspective that mainstream media ignores. We turned the camera around to give the people who’ve been negatively impacted by policing the opportunity to tell their stories in detail. And we made the show not about police, but about the community. And no other community played a bigger role in this evolution than of course cop watchers. And no other cop watcher embodies the spirit of that ethos better than the man we will be talking about tonight. And I am of course referring to the legendary og cop watcher, Tom Zebra. And like our show, his story and his life is intertwined with his work, and it is that work that’s transformed him and the community he lives in. But let me try to share part of his story so you can understand why that is so important.

It’s the story of a man who lived in Los Angeles in one of the city’s struggling neighborhoods who saw a problem. People have been cracking down on, excuse me, police have been cracking down on working people for years with aggressive car stops, arrests for minor infractions. Law enforcement had adopted more and more punitive tactics as a way to fight crime, but that’s not what happened, and that’s not really why they were doing it. And this man understood this implicitly. He knew that over policing was an instrument of poverty. He understood that it only made the lives of those struggling to afford housing and even put food on the table. Even worse, he comprehended the pain inflicted by a system that trapped people and stripped them of their ability to fight back. But what did he do? I mean, in a sense, he didn’t have the tools necessary in our money fueled system to fight back.

He wasn’t a powerful politician or billionaire. He wasn’t a celebrity. He was just a man, passionate man, but one seemingly without the power to protect the community he loved. So what did he do? Well, he picked up a camera, not a cell phone, but a camera back when video was recorded on VHS tapes when YouTube didn’t even exist when the internet was still in its infancy. And when his fight was essentially his own will and ingenuity against the entire Los Angeles law enforcement industrial complex. But against those odds, he decided to fight. And he did it despite a powerful institution more than willing to fight back despite the obvious imbalance of power of one man with a camera against a legion of guns and badges. And he did it for the myriad of reasons people in our flawed democratic republic decide to step forward. He did it because it had to be done. Let’s watch a little bit of his video from 2005.

Speaker 6:

Man, where you going? Why a hard T got a bike license? Have a bike license. The driver’s license. I told you to that I, yeah, it does. Your bike over here. Probation, parole. Why you being such an ass about it? What’s your problem tonight? I have no problem. Good. You have a bike license for your bike? No, I don’t see one on there. No, you need to register your bike and the city have a bike license. You riding the city. Where are you going? Okay, where are you coming from? Okay. You want to

Taya Graham:

Do a difficult No,

And of course that was the OG I was talking about at the beginning of the show, Tom Zebra. In that dramatic footage, you can see how one person with one camera lit a fire that burns bright to this day. You see someone who’s fighting against power in ways that would eventually be adopted by thousands of cop watchers and activists using the camera, not just as a mirror, but as a tool of dissent recording video that no one would perhaps ever see, but still recording. Anyway. Steven, can you talk a little bit about how Tom has helped shape contemporary cop watching?

Stephen Janis:

Well, the thing when I was watching that video and I was thinking about it, and we both hung out with him a little bit. He is tireless, right?

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Stephen Janis:

He’s like a one man mainstream media kind of org,

Taya Graham:

One man media machine,

Stephen Janis:

Right? Because the thing that was really interesting about Tom and talking to him, we interviewed him a lot. He goes out every night and he goes out every night and he just films. And sometimes when he films, something happens and he will confront police as what he sees as being wrong. And that to me is such a David and Goliath story of someone who goes out and is willing to every night, watch cops no matter what, and willing to push back. And that creates, I would say, an alternative mainstream media ecosystem. Not mainstream in the sense that it looks like mainstream media, but that counter power, that counterbalance that doesn’t always exist in a community to tell their own stories. And so he was out there like a storyteller looking at what’s happening, watching and observing and exposing police in ways that are more subtle. It’s not just about the really, really bad events, but the way they abuse their power. And when you watch these Zoe videos, you can see where are you going, where are you headed, what are you doing? Those are the things that create this psychology of power that makes policing so devastating for people living communities where that type of policing is allowed. And I think Tom did the work

And that really made a difference.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. That’s such an excellent point. And just to add to that idea, let’s run a clip about Tom Zebra. We produced for this yet to be announced project.

Stephen Janis:

Why were they focused on policing? What were they getting out of this and what was the real story?

Speaker 7:

It was like to protect myself from the police.

Stephen Janis:

Hello.

Speaker 8:

What’s going on

Stephen Janis:

Man?

Speaker 8:

Not much you doing here.

Speaker 7:

Doing know the tapes will just go in a box.

Speaker 8:

Good. How are you? Just your car?

Speaker 9:

Yes sir. Where are you coming from? Where do you

Speaker 8:

Live? I’m coming from getting dinner and I’m going home. Do you

Speaker 9:

Any guns or knives in the car?

Speaker 8:

No, sir.

Speaker 9:

You got valid driver’s license?

Speaker 8:

Yes,

Speaker 9:

Sir. Where is it at? It’s

Speaker 8:

In my center

Speaker 9:

Console. Don’t reach. You got any? You don’t have a gun or anything in

Speaker 8:

There? No, sir. There’s nothing illegal in here.

Speaker 9:

What’s going on with the camera? That’s the camera. Yeah, but what’s going on with that? Well, it’s sitting there

Taya Graham:

Recording. Mr, why don’t you pull me over? But this is only just part of the story, the beginning about the growth of a collection of YouTube activists that stood up for communities across the country, a movement that has actually achieved something tangible. People who connected on YouTube and other social media platforms to push back against power and actually made a difference. Activism that might’ve started with OGs like Tom Zebra, but has expanded to include hundreds if not thousands of channels and YouTubers working in big cities and small towns across the country. And so to talk about how this happened and what it means, and of course the work of Tom Zebra, we’re going to be joined by several guests who have been intimately involved in all of it. And to get this discussion started, we are happy to have Otto the Watchdog as our first guest. I mean, really, who else could it be? And just to let you guys know, if you see me looking down, that is because I’m looking to make sure to put some of your lovely comments on the screen. And I wanted to let you know, I think we finally have super chats and super stickers.

Now, I don’t know if you guys know this, but we don’t run any ads on our channels, and I’m sure you’ve noticed I’ve never done a HelloFresh commercial, so we don’t take any corporate sponsors, but if you want to buy us a little super chat so we can say hi to James Freeman or a The Watchdog for you, we’d be happy to do that.

Stephen Janis:

And also, we should also tell people to try to subscribe to our newsletter. Go to the real news.com. You can subscribe because that way, even if you don’t have money to be able to support our journalism, you can also subscribe to the newsletter and keep in touch with what we’re doing. So we really would like people to do that as

Taya Graham:

Well. Yes, absolutely. You can hit and subscribe to the email and that would really help us as well. Now back to Otto, he’s probably one of the best, along with our other guest, James Freeman, at actually injecting comedy into the practice of Cop watching. He’s a style that is both unique and illuminating. You know what? Let’s watch a quick clip about Otto talking about how he came up with this.

Otto The Watchdog:

So I wanted to do something comical because I was becoming an angry person. I was sitting at my kitchen table, I was writing down slogans. I said, well,

Speaker 10:

He’s got stuff from there and in other counties that they’re going to try to put together and they’re going to try to get his ass organized crime.

Otto The Watchdog:

I said it out loud and I was like, hand stuff

Speaker 4:

That

Stephen Janis:

Awesome, Otto, that could have been a hit song if maybe Otto, if you’d had a few less swear words in it, I

Taya Graham:

Guess. But the thing is, I’m sure with the beeps, I am sure you all could probably figure out what was being talked about. Some of you who know the cop watching community, well might’ve recognized the other voices singing despite all the beeps. And that Otto is another important member of the cop watching community, Eric Brant, who was known for his extravagant actions to help protest treatment of the Denver homeless community. And like Tom Zebra, Eric Brat is an important part of the Secret project that we’ve been working on that we cannot wait to share with you. But perhaps it would be better to let the fellow singer speak for himself, which is why we are joined by Otto the Watchdog. Thank you so much for joining us.

Otto The Watchdog:

Hi. It is pleasure to be here. Thanks. It’s always nice to be here.

Taya Graham:

Well, we’re so glad to have you are so glad. And first, we just want to ask you a very simple question, or maybe actually it’s not a very simple question. What got you involved in COP watching? What prompted you to pick up a camera and start filming your encounters with police?

Otto The Watchdog:

Well, those are two separate things. So what got me started looking towards police and being upset in general was license plate lights. A lot of my friends were being pulled over and they were being pressured to allow a search of their vehicle over license plate lights. And when one of my friends was roughed up and one of those traffic stops, I decided that something had to be done. And the inspiration to film it came from people like Tom Zebra and James Freeman. Freeman was in my local area at the time, and I saw those guys and I thought that it was a great idea. And then I found out that there was actually a lot of people doing this, and I wanted to make sure that I wasn’t going to get run over and falsely accused of some pretty terrible stuff. And I wasn’t expecting that it was going to go bad, but it did quickly. So

Stephen Janis:

When you say it went bad quickly, can you just explain a little bit what you mean by that? It went bad quickly. Are you talking about the potatoes or something like

Otto The Watchdog:

That? Oh, no. So yeah, the potatoes, the first time I went out with the camera, I was only out for 15 minutes before I had my first police contact. And that was when I was like, oh, this is probably going to be a little bit more of a thing than I thought it was. Then I took a break for a while and I really went out and looked and made sure that what I was doing was going to be legal. And if it wasn’t for people posting on YouTube, their encounters, I never seen it. And like Tom Zebra, he was doing it before when VHS was out and he said that he put all those tapes in a box and nobody would ever know unless a major production company put it together and then distributed those videos.

Stephen Janis:

Right, which is what we’re trying to do. Not really, but we did use some excerpts from them. But Kate, go ahead.

Taya Graham:

Oh, I do have to ask though. I mean, we’ve discussed and highlighted some of your more humorous approaches to watching cops. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because I know it might seem strange to people who see police brutality or police overreach and says, that’s not a funny topic, but you managed somehow to bring humor into it. Can you kind of explain how you did it and why you did?

Otto The Watchdog:

Well, I did it because I brought humor into it because it is so dark. It is not a funny topic. And it was something that I felt passionate about and I think that everybody should know, mainly because my family was very supportive of law enforcement. I have several members of my family who are law enforcement, and we get along fine, just for the record, everybody’s fine. Thanksgiving can get a little bit, sometimes we have to change the topic of conversation,

But I believe that they were good people and they think that they were doing good work and doing good things. And since I’ve been more active in this topic genre specifically, we’ve come to the conclusion that they might’ve not been breaking the law and violating, violating people’s rights, but they were violating people’s rights. You mentioned the long running show cops. Well, that was very popular when I was a kid. We watched it all the time, and I watched it for a long, long time, and I loved that show. It was always entertaining. There was always something going on. Now here I am many years later, I go back and watch that show and shows like it, and basically every single encounter is a violation. Every single one of those is like, oh, well, why are they doing that? Why are they immediately pulling somebody out and putting ’em in handcuffs? What’s the purpose of that? And they’re beating people up. They’re very violent. But that was because that’s the content that got them the most views and interesting. Nothing’s really changed about that. I guess there’s still the thing that gets them the most views is when they’re the most violent.

Stephen Janis:

That’s really interesting because now there shows live pd and there just seems to be this fascination with other people’s misery. But that’s really interesting. And so at some point you kind of said, I’ve seen enough actual encounters with cops that I know that kind of propaganda the cops is promulgating or whatever. I know that’s actually false. I mean, is that what someday it just clicked for you? Or is it because after you went out a couple of times you kind of felt like, wow, this is all wrong?

Otto The Watchdog:

Oh no. It was a slow progression and then a sudden snap. I was watching these things because I wanted to know what I was illegally required to do at traffic stops

Laura Shark:

And

Otto The Watchdog:

Things of that sort. I didn’t really have any run-ins with the law, but when I was not quite an adult yet, there was an incident where law enforcement, there was a fight in the park and the law enforcement showed up and somebody pointed at me and I was arrested. I was not involved in it,

But nevertheless, I went to jail and I was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. And that case was dismissed because I wasn’t the guy, but I had to call into a bondsman every Wednesday with the threat that I could be arrested if I didn’t. And that went on for a while. So that was my first, oh, maybe these guys aren’t all superheroes. And then again, one of my friends was pulled over for their license plate lights being too dim, not being bright enough, and she’s a minority. And when the police officer pulled up to the window, said, get out, and she asked one question and he opened the door and yanked her out and then roughed her up a little bit. And I just had enough. I just had enough. And that’s when I put my boots on for the first time and actively what I love about cop watching. Thank you for asking Steven. What I love most about Cop watching is that protesting in general is a reactive response to a situation that has occurred. Cop watching is a proactive protest, or No,

Stephen Janis:

You’re right.

Otto The Watchdog:

I’m using protests loosely there. Cop watching is proactive. We can go out and actively look for these.

Stephen Janis:

That is such a great way to put it.

Otto The Watchdog:

I love

Stephen Janis:

That. Cop watcher is always smarter than me because I wrote this whole script, but Otto said it in a way. Otto, sorry, I should be looking at you. But you said that, and that is so right. You guys go out there sometimes when there’s nothing going on, right? I mean, you’re just, you’re out there and you’re just watching

Taya Graham:

Or listening to a scanner, right?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, that’s such a different form of protest. You’re right. We have protests now against this administration or that, but Cop watchers just out there active. That’s pretty interesting.

Taya Graham:

I just want to mention this, since we did have Eric Brat singing earlier, we’re going to talk a little bit more about him later as we share our big project, but you connected with him and others that helped create this community that we covered. How did you connect with people like Eric Brat or Monkey 83 or Joe Kool or any of the other folks that we were fortunate to meet?

Otto The Watchdog:

That was definitely a 100% direct response from James Freeman being in my local area at the time, that I needed somebody to be local. And he just happened to respond to my email. And we’ve been good friends ever since. And I mean, he might disagree, but I can’t count James Freeman among my friends. I would invite him over for dinner. That’s wonderful. Eric. I had seen some of his videos and this man looks absolutely nuts, and I love it. I love it because he is so far out there that if he can get away with what he’s doing, then what I’m doing must be fine. And he was kicking ass and he would be arrested. And then before you know it, the cases are dismissed. And he did file a lot of lawsuits and he won quite a few, a lot of lawsuits, and he won a lot of his cases.

Taya Graham:

It was actually impressive. I think some of his lawsuits, he won the right for body cameras and

Stephen Janis:

Englewood,

Taya Graham:

Colorado.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. First a training,

Taya Graham:

First Amendment training,

Stephen Janis:

He $35,000 tattoo that

Taya Graham:

That’s right.

Stephen Janis:

He got arrested for a tattoo.

Taya Graham:

I think he was arrested on nearly 200 times and won over 80% of his cases. I mean, that’s a pretty impressive track record.

Otto The Watchdog:

It’s a staggering track record. It really is.

Taya Graham:

I am glad you mentioned Eric again, because I know he must have shaped to some extent how you do cop watching and how the community came together. I mean, how would you describe Eric’s role, just out of curiosity?

Otto The Watchdog:

Well, the cop watching and protesting are two separate things that I do both. I do both of them, but they are sometimes intertwined, but they are different. Cop watching is usually a little bit more somber. You’re just trying to document the thing. And then sometimes I would just get the calling and have to sing a song. And the song was inspired by Eric, his signs, and then I just wanted to make it into a rhyme. And then it just evolved into a song and it sounded really good. It was easy to sing, and I could do it loudly, and that was the key. And Eric and I, we could harmonize together and just pop it off. We had a unique chemistry that allowed such a thing like that. And as far as the protesting, Eric definitely shaped the protesting. He absolutely shaped what I was, everything from the sign and then his clothes. I liked that he would wear bright green clothes and everything about him screamed protestor. And then for him to be arrested, it’s clear and obvious to everybody that he was arrested for what he was saying and what the sign that he was holding. And I appreciated that.

Stephen Janis:

Wow. Well, last question we wanted to ask you, just give a little bit about what do you think about Tom Zebra? Did Tom Zebra influence your work at all? Or how do you feel about his work and how it’s influenced cop watching?

Otto The Watchdog:

Yeah. So I saw Tom Zebra after I had gotten fully immersed in what was going on because he’s in California and I’m not.

So I was trying to find somebody in Texas because I knew that Texas and California law were different, different enough that you need to know what goes on in Texas, not California. Right? So when I finally found Tom, I was well into my activism. So he didn’t necessarily shape and drive me directly, but I guarantee you that he inspired somebody that I saw at some point, or the six degrees of separation. I know that Tom Zebra shaped me and encouraged me through his actions, even though I hadn’t heard his name until well after I had begun. And again, Tom Zebra goes out every single night.

Stephen Janis:

I know,

Otto The Watchdog:

Right? It’s amazing. And if he’s not posting a video every single day, it’s because nothing happened last night. And when a cop watcher is not posting a video, in my opinion, that’s a good thing. We should not have content.

Taya Graham:

That’s a good point.

Otto The Watchdog:

None of us should be anybody worth interviewing because our channels should have zero followers. We should have zero views. But that’s not the case. And it’s not the case because, well, police officers feel like they can do whatever they want to because they’ve been able to do whatever they want to. They’re told that they can do it. And until that changes, I think that this genre is going to continue to grow. And as it has dramatically. So in the last five years since specifically the Floyd protests

Stephen Janis:

Instead Armada, the show should be, this show would not exist without the bad behavior of individual cops, I guess, right?

Taya Graham:

In some way. I mean, I’ve said before I would be happy if I didn’t, if I could report on something else.

Stephen Janis:

That’s a profound statement. We should have no followers and no videos.

Taya Graham:

That’s a really profound statement. Just before we let you go, I believe it was Tyler Smith asked what happened to Otto’s arrest at the gas station where the cops solicited a complaint on the day he had court for custody. Did you have that resolved?

Otto The Watchdog:

It did. That case is resolved. It took a while, and I took a beating. So we resolve that case out of court for, I believe that settlement was $90,000. And I took that money and split it 50 50 and put it into savings accounts for my children because they’re the victims. And I am deeply bothered by the events that happened early in my channel because they continue to affect you every single day. It’s something that never goes away, and I never wanted that, never thought that that would be a thing. And I’m glad that it’s over and looking forward, all we can do is hope that justice will prevail.

Taya Graham:

Wow. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for sharing that. And we just want to tell you how much we appreciate hearing from you, and we’re going to drag you back on a live stream in the future. I’m sorry. And we’re just have to do it.

Stephen Janis:

And remember, we both are going use Invisit on our car.

Taya Graham:

That’s

Stephen Janis:

Right. Your sponsor.

Otto The Watchdog:

Oh yeah, invisit. It’s the only window film approved by Nala.

Stephen Janis:

Okay, well let’s not go there, but let’s say this. It’s completely transparent, so police can’t see it. Neither can you. It’s pretty awesome. Perfect

Taya Graham:

Tint to make sure you never get arrested for Windows again.

Stephen Janis:

Alright,

Taya Graham:

Otto,

Stephen Janis:

Thank you Otto, it

Taya Graham:

Great to have you as always. Awesome. And I did just want to make sure that people saw that we had some lovely comments here. People really appreciate you, Otto. Thank you.

Otto The Watchdog:

Hey, I appreciate you guys. I wouldn’t have made it through it if it wasn’t for my friends and fantastic supporters. I could not have gotten through that if it wasn’t for you guys.

Taya Graham:

Oh, Otto,

Otto The Watchdog:

Thank Attia. And Steven, thank you for doing what you do because when I was doing this, we didn’t have a lackluster that would focus on these channels. You guys also pioneered your own little branch here because before the police accountability report, we really didn’t have anybody that cared enough to bring our videos to a larger audience in a professional way. Because a lot of people who do this are motivated, dedicated, passionate, but we’re not video editors, audio producers, and we don’t have all the skills and material and resources to do what you guys do. So thank you. Thank you as well. You’re

Stephen Janis:

Welcome. It was our pleasure,

Taya Graham:

Otto. We appreciate that more than thanks for being know that was really kind of you. Thank you. Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

That means a lot.

Taya Graham:

Especially because the Washington Post came in and said, oh, there is such a thing as Cop Watchers. I was like, thanks for noticing. Five years later,

Stephen Janis:

Right? Good

Taya Graham:

Job

Stephen Janis:

Five years after, but

Taya Graham:

At least finally, you guys are getting the recognition that you deserve.

Stephen Janis:

Absolutely.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. Absolutely. We’re so happy about that. And I just did want to also make sure to say thank you to Michael Willis, who was kind enough to give us a donation. Very kind.

Stephen Janis:

Thank

Taya Graham:

You, Mike. And I thought that was really kind. Thank you. And I just want to make sure someone else said in response to our conversation about Eric, they could not stop Eric, so they put him away like they did. That was from DJ Plus. So I just wanted to let you all know I am taking a look at your comments, and I’m going to put them up whenever I can. You know, Stephen, that story about how Otto and Eric Brandt and Monkey 83 and Friends in Code and Chris Powers, how they got together is pretty incredible.

I mean, they all met on YouTube and they were all connected because of their support for Cop Watchers and each other, and they sort of built a community together. I mean, that’s an interesting story.

Stephen Janis:

Well, no, I think it’s interesting listening to Otto talk about how he connected with James Freeman, and you know how James Freeman connected with Eric and these guys are all working in different places.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. All

Stephen Janis:

Across the country. And organically created a network of people to bring these stories to people’s attention. And that’s not how YouTube is often advertised, is building communities and building actual physical activism. As Otto said, it was proactive. We said, here’s the problem. We’re going to go out every night and film that is so different from many things that, and I think we could all learn something from that activism.

Taya Graham:

And I have to say this, and this is a personal opinion, but I think it is very brave to go out on the streets armed with nothing but a camera.

Stephen Janis:

Absolutely.

Taya Graham:

And trying to make sure that your community has justice. So I think that’s a very brave thing to do,

And that is one of the reasons why we did that documentary. But we’ll save some more of those details for a little bit later. Hope you stick around and hear more about it. But for now, we’re going to be joined by a person who has been one of the most visible, prolific, and creative members of the community. He is notorious for turning routine encounters with police into revealing examples of comedic role reversal that reveals much about the power that police have and how it affects us in unseen ways. Let’s watch a clip of one of his encounters.

Speaker 11:

But these people have been told that they’ve got it in their head, that they literally have a right. They have the authority to just arbitrarily control everyone around them.

Speaker 12:

Hey, what’s up everybody? It’s James Freeman. You doing all right over here? What department are you with? You got ID on you. I sir. Dude, can I see it? Please.

Speaker 11:

I was even disturbed by the fact that this cop let me do it. Most of the people in the comments are like, man, this is the nicest cop ever. No human should tolerate that from another human. It’s wrong.

Taya Graham:

And now we have to give a big welcome for James Freeman. James, thank you so much for joining us.

James Freeman:

Hey guys, thank you for having me on the show again. It’s always good to be here.

Taya Graham:

We love having you. So happy to have you. And so first off, if you don’t mind, I would like to ask you about the legendary Tom Zebra. What did you think of his work? When did you first see it and has it influenced you at all?

James Freeman:

Honestly, I can’t remember the first time I saw it, but Tom Zebra influenced, he was one of the first. And when he was out there doing this stuff, I’ve said this before actually, I’ve compared Tom Zebra to a pioneer. Well, I have a lot of ancestors that crossed the plains over into the west, and we call ’em pioneers, right? And they blazed a trail. When they did it, it wasn’t easy. Basically when I came into the game, it was a lot easier than when Tom Zebra did it because Tom Zebra was basically Bush whacking it. He came up with the idea. He was the one who decided, alright, I’m going to go out and record these guys. When I started, I had people like Tom to help me understand what I legally could and couldn’t do. Tom, I don’t know who was his influence, but without people like Tom, I probably would’ve ended up in prison or in jail before I even really hit the ground. Got going.

Stephen Janis:

And what prompted you personally to start doing cop watching? Why did you decide that, Hey, I’m going to do this. I’m going to take this risk, the risk of getting arrested and go out and film police. What kind of motivated you to do that? How did it get started for you personally?

James Freeman:

Like Otto, it was a lot of things. I wouldn’t say it was necessarily just one thing.

I can tell you that the first video I ever shot though was when I was going through an inland border patrol checkpoint that I traveled through on a regular basis as me and my family were traveling between Arizona and Texas. And for those who don’t know what that is, you don’t cross a border or anything. But these federal police stop you and start asking interrogating questions. And it really doesn’t even have anything to do with stopping immigration or drug trade or anything like that, because all you have to do is they ask you, are you a US citizen? And if you can say the word yes, it’s like that’s the magic word. Yes. You’re no longer what they’re looking for. And I was realizing that this really wasn’t even about stopping crime or even immigration or drug traffic or anything. It was about conditioning people to obey and to understand who their master was. When master tells you to say yes, you say yes.

Speaker 7:

Wow. Wow. That’s

James Freeman:

Really

Speaker 7:

Powerful.

James Freeman:

So I shot that video and I really only shot the video to show it to four or five of my close friends and one of my friends, I couldn’t figure out a way to share it. I was trying to email it. I didn’t know anything about this technology stuff. I sucked at it. And one of my more technologically advanced friends said, Hey, best place to share a video is on YouTube, or even just with friends. So I uploaded it to YouTube. I didn’t even know how it worked. And so it was set to public, and two weeks later, a handful of other people who did this type of stuff regularly saw the video, shared it, and it had a half a million views within two weeks. And people were reaching out to me and saying,

Stephen Janis:

James,

James Freeman:

Do this again. Do it again. And I’m like, dude, what? That’s

Stephen Janis:

Incredible. That’s amazing. I mean, a half a million views, that’s not easy.

Taya Graham:

Wow. Wow. That’s amazing.

Stephen Janis:

That is amazing.

Taya Graham:

I have to ask you though, and I suppose this is somewhat of a serious question, but what is it like going out there holding a camera knowing that you might possibly be arrested, and how do you deal with that threat and how does it affect you?

James Freeman:

People talk in my comment sections. People are like, oh, James, you’re so brave. You never back down and you never get scared. That’s not true at all. Anybody who does this knows that the people we’re dealing with are armed terrorists. That’s all there is to it. It doesn’t matter what laws or don’t law, or I’m sorry, it doesn’t matter what laws or don’t know. These people don’t operate under Law and order. They’re terrorists. They’re armed people who are willing to do anything that they can get away with to you. And law legislation, none of it really plays a part. The only thing to me that really plays a part is that I think that they feel some duty to hold up the illusion that they’re some type of legitimate law enforcement or some type of legitimate entity. And so I try to play on that more than anything because I know they don’t actually care about the law, but sometimes they do care about public opinion because if people really understood, if people really knew what they were, they’d be completely abolished immediately. I’m not just talking about the people that you talked about earlier, poor lower class, financially. I mean, if everybody middle class upper, maybe upper class knows what they are, but I really think that if most people really knew what they were, they would say, whoa, we want a system of law and order, and this is not it. This is armed thugs ruling our streets.

Stephen Janis:

Now, is that why you did those? Because we showed some of the videos, the video where you’re asking an officer for ID and those sort of rural reversal kind of videos. Is that where you got that idea? Because to me, they’re so revealing about policing space saying, I can come up to any person at any time and demand almost with the threat of arrest. Is that why you did those kind of videos because of that?

James Freeman:

Yeah.

Yeah. And that was inspired by a book that I read, the Most Dangerous Superstition by Larkin Rose. And I was reading it, and he was basically comparing, most of us were told that government is by the people, for the people, and that we delegate power and authority to our government. Therefore, and the point that he makes is if that’s true, then I can only give to you or delegate to you what I have. And so a lot of people even mimic this, that government can only have the power or authority that we give to them. But when we talk about it hypothetically and say, what if I were to go up to a cop and do this, still usually just doesn’t quite click with people. It’s a hypothetical, but when you actually do it, all of a sudden it’s shocking. It’s like, wow, what an arrogant piece of crap. This guy is a total douche bag. And I did it recently just a couple of weeks ago for the first time in years, and the internet has gone crazy over it. People described me in the way that people like Tom Zebra have been describing cops for a long time, and it’s horrible the way that they were talking about me. I said, that’s it. That’s exactly what I’m trying to tell you.

Taya Graham:

Wow, that great. And those new videos are really amazing. I

Stephen Janis:

Would encourage everyone to go to James Freeman’s channel.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. And of course, all the watchdogs channels as well, watch or Tommy. But it’s amazing. And there’s a moment, one of the videos where, I know it sounds like a strange thing to say, but you snap on these gloves and it’s like somehow it gives you another level of authority. You already had the authority in your voice, but then when you snapped on the gloves, it was as if the person, the officer you were interacting with just handed over her authority to you. It was amazing. So when you folks have a chance, definitely go check out his channel. And I wanted to mention, since I was mentioning Otto as well, when did you find yourself really interacting with other YouTubers and other cop watchers?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, that’s good question.

Taya Graham:

I mean, I think you connected with Eric Brant fairly early on, but when did you find yourself interacting with other cop watchers and forming that community?

James Freeman:

Actually, Otto Otto was one of the first that I really connected with because he was local where I was at. So I mean, I had talked to a few others. Johnny five Oh was out in California. He flew out to visit me, but Otto was actually one of the first that I regularly connected with because it was important when we were doing this stuff to have somebody close by because there is a good chance that you’re going to get arrested, you’re going to go to jail, you’re going to need help from somebody else. The truth is, you really can’t do this stuff alone. You’ve got to have some type of support group. I mean, these cops are 900,000 strong across the whole country, and they’ve got legislators and judges and prosecutors and a whole team of people to terrorize you. And so just having a small handful of people, it was David Borin and Auto, the Watchdog that were my local people that I regularly worked with and connected with. And Otto really got the poopies end of the stick on what happened out there.

Taya Graham:

And also, I think David Bore was in the chat. So Hi, David Boron.

Stephen Janis:

Hey, David. I just want two more questions. One, Alice one then to you, what did you learn about YouTube using YouTube as a tool for publishing your videos and showing people what you were learning? How did YouTube influence your work? And I know it’s kind of a weird question, but I think YouTube is always left out of this conversation. And what did you learn about YouTube in the audience too? What kind of audience you have?

James Freeman:

Let’s see. What did I learn about YouTube?

Stephen Janis:

Well, what I mean is, I guess YouTube is a big feedback machine. You kind of learn things when you do videos certain ways, and

Taya Graham:

Some

Stephen Janis:

People like something.

Taya Graham:

I mean, and do you feel like in using YouTube, do you think the activism or the work that you’ve done would be even possible without YouTube? How important is YouTube to this whole idea, to this whole idea to the work that you do?

James Freeman:

Yeah, it’s essential. My wife asked me when I recorded at a border patrol checkpoint again, just last week, we were just traveling. We traveled an hour to go have dinner with family. And on the way back ended up going through a border patrol checkpoint. And I yelled at him and told him, you don’t have the right to do this and blah, blah. I got out of the car, I was belligerent, I was nuts on this one. And I get back in the car and my wife says, would you do this if you didn’t have a camera in your hand? I said, no, of course not.

Taya Graham:

I love the honesty.

James Freeman:

But the truth is that in the nineties when I was being bullied by cops, it didn’t mean that it wasn’t right for me to do what I do and wrong for them to do what they do. It was just that if you tried to assert your rights back then you were guaranteed to get that crap beat out of you and be thrown in jail and or prison. And so just like a cop wouldn’t do what he does without that badge and gun. And so you’re right, but also, I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing here if cops weren’t doing something wrong. But you’re absolutely right though the camera, the ability to publish this and show it to the world, I really wouldn’t do it if I couldn’t show the world. I just end up beat up or dead. It wouldn’t help anyone if I wasn’t showing it to the world.

Stephen Janis:

That’s deep.

Taya Graham:

That’s incredible. But the thing is, you’ve also like Otto, you’ve incorporated humor into it, I mean, I thought what you said, because you had me read that book by Lobar, and I appreciate that, but you incorporated humor and there are these moments that seem really spontaneous. How did you decide to evolve that and why did you Yeah, it’d be funny. Yeah. How did in

Stephen Janis:

Situations sometimes didn’t seem like they were funny, but

Taya Graham:

Somehow you made them funny somehow might make them work. I don’t know how you managed to do that. Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

How do you do that? Or why did you do that?

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Better was the question. Why did you one day do that? I mean, would you see the absurdity of the situation? How did you get there?

James Freeman:

Yeah.

I think that it was both from a necessity, because I get kind of depressed watching too much of this stuff and being immersed in it too much. It’s really sad, and I am sure that you guys experience it too. Day after day after day, you see people’s lives being destroyed. You see people being terrorized, good working people. And so the comedy comes from some people have been offended by me making jokes out of really horrific stuff. But I don’t know, like Otto said, you got to do something to lighten it up. You’re either going to laugh or you’re going to cry once you really see what’s going on. So I try to laugh a little bit, and I think that it does help people. Making jokes and comedy of it, I think helps people to really truly see the absurdity of what government does, what cops do.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I think it was funny because the one that we used, the famous one where he asked the cop for his ID

Taya Graham:

And just the look

Stephen Janis:

On his face. But what’s interesting, he pauses for a second, and then you see something click in his head like, oh, this is kind of weird. Right?

Taya Graham:

Because initially he does sort of react to the authority in James’ voice, like, oh, and you see him processing, wait a second, wait a second. I’m the one who does

Stephen Janis:

This. Wait, the Exactly.

Taya Graham:

And that power reversal James, that is so powerful for people to see. It’s incredible. I don’t know. It spoke to me on a different level and it helped me interrogate for myself how much of other people’s authority, especially with law enforcement I have accepted and how I’ve had to do a lot of work to distance myself from that and find my own autonomy. And your work really highlights that. James or

Stephen Janis:

The better one, have you been drinking to, we should be showing these, but you can go to his, not the poor guy, but the cop looks at him like

Taya Graham:

Just confounded, just flabbergasted. We’re shortcircuiting his brain in that moment. Okay. Obviously I think we’re showing we’re James Freeman fans. I think we’re kind of embarrassing ourselves right now.

Stephen Janis:

But anyway, James, thank you so much for joining us.

Taya Graham:

Thank you so much. Because we are going to have to get to the super secret special person that we’ve been talking about this whole time. So we have to make sure to go forward and speak to the legendary Tom Zebra shortly. So James, we just wanted to thank you and before you go, if there is anything that you want to shout out into the world, please feel free to do so.

James Freeman:

Yeah, thanks for having me on the show. And guys, congratulations on six years.

Stephen Janis:

Thank

Taya Graham:

You,

James Freeman:

Thank you, thank you for what you guys are doing. It’s always an honor to be able to come on your guys’ show. Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you

Taya Graham:

James. Appreciate that’s really kind. We appreciate you so much. And next time we have you on the live stream, we’re locking you in for a full hour and you’re just going to have to sit with us. Just letting you know

Stephen Janis:

I’m

Taya Graham:

There. We’re locked in. Alright, wonderful.

Stephen Janis:

Cool.

Taya Graham:

Thank you James. Thank you so much. And so

We will be turning to the man we mentioned at the beginning of the show the OG cop watcher who started filming cops. And it sounds almost prehistoric to say this when people were just recording video on VHS tapes. And if you didn’t already know, his name is Tom Zebra and as we’ve explained it already and have discussed at length, his work was both pioneering and instrumental in building this community known as Cop Watchers. And just to give viewers just a little of how dedicated he is to his work and how he practically invented the current form of cop watching. We have a clip from 2012 we’re going to show, and then we’re going to have his legendary cop watcher partner, Laura Shark, come on and talk to us about it as well. So let’s take a look at this clip. Yep.

Speaker 8:

Officer, I hate to be the one to bring you the bad news. I’m going to try to break it to you gently. It’s against the law for you to ride that motor vehicle on the sidewalk here. Did you know that? Has anyone ever mentioned that to you before? Nope. None of your police didn’t tell you that in your police training.

Speaker 12:

Do you have a point?

Speaker 8:

I made it very clearly. It’s against the law for you to be on that sidewalk for me to make that left. Turn in the middle of the road and cut off that car. You’re mistaken Bacon. You need to get your motorcycle off that sidewalk. Why is that? You guys, you guys ride people on bicycle tickets every day for riding on the sidewalk, don’t you? Every day you guys write tickets to people on bicycles, don’t you? For riding on the sidewalk. And guess what? That’s not an enforceable law, but you’re on a motor vehicle. Let me ask you this, do you have an ID with you? I’m asking questions right now, not you. No, no. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, you’re wrong. You’re wrong. Let me explain something to you.

Speaker 12:

I’m asking the questions now. No, keep filming. Lemme see your id.

Speaker 8:

No, I don’t have id. You don’t need to have an ID to record. It’s the camera. It has nothing to do with recording. It has to do with

Speaker 12:

You making an illegal turn

Speaker 8:

Here. I didn’t make an illegal turn. I didn’t cut off a car. I beg to differ, bro. Keep begging to differ. Do you have an ID with you? I already told you. Told me what? I already told you. I don’t need an ID to record. You’re missing the point. You’re missing the point. The reason you just pulled around and questioned me is because I was questioning you is because you made an illegal turn. Came over here to question me wrong. Do you have a supervisor, Mr. Garver?

Speaker 12:

I’ve got plenty of supervisors.

Speaker 8:

Who’s the watch commander right now? I don’t know. Why don’t you find out? Why don’t you have ’em come out here? First of all, I don’t have No, no, no, not first of all, you do work for me. I’m a taxpayer and you do work for me. Why don’t you find out who’s the watch commander and you haven’t come out here right now?

Taya Graham:

That was pretty amazing, don’t you think?

Stephen Janis:

Oh yeah. Yeah.

Taya Graham:

I mean incredible.

Stephen Janis:

I know because motorcycle cops, they have their own TV show, so Yeah,

Taya Graham:

They do. And I have a little,

Stephen Janis:

What do you

Taya Graham:

Have? Some have just some folks saying that they love Tom Zebra and Laura Shark. Thank you. Slushy 58. And then I have someone saying hello, just saying, hi Jeff. Thank you. Hi. Real news fam. Good to see you. And I thought there was something that was really powerful here that was written and this is Leonine. And they said, then they came for the socialist and I did not speak out. Then they came for the next trade unionist and I did not speak out. And then they came for me and there was no one left to notice. And I thought that was really powerful because something that James said that was really important to have community that you can get in trouble, you can need help with

Speaker 4:

Bail,

Taya Graham:

You can need legal advice. And so that’s why I think the fact that this became a community so important.

Speaker 4:

And

Taya Graham:

Also of course, I appreciate that I’m a union member myself. I’m a union steward. So shout out Leah Teen. Thank you for that.

Speaker 4:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Okay, now we are going to go to Laura Shark and Tom Zebra. Are they here with us? Do we have Laura Shark to join us? Laura Shark?

Laura Shark:

Yes. Yes.

Taya Graham:

Do I hear her? Lovely boys. I think I do

Laura Shark:

Tom

Taya Graham:

Now. So Laura and Tom, we got you.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, finally together. Great

Taya Graham:

To see you.

Stephen Janis:

Great to see you guys. Great to see you.

Taya Graham:

So first, thank you both so much for being here. And then we have to ask Tom, this is your video. Maybe you can tell us a little bit why you felt it was so important to let this officer on his motorcycle know that sidewalks are not for motorcycles. You seemed very determined there.

Tom Zebra:

You cannot imagine the amount of abuse that not just myself, five years before this, before YouTube or anything else, I had gone through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is something that I’ve never really published, but the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals already ruled in my favor. I had already been through depositions with high power attorneys. I had already destroyed them and proved every single one of them was a liar. So when that video rolled around and you could still hear the fear of my voice despite 10 or more years of being proven and the police’s courts, the law, it’s not my court, it’s their court. I had beat them repeatedly. I knew the difference between right and wrong. And I knew even you hear Dusty Garber in that video, he tried to say, I don’t work for you. Whatever he was going to say, I don’t think he got all of those words out by that time. I already knew what they were going to say before they could say it. And it was like I was just on autopilot.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Tom Zebra:

But that video, when I said mistaken bacon, I think that must’ve put me on the map because that’s what people just love that. And

Before we go any further, I just want to say thank you for having me on the show and Otto and James and Laura and all you guys, it is a pleasure to be here with you. The conversation, I don’t have the video playing like the audience, but all the conversation I’ve heard has just been inspiring. All these thoughts, comments. There’s no way the human mind would be able to remember all the thoughts I just had. So I’m just happy to be here and unfortunately my mind can’t keep up with all the brilliance you guys have already discussed.

Taya Graham:

Well Tom, you are part of the reason we’re here. You have inspired us and we are just so happy to have you and have all these people talk about how important you’ve been to the community. We should ask Laura, so we have to ask Laura, I mean, how did his work affect yours? And actually, actually even before I ask that, how did you guys meet? How did this connection

Stephen Janis:

Connect? We both cop watching. You just ran into each other? No,

Laura Shark:

No, no. Literally at a store. I was walking in and we both weren’t really paying attention and we almost ran into each other.

Taya Graham:

No, you’re kidding. That’s like a

Laura Shark:

Me too. And I had been shown a video, a friend of mine was like, look at this crazy guy on YouTube. And I remembered seeing it in passing and then so when we almost ran into each other, I was like, wait a minute, are you the guy from YouTube? And he was all, oh, and it kind of just kind of spiraled from there. He’s all messaged me or I think I made a comment on one of his next videos and then, I mean I really had no intention to be doing this as well, but it gets you. I went on a cop watch with them and I was terrified. I mean naturally I couldn’t do it by myself for the first couple of times and it was just kind of amazing how much I didn’t know at that point in my thirties it’s just like, how did I not know that this was happening? And then I kind of teamed up with Boxy just to be able to break the mold and not be afraid anymore. He was doing his own thing and then we met back, I guess he’d seen some of my videos and he started to take me seriously and I really appreciated that. And then we were kind of just did all that. It’s

Stephen Janis:

Interesting, I kind of think of you as a team, even though I don’t, you both have your separate channels.

Laura Shark:

Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:

Do you work as a team a lot or is it just my impression?

Laura Shark:

We cop watch a lot, but we butt heads even more. We dunno what’s up. We have no experience with that.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, we have no experience with that at all. We don’t know how to relate to that.

Laura Shark:

Yeah, we definitely have. I’ve come a long way because of him and I admit that sometimes I don’t want to. But no, he’s taught me a lot, him, Catman, Ricky, just the people that I’ve met through him too. I mean, you can’t stop learning. Every time I pop watch, there’s always something new and something else that I absorb into the situation. Something shocking, something simple. When we experience the Christopher Bailey incident, that was shocking for me. Even though it happens when you see something like that, it changes you

Stephen Janis:

Just so people know.

Laura Shark:

Friedman was saying that it will start to mess with you if you really don’t try to make a little bit of humor out of it. But that situation, there was nothing funny that

Stephen Janis:

We could. Just really quickly, so

Taya Graham:

Everyone knows who might not have seen it, Christopher Bailey,

Stephen Janis:

Who might not have seen it, it was a man who was beaten near to death by police

Taya Graham:

And or

Stephen Janis:

By sheriffs.

Taya Graham:

And your recording was instrumental, was absolutely instrumental.

Stephen Janis:

And your recording in a lie to a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Is that correct?

Laura Shark:

Yeah, it was almost a year to the day till we heard from the lawyer. I had almost had to accept that I would never know who he was, if he survived what his story was. But we kept on the story one way or another because of the deputies we would see day in and day out. So I kept posting about it and I also did a sent video to the, I think the, forget who it was, they were doing a whole thing. They were trying to Department of Justice, sorry? Oh yeah, department of Justice, department of Justice, because they were calling for any video of sheriff abusing that stuff. And I was like, oh, I had a couple. I had a lot. And that was the first on the list that I sent them and I think that’s who contacted the lawyer or something behind the scenes.

And then she contacted me and it was literally I had resorted the fact that I would never know and then boom. And yeah, we took part in that case from beginning to end and it was a weird experience. It taught me a lot and Chris couldn’t have been so undeserving of that. There are bad people in the world, I’ll admit. Police can serve a purpose. It’s just too much that we see is the abuse part, but this is so undeserving of it, the nicest man you’ve ever met. It broke my heart when we did a Zoom. We never met him in person, but we did do a zoom with him and the lawyer and he was so sweet. He actually said he was glad it to him being in his health and just being able to take that opposed to somebody that might be on drugs or just be kind of health wise. And I was like, what? He was an amazing man and he did not deserve that and I’m glad he was able to have his resolve.

Stephen Janis:

Tom, do you remember when you decided to pick up a camera? Do you remember that moment? I know when we interviewed before, you said it was to protect yourself. Do you remember that day? Oh, you do. Okay. Can you talk about that?

Tom Zebra:

I remember it was to protect me. No, I couldn’t tell you when At first I put a bunch of cameras in my car because they would pull, I had a Cadillac that I think the stereotype is they’d expect to find a black person driving it. I don’t know if that’s the reason, but I just had a really shiny, beautiful car and I, there were certain agencies I couldn’t drive through without being pulled over. I mean, even though nobody would look at these videos, I couldn’t show them. Nobody cared to watch ’em. Not even my girlfriend friends, it didn’t matter. But

Stephen Janis:

No one wanted to watch it.

Tom Zebra:

Nobody gave a shit. There was no such thing as video sharing or whatever. It wasn’t like people’s phones probably. I don’t know if they had cameras or they didn’t, but they probably didn’t. So it wasn’t a thing where everyone just makes videos and whatnot.

Stephen Janis:

That’s so interesting. And you did it. I’ve got question, Steve. Yeah, no, no, I’m sorry. I’m thinking about that. I’m trying to understand. You’re making these videos and probably at that point you had no idea YouTube was going to and you just kept doing it.

Tom Zebra:

Go ahead. Well, I knew that they’re not going to keep pulling me over and searching me. Gosh, sorry. That’s okay. They’re not going to keep pulling me over and searching me. I wasn’t very smart, but I was wise enough to know because they had already started framing me, but they were framing me for little irrelevant things and the more they would frame me and make me have to go to court and all these stupid things just because they’re mad that they were wrong when they pulled me over, the more angry I got. Eventually I didn’t want to get out of the car and be searched again.

And so the camera thing, it was just like I said to protect me and it would confuse them and throw them off so it wouldn’t have matter if I had a hundred dead bodies in the trunk. Once they seen the camera, they’d be like, what’s that for? I’m like, the video you showed just today, you hear the guy said, well, what’s that for? Well, it’s a device, it records audio and video. I guess you never heard of such a thing, right? It’s sitting there, it’s recording you. So act accordingly. And usually at that point they would just disappear so I could continue on with my a hundred dead bodies in the trunk. Yeah. So it was to protect myself. Yeah. I mean neither of them or myself, none of us understood at that point that these videos would ever even have a purpose.

If I was smart enough to think, oh, one day there’ll be, and I told you this Steven the other night, when if I was smart enough to think ahead and realize one day I’ll be able to share these videos with the world, and if the police were smart enough to realize the same thing, we could have brought some police accountability around sooner, but unfortunately adopted. Yeah, exactly. If I would’ve been that smart, I would’ve been the inventor of YouTube. And unlike the inventor of YouTube who only published one video, he published the very first video, I think, and never to this day never published a second. I would’ve never stopped publishing videos and nobody would’ve been able to terminate my channel and take my videos down. So I think police accountability would’ve went much further. I was as smart. Unfortunately I’m not, and I wasn’t

Taya Graham:

Tom, I was sort of curious. We have our theories on why sometimes police are so aggressive in communities. Why do you think the police were so aggressive in your community? I mean, there’s one of the videos we showed. There’s a clip and I see you just sitting there and eating your chicken nuggies just looking as innocent as the day is long. And I’m like, why is this cop harassing him? And so I’m just curious, why do you think the police were so aggressive in your community and aggressive towards you?

Tom Zebra:

Okay, well, let me try to explain what I think is the reason it’s part of it. I can answer that question a hundred different ways depending on my mood. But this is according to the sheriff. I know you guys are well aware of their budget. All the money that’s spent a billion dollars goes towards what I would call unlawful traffic stops. They call it pretextual. Lemme try again. Pretextual traffic stops only half of 1% of these stops results and any contraband whatsoever, according to them, that’s their story. I don’t know if is the truth better or worse, but according to them, despite all these searches, they only find something illegal 0% of the time. Wow. They sure have a whole lot of motivation. Why would you search 200 cars and you’re only going to find something once.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, it’s a very inefficient way of police

Tom Zebra:

Make what you will that either they’re finding shit more often than they’re willing to admit and taking it home or their supervisor’s taking it home. Somebody’s taking it home because you’re not going to search 200 cars, find out a damn thing, and then next week you’re going to search 200 more cars. Why not just go have lunch

Stephen Janis:

Now, Laura, it seems like every cop knows Tom at least, and a lot of ’em know you was going out with Tom a little fraught. Everyone would see you with Tom Zebra and then the cops would be like, oh, it seems like they talk to you guys. They’ll use your names.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. It seems like they know you. Do they

Stephen Janis:

Respect you? Or they just saying, Hey, we know who you are. We’re going to retaliate. What’s that about?

Laura Shark:

I don’t know if it’s respect. I would say maybe they loathe us. They’re like, oh, great

Stephen Janis:

Here. I

Laura Shark:

Mean, yeah, they always recognize, Daniel’s got so much history with most of the police in our area. I mean, there are a lot, especially when we were doing sheriff, there’s just no way to get away from me on and around 2020, I was just put to the ground. I was just doing it almost every day. And yeah, they could not know me. But overall, just the surrounding cities, I appreciate the history that he has with them. I do feel like I’ve kind of paved my own path when it comes to it. We do kind of post in different kind of formats, but for the most part, yeah, I do appreciate when they do remember me, to be honest, like good. That’s what we’re dealing with now. Okay,

Stephen Janis:

That’s back. That also means your work’s having an impact. They wouldn’t recognize, you know who you are if they weren’t all watching your videos. So that is a good sign.

Taya Graham:

Oh no, I just wanted to mention, no, there’s Chuck Bronson is in the chat, actually have watched him. I’ve lurked during some of your videos while you’re driving around listening to the police scanner, Chuck. So hi, it’s great to see you. And Laura, I had put a comment on the screen that you’d mentioned that there are a lot of great women cop watchers, and I feel like they’re maybe not quite as well known. I was wondering if there are any cop, female cop watchers that you like in particular? Any names you’d want to shout out at

Laura Shark:

All? Oh, I love a lot of them. Yeah. And Jody of course.

Taya Graham:

Is that Jody Cat Media who you’re referring

Laura Shark:

To? Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Okay.

Laura Shark:

Hi, Jody Kat. She’s close friend. I met a lot of, I mean, I don’t want to just kind of throw out names like that mean, sure, I do do Miss Denise. We lost her and I’m

Speaker 4:

Sorry.

Laura Shark:

I do know that. I mean, so many flooding my mind right now and I don’t want to forget to say one.

Taya Graham:

Sure.

Laura Shark:

But I feel like I’ve been, it has blown my mind, the evolution of women cop watchers and it’s always so great to see when I see their posts, I’m like, and they’re doing way more than me, better than me, and I can’t express how much I appreciate their work.

Stephen Janis:

Tom, you heard what people said, James Freeman, all the watchdog about your work. I mean, how does that make you feel to know that people learn from you and how much they respect you and how much you’ve meant to their lives, and also just the fact that it’s all about YouTube connected you. How do you feel about that?

Tom Zebra:

I kind of feel like I’m not allowed to say bad words, but Tom f and Zebra, whatever, I know that’s my name, my moniker, but that’s just a persona. I’m Daniel, and I feel like the town zebra, that wasn’t really a choice that I made. Didn’t, it’s going to be tough to talk about this.

Speaker 4:

It’s okay.

Tom Zebra:

It wasn’t a conscious choice. I didn’t say, oh, I’m going to hold these police accountable. I felt like they didn’t give me any choice except to defend myself. And I feel like Otto, I can’t speak for him, but I feel like he might feel that same way, James. I don’t know if James had a bad experience or not, but just in general, it wasn’t something that I chose to do. It was something that they either I had to bend over and just spread my cheeks and take it and try to smile, or I had to turn around and stand up and it wasn’t easy. But I don’t deserve all the credit. Like I said, Tom Zebra, anybody could be the Tom Zebra in their town or the Jodi Cat or the Laura or the James or the Otto. But I’m not going to suggest anybody should. You got to be willing to probably take a beating and if you have kids, if you have a wife, if you have a mortgage, it’s going to be really difficult to accomplish anything because you can’t be going to jail and court. It’s going to be rough. You guys have all said so many brilliant things. I can’t remember all. I feel like I had a comment for everything and I’ve lost track of all of them.

Taya Graham:

No, but Tom, I think you brought up a really good point, and I think it shows the sort of self-sacrifice that I see and a lot of people in the community because like you said, if you’ve got a kid at home and let’s say you’re working two jobs, you literally can’t afford to go out and cop watching. So someone’s got to go out there and take the hit, so to speak.

Tom Zebra:

Look what happened to Eric Brandt. I mean, I can make a whole show I did. I spent weeks, if not months riding around. They put a bunch of laws in his name. That’s because he’s righteous. That’s because he’s the one telling the law what it is. It’s true if they named it after him. So how do a bunch of corrupt judges send him to prison when the same corrupt judges a year later are buried in their own corruption? If they were smart, they would’ve embraced Eric brand because instead of being embarrassed and all this by their own corruption, they could have avoided it. But they’re not smart because there’s no damn consequence for ’em. So they’ll never care. They laugh all the way to the bank. I’m sorry,

Stephen Janis:

Thomas. Okay, that’s perfect. I think you had a clip that you wanted to play.

Taya Graham:

There is a clip I do want to play. I just want, so actually I will play this clip. I have one more question for Laura before we lose, have our guest leave. Let’s play the clip, but let’s play this clip. This is very special. First, it’s a very special thank you to The Battousai who, because unfortunately because of a scheduling conflict, he couldn’t be here with us today, but he wanted to make sure to say hi to us.

Stephen Janis:

Let’s watch.

Taya Graham:

Let’s watch this.

The Battousai:

Hey Tom. Unfortunately, I was unable to make the live stream however, I wanted to make a quick video in my absence. I just wanted to say that you are one of four people who inspired me to record the police. Now, I did have the honor to meet you a few years ago back in California, and we did some cop watching together. I never forgot that moment. In fact, it was probably one of the biggest highlights of me recording police. Just wanted to wish you well and hope that you’re doing well, and hope to hear from you soon. Take care, buddy.

Taya Graham:

Wow. So we want to thank Philip of the infamous well-known Philip Turner of Turner V Driver. If anyone doesn’t know that case law, go look it up right now. It’s named after that young man who in his work has helped affirm and protect the right to record police as well as support your first amendment rights. So either one of you, Laura or Tom, I just wanted to know what you thought of, but two sides stopping in to say hi.

Laura Shark:

Yeah, no, he was great. We got to meet him and when he came out, I actually went to Texas before that and met up with him. Super sweet. Just the knowledge he has is amazing, and everything that he’s accomplished is makes me a little jealous, right? He’s so young. I know. Yeah. I mean, he is a great guy.

Tom Zebra:

If I could add, it was wonderful. We made a spoof video. We also made serious videos. He went through DY checkpoint with nothing, but I’m sorry, with his, instead of giving the license, he gave his carry concealed weapon id. I think something so outrageous that that’s kind of an outrageous thing to do. You don’t get my license. I’m not rolling the window down, but I do have a gun is basically how we went through that DUI checkpoint.

Speaker 7:

Wow.

Tom Zebra:

Obviously not my id. I would’ve never put him in that situation. But besides that, everybody here, you guys too. Happy anniversary. I’m going to shut up. If you don’t shut me up, I will talk forever. Thank you guys for having me and James Otto, everybody. Laura, even I told the one guy to put his name because I don’t remember it now. Is it Adam?

Taya Graham:

Did I

Tom Zebra:

Get it

Taya Graham:

Right? Yeah. Adam behind the scenes. Yeah. Adam, that’s Adam. Absolutely. Adam, thank you Adam. Adam’s

Tom Zebra:

Making friends.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Oh, that’s awesome.

Tom Zebra:

I’m going to mute my microphone and just tell you guys, I love you and the viewers, everybody. I love all you guys, and I’m so happy to be back. I’m finally healthy again. I never stopped being on the street, but hopefully one of these days I’m going to start publishing again. And I look forward to seeing each and every one of you again. I’m going to mute.

Stephen Janis:

Okay.

Speaker 4:

Thank you. Thank you

Taya Graham:

So

Stephen Janis:

Much. And Laura, thank you too.

Taya Graham:

That’s

Laura Shark:

Beautiful. No problem. Yeah, thank you. And congratulations to you.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you.

Taya Graham:

Thank you, Laura. We really

Laura Shark:

Appreciate it you guys so much. I can’t tell you how much I appreciated how much you’ve done for my channel, for our channels, I mean in publishing about some of our stories and things we’ve seen. So

Stephen Janis:

Is our pleasure, the

Speaker 16:

Community for the world, happy to do it.

Laura Shark:

Oh, I thought you were going to mute

Stephen Janis:

Tom. You

Taya Graham:

Said I love the interaction

Stephen Janis:

Between them. It seems familiar.

Taya Graham:

You know what, Laura, I really appreciate that. And we are just grateful that you were willing to trust us because we are journalists and the media has a certain reputation and some of it is well earned.

Speaker 4:

So

Taya Graham:

We really appreciate that you trusted us with your stories. Thank you. We do.

Stephen Janis:

And keep up the great work out there in la.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, keep up the great work you guys. We love you too.

Tom Zebra:

One more thing, guys. I told you I’m coming through town Baltimore, right? I’m putting them motor homes. It’s going to have the mistaken baking pig on the back on both sides. I’m going to stop in as many cities as I can, and when we get there, I want you guys to tell me and teach me all about the Gun Trace Task Force and the work that you guys have done in your community. Make sure you mute me so I can’t come back on, please.

Taya Graham:

That was wonderful. We would be delighted to take you on a tour of Baltimore. We can show you where the gun trace task force dealt drugs. We can show you, we can take you to the courthouse where Sergeant Ethan Newberg shot us both daggers

Speaker 4:

As

Taya Graham:

He read his statement to the courtroom if he was being convicted on how many counts was it

Stephen Janis:

32? It was nine counts of false arrest. It

Taya Graham:

Was

Stephen Janis:

A lot.

Taya Graham:

It was 32 counts overall, but nine counts were false

Stephen Janis:

Arrest. I don’t remember exactly.

Taya Graham:

It was, it

Stephen Janis:

Was significant.

Taya Graham:

It was a significant number of counts. So we would be absolutely delighted to,

Stephen Janis:

And thank you both for being here to take you on our

Taya Graham:

Tour through Baltimore. We appreciate you.

So we have to thank all the wonderful cop watchers who joined us today. All of them are special to us because they have helped guide us through this meaningful movement. But now, just for a moment, we’re just going to spend just a little bit of time talking about us and what it means to have reached our sixth anniversary. And with that, the announcement about something we’ve been working on for quite some time now. One of the aspects of the most overlooked aspects of copy watching Cop watching is unlike much of YouTube is that it’s not all talk. What I mean is that it is about action. Literally the people we spoke to, the others who do it all must decide to go out, get a camera, find and film police. And that’s what makes it so unique in the offerings of YouTube. It is a hands-on assertion against the policing of space, against the policing of movement and against the policing of behavior and all the other sorts of psychological aspects of policing that would be hidden or less obvious if not for the work of these folks on YouTube. And that’s one of the reasons Steven and I decided we needed to explore this collection of YouTubers in more detail, tell their stories in conjunction with ours. So Steven, do you just want to talk just a little bit about what that means?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, we had encountered just today listening to the cop watchers that we had so many insights about things that you wouldn’t even expect beyond the realm of cop watching, about the psychology of how our government works, the psychology of how law enforcement works and the way it affects everyone’s life. And what we thought was very interesting to us, because we had to learn as journalists who adopt to YouTube and kind of become YouTubers. And through that, through the Cop watchers, we learned how to make that work on some level. And we wanted to tell that story, how our work evolved with their work. Wanted to tell through the prism of one particular cop watcher, which is Eric Brand and his story, and sort of uses a lens for which to view this whole movement, the movement, not just about cop watching, but about journalism, right? I mean you, like I said before, I started a newspaper and suddenly I found myself in our basement recording you and producing shows. And it was a journey for all of us. I mean, we kind of wanted to share how we learned from them and also look at some of the extremes and some of the questions that Eric raised as a cop watcher going to extremes that got him in a lot of trouble and celebrate this community. So we put together a film,

Taya Graham:

And it is a film that examines cop watchers, and it does so through the lens of Eric Brandt, but it’s not just about cop watching and cameras in YouTube. It’s about an aspect of YouTube that contravenes a lot of how we characterize it. Now we have to say Eric is considered very controversial. His tactics have been criticized and sometimes even condemned. And he has also been sentenced to 12 years in prison by Denver Judge for alleged telephone harassment of judges. And this story of how it unfolded and the consequences we cover in this film is just part of explaining why YouTube is not just a platform for videos, because we also covered the improbable community that emerged from the cop watchers who met on YouTube through Eric. And these connections are forged by activism which evolved into friendship, and I would say even into a family.

And the pushback from law enforcement that wreaked havoc on their lives is also explored as well, and the way they supported each other and how they endured the consequences of watching cops and how this collective fight forged real friendships and family that led to meaningful new achievements. But most importantly, as we told the story, one aspect of it seemed increasingly clear all of this, every single aspect of it was again, premised upon taking action, along with identifying the problem, policing these people decided to do something and do something specific, not just talk, not just speculate, not just debate, but act. And that was critical because through action things changed. People picked up cameras, watched police for hours on end and create videos. They were doing something specific about a specific problem. Now, by acting, things changed and by connecting their lives were transformed by using YouTube to come together in this, I don’t know, tactile sphere we call reality.

They changed it. I mean, as we mentioned earlier, I think we might have an issue with the Washington Post article. Even the Washington Post finally acknowledged in this article that cop watchers had changed police behavior. But enough of that kind of analysis onto the official announcement, Steven and I have filmed multiple documentaries, including the Friendliest Town, which is on policing on the eastern shore, about a Maryland police chief who was fired under very controversial circumstances and tax broke, which is a feature length investigation into the ways wealthy developers get even wealthier off the backs of my city’s taxpayers. And hopefully we might have a few links to those in the chat. We now have a new film that I’m excited to announce. It’s called I Am, but The Mirror, the Story of American Cop watching. It’s the story of the evolution of the YouTube version of Cop watching through not one, not two, but possibly three separate lenses. But let’s watch the trailer first and then maybe we can talk about it a little

Speaker 4:

Bit. Global. Globaltel Link has a collect call for you

Speaker 11:

From Eric.

Stephen Janis:

Our top story, a controversial Denver activist, is facing sentencing for threatening, not one, but three Denver judges.

Speaker 10:

Eric Brandt is an agitator. This is why I now advocate for the random shooting of judges. Judges have absolute

Otto The Watchdog:

Immunity, nothing that they do can they be held accountable for. I met Eric through YouTube. I really didn’t like the guy when I first saw his stuff. I thought that I’m going to watch his poor guy get his ass whipped on tv.

Speaker 16:

He’s going to say something, this cop’s going to flip the and whip his ass.

Speaker 10:

Here’s what he did in this case, he told Judge Rudolph’s staff, it is my thought that Judge Rudolph should be violently murdered. Who in the world thinks that that’s okay, Mr. Brandt, on each of these three counts, you’re sentenced to four years in the Department of Corrections. For those of you who do not know, a congregation of adult pigs is called a sounder.

Stephen Janis:

When TERs came to me with this idea of we’re going to cover these people called Cop Watchers, I was like, what? And I watched a couple videos and I was like, no.

Taya Graham:

So I finally come in, Stephen, to look at this video of a man who got arrested for filming the police.

Speaker 12:

Hey, what’s up everybody? It’s James Freeman. You doing all right over here? What department are you with? You got ID on you.

Speaker 16:

I’d say there’s about 800 people that have their own channels that are filming the police and either going live and doing it or posting in their videos later.

Speaker 17:

One of the things that, in talking about all that’s gone on is that without Eric Brand, none of this would’ve come to be.

Taya Graham:

Well, Steven, I’m sure you might have something to say since you’re the one who put together that trailer and also is the one playing the guitar and doing that music. So

Stephen Janis:

Do you want me to sing the theme song?

Taya Graham:

No, that would Maybe next time, maybe next time everyone, he can sing for you. But this time, maybe just give us a little bit about the layers of the film.

Stephen Janis:

Well, the layers, like I said, you have Eric’s, I guess, the evolution of Cop watching through the eyes of Eric and how Eric became sort of tested the extremes. And then you have the other layer of this community that was formed by YouTube of all things where people met online, but then ended up doing something active in the actual world and the tactile existence. And then you had the evolution of our journalism, as I said before, of how we learned become journalists on YouTube, and how we covered a movement that actually ended up changing the way we covered things. I mean, literally, it was like a mirror effect in some way where we adopted the way Cop watchers kind of adopted to YouTube. So all those things are told in the story,

Taya Graham:

And

Stephen Janis:

I thought it should all be put together in one place, what I like to do. And it had 1500 edits.

Taya Graham:

Yes,

Stephen Janis:

It was very,

Taya Graham:

This took a lot of work traveling out to Colorado, back and

Stephen Janis:

Forth.

Taya Graham:

And if you think cops cop watchers chasing cops or something, we were chasing the cop watchers around as they were chasing cops.

Stephen Janis:

So

Taya Graham:

We put a lot of heart and effort into it, and we really hope that you’re going to check it out when we do our launch.

But one of the reasons though, I really wanted to tell the story myself is to show how my evolution as a journalist was actually accelerated by reporting on the community of cop watchers that we feature in this documentary. And I wanted to share that I learned a lot from people I really didn’t even know and would’ve never have known at all if it hadn’t been for YouTube. And I’ve mentioned before that I grew up in Baltimore City and that I understood police misconduct, of course, which is something I experienced personally, but I had seen it as an urban issue. Cop watchers and auditors and independent journalists and people who are literally this comment section right now, they reached out to me and they helped me understand that I should investigate rural communities. That those communities were also enduring pain and harassment and exploitation at the hands of police.

And this was critical to me understanding that the police industrial complex has a boot that steps on many necks, and we need broad consensus across racial lines across city versus country, right versus left. We’ve got to agree this needs to change because it’s hurting all of us. And that for me is what makes this whole story so critical that these social media platforms that normally just keep us isolated and divided can actually be used to accomplish real change, but only if we act together and only if we use the ability to communicate, to translate our ideas into practice. And it taught me a lot about what journalism can do. That by covering a grassroots movement with all the effort and energy that the mainstream media normally heaps on the elites, we could help connect the dots. We could be part of accelerating ideas and connecting the people to each other in a way that made the push for progress more tangible, not just theoretical.

So on this the six anniversary of the Police Accountability Report, I want to express more than anything gratitude. Gratitude to the people who openly share their stories with us, despite the threat of police retaliation to the guests on our show who talk to us about some of the worst moments in their lives, and the brave souls from small towns to big cities who are willing to push back simply because they know it’s right. I know I’ve been inspired by them. I have seen Stephen Bees inspired by them, and we both understand that independent journalism is wholly dependent upon people being willing to speak to us and share with us and trust us. So please let me say this as my final thought. Thank you, all of you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you for watching. Thank you for caring, and thank you for being willing to push for knowledge, the truth, and hopefully seeing the best in all of us. Thank you all. I really appreciate you.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

Dakaria Larriett was driving a friend home at 3:00 in the morning when he saw the flash of a Michigan State Trooper’s siren. Although Larriett was stone-cold sober, he soon discovered this would not be enough to protect him. After accusing him of a minor traffic violation, Officer George Kanyuh began to speculate over Larriett’s sobriety. A lawsuit brought by Larriett alleges that, after subjecting Larriett to a series of sobriety field tests, Kanyuh spent over two minutes unsuccessfully looking for drugs in his patrol car to use as planted evidence against Larriett. Once this failed, Kanyuh and his partner, Matthew Okaiye, took Larriett into custody and forced him to endure even more humiliating ordeals at the police station—including requiring him to defecate in front of them. It’s only thanks to body camera footage that the truth of this incident was revealed, but there are countless cases of similar behavior by police across the country which has never come to light. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of Police Accountability Report review the case and its implications, speaking directly with Dakaria Larriett about his ordeal.

Written by: Stephen Janis
Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production: Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video of a bogus DUI stop that led to the false arrest of a man who is still suffering from the consequences of it. A harrowing encounter with Michigan State troopers that led to questionable charges, a humiliating search, and allegations of an officer attempting to plant drugs. But, it also calls into question the whole idea of how DUIs are investigated, all of which we will break down for you as we unpack yet another problematic use of police powers.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @TayasBaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you and please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there. And I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you all how much I really appreciate your thoughts and to show off what a great community we have.

And of course, we have to thank our corporate sponsor. Oh wait, that’s right, we don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, but you can donate below, and we have a Patreon Accountability Report, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do, because we don’t run ads or take those corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, there is no crime more potentially destructive or dangerous than driving while drunk here at the Police Accountability Report, we support efforts by law enforcement to prevent it. However, we have also noticed a troubling trend, as we’ve reported, on questionable DUI arrests across the country. Sometimes it seems that police are overly eager to charge someone driving while drunk, overreach that can have devastating consequences for the people subject to it.

And no DUI stop embodies this problem more than the video I’m showing you right now. It depicts the highly-suspect arrest of a Michigan man who’s being put through a grueling field sobriety test. Despite passing every facet of it, he still ended up in handcuffs, but that was only the beginning of his ordeal. That’s because even after his detainment, police weren’t done subjecting him to the cruelty and violations of our criminal justice system. The details of which we will share with you shortly, but first, the arrest itself.

This story starts in Benton Harbor, Michigan in April of 2024. There, Dakarai Larriett was driving a friend home at 3:00 A.M. when he was pulled over by a Michigan State trooper for, ostensibly, not coming to a stop for a flashing red light. An accusation Dakarai firmly denies. However, from the beginning, the officer began accusing him of being drunk. Take a look.

Kanyuh:

Hey, how you doing?

Dakarai Larriett:

Good.

Kanyuh:

Good. You got a license on you?

Dakarai Larriett:

Yep, it’s in my bag.

Kanyuh:

In the back?

Dakarai Larriett:

In my bag.

Kanyuh:

Oh, go for it. Yeah, the reason I’m sobbing, there’s two red lights there. Make sure you come to a complete stop.

Thank you.

Where you coming from?

Dakarai Larriett:

St. Joe’s.

Kanyuh:

St. Joe? Where are you trying to get?

Dakarai Larriett:

I’m dropping him off right here.

Kanyuh:

Oh, okay. This address here? With the fence?

Okay. Do you have any paperwork for the vehicle?

Dakarai Larriett:

I’m sorry?

Kanyuh:

Any paperwork for the vehicle like registration insurance?

Dakarai Larriett:

I do.

Kanyuh:

Can I see that please?

Dakarai Larriett:

Sure.

Kanyuh:

Does alcohol impact your ability to drive today?

Dakarai Larriett:

[inaudible 00:03:51]

Kanyuh:

Okay. When was your last drink? Has it been at least two hours?

Dakarai Larriett:

Yes.

Kanyuh:

Okay. All right. Two hours you said? What was it specifically? Smelling fruity and a little bit of something else on you.

Dakarai Larriett:

There was no alcohol in on me.

Kanyuh:

I can smell it on your breath. Something fruity like what were you drinking?

Dakarai Larriett:

There was no alcohol in here.

Kanyuh:

No? But it’s been at least two hours.

Dakarai Larriett:

There’s no alcohol on me.

Kanyuh:

All righty. Just hop out for me. I’m going to verify, okay.

Taya Graham:

Now Dakarai again politely denied the accusations. As you can see, he’s calm and collected in his answers. The officer did not accuse him of driving recklessly or swerving, instead, he simply ordered Dakarai to get out of the car as he continued to question him. Let’s watch.

Kanyuh:

You do the open carry for protection at all or no?

Dakarai Larriett:

I don’t.

Kanyuh:

Okay. You should, it’s kind of crazy out here. Right back this way for me.

Why are you changing your story on that? I said two hours, and then I said I smell it on your breath, and now you’re denying it at all that’s suspicious to me.

Dakarai Larriett:

I am not commenting any further. I’m not [inaudible 00:05:13].

Kanyuh:

Okay.

Taya Graham:

And so, it appears that based on a “fruity” smell and Dakarai invoking his right not to answer questions, the officer begins what can only be called the most potentially treacherous aspect of American DUI enforcement: the field sobriety test.

Now I want to make something clear before we watch, field sobriety tests are not as scientific as they’re portrayed. The six studies cited by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to justify the use of these tests were not peer reviewed, and reveal a harrowing number of false positives anywhere between 20-40% of the time. Nevertheless, it has become a key tool of law enforcement even though it is important to note that you can refuse to take it. Still, unfortunately, Dakarai is put through a grueling battery of examinations starting with the horizontal gaze test.

Kanyuh:

And then arms down at your side like a pencil dive. Yep, just remain like that and then don’t move until I tie you move. Okay? Do you understand those instructions?

Dakarai Larriett:

Yes.

Kanyuh:

Okay. Is there any reason why you couldn’t stand there like that?

Dakarai Larriett:

No.

Kanyuh:

Okay. Weird question I got to ask you. I’m going to check your eyes. What I want you to do is just follow the tip of my finger with only your eyes. Do not move your head, okay? Do you understand?

Is there any reason you couldn’t do that?

Dakarai Larriett:

No.

Kanyuh:

Okay. Are you wearing contacts right now?

Dakarai Larriett:

I am.

Kanyuh:

Okay. Same thing, just keep following with your eyes and only your eyes. You got to rub your eyes or something?

Dakarai Larriett:

No.

Kanyuh:

Okay. You’re just not tracking it.

How long you had your contacts in?

Dakarai Larriett:

An hour or so.

Kanyuh:

Hour or so? So they’re not dry or anything?

Dakarai Larriett:

They’re fine.

Kanyuh:

They’re fine? Okay.

Taya Graham:

Next, the officer asked Dakarai to do the so-called Walk-and-Turn Test, an assessment, by the way, that can generate false positives 30% of the time and, truthfully, isn’t easy. Take a look.

Kanyuh:

Good.

See this line here?

Yeah, we can use this line.

See this crack? Go ahead and stand on the crack with your left foot on it, and then your right foot in front of it, heel to toe. See how mine are heel to toe? Go ahead and do so.

When I tell you to do so, you’re going to take nine steps heel to toe, when you get to your ninth step, I want you to turn, taking a series of small steps, come nine heel-to-toe steps, back up that line, all the way to nine. It’s important you’re keeping your arms down at your side, you’re looking down at your toe, and you’re counting out loud. When you begin the test, don’t stop until you’ve completed it.

Taya Graham:

Now, even though he performs the test meticulously, the officer persists in putting him through even more stressful examinations. At this point it seems crystal clear Dakarai has no problem with doing exactly what the officer demands, but he still makes him continue.

Kanyuh:

Do you understand those instructions?

Dakarai Larriett:

Yes.

Kanyuh:

Okay. Is there any reason why you couldn’t do that?

Dakarai Larriett:

I don’t think so.

Kanyuh:

Okay, I’ll stand back here, and whenever you’re ready, you may begin.

Dakarai Larriett:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 3, 9.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Kanyuh:

Good.

Taya Graham:

But now, the officer ups the ante. That’s because even though Dakarai passes the so-called Standard Field Sobriety test endorsed by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, the officer turns to a battery of non-standard tests that are even less scientific, raising even more questions about the process that includes asking him to recite the alphabet. Let’s listen.

Kanyuh:

So you know your alphabet? Okay, I’m not having you say it backwards, that’s not a real thing. Can you say your alphabet starting at A as in Adam, stop at R as in Robert, A to R. Do you have that ability? Okay, go ahead and do so.

Dakarai Larriett:

A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R.

Kanyuh:

Good.

Taya Graham:

Then, venturing further into non-scientific territory, he asked Dakarai to count backwards.

Kanyuh:

Starting at the number 99. Can you count backwards from 99 to 81?

Dakarai Larriett:

99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90…

Taya Graham:

But Officer Kanyuh is not done, not hardly, because even though Dakarai passed each test flawlessly, the troop returns to another questionable exam, the One-Leg Stand Test, which once again has been accused of being non-scientific and inaccurate, 30% of the time.

Kanyuh:

I want you to stand just like this again, the same drama we’ve always been doing. Good. Remain like that and then don’t move ’til how to move, okay? Do you understand these instructions? Okay. Is there any reason why you couldn’t do this? No? Okay. Whenever you’re ready, you may begin.

Dakarai Larriett:

[inaudible 00:10:22].

Kanyuh:

Remember to look down at that toe.

Dakarai Larriett:

[inaudible 00:10:36].

Taya Graham:

Now as each of these tests unfold one after another, I want you to think about how Dakarai is feeling.

First, he’s flawlessly following orders. One can only imagine how gut-wrenching it is taking these vague, imprecise, if not scientifically questionable, tests with your life hanging in the balance.

And even though he is clearly under duress, he is respectful and steady, and he is obviously not drunk and not high, and yet the endurance test continues with another scientifically-sketchy request that requires him to decide when 30 seconds has elapsed. Just watch.

Kanyuh:

Go ahead and just take one step forward. Good. Hit same heels and toes touching just like this. Arms down at the side. When I tell you to do so, I want you to tilt your head back, close your eyes, and when you believe 30 seconds has passed, bring your head forward and say stop. Okay. Does that…

Dakarai Larriett:

Closing my eyes?

Kanyuh:

Yep, closing your eyes. When you believe 30 seconds has passed, look forward, say stop. You understand the instructions?

Dakarai Larriett:

I think so.

Kanyuh:

Okay. Is there any reason why you couldn’t do that?

Dakarai Larriett:

No.

Kanyuh:

Okay. Whenever you’re ready, begin.

How much time was that?

Dakarai Larriett:

About 30 seconds.

Kanyuh:

And then how’d you get there?

Dakarai Larriett:

I’m sorry?

Kanyuh:

Did you count 1, 2, 3? You didn’t do one Mississippi or anything like that?

Dakarai Larriett:

No.

Kanyuh:

Okay. So just 1, 2, 3. Okay, cool.

Taya Graham:

And there’s more. Yes, there’s more. The officer, not satisfied, veers into another non-standard test known as the Finger-to-Nose test, which again is non-standard and is not an accepted test from the National Highway Safety Administration. Still the officer persists. Just look.

Kanyuh:

You’re going to keep your hands down to your side, and I’m going to call out an arm, so if I say left, you’re going to take your left arm… This is the tip of your finger. This is the tip of your finger and this is the pad of your finger. Okay? This is the difference. I want you to take the tip of your finger, the tip and touch, the tip of your nose.

Go ahead and tilt your head back and close your eyes. Left, right, left, right, right, left. Good. You follow me.

Taya Graham:

And finally, the officer asks Dakarai to incriminate himself, requiring that he assess his own drunkenness even though it appears he has passed every single test thrown at him. Just listen.

Kanyuh:

On a scale of zero to five, as far as five being unsafe to operate a motor vehicles the most drunk and high you’ve ever been, and then zero being sober, where are you at right now?

Dakarai Larriett:

I don’t know. Is that relevant? I really know what you’re talking about.

Kanyuh:

It is relevant, but if you don’t want to answer it, I don’t care.

Dakarai Larriett:

I have not had any alcohol.

Kanyuh:

Not had any alcohol.

Dakarai Larriett:

I have not.

Kanyuh:

Okay. Now how about marijuana? Did you have had that?

Dakarai Larriett:

Excuse me?

Kanyuh:

Marijuana?

Dakarai Larriett:

I’m sorry, I didn’t understand. What did you say?

Kanyuh:

I said how about marijuana?

Dakarai Larriett:

No.

Kanyuh:

No marijuana? No.

Dakarai Larriett:

Okay. You want to hang out right here for me?

Taya Graham:

Now, apparently the officer has already reached his conclusion about Dakarai’s condition. You can listen here as he discusses it with another trooper who just arrived on the scene. It’s also a rare glimpse into how officers interpret a field sobriety test. Even if, for all intents and purposes, you passed, the point is it seems that no one passes.

Kanyuh:

Booze and marijuana. His eyelids fluttered worse than that guy’s.

Okaiye:

He’s got neck pulsation too.

Kanyuh:

He had numerous clues on the walk and turn like crazy

Okaiye:

I didn’t catch the standard, but you said walk and turn one night thing and all that?

Kanyuh:

One night stand was the wobbles [inaudible 00:14:52] was 23 seconds, fly with flutter, sways. Finger-nose. Terrible.

Okaiye:

What’s all that? Romberg?

Kanyuh:

99 to 81, he stopped at 89. So even his mental, short-term memory. He’s going to refuse and then search warrant, but…

Okaiye:

He’s showing?

Kanyuh:

In the driving.

Okaiye:

What do you think you? You think is just number [inaudible 00:15:14]?

Kanyuh:

I think he’s got a medication he’s not telling…

Okaiye:

He’s got medication and I’m guessing it’s a medication for… He may be… I think he’s got a medication for that. And with that would be consuming substances like THC, marijuana, alcohol, whatever. You know what that does.

Kanyuh:

Yeah.

Okaiye:

Explaining what you’re seeing.

Kanyuh:

His driving behavior, I saw lack of smooth pursuit, but he wasn’t very good at following my finger.

Okaiye:

Lack of smooth, and divided attention, abilities affected. Whenever you speak with him, he’s looking away and moving his head, so I think it’s a combination of THC for sure. I didn’t really evaluate him, but you can definitely see impairment for THC. And then I think in his medications, describing medications affecting it, too. It’s performing effects of I’m going to take them,

Taya Graham:

But let me play some audio for you here that brought to Kari a lot of concern. Apparently at roughly 3:25, officer Kanyuh can be seen on body cam rifling through the trunk of his squad car for about two minutes, and then the video goes dark. During those moments. Officer Okaiye seems to say, “Drugs?” And Officer Kanyuh responds, “I don’t think I have any, I had a stash in your somewhere, but I don’t know where it’s at.”

But you take a listen and judge for yourself.

Kanyuh:

I don’t think I have any.

Okaiye:

[inaudible 00:16:59] in the box.

Kanyuh:

Yeah, I had a stash in here somewhere. I don’t even know where it’s at. [inaudible 00:17:11] Don’t know why he thought, but yeah, I’m assuming weed and alcohol.

Taya Graham:

Now I am unfamiliar with any part of a field sobriety test where an officer needs to search for a stash in his own patrol car, but perhaps Michigan State troopers have a unique investigative technique.

And I do understand, as I said before, that drunk driving is incredibly destructive, but it’s equally pernicious to accuse someone of it who’s ostensibly not guilty, and perhaps even worse is to fabricate a crime to make the innocent guilty. Remember, our system is designed to protect the innocent, and yet those safeguards fail as you what the officer does next when he says, “I’m going to take him.”

Kanyuh:

Is it Dakarai? Am I saying that wrong?

Dakarai Larriett:

It’s Dakarai.

Kanyuh:

Darkarai, I told you the reason for the stop was there’s two red lights. Okay? I know they’re flashing, but that’s still, you have to treat it like a stop sign at nighttime. At midnight the lights turn from red to flashing. Flashing red still means stop.

I walk up to the car and I can smell alcohol, whether it’s you or your passenger, that’s why I asked the question, “Have you been drinking?” To which you responded it was two hours ago, and then you denied drinking alcohol.

Dakarai Larriett:

Actually what you stated was, “Was it at least two hours?” Something like that. You kind of inferred something, but no, I’ve not been drinking.

Kanyuh:

Well, I didn’t mean to give you a leading question.

Dakarai Larriett:

No, but to be clear, I have not been drinking.

Kanyuh:

You haven’t had any alcohol?

Dakarai Larriett:

I did stop. Correct. And I did stop at each of those lights.

Kanyuh:

I do have an on camera.

Dakarai Larriett:

Okay.

Kanyuh:

So it is recorded.

Dakarai Larriett:

All right.

Kanyuh:

Along with all my sobriety evaluations, which have led me to determine you are under the influence and driving. So now I have to bring you in for a blood draw, and then you have to sit a detox window. I can’t let you operate safely, because I don’t believe that you can.

Dakarai Larriett:

Please explain to me what test I failed.

Kanyuh:

Well, they’re not pass or fail, okay? But I’m noticing several signs of divided attention, not being able to focus on the instructions as I’ve given them.

Dakarai Larriett:

Well, I’m being tired.

Kanyuh:

And then fine motor skills being impaired, such as not being able to touch the heel to toe, the rigid body movements, you have sway, and on and on and on. I’ll type up a whole, probably be an eight-page report on this. And then here’s the deal, if you’re right and there’s nothing in your body, everything gets thrown out.

Taya Graham:

He said, “If I’m wrong.” Well that’s an awfully big if, and you will soon learn what happened when Dakarai was tested when we speak to him, and what we showed was just the beginning of the way that Dakarai’s rights and body were violated by these troopers and he will share what happened to him in jail.

But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been looking into the case and going through the documents to report back to us. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So, Stephen, what were the results of the blood test? Was the officer wrong?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, it turns out the officer was absolutely wrong. The blood test showed no sign of any alcohol or anything else. So really it was a completely negative and actually inaccurate assessment of Dakarai’s state at that time. And so really it shows how flawed these systems are for evaluating people. And so yeah, absolutely nothing, zero, negative, although it took five months to find out.

Taya Graham:

Can you discuss some of the questions surrounding the field sobriety tests and what concerns it raises in these types of cases?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I think one of the concerns it raises is pretty simple. You have something masquerading a science that isn’t as scientific as it seems.

If you look at the studies, they were controlled environments that aren’t similar to what happens when you’re out in the field, and they’re also highly inaccurate, like showing inaccuracy rates of sometimes up to 35%. So I think it’s very, very, very critical to look at these with a cautious eye and not be so willing to embrace an officer’s interpretation of some very subjective test and say, “Well that person is drunk.”

Taya Graham:

Stephen, you also researched a strange statement the officer made, which is that he had over 800 hours of field sobriety training.

Okaiye:

Well, like I said, we’re trained in standardized field sobriety evaluations. We’ve had over 800 hours that, and let’s say he’s wrong, let’s say I’m wrong, let’s say that you are completely fine. In our professional opinion through our training experience, we don’t believe you can operate their motor vehicle safely, so it’s our job as we swore to take an oath to make sure that you get home and everybody else gets home safe. We’re not going to chance it.

What we’re going to have to do is we’ll allow you to park your vehicle, let your friend park your vehicle, whatever, we’re not trying to cost you the money, but we do have to take you to hospital, make sure you’re okay, because the substance we believe you’re taking with your medication, and then get the blood draw done. After blood draw is done, you’ll be detoxed and be free to go. There’s no added charges, nothing like that.

Taya Graham:

We researched the updated Michigan field sobriety test. Does that number sound right to you?

Stephen Janis:

Taya, it’s really interesting. What’s required right now is 24 hours of training for officers, including field training and some classwork, so 800 hours seems highly excessive. The guy really is doing a lot of time in the classroom. I don’t know if that really measures up, or if we can say that’s actually accurate, but right now the standard is much, much lower, and so I think questions remain about this entire arrest.

Taya Graham:

So do you have any insight into why these field tests occur at all? I, Wouldn’t it be easier just to do a breath, or urine, or blood tests and just let the science speak for itself?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I think that’s the big, big question. I know officers need tools to evaluate people, and they need tools to come up with probable cause, but we’ve watched so many of these where there’s so many questions and people really seem to pass them on every ostensible measure, and yet they still end up being arrested. So I think there needs to be a full and thorough evaluation of this process to make sure it’s really generating the results that are helpful in the sense that you’re arresting drunk drivers, but not innocent people, Taya.

Taya Graham:

And now to learn what happened after he was detained, the humiliation he endured at the hands of police and the consequences for him. Since I’m joined by Dakarai Larriett. Dakarai, thank you so much for joining me.

Dakarai Larriett:

Thank you so much for having me.

Taya Graham:

So tell me how this begins. Where were you headed before you were pulled over?

Dakarai Larriett:

Thanks for asking. So I was just dropping a friend off at his home.

Taya Graham:

When you were pulled over, how did the officer approach you? Did he describe why you were pulled over?

Dakarai Larriett:

So when he pulled me over, he mentioned that he believed I ran some blinking red lights a couple of miles away.

Taya Graham:

So the officer put you through a sobriety test. Can you describe what that was like for you?

Dakarai Larriett:

Well, it’s funny, I used to be a ballet dancer, and studied at the Alabama School of Fine Arts, and the way he was describing all of the steps, I thought to myself, “Is this a dance routine?”

It started out initially as an inspection of my eyes and my ability to follow his finger, I believe. And from there it became standing in one place, counting, I guess determining my perception of time and space, and a very complex heel-toe routine. I was asked, do I know the alphabet? And from there I had to do A through R. I did a number countdown and that was just with Officer Kanyuh. Officer Okaiye also inspected me and asked a number of different questions about my ability to drive.

Taya Graham:

I’ve tested myself and my friends stone-cold sober sobriety tests and found them difficult. What was going through your mind during this extensive test?

Dakarai Larriett:

So, I was wearing pajamas. It was 3:00 A.M. I planned to drop my buddy off and then hit right back to the house and go to sleep. So I was not dressed for the weather. We have to remember this was Michigan on April 10th, it’s still winter weather, and I was shivering. I was in this dark alley. It was scary. I thought I was about to be murdered, frankly.

So imagine having to do those tests and you’re thinking this is your last moment on this planet. I was thinking of my family. I had been in Cleveland, Ohio earlier that day for the solar eclipse, and spent some time with my sister, and it just really hit me that that might’ve been my last time seeing her or any of my family members, and I thought about my dog.

Taya Graham:

I’m so sorry.

Dakarai Larriett:

Sorry.

Taya Graham:

I know it’s traumatizing.

Dakarai Larriett:

My dog was in daycare, because I was in Cleveland for the weekend for the eclipse and I was just thinking, “What if my dog was at home by himself all this time when something happened to him?” He’s a nearly thirteen-year-old dog, he’s a senior dog, I’m sorry.

Taya Graham:

Trooper Kanyuh said you were wobbling excessively, that you fluttered and swayed during the one leg stand, and that your walk and turn were terrible, and that there were numerous clues that you were intoxicated. In truth, it’s a blessing to have the body camera, because it shows that you held your leg in the exact position you wanted for 26 seconds, on one foot, with not a single error.

When you listen to the body camera, does it shock you to hear what the officer was saying and how he mischaracterized what happened?

Dakarai Larriett:

I guess the other interesting thing for me, and I guess surprise if you will, was what was happening to my friend in the passenger seat. So, that is not in the video that has gone public, and I have not shared that body cam video, because it is obviously altered. All the videos are altered.

In fact, I made my freedom of Information Act request two, three days after this incident. It took them five months to give me video, and there are missing chunks in the video, audio between the officers even when they’re standing next to each other is inconsistent. So it sounds like it was dubbed, and there are sections that are completely missing audio. You can tell they were obsessed with the car, “Nice car.”

It was just humiliation and my survival mechanism was, “Dakarai, you’re not going to win this battle in a dark alley at 3:00 A.M. two cops. You will not. Be quiet, comply. You can win the war because you are going to have all the evidence on your side. You’re sober, you don’t use drugs. All the evidence is going to support your side of the story.”

And I guess that’s why I was so heartbroken when I heard the word “drugs” uttered by Okaiye because then I thought, “Well you can’t even win when you’re doing the right thing. If they had just found the stash, I would still be in jail and my life would be ruined.”

Taya Graham:

So if I understand correctly, you were pressured into a blood draw at the hospital. It was the best thing, considering that you had no drugs in your system, but still you were pressured into it.

Dakarai Larriett:

Yes, I was absolutely pressured to do the blood draw.

And how did I arrive at the decision to do it? Well, I was told that I would get six points on my license and a suspension if I did not comply. But I thought it was so odd that they wouldn’t just give me a breathalyzer, like something objective, besides a dance routine.

Taya Graham:

The way the officers treated you, I thought, was very demeaning, and I hate to bring this up, but you were accused of swallowing drugs and you were made to go to the bathroom in front of Trooper Kanyuh. This officer appeared very polite on the early body camera, but forcing you to do this is violating.

Dakarai Larriett:

Going into the jail, it’s a typical booking process As one was seen on TV, because I’ve never been through this process before, ever, never been stopped like this, but name, all my identifying factors, et cetera, and fingerprints. All that is collected. And then they put me in this machine that looks like something from TSA and they are scanning me, I presume for any type of contraband.

And there is a novice that is running the machine, and very unclear on how to operate it and they identify what they called an anomaly. And from there on throughout the night, I am being sent through this machine, I presume x-rays, again, and again, and again. So I’m not even really lodged, if you will, in the jail. I go to the cell, I come back, I go to the cell, I come back.

Finally, they brought on a technician that seemed like she actually knew what she was doing. She looks at it and she goes, oh, those are gas bubbles. In the midst of all of this going on, Kanyuh goes, “That looks like a bag of drugs! Confess now or you’re going to face a trafficking charge, too!” At some point I’m going back and forth, back and forth to the cell, and I asked if I could use the restroom.

Kanyuh comes behind me and says that’s where I need to go. It’s just this open toilet that anyone in the room can see and he yells, “Don’t flush!” It was so dehumanizing.

Taya Graham:

It seems to me the officer is very performative in his behavior of being a good guy and a professional on camera, but in the jail he really does change.

Dakarai Larriett:

A couple of follow-ups on that.

So, when he was playing the good guy, good cop and Okaiye obviously tried to do it as well, I just want to go back to something you said. They offered to park my car for me. And I was discussing this with the passenger this morning, and we both just like light bulb moment realized that would’ve been the opportunity to plant.

Taya Graham:

So something that concerns me, is that for about two minutes the officer’s really been searching through his patrol car and then he says to another officer that you seem confused, and then he says he’s trying to find his stash. What do you think this means?

Dakarai Larriett:

It’s a hundred percent drugs, and it’s all written there in very plain, easy-to-understand language not even coded. And you really have to think about not only do we have that which is mind-boggling, but the context of it all.

So the context is he spent two minutes digging through his cop car, the backseat, then he moved to the trunk, whatever he was looking for, he wanted it badly. Okaiye comes around to the back of the car probably trying to figure out what’s going on with this guy, because think about it, I’ve been standing in the cold, waiting after the sobriety test while he’s fumbling around in the car.

So Okaiye comes around to see what’s going on. He says “drugs.” Kanyuh responds, “I don’t think I have any, I knew I had a stash in here.” So he connects drugs to stash. Then there’s a little bit of mumbling, but listen to it intently. They then basically make a comment to each other that I’m going to refuse anyway, meaning I would refuse an opportunity for them to get in my car, to search my car, to park my car, and that’s when they ultimately decide “We’ll just charge him on weed and alcohol.”

Taya Graham:

Did their dash camera show that you allegedly ran through this flashing red light? You calmly told them you committed no moving violations. Can you tell me what the dash camera actually showed?

Dakarai Larriett:

I believe the light they’re referring to was completely green, so that one was thrown out. And then the light that they alleged that I did not stop at, the one that actually was red, I pulled two, I paused, I put my signal on and I turned.

Taya Graham:

I read that it took over five months for you to receive your negative drug and alcohol results. Is that correct?

Dakarai Larriett:

At the hospital, I immediately tested negative for alcohol, and because the hospital was connected to my own healthcare plan, I managed to get that report in real time, and pulled it for myself when I got home that afternoon. And then, of course, they confirmed the result to me when I asked at the jail.

Now in terms of getting the drug test results and Michigan State Police’s version of the alcohol test results, that did not happen until the very end of September. But if you look at the timeline in the request for testing, they knew by middle of April that everything was negative, and it seems like they continued to test, and test, and test. I don’t know if that’s a standard procedure or they were just incredulous that I was negative.

Taya Graham:

Can you tell me what you went through during that time, that five months waiting to be proven fully innocent? It must have been incredibly stressful.

Dakarai Larriett:

My first responsibility was to confirm that there was not a criminal matter at all against me, and the case actually was thrown out within a week, but they refused to give me a receipt or confirmation or anything like that until I received that formal test. But I still haven’t received anything that says that the case is a hundred percent closed. I have not.

So two and a half months I did not have a plastic driver’s license card, couldn’t rent a car. I traveled extensively, and I would contact the sergeant, who I believed to be the bosses of the two troopers, almost weekly. Like, “Hey, what’s going on? Did you guys get the results? This is really inconveniencing my life.” And I would get answers that were very opaque, like, “we’re still working on your test” which really confused me and worried me that there was some tampering happening.

Taya Graham:

What do you want as the result of sharing your experience? What do you hope that outcome will be?

Dakarai Larriett:

I made a commitment that when I was mistreated I would use my resources, my privilege, to help those behind me. And I could have easily just walked away, and took my driver’s license, and been fine, but I decided I have got to expose this, I’ve got to get these troopers off the streets, and I’ve already reached out to some major, major law firms and encouraged them to look into what’s going on in Southwest Michigan. I am already protected. I’m not under any criminal investigation, but when I was in that jail, I knew that there were innocent people in there.

Taya Graham:

If you could speak directly to the troopers who arrested and harassed you, what would you want to say to them? What would you want to tell them if you knew they were listening to you right now?

Dakarai Larriett:

I would want them to know that I’m a person. I’m a human being. People care about me. Think about that. Think about what you’re supposed to be doing in your job. You’re supposed to be taking care of people protecting, not inventing crimes.

Taya Graham:

Now, I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning of the show, drunk driving is a dangerous and destructive crime. And I, for one, understand why police departments and the public emphasize efforts to thwart it. Drunk driving deaths account for roughly one third of all traffic fatalities every year. Roughly 11,000 died in 2023 due to people driving while intoxicated.

But also, I think that what we witnessed in the video of Dakarai’s arrest shows the pitfalls of abandoning common sense and sound science as we try to prevent it, or more precisely what happens when a zeal to address a problem with cops and cuffs overwhelms common sense and the nuance that comes with it.

This is certainly not the only false DUI arrest we have covered. There were the bogus charges against a Dallas firefighter Thomas C, who was forced to retire from his lifelong job as a first responder when officers used another specious field sobriety test to accuse him of driving under the influence, because he freely admitted using his doctor-prescribed Adderall. It took him two years to get his test results, which, although they were negative or too late to save his job.

Or we shared the story of Harris Elias of Colorado, a professional pilot who was pulled over and again, thanks to a biased interpretation of a field sobriety test, ended up with false DUI charges, charges that took months to clear, that threatened his ability to do his job, and later resulted in a major civil rights lawsuit.

All of these share some common problems. Cops are overly eager to bring DUI charges, and because of that, ignoring the evidence that is contrary to their opinions. Add to that a very subjective and flawed field sobriety test, a diagnostic process that seems easily susceptible to the concept of confirmation bias, where the officer administering the test already believes the subject is intoxicated, and thus interprets the results to confirm what he already believes, no matter how the person performs.

And yes, there are imperatives that often lead to the incarceration of the innocent. Well-intentioned organizations like MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, run DUI Ticket Competitions that frequently encourage officers to hand out DUIs in order to receive grants, awards, public acclaim, and promotions. Even the most wholesome goals can be warped when law enforcement is incentivized by quotas and financial rewards.

But I believe something else lies deeper at the very root of these bogus arrests we’ve covered, something more profound than just an officer making a bad decision, or not maintaining an open mind about how to enforce the law. I believe that flawed field sobriety tests are just like the other unjust forms of governance that were originally designed to solve a problem, but in the end seem only to perpetuate them. So what do I mean?

Well, Stephen and I have spent a great deal of time reporting across the country on a variety of issues, and that includes our hometown of Baltimore where we spent five years documenting the use of tax breaks to spur development. As you may or may not know, Baltimore is a city beset by poverty and housing segregation that has struggled to stem population loss. It’s often deemed one of the most violent cities in America, and it has some of the highest concentrations of poverty, with thousands of abandoned homes, and to top it all off the highest property tax rate in the state, almost double the surrounding counties.

Put simply much of Baltimore is part of America’s great inequality machine, incapable of producing enough affordable housing or reasonably priced healthcare for all of us, while increasing the amount of wealth concentrated among the top 1%, a symbol in many ways for how our current system consistently fails to address the needs of the many. And to my point about our flawed system for catching drunk drivers, Baltimore’s response has been equally flawed in addressing the root problem that afflicts our community.

As we outlined in our documentary Tax Broke, one of the city’s primary solutions to population loss has been to award huge tax breaks to these developers. These carve-outs have allowed the wealthiest suburban builders to avoid paying the high rate that the city’s working class is regularly subjected to.

And this is no pittance. Some estimate the city has given away billions in future revenues in order to build luxury developments that ironically do not include affordable housing. Instead, future tax revenue that should help pay for critical services and investment in the city’s future has been handed over to the already wealthy.

Now of course, you’re probably asking at this point, “Taya, what are you talking about? How are tax breaks for development related to unfounded DUI arrests? What on earth are the commonalities between a bad development strategy and an overeager DUI cop?” Well hear me out.

Here’s where it all ties together, and I will even give it a title: America is the Land of the Perverse Incentive. In other words, our country and its great neoliberal project have abandoned the idea that the government can do good and productive things. Instead, the elites have exchanged that idea for the false narrative that only incentives laden with cash can prompt real productive behavior.

In this land of perverse incentives, medical companies are incentivized to bill people for diseases that they do not have. As stated in this report by the Wall Street Journal that found billions of dollars spent on patients who did not have the underlying disease that the medical insurers submitted to the government.

In the land of perverse incentives, private equity firms take over stable companies and load them up with debt so they can pay themselves a dividend. Then, they fire staff and neglect investing in the firm itself, selling a carcass to Wall Street for the vultures.

In the land of perverse incentives, people make more money trading money than they do building things like affordable housing. In fact, Wall Street creates huge funds to purchase single-family homes across the country and then they jack up rents, so middle-class families are stuck without options.

And of course, in the land of perverse incentives, cops who make more DOI arrests are given awards, and departments that make more drunk driving stops are given more money, and thus we have the stories we reported before. And finally, in the land of perverse incentives, one of the poorest cities in the country has doled out billions in tax breaks to wealthy developers who don’t need it, in fact, it’s so absurd that luxury condos on top of the Four Seasons hotel in Baltimore received millions in tax breaks for environmental mediation, even though the records we uncovered showed none was done, and that the condos in question were literally hundreds of feet above the ground where the non-existent pollution was actually supposed to be.

All of this is why we end up with sketchy DOI arrests based on shaky science, or a poor city that can’t build affordable housing, but can fund wealthy developers to build luxury apartments. Why a city rocked with poverty is neglected, while a system that monetizes the sick, so wealthy Wall Street investors can get rich over billing them and pushing them into bankruptcy, is called, ironically, health care.

It’s this thread that connects all the dots of the realities that often seem to contradict themselves. Why would the wealthiest country in the world not be able to deliver affordable medical care to all who need it? And why would one of the poorest cities in the country not be able to build affordable housing if it is at the same time capable of giving away a billion dollars of tax revenue to the ultra rich?

All of these questions are worth asking, because the outcomes are just so difficult to comprehend. Being sick should not be a prerequisite to bankruptcy. Being poor should not mean you pay higher taxes than someone who is unfathomably wealthy. Being sober, by having difficulty balancing on one leg, which was decidedly not the case with our guest, should not lead to an arrest charge and a shattered life.

These apparent destructive inadequacies of governance affect all of us. This inability to use the resources of the people to serve the people ensures that we all suffer. This type of incentivized mayhem that finds form in bad policing should make us all question the priority of those who hold and wield the power. It’s incumbent upon us to hold them accountable and remind them that they serve us, not the other way around.

I would like to thank my guest, Dakarai, for coming forward, courageously sharing his experience and shining a light on this abuse of power. Thank you so much for speaking with us.

And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods of the show, Holy D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you.

And a very special thanks to our Accountability Reports Patreons, we appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon Associate Producers, John E.R., David K, Louis P, and our super friends, Shane B, Pineapple Girl, Chris R, Matter of Rights, and Angela True.

And I want you to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @TayasBaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos, it can actually help our guests, and you know I read your comments and I really appreciate them.

And of course, once again, we have to thank our corporate sponsor. Wait, that’s right, we don’t have a corporate sponsor. We don’t take corporate dollars. We don’t run ads, but we do have a Patreon, Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. You know you never see an ad on this channel, and we’re never going to be sponsored, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

My name is Taya Graham and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

The Holguin family’s troubles with the El Paso Police Department began in 2022, when Adzari Holguin, then a high school senior, was asked by relative to film the police while they responded to a call about a domestic dispute. After police became aggressive once they noticed Adzari was recording, her father, Eddie Holguin, stepped in to escort his daughter home. That’s when police staged an illegal raid on the Holguin residence and arrested Eddie and Adzari. After the raid, the Holguins filed a lawsuit to demand justice. Now, they say the El Paso police are deliberately targeting their family. Police Accountability Report examines the evidence, and what this case tells us about cops in America today, who in many places not only operate with virtual legal impunity, but also conduct themselves more like a mafia than like law enforcement.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

Today we will achieve that goal by showing you this video of how El Paso police planned and plotted to retaliate against a family that had sued them over an illegal arrest, a disturbing move by police that ended in yet another questionable set of charges and even more pain for the family that has to endure it.

But before I get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you.

Please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out, and it can really help our guests. You know I read your comments and appreciate them, and I even write back. You see those hearts down there, I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and show what a great community we have.

All right. We’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as we’ve discussed repeatedly on this show, the greatest obstacle to holding police accountable is their power to retaliate. That is, police are afforded unusual latitude and discretion to use the law against their critics. No case better illustrates this idea than the video I’m showing you right now. It depicts the El Paso Police Department surveilling a family they had illegally arrested before, a previous violation of their rights that led to a lawsuit against the department. But after the lawsuit was filed, the police began a protracted investigation into the family. A possible case of harassment that proves our point about how police can target and terrorize the people who push back against them.

The story actually starts in 2022, that’s when high school senior and El Paso resident, Adzari Holguin had been asked to phone police at the request of a relative who had called them because of a domestic disturbance. The relative wanted the interaction recorded to ensure her rights were respected, but when Adzari started to film, the police reacted. Take a look.

Adzari Holguin:

You just grabbed my phone out of my hand and physically assaulted me. Recording is within my full right.

Officer 1:

[inaudible 00:02:25]-

Adzari Holguin:

You cannot have to-

Officer 1:

… just stand back.

Adzari Holguin:

Can I get your name and badge number, please?

Officer 1:

It’s [inaudible 00:02:29].

Adzari Holguin:

No. Can I have your name? If Pinera, okay, but there’s no reason for her to get physical with me.

Officer 2:

If you don’t want to go for interference I suggest you take off. Now. You want to be arrested for interference or take off? Your choice.

Adzari Holguin:

Interference with what?

Officer 2:

My investigation.

Adzari Holguin:

Investigation of what?

Officer 2:

Family violence.

Adzari Holguin:

But what am I doing? Why are you doing this? What am I doing?

Officer 2:

Investigation, ma’am.

Adzari Holguin:

You have to do that.

Officer 2:

Do you want to go in for interference or can you leave please?

Adzari Holguin:

Interference of what? For what am I? How am I interfering?

Officer 2:

I’m give you one last chance.

Adzari Holguin:

How am I interfering?

Officer 2:

Do you want to be under arrest for interference or do you want to take off?

Adzari Holguin:

There is no reason for you to arrest me. Why are you touching her? You cannot touch her.

Speaker 14:

I will not hit you, but `do not touch me.

Officer 2:

All right?

Speaker 14:

I will not [inaudible 00:03:17]

Officer 2:

I want to get you both for interference.

Taya Graham:

After Adzari’s father, Eddie, intervened and escorted his daughter home. El Paso police decided that leaving the premises was not enough. Instead, they raided the family home, cuffed and arrested both Adzari and her father. Just watch.

Eddie Holguin:

Leave us alone. Get the fuck out of here. She [inaudible 00:03:46]

Taya Graham:

Now after this troubling arrest, the family fought back. The charges of resisting and evading police were dropped and they filed a lawsuit alleging the department violated their civil rights. And that case is still being adjudicated.

But roughly one year later, Adzari was home one day when to her shock, she spotted police surveilling her driveway. Concerned, she grabbed her camera to document their actions. Let’s take a look.

Adzari Holguin:

I’m here. [foreign language 00:04:29] I think they took your license plate.

Taya Graham:

The police soon scattered. But the video footage shows what appears to be the officers writing down the license plate number of her father’s work van. Azar confronts them and they refuse to answer her questions. See for yourself.

Officer 3:

[inaudible 00:04:57]

Taya Graham:

Police leave without explaining the intrusion, but that’s not where the story ends. Not hardly. Because roughly one month after they surveilled his van, detectives show up the family residence again.

Adzari Holguin:

Can you call my dad real quick and him know that there’s some cops here? Can you call my dad real quick? Let him know that there’s some cops here. May I ask for your name and badge number, sir?

Det. Armendariz:

Detective Armendariz, number 2720.

Adzari Holguin:

And you, sir?

Detective 2:

Detective [inaudible 00:05:27] 2425.

Adzari Holguin:

Okay, thank you so much. May I ask what you’re doing here?

Det. Armendariz:

Your dad’s an adult, we got to explain to him over here.

Adzari Holguin:

I’m in a adult as well and he’s not here at the moment, so I’d appreciate if you explain it to me. Cause I also live here. Okay.

Det. Armendariz:

Is he here or not?

Taya Graham:

Can I ask what you’re doing here, sir?

Det. Armendariz:

Okay. Easy. I’ll just drop it off with you and give it to him please. Thank you.

Taya Graham:

Can I ask what you’re doing here sir?

Detective 2:

Investigation ma’am, it’s an investigation.

Det. Armendariz:

Criminal investigation.

Adzari Holguin:

For?

Det. Armendariz:

Don’t worry, he’s an adult.

Adzari Holguin:

I’m worrying about it and I’d appreciate it as my public servant if you answered my questions.

Detective 2:

Have a good day.

Det. Armendariz:

Have a good day ma’am.

Detective 2:

Thank you.

Det. Armendariz:

A lovely day outside, isn’t it?

Adzari Holguin:

It would be lovelier if you explained what you were doing here.

Det. Armendariz:

It’s a criminal investigation.

Detective 2:

The department is hiring just in case you’re interested.

Adzari Holguin:

How professional. So professional of servants to not explain their reasons here.

Detective 2:

Have a good day ma’am.

Taya Graham:

Now, Adzari calmly asked them what crime they’re investigating. The detectives again refuse to answer. Why they refuse to justify their apparent secrecy is unclear. It’s a Kafka-esque moment that only raises more suspicions about what police are actually up to.

But the police are not done. Just a month later, they pull over Eddie and Adzari and claim the insurance and registration on his van have expired. Take a look.

Eddie Holguin:

Hey, why right now?

Officer 4:

How’s it going? Officer Burrow El Paso Police Department, sure your insurance, your registration’s expired.

Eddie Holguin:

It shouldn’t be.

Officer 4:

No.

Eddie Holguin:

I’s not. I have insurance and everything.

Officer 4:

No. Okay. My partner’s coming on the other side.

Eddie Holguin:

It’s a goddamn, the accountant. He’s the one that takes care of that not me.

Officer 4:

Yeah. Your work truck, do you work here?

Eddie Holguin:

I’m looking at an address. I live over there.

Officer 4:

Oh, you live over here?

Eddie Holguin:

Yeah, but I’m looking for an address right here.

Taya Graham:

Now Eddie pushes back, but soon police change tactics. First without explaining why, they ask him to step out of the vehicle. Notice that Eddie is nursing an injured arm. And why? Because the last time they arrested him, police pulled him up from the ground as he was handcuffed, wrenching his shoulder and wrist. And now, and you’ll learn more about this later, he shares with us that he can’t fully control his arm or make fine motor movements with his hand. But again, the police don’t seem to care.

Officer 4:

Slowly. Okay, I’m going to see your hands, okay?

Eddie Holguin:

That hurts a lot.

Officer 4:

You put your stuff down, okay sir? You don’t have anything on you, all right? Ahead.

Adzari Holguin:

He’s hurt. He’s hurt.

Officer 4:

Can you step out of the vehicle?

Adzari Holguin:

Don’t hurt him. Please.

Officer 5:

So listen, you have a criminal warrant, okay? That’s why we’re taking you in.

Taya Graham:

A criminal warrant? For what?

Officer 4:

Turn around. Turn around.

Officer 5:

I don’t have the details yet, but they advised that he has a criminal warrant.

If you want to put two handcuffs, we’re going to put two handcuffs is that cool?

Eddie Holguin:

[inaudible 00:08:22] with my hand bro.

Adzari Holguin:

Be careful with his hands.

Officer 4:

Face the van please.

Adzari Holguin:

Please don’t.

Officer 4:

We will take it off. we’ll take it off.

Taya Graham:

Now suddenly police reveal that Eddie has a warrant. What the warrant is for. They don’t initially say, but they commence to arrest him anyway, just watch.

Officer 5:

Don’t reach. Don’t reach.

Officer 4:

Stay in the car.

Adzari Holguin:

I’m, okay.

Officer 5:

She’s in the car.

Adzari Holguin:

I’m in the car. I’m in the car.

Officer 5:

If you want to record that’s fine.

Adzari Holguin:

Let me just have, please.

Officer 5:

What do you need?

Adzari Holguin:

I need his [inaudible 00:08:55] and I need, can I go get it? I don’t want you to hurt me. I’m just,

Speaker 7:

I’ll give it to you right now.

Adzari Holguin:

Can I have his wallet?

Taya Graham:

And now Adzari concerned about her father’s wellbeing. Asked the police the one question they should always be able to answer. Why did they put him in handcuffs? And their answers are revealing. Let’s listen to their responses.

Adzari Holguin:

Wallet.

Officer 5:

I’ll give it to you right now. Give me a minute, okay?

Adzari Holguin:

Okay.

Officer 5:

I’ll give you his wallet and his [inaudible 00:09:20] .

Adzari Holguin:

Why are you arresting him?

Officer 5:

He is a criminal.

Adzari Holguin:

For what? He hasn’t done anything. He doesn’t even leave the house.

Officer 5:

I don’t know about the details. I just know he has a criminal warrant.

Taya Graham:

Okay, so no details, not a single justification for putting someone in handcuffs. Not one iota of evidence, but fortunately for Eddie, his daughter Adzari does not relent. In fact, she demonstrates clear resolve and personal courage that perhaps the officers could learn from because Adzari does not back down, which prompts the officer to pepper her with questions or face losing her family’s van. Let’s see what happens next.

Officer 5:

How old are you?

Adzari Holguin:

I don’t answer questions.

Officer 5:

I’m asking, so you, do you want to take this car or do you want me to impound it?

Adzari Holguin:

No, don’t impound it.

Officer 5:

That’s why I’m asking. How old are you? Do you have a driver’s license so you can take the car?

Adzari Holguin:

I don’t answer questions.

Officer 5:

Okay, just step out of the vehicle for me. If you don’t have a driver’s license, I can’t let you take the van. Okay?

Adzari Holguin:

Let me call someone here please.

Officer 5:

Who are you going to call?

Adzari Holguin:

My neighbor. Let me just.

Officer 5:

How old are you?

Adzari Holguin:

Let me just figure out a way to get this home. We don’t have, just please don’t impound it. I’ll get someone to bring it, drive it home and I’ll sit in the passenger seat.

Officer 5:

It could only be you. Do you have a driver license with you?

Adzari Holguin:

Why does it have to be me?

Officer 5:

I’m not going to ask somebody else. That’s me. Do you have a driver’s license, girl, yes or no?

Adzari Holguin:

But why does it have to be me?

Officer 5:

Because you’re the passenger.

Adzari Holguin:

And? I have a neighbor, I have family, I have friends.

Now, besides the fact that Adzari does not have to answer any questions because she’s in fact a passenger, the officer here is also taking part in what we like to call policing and the inequality divide. That’s because this entire confrontation with Adzari takes place over the disposition of her father’s work van. Basically his entire livelihood hangs in the balance and now the officer is threatening to confiscate her ID and perhaps entangle her in the same web, now closing in on her dad.

Now bear in mind, Eddie has not been accused of a traffic violation. And bear in mind that the notion that the passenger has to drive the truck home is entirely a fiction. Still, the officer continues to threaten to take the van and to extract personal information from Adzari. Just watch.

Officer 5:

All right, can you just step out and you can go wherever you want.

Adzari Holguin:

Wait, let me, because let me just call real quick.

Officer 5:

I’m asking nicely. Can you step out of the vehicle and then call whoever you want?

Adzari Holguin:

Okay?

Officer 5:

Yes. Thank you ma’am.

You’re good to see home?

Can you get a tow truck for.

Adzari Holguin:

Don’t get a tow truck. We don’t need a tow truck.

Officer 5:

So do you have a driver’s license? I’ll be glad to give it to you. Do you have one with you?

Adzari Holguin:

I don’t answer questions. I’m waiting for someone to come pick it up.

Officer 5:

Okay, then we’ll impound it. Ma’am, I’m giving you an opportunity.

Adzari Holguin:

Oh my god, people are insufferable. You get a kick out of being a pig, don’t you? You love making people’s lives miserable. Well, I need to get my things out of the vehicle before you impound it. What do you mean no?

Officer 5:

You can’t do that.

Adzari Holguin:

Yes, I’m getting my.

Taya Graham:

Now this is not where their story ends because there is so much more going on behind the scenes, including the shaky evidence behind the questionable charges, what the family is doing to fight them and why they think the police are targeting them. And these details will be explored when we speak to Adzari and her father Eddie.

But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been reaching out to police and investigating the case. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So first, are the police saying anything about Eddie’s arrest? How are they justifying the charges?

Stephen Janis:

Well Taya, like many police departments that I have tried to press for answers on troubling cases there, huge communications department seems to be disproportionate to what they will say about it. I have asked them, I will continue to press them, but no, they haven’t said anything and they don’t seem like they want to talk even though a lot of people are getting paid to answer questions.

Taya Graham:

So the officer said that the passenger has to drive the vehicle. Is that actually true? And what eventually happened to the van?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, this is for Pinocchios here, Taya. There is no law in Texas as a passenger has to drive away a car that has been either impounded or stopped by police. It is absolutely untrue. It’s totally false. It’s one of those things cops like to do, I think in these situations to suit their purposes, make up laws on the fly. Totally untrue. Totally. Really. I’m obviously disturbingly untrue, but I’ll keep looking. Maybe I can find something, but I really, really doubt it.

Taya Graham:

As we watched the video, I mentioned that this arrest was a perfect example of how law enforcement plays a critical role in our current unequal system. Maybe you could talk a little bit about that.

Stephen Janis:

Well, what’s amazing to me is how police departments want to show us that this is actually true. This has been a theory of ours and we’ve had plenty of examples, but it’s amazing to me how police will go out and say, yeah, I’m going to actually show you how this works. I’m going to take this guy’s van, I’m going to arrest him for something, a crime he didn’t commit. I’m going to put his picture up on TV and make him a scary criminal, who no one’s going to want to hire. So they’re really cooperating and proving our theory. It is unfortunate, it is tragic, it is horrible, but it is the truth. And I think this particular arrest shows exactly what we mean when we say that.

Taya Graham:

And now for more on their protracted ordeal and their suspicions about the motivations driving the El Paso Police Department, I’m joined by Adzari and Eddie Holguin. Thank you both so much for joining me.

Adzari Holguin:

Thank you so much for having us.

Taya Graham:

So my first question for you essentially is to help people understand the video. You and your father were just working on a job, when your car was pulled over. What was the reason that the police officers said they were pulling you over?

Eddie Holguin:

They said that my inspection sticker was expired.

Taya Graham:

Now how does it go from an inspection sticker being expired to you being placed in handcuffs? How does that happen?

Eddie Holguin:

Well, that’s what they told me, but it was kind of weird the way they were acting. They were stalling or telling me to wait and then they’d be going back and forth, back and forth. But what they were doing is waiting for more of them to show up. Because you know how they are that one or two can’t do nothing. They need more than four or five, six of them. They won’t do anything by themselves. They’re too scared.

I guess I can’t really walk real good and my hands all messed up so I can’t really do anything. But then they said that I had a warrant for my arrest for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Taya Graham:

So Eddie, let me follow up with you here. What is this aggravated assault with a deadly weapon that created this warrant? What were these officers describing? What was the alleged incident?

Eddie Holguin:

Two detectives came down here in May 30th looking for me and I wasn’t here, Adzari was here. They asked her but, I think you have the video of that because I wasn’t here. I was working. So when she went to where I was working, she said this cops went to go look for you. Here’s a card.

So I got the card and looked at it and he told me to tell you to call him. Well you know that ain’t going to work. I don’t call him. I got no business calling him. But the next day he called me and then he called me when I answered, he says, “Mr. Holguin?” And I said, “yeah”. He says, “This is Detective Armendariz. And I said, “Yeah”. He says, “You want to give me a statement?” I said “A statement of what?” They said, “Well you know.”, I don’t know.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. He said, “Well, what happened?” I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t know what happened. Tell you, tell me. He said, “Well, they said that you shot somebody with a BB gun.” I don’t have a BB gun, I don’t have a pellet gun. I have no kind of guns. The only thing I was doing was cutting the grass. That’s it. That’s all I know. I never saw anybody out there.

And then he says, I got up to go forward. I told him, that’s it. You’re trying to make chicken soup out of chicken shit. You’re lying. And I hung up. And then on Friday, the next day, that’s when we were coming back from work and that’s when I got pulled over. That they said it was for a sticker. For an inspection sticker, but that’s not what it was. They’re already looking for me. Well, but they know where I live.

Taya Graham:

So let me turn to you, Adzari. During the traffic stop, we are seeing your father being put into handcuffs. What is your understanding of this? What’s going through your mind when this is happening?

Adzari Holguin:

I was so scared. It was like my nightmares were coming true. When they started grabbing at him and then hurting him and arresting him, I didn’t know what was going on.

Eddie Holguin:

That’s why you were recording?

Adzari Holguin:

I was recording for that reason, I felt it in my gut that I needed to record because you can never not record around them. Something bad always happens when it comes to cops. And it did and my mind was so all over the place. I couldn’t think. My only thing that I could think of was to make sure that I kept my dad on camera because I didn’t want them to do anything to him off camera.

Taya Graham:

So you actually shared a photo with me of your father’s arm and wrist being swollen. Eddie, do you want to talk about what happened to your arm and what the injury is and if it was re-injured during that arrest?

Eddie Holguin:

Yeah. Well I have my wrist, it’s all swollen. I can’t use my thumb and this finger. These two fingers? I can’t use them. I can’t move them hardly because it hurts a lot. This is where they hurt me the first time.

When they came three years ago, Gonzalez, that officer or whatever, Gonzalez, she’s the one that pulled me out of the car, started banging me on the car and then she pulled the handcuffs up and messed up my two shoulders and my wrists. I heard something pop in my wrist and it got really bad because they left me handcuffed for 12 hours on that bench over there at the substation.

They’re supposed to only leave me there for two. They left me there 12 before they took me to the jail and took off the handcuffs. And now with this time they left me handcuffed another 12 hours. So it got even worse. I got more swollen and then I had gone to some of the therapy. The next week I went to therapy and they saw my wrist and they said, what happened to you? So I told him, he said, I don’t know. We can’t do therapy, you can’t even move them. Before you started to move them, now you can’t move them anymore.

Taya Graham:

Can you tell me what kind of charges, if any, that you are currently facing?

Eddie Holguin:

I’m facing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Adzari Holguin:

It’s a second degree felony that they’re trying to put on my dad.

Taya Graham:

And I just have to make this clear for everyone to understand. I was absolutely shocked when I was told that you were considered a fugitive. So you’re facing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and you’re considered a fugitive. Can you just explain to me where this accusation came from?

Eddie Holguin:

When they arrested me on Friday, I got out on Saturday about 2:30 in the morning. Then I came home and Saturday in the evening they put on the TV that they couldn’t locate these people and I came out there. But they have already been here in my house. I don’t know how many times. They don’t know where I live? I know they do. They already came two or three times just for this case.

Adzari Holguin:

My dad had been arrested earlier that day on Friday around two in the afternoon. And by the time he got out he was already a wanted fugitive and they were saying that they can’t find him and he came out on the KTSM website and he came out on Channel 10 news. Until this day, it’s still coming up, you can look it up on the website, he’s still listed as a wanted fugitive even though he is already been arrested and he’s already out. It was funny when I saw that, I was like, what? Turn around. He’s right behind you. It was ridiculous.

Taya Graham:

Thank you both for your answers and I really appreciate that you explained to me that even though he had already been in jail and they had already processed him and given him charges, he was still listed as a fugitive. And I think that’s very important for people to know how this can damage your professional reputation or your personal reputation to be listed this way. So I think it’s really important to clear the air here.

Eddie Holguin:

I already lost two jobs because of this. I went to the other one and they told me that they didn’t need my services anymore, because they saw that on the TV. And then the other one, they called me and said that they would call me at a later date to go do some work. So I already lost two jobs. And now I haven’t had any work for over a month. Nothing.

Taya Graham:

So a very significant aspect of this case is that you and your father were suing the El Paso Police Department already for another incident of police misconduct and brutality. I understand you might not be able to talk about the lawsuit in detail, but in your opinion, do you think this warrant and arrest was perhaps a form of intimidation or even retaliation for your family filing a lawsuit?

Eddie Holguin:

That’s what I believe because why would somebody come and say that I did something when I haven’t even been out there? Shooting somebody with a BB gun at 2:30 in the afternoon? I don’t have a BB gun or a pellet gun. Like I said, we were back there taking the blankets off the sweat lodge. Then I came out here to start cutting the grass and that happens. Then two months later, this detective comes and ask me questions, if I want to give a statement. Two months later, but I don’t know anything. Like I told him the first time, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Tells me two months later, I still don’t know what they’re talking about.

I didn’t do anything to nobody. I don’t know where they got somebody to say something about me or how they did it. I believe this has to do with that lawsuit. That’s what I believe. I don’t know for a fact, but sure looks that way.

They don’t have no evidence against me. There’s nothing. That’s why the cops left. And then two months later, what is he doing for two months? Trying to get somebody to sign something to arrest me? Because he has no evidence? Something’s really bad, smells bad.

Taya Graham:

Adzari, one of the things I was so amazed by is that you were barely 18 years old and you handled that situation so well. You started recording, you asked for name and badge number. How did you know how important filming the police is? How did you learn how to do that?

Adzari Holguin:

It’s all thanks to my dad. I had a really good teacher these past few years. If it weren’t for him, always watching the Real News Network, Direct D James Freeman, Audit the Audit, Watch the Watchdog, all of them. We watch them on a daily basis and you kind of pick some of these things up over the years. If it weren’t for that education that I got from my dad, I wouldn’t have known because I didn’t know before. They don’t teach you this stuff in school.

Eddie Holguin:

And I’ve always told my kids, “Don’t call cops. If you see them, don’t get near them. Don’t talk to them. Turn around, walk away. Just keep away from them.” Because those people are no good. They’re really not. And they have, I don’t know what kind of training? Four months of training? Four months! A child walking around with guns.

Taya Graham:

I know this is a difficult question, but I have to ask you, Eddie, how are you coping with this? I mean whether financially or physically or even emotionally, how are you coping with the assault and injury that you had with police three years ago and then this new encounter, which must have been very intimidating?

Eddie Holguin:

It was really hard because, first of all of that happened three years ago. I don’t go out hardly nowhere. Only if I got to go to work and come right back. I don’t go to Walmart because they got cops there. Anytime they have cops anywhere, I will not go there.

I don’t go anywhere. I don’t even go to the store because I’m afraid of those cops. I go out of the house and I’m going down the roads. I see a cop, I’ll turn around and come right back to the house. I’m not even going to the store. Adzari has to go on her bike because we don’t have another car and she doesn’t drive the van. It’s too big for her. So she has to go on her bike to get groceries because I won’t go. I will not go. I’ll just stay home.

And it’s so difficult staying in this house for so long and I had cops coming down here after one year after my mom had passed. I started having problems with cops. They kept coming down here. They had already accused me of other things, but they always go away because I didn’t do anything. I don’t leave the house, I just sit here.

Only time I go outside to the front is to cut the grass. I don’t like to be in the front because a cop passes by, I’m afraid they’re going to stop. The day I cut the grass, I was out there at five o’clock, five 30 in the morning cutting the grass. While it’s still, the sun’s barely coming up because at that time I go out and pray. But after I prayed and I start the lawnmower, because I’m afraid to be out there when there’s people out there because I’m afraid they’re going to show up again. I can’t do this anymore. I hate it here so much. I want to leave, but I can’t. Then they don’t let me work now.

Taya Graham:

I know that was difficult to share and I really appreciate it. My last question is this, if you could speak to the police department in El Paso, Texas, if you could speak to them directly right now and you knew they were listening, what would you want to tell them? Adzari, what would you want to ask of them?

Adzari Holguin:

How dare you? How dare you live with yourself, eat breakfast in the morning, be happy, enjoy your life and sleep comfortably, knowing that what you did to us on a daily basis, to everyone around here? How dare you walk these streets thinking that you’re above us and how dare you believe that you own me and you can tell me what to do and I have to bow down and listen to you? You do not have the right, you do not have the knowledge that I have. How dare you.

Taya Graham:

And Eddie, what would you want to tell the El Paso Texas Police Department?

Eddie Holguin:

Just leave me the fuck alone. Go do whatever you want. Just leave me alone. I do not like them. I can’t stand them. I see them. I want to run away. I start shaking. Why? Because I know how they are. They have a sign on the side of the car that says, serve and protect. Serve and protect who? Yourselves! You sure as hell don’t serve and protect us.

Taya Graham:

Thank you both so much for being open with us and coming forward to share what happened. We really appreciate you.

Now, I think the case we just reviewed is indicative of a phenomenon that plagues this country today and does not get the attention it deserves. It’s sort of an institutional malaise, which I believe leads to the type of police behavior we just witnessed, especially the efforts of cops to silence their critics.

In part it’s simply the cruelty that arises when people are given indiscriminate power they can use to settle personal scores like it appears police did in this case. But it’s also a structural problem that I think arises from a system that cannot care for the people who actually do the work to make it work.

To explain what I mean, I will start with an example. This is a site the El Paso police use to inform the public about dangerous fugitives. It’s supposed to make residents aware of violent criminals who are a threat to the community and are still at large. But as you can see here, the El Paso Police Department also decided to feature someone who seems a little out of place, namely Eddie Holguin.

That’s right! The man we just interviewed, a hardworking contractor, who runs his own business, and has been raising his wonderful daughters, was such an imminent threat to society that the police had to broadcast his image to the world. A man who has worked his entire life to support his family and contribute to society was now apparently an irredeemable criminal.

It is truly shocking to say the least for a variety of reasons. The first one being that it seems based upon the videos we showed you, police actually knew where Eddie was when they posted his photo. I mean, they had his address, apparently. And even if he wasn’t home all the time, it’s not like there was any evidence that Eddie was engaged in some sort of effort to evade them.

And that’s the point I’m trying to make. An aspect of the broader unjust system boiled down into the life of a single man. Because the fact that the El Paso police have thrust Eddie into the spotlight is indicative of how the system itself processes the cruelty that defines it.

In other words, what we’re really witnessing in the case of Eddie and Adzari is how the system that is based upon injustice perpetuates that same injustice in the lives of the people who are forced to endure it. So what do I mean?

Well, think about it after you watch the interview. Is there any logical reason to humiliate Eddie by publicly announcing him to be a menace to society? From what you’ve learned about his life, is there any plausible justification for turning him into public enemy number one? So then why do it? Why turn his life upside down?

Well, think about how I described the criminal justice system just a few moments ago. Imagine what that really means. The idea that there is something else going on inside this process of policing that has nothing to do with law enforcement or public safety.

Think of it as a new form of symbolic exchange. And okay, before you start saying Taya, what the heck are you talking about? Please, give me a moment to explain. Symbolic exchange was an idea postulated by French cultural theorist, Jean Baudrillard. If you’re not familiar with him, he’s a postmodern thinker who coined the term “hyperreality”. For example, a digitally conjured reality with no meaningful anchor or authenticity in the tactile world.

But Baudrillard also thought a lot about capitalism and his theory of symbolic exchange was part of it. In it he argued that symbolic exchange was the process of conferring a benefit on someone beyond a physical good or possession. Meaning a benefit that is not material, but perhaps spiritual or metaphysical, a gift that is enriched through passion and meaning, rather than price.

He argued that capitalism and the material world it creates erodes the value of symbolic exchange, which is one reason he thought contemporary capitalism defined by goods and services was also personally alienating.

But I think his theory could be applied to the present, especially to what we’ve seen in the behavior of law enforcement that we have demonstrated again and again on this show. Because honestly, so much of what law enforcement does in cases like Eddie’s is symbolic, like the most wanted picture. And that symbolism is not only impactful, it can be defining.

And of course I can hear you now commenting in the video saying, Taya, why are you talking about this? I mean, I know you’ve taken some discursions before, but seriously, a French philosopher? Cultural theory? Are you serious? Please just give me another minute to hear me out.

I think if you really drill down into the current state of American society, you can see that the glue that holds our unfair system of inequality together is largely symbolic. And by shaping and controlling the flow of signs, the dominant powers that be can influence perceptions, behaviors, and ideologies.

I mean, how else can anyone explain a system that facilitates private equity firms buying up doctor’s practices and then slamming patients with surprise medical bills that bankrupt them? How else can you justify a country where the top 1% holds $38.7 trillion in wealth more than the combined wealth of the country’s squeezed middle class, which possesses just 26% of it?

How do you explain a country that has seen its economy grow exponentially over the past few decades and still has roughly the same amount of people living in poverty since the 1970s?

It doesn’t sound rational does it? It doesn’t even seem logical. And yet I think it explains quite a bit about how this system works and perhaps how it doesn’t. And why when it does, it swallows the lives of people like Eddie with unquestionable cruelty because the system that rewards unjustifiable wealth can only be justified by something other than logic.

When a reality simply doesn’t make sense, we as human beings often make sense of things through symbolism. Think about how we ascribe so much meaning and import to concepts like love without truly understanding it. But boy, we do represent it through songs and lyrics and what we can’t deduce through logic, we explain through symbols or art or concoctions of poetry, what we can’t justify through numbers or data we explore through imagery and metaphor and art. It’s just the way we’re wired.

But with all human expressions comes the duality of light and dark. This means that when we want to perpetuate an injustice that defies logic, symbolism often makes it work. And in this sense, policing and law enforcement are the purveyors of a symbolic war on the working class all at the behest of the elite. What they can’t justify by the logic of economics, they facilitate with the image of the arrest.

When the persistence of poverty calls into question the system that created it, law enforcement steps in to make the poor unworthy through over-policing and unwarranted charges.

That’s why El Paso police have gone to such extreme lengths to make the lives of Eddie and young Adzari a living hell. Because when us, the people, fight back, we puncture the symbolic logic of late stage capitalism. When cop watchers turn their cameras on cops who harass them, we reverse the symbolic exchange and reveal the true imperative that drives excessive policing. When we make symbols that contravene theirs, they simply don’t know what to do.

Well to make sure they can’t turn our guests into symbols of scorn, I’m going to leave you with this symbol. It’s a picture of Adzari and her father Eddie, two human beings who just want to live a normal unencumbered life. Not criminals, not threats to society, just two shining examples of humanity. And we don’t want the El Paso Police to forget it.

Again, I want to thank Eddie and Adzari Holguin for coming forward to share their experience. I know it was difficult and on a personal note, I wish I was as well-informed and brave as Adzari was at her age. She stood on her rights to protect her family, and I think we can all appreciate that courage.Thank you both and I have to thank Stephen Janis for his writing, research and editing for this piece. Thank you so much, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D. and Lacy R. for their support. Thank you! And a very special thanks to our Accountability Reports Patreons, we appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every single one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R., David K., Louis P., and Lucita Garcia, and our super friends, Shane B, Kenneth K, Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at PAR@therealnews.com and share your evidence. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter and Facebook.

And please like and comment, I read your comments and appreciate them and we will have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

Jennifer Kretschman, a Sacramento school district social worker, was wrapping up her workday when she received a sudden, frantic call from her 17-year-old daughter. Kretschman’s daughter informed her that a black SUV with tinted windows was following her and her stepfather, Kretschman’s fiancé, Jacob Palkovic, on their drive home from school. Kretschman instructed her daughter and Palkovic to come meet her at her workplace, but it was too late. Shortly after the call ended, the unmarked SUV swerved in front of Palkovic’s car. Armed men poured out of the vehicle and pointed their guns at Palkovic and his stepdaughter. Tearing the two family members out of the car, the men failed to announce themselves as members of the Sacramento Sheriff’s Office’s Gang Suppression Unit. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report speak with Kretschman to uncover why her family was arrested, and explore the myriad problems that come from specialized police units and the police culture that makes them so dangerous.

Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops, instead we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing one of the most disturbing videos of police overreach I have ever seen, a violent traffic stop by a gang unit that ensnared a teenage girl and her innocent father. A rare glimpse into the threat that militarized policing poses to our basic constitutional rights, which we are going to break down into all of its problematic pieces.

But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter at tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. Now of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them, you see those hearts I give out down there. And I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what an amazing community we have. And we also have a Patreon called accountabilityreports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated.

All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as host of a show focused on police accountability, I have watched and reported on a variety of horrible arrests and horrifying body camera video. However, the video I’m showing you right now is one of the most problematic I’ve ever seen. Not just because of the aggressive tactics and sheer indifference to the Constitution it picks, but the ugliness it reveals about the state of American law enforcement, a deeply upsetting callousness towards the citizenry that must be witnessed to be believed.

The story starts in Sacramento, California, in September of 2023. There a man named Jacob Palkovic was driving his 17-year-old stepdaughter home from school. As he was driving, he noticed a black SUV with tinted windows following him. Concerned, his daughter called his fiancee, Jennifer Kretschman. She instructed him to drive to her workplace, a local school, for their safety. But before they could arrive, the unmarked truck drove in front of them and a terrifying encounter with a group of plainclothes officers ensued. Take a look.

Jacob Palkovic:

I’m trying to pull into my wife’s work right here, man.

Speaker 3:

What part of stop don’t you understand?

Jacob Palkovic:

Hey Officer, I’m trying to pull into-

Speaker 3:

Get out of the car.

Jacob Palkovic:

I got the car in drive.

Speaker 3:

Get out of the… put it in park.

Jacob Palkovic:

I got the car in drive.

CJ Kretschman:

I’m a minor, I’m a minor, I’m a minor.

Speaker 3:

Get out of the car.

Jacob Palkovic:

Yes sir, I’m coming out. What the fuck? What do I do man? I just trying to turn in my wife’s work-

Speaker 3:

Put your hands on your back.

Jacob Palkovic:

I can’t. I got a bad back.

Speaker 5:

Put your hands behind your back.

Jacob Palkovic:

I got a bad back man. What the fuck?

Taya Graham:

That’s right. A bunch of men exit an unmarked vehicle with guns drawn, pointed at Jacob. There are no police markings on their car and they didn’t even announce that they’re police officers. Instead, they drag him to the ground and proceed to execute a painful and terrifying arrest. Just watch.

Speaker 3:

Don’t resist.

Jacob Palkovic:

Yes sir. What am I doing? I just wanted to get to my wife’s work.

Speaker 5:

Well that was stupid. That was fucking stupid.

Jacob Palkovic:

Dude. I’m not… I [inaudible 00:03:18].

Speaker 5:

That was fucking dumb.

Jacob Palkovic:

I can’t breathe man.

Speaker 3:

All right, he’s good.

Jacob Palkovic:

I can’t get up-

Speaker 3:

Turn around, turn around. Stand up. Turn around and stand up.

Jacob Palkovic:

[inaudible 00:03:33].

Taya Graham:

Now let’s take a second to acknowledge the utter lawlessness of what we’re seeing here and what it means. And I will allege for this particular video, these police officers have not explained to Jacob why he’s on the ground, in obvious pain, being handcuffed. They have not spoken to him at all, they have not articulated a crime or probable cause for violently removing him from the car. Instead, they’ve used force without any foreseeable provocation. An indiscriminate use of police powers that only escalates when they arrest a seventeen-year-old girl. Just look.

Jacob Palkovic:

What the fuck are you guys doing to my daughter?

Speaker 5:

Is this your wife or your daughter?

Jacob Palkovic:

She’s 17 years old man.

Speaker 5:

Well then stop acting like an idiot.

Jacob Palkovic:

Doing it by I’m coming to my wife’s work.

Speaker 5:

Now you’re going to jail.

Jacob Palkovic:

She’s 17 years old, man.

Speaker 5:

Now you’re going to jail. Now you’re going to jail.

Jacob Palkovic:

Why would you do that to a seventeen-year-old? [inaudible 00:04:25].

Taya Graham:

Now, even though police have already handcuffed a man for no alleged crime along with his seventeen-year-old stepdaughter, they are not done showing what can only be described as sheer contempt for the law. That’s because the teen’s mother, Jennifer Kretschman, watches the arrest as it unfolds and demands an explanation, as is her right, but the police are having none of it. Watch how the officers respond and tell me, and I do not say this lightly, are these the heroes that we’re supposed to back without question? Just watch.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Hey, you better get your fucking hands off my daughter.

Speaker 7:

You’re going to stay right there.

Jennifer Kretschman:

If you ever touch my daughter again-

Speaker 7:

You’re going to go into handcuffs too. You’re going to go into handcuffs too if you do not back up.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Name and badge number?

Speaker 7:

Davis-167. Please back up. Please back up.

Jennifer Kretschman:

That is my daughter. Don’t touch me.

Speaker 7:

Please back up, or you’re going to go into cuffs too.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Do not touch me.

Speaker 8:

Let me tell you what’s happening, do you want me to tell you?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Please do buddy.

Speaker 8:

You’re not going to the car.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I would like to check on my child.

Speaker 8:

She’s fine. Let’s go over here.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I just watched her get yanked out-

Speaker 8:

Okay, listen-

Jennifer Kretschman:

17. She’ll be 18 in December. She goes to the Met.

Speaker 8:

So listen, listen. They’re conducting a traffic stop on the car. The car was not stopping for probably the last two miles.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Traffic… Why?

Speaker 8:

I don’t know.

Taya Graham:

So again, the officers on the scene use the threat of handcuffs to suppress dissent. They literally threaten to jail a mother whose only crime is to demand an explanation. No statement of probable cause, no articulation of reasonable suspicion. Only the allegation he had not stopped for two miles, for an unmarked vehicle with tinted windows. But it gets worse, much worse. See for yourself.

Jennifer Kretschman:

They have no right to be in my car.

Speaker 5:

Don’t talk to me, I’ll talk to you. What you need?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Who are you?

Speaker 5:

I’m the supervisor right now. Who are you?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Okay, what’s your name and badge number?

Speaker 5:

I’m Johnson-272. So your car is going to get towed today.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I’m sorry, say that again.

Speaker 5:

Your car’s going to get towed today.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Why?

Speaker 5:

And your daughter and your husband are going to jail. What else do you want know?

Jennifer Kretschman:

My daughter is 17.

Speaker 5:

I don’t care.

Jennifer Kretschman:

You don’t have a right to take her to jail.

Speaker 5:

She resisted arrest and she’s going to go to jail for arrest.

Jennifer Kretschman:

You can’t-

Speaker 5:

I absolutely can. I absolutely can.

Jennifer Kretschman:

No. Why would would you arrest her?

Speaker 5:

Why would I not? She resisted arrest.

Jennifer Kretschman:

She’s 17. You must have a reason to arrest her, a lawful reason to arrest her.

Speaker 5:

Do you understand your husband and your daughter just ran from police for the last seven miles.

Jennifer Kretschman:

They did not.

Speaker 5:

They didn’t?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Run?

Speaker 5:

So the camera wouldn’t lie?

Jennifer Kretschman:

What do you mean run? I just watched you pull my child-

Speaker 5:

We haven’t… Lighted them up, conducting a traffic stop for the last seven miles. They did not pull over.

Jennifer Kretschman:

What? For seven miles? Why did he say two? So get your story straight.

Speaker 5:

Talk to me, I’m the one that pulled her over.

Taya Graham:

Now I want to stop the video right here. Besides the fact that the story has completely changed, her fiance has driven seven miles instead of two as the officer previously stated, the sheriff refuses to answer a fundamental question. What is his probable cause for searching the car in the first place? While it’s true, due to a Supreme Court ruling officers can search cars without warrants if it is on a public street. They cannot do so without probable cause. Just listen again as the officer is asked this question and see if he answers it.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Why did he say two?

Speaker 5:

I don’t know.

Jennifer Kretschman:

So get your story straight.

Speaker 5:

Talk to me. I’m the one that pulled her over, so talk to me.

Jennifer Kretschman:

No, you weren’t. I watched this dude with the beard, pull her out of the car.

Speaker 5:

Which is in my vehicle. So get your facts straight if you’re going to talk about it.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I watched the dude with the beard, okay.

Speaker 5:

Perfect, he’s with me.

Jennifer Kretschman:

That’s the facts and that’s what I saw.

Speaker 5:

Okay. So your daughter is going to go to jail.

Jennifer Kretschman:

My daughter’s 17. Do not touch her.

Speaker 5:

17 year olds can go to jail.

Jennifer Kretschman:

For what?

Speaker 5:

For resisting.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Resisting what? You had no reason to grab her out of the car.

Speaker 5:

Okay.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I know my rights and I know her rights.

Speaker 5:

We’ll discuss… okay-

Jennifer Kretschman:

We can discuss whatever you want, but you’re wrong or you know it.

Speaker 5:

No I’m not.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Yes you are and you know it.

Speaker 5:

So again, again. Again, thank you. Thank you.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Because this is a complaint against you for touching… who is driving my car?

Speaker 5:

Your husband.

Jennifer Kretschman:

What is happening right now?

Speaker 5:

That’s getting towed, that’s leaving.

Jennifer Kretschman:

My car is? Why?

Speaker 5:

Well, if you want to tell me how the law goes, you should already know why.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I don’t have any understanding. I only know my daughter says there’s a bunch of cops-

Speaker 5:

You want to come over here and address us in regards to what we’re doing.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Yeah, because I watched you rip my daughter out of the car.

Speaker 5:

You watched me?

Jennifer Kretschman:

I watched the gentleman with the beard, and you know what I’m talking about.

Speaker 5:

Okay, okay.

Jennifer Kretschman:

But you talking to me this way. You’re here to protect and serve. I’m here working. I get a phone call from my daughter.

Speaker 5:

You should have a good conversation with your husband then.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Okay, I can have a conversation-

Speaker 5:

Driving the way that he’s driving with your daughter in the car, if that’s what you’re concerned about.

Jennifer Kretschman:

What is the driving like? I don’t even know.

Speaker 5:

We have literally been trying to pull him over for the last seven miles. He is not pulling over. It’s called a pursuit. He’s running from officers.

Jennifer Kretschman:

What happened with my daughter though?

Speaker 5:

She resisted getting out of the vehicle. Did you see guns pointed at your vehicle? Did you see guns pointed at your vehicle?

Jennifer Kretschman:

I couldn’t. I was too far away.

Speaker 5:

Okay, so you didn’t see the whole thing going down, correct?

Jennifer Kretschman:

No, but my child’s out here.

Speaker 5:

So are you showing up late the game? Can we make that clear?

Jennifer Kretschman:

I want you to stop talking to me like I’m an idiot, because I’m not.

Speaker 5:

Okay, I’m done here.

Taya Graham:

So that’s not really an answer, is it? What does that mean? What law does that invoke? What exactly does that have to do with meeting the legal threshold to seize and search of vehicle? I am genuinely confused. But now with legal sufficiency cast aside, what do the officers do next? They search the car. No, search is too mild a word, they ransack it. Observe.

Speaker 7:

A bunch of lock boxes. There’s one in the back too.

Speaker 3:

Narcan. She might have dope on her. You might’ve had her stuff the dope somewhere.

Taya Graham:

She might have dope on her. So I think that’s a revealing comment. That’s because the police at this moment know they did not have a legal reason to drag two people from a motor vehicle and put them in handcuffs. It appears they’re looking for a post-hoc justification because it’s revealing what has not been articulated at this point. They didn’t accuse him of speeding, they didn’t claim he was driving erratically, they did not cite expired tags or some other technical violation. Because of their silence, I think it’s safe to infer they saw someone they didn’t like the looks of, and without evidence, arrested them. And as you will see, they turn to a playbook that police used for decades to incriminate otherwise innocent people when they screw up; the war on drugs. See for yourself.

Speaker 3:

I’ll get under that dash on that side real good because you could see that she was moving around, making those furtive movements under here.

Speaker 7:

Oh, a hundred percent.

Speaker 8:

You guys want me to… [inaudible 00:10:58] back to my car.

Taya Graham:

So I just want to stop here for a second. Not to make some caustic comment, but just to read something to remind all of us why this matters. A founding principle, so to speak, that is often ignored or forgotten. The text of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which most definitely applies here. Call it a notification from the constitutional rights emergency broadcast system, if you wonder why I’m doing this. All right, here it goes. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. Now, watch the rest of the search and decide if these officers have ever read this.

Speaker 9:

Are they rulers?

Speaker 7:

Probably not.

Speaker 3:

Can we pop the trunk? Is there a female coming so we can search here?

Speaker 5:

Do you get bus?

Speaker 7:

I got a bunch of burnt foil and then white powder falling out.

Speaker 3:

Where?

Speaker 7:

Right here.

Speaker 3:

Under the dash? Yeah.

Speaker 7:

No, it came out of this. So all that just fell out of here.

Speaker 3:

That was what was shoved between the seat. Yeah, it’s in that envelope.

Speaker 7:

All the dopes in the envelope?

Speaker 3:

Yeah.

Speaker 5:

What is it?

Speaker 3:

Looks like Fetty.

Speaker 5:

Is it.

Speaker 3:

Or Coke?

Speaker 7:

Probably.

Speaker 5:

All right, so both of you real quick [inaudible 00:12:46].

Speaker 9:

All right. She didn’t have nothing on her, I just searched her.

Speaker 3:

Huh?

Speaker 9:

I just searched her, she got nothing on her.

Speaker 3:

Okay. He was trying to hide this then.

Speaker 9:

All right, you want me to close [inaudible 00:12:55]?

Speaker 5:

Into the back.

Speaker 3:

Oh yeah. It’s wrapped up in one of these pieces of paper.

Taya Graham:

Mm. So it looks like Fenty or Coke. Interestingly, the officer who has just discovered drugs does not actually show to the camera what he has supposedly discovered. They don’t even seem concerned about preserving the evidence, something that will make sense later as this story unfolds. They don’t even put on gloves or take precautions to protect themselves from these dangerous drugs. But for now, they continue to pull apart the car amid innuendos that there are drugs. A process that includes a male officer physically searching a seventeen-year-old girl. Take a look.

Speaker 5:

All right, so both of you can go back here then.

Speaker 9:

All right. She didn’t have nothing on her. I just searched her.

Speaker 3:

Huh?

Speaker 9:

I just searched her. She got nothing on her.

Speaker 3:

Okay. Looks like Xanax.

Here look under this seat on this side again under though, because he shoved this notebook, was helluva shoved all the way down.

Speaker 5:

In there?

Speaker 3:

On that side, driver’s side.

Speaker 5:

You’ve already found it over here?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I already pulled it out. Looks like it might be Xanax.

Speaker 7:

Crushed out Xanax?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, if you look, there’s zanie bars in there too. It’s wrapped up in that yellow notepad paper.

Speaker 7:

[inaudible 00:14:14].

Speaker 3:

Did you see anything there?

Speaker 5:

Is he on status or anything? Olson?

Speaker 9:

They haven’t ID’d him [inaudible 00:14:34] .

Speaker 5:

Well what the fuck are they doing?

Speaker 7:

You’re getting her ID? She’s not [inaudible 00:14:34].

Taya Graham:

I want to freeze this frame right here and look at the documents the police had seized. A voter registration form. Now what makes this worth noting is something we have argued on the show over and over and over. Bad policing is meant to discourage civic participation. Corrupt cops erode our political efficacy. And as you will hear later, that’s exactly what happens. But even with intrusive searches yielding nothing, police continue, seemingly fixated on punishing the family. Just watch.

Speaker 7:

Somebody moved it on top of this seat. So where did this notepad come from originally?

Speaker 3:

Stuffed in the side.

Speaker 5:

Driver’s side.

Speaker 3:

Driver’s side. It was stuffed in between the seat and this center island.

Run these two names. Jacob Palkovic.

Speaker 9:

That’s the driver.

Speaker 7:

DJ?

Speaker 5:

What?

Speaker 7:

He’s got mail in his name inside of here.

Speaker 5:

Okay.

Speaker 7:

Put it on my camera.

Speaker 3:

And foil.

Speaker 7:

And burnt foils.

Speaker 3:

Did you open that up, were they zanie bars?

Speaker 7:

They looked like zanie bars. I opened it up maybe more than you did now.

Taya Graham:

Well, I’m so glad the officers found this whole thing funny. Truly. I’m glad that terrorizing two innocent people and then tearing apart their personal possessions is humorous to them. I think we can clearly see how police regard us, the public. How little they take into account their harmful actions can literally turn our lives upside down. But one thing they are aware of is the body camera. And now amid a fruitless search, the supervisor asks an interesting question. Are you still on? And after he asks it, the officer turns off his camera. Just watch one more time.

Speaker 3:

I’m on.

Speaker 5:

[inaudible 00:16:18]

Speaker 3:

I’m finished searching.

Taya Graham:

Now the supervising officer says something we can’t hear and the officer turns off his camera. I wonder why. But there is much more to this story than what you just witnessed on the body camera. And that’s because after all the invasive searching and aggressive tactics, I think you’ll be surprised, or perhaps even shocked, at how police charged this case. And for more on that, we will be joined by Jacob’s fiance and the mother of the teenager swept up in this arrest, Jennifer Kretschman. But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been looking into the case and reaching out to the sheriff’s office and researching the law. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So first, what were the charges and what is the sheriff’s department saying about the case?

Stephen Janis:

Well Taya, the charges are really questionable in this case. They charged him with evading, simply not stopping for a police vehicle, which as you can see in the actual video, there’s a lot of questions about that, which I’ll get to later. But in terms of the sheriff’s comments, we sent them an email, they have not responded yet. But really I think on this scene, the sheriffs made clear what their comment was about this arrest, which is contempt for the public. It was pretty clear they didn’t want to answer questions… Actually scratch that, they were just basically defiant, saying we don’t have to explain what we’re doing to the people on the scene. So there’s your comment. If I get anything more, I’ll mention it in the chat.

Taya Graham:

Now that seems like something that would be a secondary offense, right? Doesn’t there need to be an underlying crime to justify that?

Stephen Janis:

You know Taya, it’s really interesting because basically evading is a crime of intent. So what are the components of intent? The components are that you’re being pulled over by marked police car with officers in police uniforms. And if they’re not, one of the defenses is you can say, “Hey, I didn’t know it was a cop car.” And I think in this case, with the evidence that we’ve seen on video, I think that defense could hold up. In fact, I think it’s preposterous that they charged them with evading, when they clearly weren’t dressed like police officers. They were just randomly touting guns, jumping out at people. In this era when we have a lot of road rage and crazy stuff happening, how can you blame someone for being scared and not wanting to pull over? So really I think intent is a big question here, and I don’t think these charges will hold up anywhere.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, we’ve reported extensively about the destructiveness of specialized units and militarized policing. What is your take on this in the context of aggressive policing and its impact on communities across the country?

Stephen Janis:

Well Taya, let me quote the famous Frank Serpico who uncovered police corruption in New York City police department in the 1970s, said, “There’s no such thing as a crooked cop, just crooks and cops.” Well, I will say this about specialized units, people in jeans and T-shirts running around randomly pulling people over, pointing guns, are not law enforcement. They’re not enforcing law, they are lawless. And this is the problem with specialized units. They inherently, aesthetically, are lawless and they do things that endanger people. They don’t help us with public safety, and I’ve covered so many of them, I can’t even count. It is a bad way to police, it is destructive for the community and it needs to end.

Taya Graham:

And now to learn how she has been fighting back against police overreach and how it’s impacted her family, and what she plans to do to hold police accountable, I’m joined by Jennifer Kretschman. Jennifer, thank you so much for joining me.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Thank you for having me.

Taya Graham:

So let’s just start at the very beginning so we can help people understand what happened here. You were at work and you received a frantic phone call from your daughter. What did she say?

Jennifer Kretschman:

I’m sitting at work. I get the phone call and I’m like, “Where are you guys?” Ready to just tell them… because they’ve probably stopped and done something. And she’s like, “Mom, mom, we’re being chased,” or followed, I don’t remember the exact verbiage. But I’m like, “Slow down, tell me what’s going on.” I can’t really understand her because it’s like muffled, like arguing or something. I learned it wasn’t arguing, it was just like, “What’s going on? Turn around.” And I could hear him telling her to look and see, “Look at them, tell me are those cops? What’s going on?” She’s like, “Mom, I think that we’re being pulled over.” I’m like, “What do you mean you think?” I wasn’t understanding. “What do you mean you think, is there a car behind you? Is it a cop car? Does it have lights on it?” And well, she’s like, “I can see lights in the window, but I don’t think it’s a cop car.” And I’m like, “Well, you have to be able to see the sides of the car.” And she was like, “Jacob, go to the side.”

And she’s trying to tell him to get over a lane and he wouldn’t get over a lane. He was just at that point was just focused on going straight, figuring out what’s going on and trying to get to my work. And I said, “Where are you?” And she’s looking around for identifying landmarks and she said, “We’re almost to your work.” “I’m going to head towards parking lot right now, and you guys just pull into my work.” And I’m thinking that either if it’s a cop, they’ll just slowly pull into the parking lot behind my work and that’s the biggest thing I’m going to have to deal with. If it’s someone trying to carjack them, when they turn into a busy parking lot they’re probably just going to speed ahead.

And then as I’m approaching, and I’ve lost track of where CJ went, which is my daughter, and I can see a scuffle on the other side. And I see other vehicles, actual police vehicles coming onto the scene now. So I’m really confused because what went from, “We might be getting pulled over,” it went to this huge police scene in a matter of less than a minute. And so when I get there, I was not the calmest, I will say that. I see men in my car digging through stuff. I see a guy with her pink backpack in his hand and he’s going through it. He has a baseball cap on. I’m assuming he’s some type of undercover person at this point because there’s multiple police cars. And I said something probably not very appropriate, but get your hands off my daughter with some foul language in there. And then he threatened to arrest me, pushed me backwards, and I’m like, “Okay, I just need to get to my daughter.”

Taya Graham:

Something I think that’s really important to explain is how your family perceived the car following them. The police described their driving to a safe place, the parking lot of your workplace as evasion. So I would assume your husband was driving the speed limit and obeying traffic rules as he drove roughly one and a half or two miles to your workplace. Tell me, how did your family perceive the men in the car?

Jennifer Kretschman:

From what I understand, Jacob started noticing this black SUV with guys in baseball caps. I want to say some had them forward and some had them backward and he swears he could see the barrel of a gun. And so then she’s like, “I’m calling mom.” And so these men, there’s no badges, no uniforms, they have on baseball hats, sunglasses, what they learned later were bulletproof vests. In the police report it says, it says Sac Sheriff in big yellow lettering on the front and back. That was not true. You could see a Sac Sheriff in black lettering kind of from behind, and I have multiple videos of that as well. When they got out of the car and I could see them, they were wearing jeans and Converse tennis shoes. One guy had on khaki cargo pants… nothing would’ve told me they were law enforcement.

Taya Graham:

Why did your fiance respond this way to the men in the car? I could understand him thinking maybe it was a road rage incident or even a carjacking.

Jennifer Kretschman:

So Jacob is from South Phoenix. He has had a history. He has had many experiences with law enforcement. He has tattoos on his neck and on his arms and on his body, so he knows what it’s like to be profiled. So he knows law enforcement side, he knows if it’s gang members, he knows that in no scenario is this a good scenario when you have a group of men that don’t look like law enforcement asking you to pull over, because they’re nudging and he can see them all doing like this, or something like that. And so that’s why CJ was so scared and confused because she’s like, “If it’s law enforcement and you don’t pull over, this is bad. If it’s a gang and you don’t pull over, we’re going to get shot.” The first man said they were in a high-speed chase pursuit for two or more miles, which that’s not even possible, but I was like, “Okay.” And then Johnson, the driver of the vehicle, said they had been chasing him for seven miles. When the police report actually came out, it said one mile, 1.1 miles or something like that. According to CJ and Jacob, it was about a mile.

Taya Graham:

So your family wasn’t actually accused of any traffic violations, right? What traffic violation did your fiance commit to get pulled over? What was the crime that led to these charges of resisting arrest?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Taya, that is such a wonderful question. One that I asked many times throughout the entire incident that was never answered. In fact, when it was answered, it was they resisted arrest. “No, no, no. I want to know why they were being pulled over.” “Because he wouldn’t pull over.” “No, no, no. Why was he being…” Not one time… hold on, let me clarify. At one point in time he goes, “Well, he doesn’t even have a driver’s license.” And I said, “He has two. He has one in Arizona and one in California. I know when we went from one state to the other that he got… I remember I was there. So, no.” And that was the end of it as far as them attempting to tell me a reason for the traffic stop initially. I got nothing else.

Taya Graham:

There are so many things that I found problematic with the arrest and the treatment of your family, but the way you were treated was, let’s say less than courteous. How did the officers respond to your questions and your concern about your daughter who was a minor, and would you say the officers were being professional?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Well, there was a lack of professionalism, but they responded as though I was the criminal. They responded as though my daughter and my fiancee were criminals, and… well, they told me they were. They told me they were, I would say 10 plus times, they’re going to jail. Your daughter, your husband, they’re going to jail. And every time I said why I got no response. I was told to stand back, stand in the shade, stand under the tree, get out. I was told I was interfering with the investigation. But literally when Detective Johnson came up, and he was the supervisor on scene, I said, “What is your name and badge number?” And then told me I didn’t know the law, I’m coming late on the scene, I didn’t have my facts straight, and then proceeded to tell me that they drove seven miles in pursuit. They just treated me horribly. I would never want them to treat anyone this way. They searched my car illegally and then they towed it, towed my car. It was just like the icing on the cake. They had gone through this whole scenario and in the very end were like, “And we’re going to cost you a thousand dollars just because we effed up.” And I think it was just to make it look like they did something legitimate.

Taya Graham:

I assume your car was being searched without your consent. And when you reviewed the body camera footage, were you surprised by the things that the police said? For example, they said they found Xanax bars in a piece of paper and tin foil that was burned and white powder residue, and yet none of this evidence was ever shown on camera. And you and your family were not charged with drug possession. Surely if there were drugs in that car, they would’ve charged you as the owner.

Jennifer Kretschman:

No, there were no drugs in our car. There were no tin foils in our car. We had lock boxes in our car. And this is… I should have mentioned this when you asked about the treatment of us. We do Turo, I don’t know if you’re familiar with that, it is like Airbnb for cars. And so basically it’s people can come and rent your car, and they pay you just like Airbnb if they came and rented your house. And so we have two or three cars that we have done this for just as a little side income. And so they have a lock box when people come to come rent your car, they get the key out of it and drive away.

Well, they came over and when he’s telling me all of this about the drug paraphernalia, I’m like, “What? What?” And then he asked about the lock boxes and I think he thinks that that’s some sort of drug hiding place, or I don’t know what he thought it was. But I’m like, “No, we Turo our cars.” And so then when I watched… they had a piece of body cam footage where they’re talking about us and I could hear it in the background. He goes, “Do you think they’re realtors?” “No.” And they’re laughing about us. We’re not good enough to be realtors or something.

Taya Graham:

So interestingly, I thought I heard an officer say to you, “If you keep asking questions, you can go to jail too.” Did I hear that right? What did he actually say to you?

Jennifer Kretschman:

You did hear that correctly. That was, I believe, Masterson. Yes, you heard that correctly. And the way I gauged it, he really looked up to this Gang Suppression Unit, like they were the cool guys. And so he was repeating all the stuff they were saying to him. And it was so maddening and I was nowhere near… well, there was no scene. Anyways. And that’s the thing, you had asked earlier too, when I saw them searching my car, I literally said to them, I’m like, “Stop searching my car. Get out of my car. I do not give you permission to search my car.” And that’s when they told me there were multiple reasons that they could be searching my car right now.

Taya Graham:

I heard the police officer say something interesting. He said, when you were concerned about the way your daughter was yanked out of the car, he said, “I wouldn’t be mad at the police, I would be mad at your daughter.” And they also made fun of your daughter saying that she was a minor. How did their discussion of your daughter and their treatment of her make you feel?

Jennifer Kretschman:

To be honest, I had never even heard what you just said. I didn’t hear them making fun of her like that. I saw it and I saw them not caring about me getting to her, and evidently she was asking to see me the whole time too. She could hear me asking for her and she was crying and they wouldn’t take her to me. And so I literally told them about her trauma too from when she was a child, and how I needed… I just wanted to be with her even if it meant I had to stand outside of the car. Because in the beginning I didn’t know, I knew she didn’t do anything wrong but I didn’t know. And for them to make fun of her…

What’s horrible too is there’s not one snippet of body cam footage with her being arrested… anything that happened to her. And I’m assuming that was intentional because in the court case they said only one of the arresting officers was wearing their body camera, which wasn’t true. They had not one image of her body camera, of an officer arresting her. And I’m worried that they’re going to see that or the public’s going to see that, and think badly of her and have opinions about her, and not consider the fact that she’s still a 17-year-old who’s being manhandled by these large grown men. They called her the B-word, and that’s what she told me, as they were arresting her. And they told her she was going to jail, there was no question about it.

And then they put her in the back of a police car, drove that police car away from me to the parking lot, and they allowed a male officer by himself, behind a door, to search her, physically search her. And that’s where her abuse is. They kept saying she must’ve stuffed the drugs somewhere. They threw her in the back of a police car and left her there and had some uniformed officer check in on her once or twice. And every time they promised that she was going to be taken to me and she wasn’t brought to me until the very, very end, which was probably close to an hour later. I know she has PTSD and I know that she needs me right then.

Taya Graham:

I’m so sorry. It is so terrible to hear about your child being spoken about like that. How long was this whole process and were any of your family taken to jail and what were the charges?

Jennifer Kretschman:

So from the time I got the phone call, which was about 16:40-ish, until the very end of the incident when my whole family was returned to me, was how I see it, was about an hour. No one was taken to jail. An ambulance came for Jacob because he couldn’t breathe. He was in the midst of a panic attack and he had injuries from when he was 18. They searched him again. They walked to the back of the… I think he was going from the police car to the EMTs and they searched him again, searched very well, because they were so insistent that they had to have something. Of course, I have nothing.

And then when they walked over, at the very end Jacob comes walking to me, he’s a mess. CJ is just frazzled and just like, “I want to go home. I want to go home.” They say, “You can’t take your car. Your car is being towed.” And then of course I said, “Why?” But then I just stopped because I was so grateful that I had my family with me, I didn’t care what they did with my car at that point in time. And I didn’t want to say anything that would jeopardize anyone going to jail. And he was charged with evading a police officer, failing to yield to a police officer and resisting arrest.

Taya Graham:

So how did you handle the charges?

Jennifer Kretschman:

He went to court in December. They wanted to see what he wanted to do and he said I wanted to fight it, and he would not agree to a guilty plea. And so we met with the public defender who said absolutely, and tried to get the body cam that she couldn’t get it the first round, they wouldn’t release it to her. The second round they only sent over some of the uniformed officers. And so evidently at some point in time she was able to get some other body cam. And on the day of his court case, she called and said that the district attorney had watched the video footage and said that the cop’s behavior was insane and that the charges were all dropped.

Taya Graham:

How much has this cost your family financially or emotionally? What has the personal cost been? I know this has been traumatic for your daughter.

Jennifer Kretschman:

There’s all sorts of costs to this. One, it’s emotional and psychological. And I don’t even know if that’s the right word for it, but at work I feel like everyone looks at me differently, treats me differently. No one even confronts me about it. And I didn’t even take it back to my office and show anyone until the charges were dropped, because I was so afraid that they wouldn’t believe me because they probably wouldn’t. Law enforcement’s never wrong. So it’s cost me… For me personally, there’s no amount of money that I could say because that’s my reputation and my livelihood and it’s my work.

It’s cost my daughter her graduation with her peers, her friends. She honestly just totally withdrew the whole first semester. And she wouldn’t blame it on this because kids I don’t think can correlate the dates, see how things happened, but it was so obviously that anyway. So the whole last five months of her life have been in disarray.

The tow and the actual costs were about probably $1,200 in the end when the four or five days without the car. So in October I was like, “I don’t know why I am feeling so stressed and I can’t seem to focus at work and all of this stuff.” And so then I started seeing a therapist, CJ went back into therapy and Jacob started seeing a chiropractor and all of that. There’s all of those things too.

Taya Graham:

When we were talking earlier, your request from the police was just so small. You just said it would be fair for your family to be reimbursed for the money you lost due to your car being impounded, but honestly, I think you deserve an apology from the department. What would you want to say to the officers if you knew they were listening to you right now and what would you want from the department?

Jennifer Kretschman:

I would want to tell them that when they went into law enforcement, their goal was to truly protect their community and serve their community, then they were not meeting their goals. I would want them to think about if it were their mother or their daughter or their sister or their brother, that was just coming home from school, drinking a mango smoothie and to be attacked and harassed by a group of men. My daughter had a gun pointed at her head and so did my fiance. It’s like they had real life guns that could kill them pointed at their heads. I don’t know the fear that that brings because that hasn’t happened to me, but I can imagine that they will never feel safe again, especially because these are the people that are supposed to be protecting you. So it would’ve been better if they weren’t law enforcement and they were a gang because at least we would be able to feel safe in our community afterwards.

Taya Graham:

We noticed that the police picked up a voter ID card in the body camera footage. And what is such a coincidence to me is that when people are arrested or harassed by police, they lose their political efficacy and they feel like they don’t have any impact on government and their voice doesn’t matter, and so they stop participating. And it’s actually something I wanted to discuss.

Jennifer Kretschman:

This is the first time I haven’t voted. What does it matter anyways? That’s literally how I feel now. I used to be so one-sided and now I just don’t even care. And I’m not to say anything against all the work that you guys do, I know that… And that’s why I’m putting this out there. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of me or my family, things have to change. They just treated us like we were trash. And I don’t know, like we were criminals, but I don’t even think criminals should be treated that way. We’re just all human beings trying to get by in this world, but these are not the people I want protecting my community. That’s all I can say.

Taya Graham:

Now, I have so many thoughts on the actions of police that we just dissected for you, I barely know where to start. It is so hard to really put into words how troubling it is to witness police perpetuate this injustice against two innocent people. But since it’s part of my job and the promise we make at the beginning of the show to do so, I’m going to try.

So the first point I want to make is fairly straightforward. There is no explanation or excuse for what we just watched on the body worn camera. There is no justification that law enforcement can conjure to burst out of a car with guns drawn in plain clothes to terrify this family. So let’s just dispense with any pretext or police propaganda for the moment.

What I really want to parse here has nothing to do with weighing the police explanation versus the extensive interviews and reporting on this story. Instead, I want to talk about the idea of cruelty. Now, I know that sounds odd. What does the concept of cruelty have to do with a flawed, if not illegal, traffic stop? I mean Taya, this isn’t a philosophy class. Well, let me explain. When I watched these videos and spoke to the family, I was struck by how casually these officers deflected the concerns about their lawlessness, their disregard for how disruptive their actions were for the people on the receiving end was just stunning. But what hits me even harder is the outright contempt the cops had for the people in that car, that even after they had screwed up, they continued to double down and became, for lack of a better word, meaner. Simply put, they became cruel.

It was a glimpse into a reality we all know about. But it was so stark and transparent that it left me with another alarming concern. That this example of overly aggressive policing, so easily dismissed by the people who execute it, is as much a threat to our way of life as the crime it purports to stop. Just consider the words of Jennifer, our guest, when she said, “We’re all human beings trying to get by in this world.” It’s an important sentiment echoed by the 19th century German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, who wrote a book called Human, All Too Human. It’s a collection of aphorisms that touches on all aspects of simply being human. And in it is a quote that I think is applicable to the ordeal we have reported on today. Nietzsche wrote, “The mother of excess is not joy, but joylessness.”

And that’s what we witnessed on the body worn camera, the excessive use of police power and the joylessness that ensues from it. The trauma, the economic harm, the psychological duress are all the result of excess law enforcement. The fear, the terror, the civic paralysis rooted in the act of police overreach. It’s a collection of social ills, so disturbing, that I think the question actually is, do we really understand how this aggressive form of law enforcement affects us in ways both less obvious and sometimes completely unacknowledged? Because while I don’t truly know how effective or even useful this style of policing is, I do know it is clearly and unequivocally dehumanizing. It is, put simply, not an instrument of justice or process of public safety, but a strategy to turn citizens of a democracy into supplicants of a police-driven autocracy. That’s right, because any civil society where police can do that to innocent people is simply not as free or as fair as advertised.

Now, don’t get me wrong, we live in a democracy. Our voices matter. Our rights matter. What we do matters. But democracy is fragile and it can easily be eroded by bad actors who don’t respect its principles or believe in its importance. Therefore, all I can conclude from what I’ve watched, is that these officers could care less about it. They seem to me completely devoid of respect for the law, comprehension of the constitution, and more importantly, why it all matters. And even more troubling is that they are the agents of excess that drain our lives of the joys of freedom. They simply seem disconnected from the truisms and the beliefs that tie us all together, our humanity. They seem to believe that the law is predicated upon vengeance, violence and cruelty, not the idea that we are all presumed innocent. It’s a tool to harass, terrorize or otherwise menace people that you don’t like, instead of a shared set of rules that govern all our lives. Not negotiable boundaries that can be crossed just because you have a gun and a badge. That’s not how this social contract is supposed to work.

I know this is strong language, but watching those cops is like seeing a collection of fascists within our midst. Not law enforcement officers, but rather inequality warriors who only want to divide us, cage us, enrage us and conquer us. And as our guest told us, she was so shocked and demoralized by the behavior, she didn’t even vote. Now, how’s that for backing the blue?

But at the same time, we should also take another lesson from this disheartening example of police abuse. We must remember that we have the tools to fight back against this roving oppression. We, the people, can counter the cops who think by illegally putting us in handcuffs, they have defeated us. Well, let me be clear. They have not, they cannot, they will not. And how do I know? Because I am here telling you this story. Because even if these officers feel they can freely violate the Fourth Amendment, there is still a First Amendment that stands in defiance of them. And it lives here on this show and on this channel, and it lives in Stephen and it lives in me, and it’s in our hearts and our minds that we are determined to use it to inform you. We can ensure that the actions of these officers are not kept secret from the public. We can produce this show, highlight the evidence, expose the wrongdoing, and otherwise inform the people who matter; you, our viewers, our community, the people who believe our rights matter.

I know all of this might seem underwhelming when pushing back against men with guns and badges and a decidedly bad attitude. Maybe that the power of the pen might seem somewhat insignificant against the cowardly bravado of four plainclothes cops in a tinted SUV, but don’t underestimate that power. As one of the people who wrote the Constitution intended to preserve our rights noted, the pen is indeed mightier, and let’s show the powers that be how that works.

I want to thank Jennifer for coming forward and bravely sharing her experience with us. Thank you, Jennifer. I wish you, Jacob and CJ the very best in receiving the apology your family deserves. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you Stephen. And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you Noli D. And a very special thank you to our Accountability Reports Patreons, we appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R, David K, Louis P, Lucida Garcia, and our super fans, Shane B, Kenneth, K, Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly at tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment, I do read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have our Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountabilityreports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

Jose Palomares, an off-duty cop, was moonlighting as a security guard at a homeless services center in Fort Worth when a dispute arose over $20. Officer Palomares chose to intervene—immediately accusing the man who believed he’d had $20 stolen from him of being a drug dealer. After calling in the drug dogs and conducting an illegal search, Palomares failed to find sufficient drugs to justify his accusation. Instead of letting the man go, Palomares then decided to pressure his arrestee into becoming an informant. Police Accountability Report discusses the shocking footage and what it tells us about the ways police wield their power against the poor.

Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you, not telling you, why police need to be watched, because the shocking video you are seeing now reveals how police abuse their power to harass the poor, and when confronted about their overreach, turn to arrest to shut down dissent.

It even depicts how police can turn the power of law enforcement to recruit the downtrodden into a weapon against others. All of this we will break down for you of this harrowing encounter caught on body worn camera, but before we get started, I want you to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com, or reach out to me directly on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you, and please like share and comment on our videos.

It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests, and of course you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there, and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. And of course, we have a Patreon Accountability Report. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, I’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, quite often when we receive body camera footage from a viewer, it depicts a dynamic that is overlooked by both the mainstream media and even some body camera channels that simply post it without comments.

And that is the pernicious power imbalance between cops and the rest of us, an expansive sense of their influence over our lives that cops often display in seemingly routine encounters that is not fully understood and requires more examination. And no arrest embodies this idea more than the body camera footage I’m showing you right now. It depicts a cop hired by a community center detaining a man after a dispute over $20, but it also shows how police can quash dissent through an illegal arrest, coerce the impoverished to become a carceral tool, and deploy unlimited resources against the powerless to further the reach of the law enforcement industrial complex with often destructive consequences.

This story starts in Fort Worth, Texas in June of 2022. There, an off-duty Fort Worth cop named Jose Palomares was moonlighting for a Texas mission, a provider of services for homeless people when a dispute erupted over $20. That’s right, 20 bucks. The officer who cited drug use at the facility for his subsequent actions decided to turn the conflict into an opportunity, detaining the man accused of wanting his money back and trying to force him to consent to a search. Let’s watch.

Officer Palomares:

So, basically I’ve just been informed that you’re the local drug dealer up here in Dillon Doe.

Speaker 3:

No, I’m not.

Officer Palomares:

So, it doesn’t matter what you tell me. I’m going to do my job, okay?

Speaker 3:

Am I being arrested?

Officer Palomares:

No, not right now.

Speaker 3:

I haven’t done anything.

Officer Palomares:

So now, do you have any drugs on you?

Speaker 3:

No.

Officer Palomares:

Okay.

Speaker 3:

I just come down here to get my mail at the [inaudible 00:03:18].

Officer Palomares:

So again-

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:03:20].

Officer Palomares:

I don’t think you’re listening to me. You can tell me you ain’t got nothing all day long, but now I’ve already had… And I already know that you’re the guy for selling drugs and methamphetamines and we don’t tolerate that.

Speaker 3:

I am not. I don’t even do that.

Officer Palomares:

So, it doesn’t matter what you tell me, sir. I’m just letting you know what I know.

Taya Graham:

Now, I want you to remember what the cop says at this point for reference later. He states, “I already know you’re selling meth or a drug dealer.” He doesn’t provide evidence or actual proof. He merely makes the declaration to coerce the person he detained into relinquishing his constitutional rights, a push he continues to make without evidence. Take another look.

Officer Palomares:

And I’m going to get a drug dog to come up here and check, okay? Just so you know. All right, so I’m going to do my job. I’m going to check.

Speaker 3:

I haven’t done anything, sir.

Officer Palomares:

Okay. All right, sir. Are you on probation or parole?

Speaker 3:

No.

Officer Palomares:

Do you have any warrants?

Speaker 4:

[inaudible 00:04:13].

Speaker 3:

I’m clean. I haven’t done anything, sir.

Speaker 4:

[inaudible 00:04:18].

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:04:19] he stole $20 from me. He’s going to say anything.

Taya Graham:

Now, the person in question does not give in. So, the officer ups the stakes, using a casual movement as a pretext for creating what I would best call a narrative of escalation. What that means is because the man is refusing the search, the officer overstates the facts to force compliance. Watch.

Officer Palomares:

Robert 336. Have a seat. Sit your butt down.

Speaker 3:

I was going to show you here what I got.

Speaker 5:

[inaudible 00:04:44].

Speaker 3:

I haven’t done anything, sir.

Officer Palomares:

I don’t care what you say.

Speaker 5:

[inaudible 00:04:48].

Officer Palomares:

What are you trying to get up for when I ask you to sit down?

Speaker 3:

I was going to show you, because [inaudible 00:04:53]-

Officer Palomares:

I don’t trust you, sir. No, you’re not going to stand up and try to fight me and take off running and try to hurt me and hurt yourself. I don’t know you. I don’t know you, sir.

Speaker 3:

I’ve never caused any problems [inaudible 00:05:00]-

Officer Palomares:

And I’ve asked you to have a seat. Why? For your safety and for my safety.

Taya Graham:

Now, one fact worth highlighting at this point of the encounter is the faulty premise of this officer’s fact finding. At this point, the officer can cite no direct evidence that the man was stealing. There’s also no evidence that he committed an assault, just an alleged threat. There are no injuries, no witnesses to an assault, no witnesses have seen the man sell a single gram of meth. But still, listening to the officer, you would think he already had an airtight case, which is why his next move is even more troubling. He threatens the man with a drug-sniffing dog.

Officer Palomares:

Well, you’re up for dealing narcotics, that is not going to be tolerated.

Speaker 3:

I’m not. I haven’t done [inaudible 00:05:37]-

Officer Palomares:

That’s okay, I got a drug dog coming. That’s okay. I’m going to have a drug dog coming. So, I’ve already asked for your permission to let me check. You said no, we’re going to go another route. That’s all there is to it.

Speaker 3:

You can search me fine, but the thing is, I don’t understand why. Tell me the reason why.

Officer Palomares:

Are you going to tell me why when I just told you why?

Speaker 3:

That’s not a reason. I haven’t done anything. That’s going on [inaudible 00:05:58]-

Officer Palomares:

I just told you why. So, what part of why-

Speaker 3:

What makes you [inaudible 00:06:01]-

Officer Palomares:

Okay, you ask me one more time and I’m going to tell you the same thing. Ask me why again. Why? Because somebody says you’re dealing drugs out here, that’s why.

Taya Graham:

So, I want to point out something here that does warrant more attention, a fact that will become more disturbing as this video unfolds. Simply put, the amount of time and resources dedicated to an incident that was neither violent, nor a truly brazen crime is stunning. In fact, crime statistics show for example, in just three months in 2024, Fort Worth had over 900 burglaries and 18 homicides, serious crimes that should be the focus of police attention, but that constant jump rate of crime fails to halt the officer’s apparent need to find a way to put this man in jail. Efforts that include, let’s say exaggerating the facts to make his case. Check it out.

Speaker 5:

10-4, item 217 is running code. Do you need him to continue code?

Officer Palomares:

No, ma’am. You can have him reduce. He sat back down and he was just trying to take off on me and call for help. Dealing drugs is illegal. Do you not understand that?

Speaker 3:

I’m not dealing any drugs.

Officer Palomares:

So, somebody tells me you’re dealing drugs, I have to come and investigate.

Speaker 3:

He wasn’t standing there talking to me [inaudible 00:07:02]-

Officer Palomares:

Sir, what are you doing? Sir, what are you doing? You’re not making any sense. You’re not making any sense whatsoever.

Speaker 3:

This guy’s here. [inaudible 00:07:10]-

Officer Palomares:

It doesn’t matter what you say, sir. It doesn’t matter.

Speaker 3:

Why?

Officer Palomares:

It doesn’t matter what you say.

Speaker 3:

Why?

Officer Palomares:

I’m going to do my job.

Speaker 3:

I didn’t do anything.

Officer Palomares:

You’re just getting aggressive with me, that’s all you’re doing.

Speaker 3:

No, I’m not.

Officer Palomares:

Yeah, you are.

Speaker 3:

I have not gotten aggressive with you [inaudible 00:07:21]-

Taya Graham:

Seriously? Did the man who’s been sitting against the wall try to take off? Is the officer so unsure of his case that he had to stretch the facts? But now the second officer decides to join in and escalate the efforts to smear the detainee by accusing him of having, wait for it, having cold beer. Take a look.

Officer Palomares:

He’s a local drug dealer over here, apparently. He sells meth.

Speaker 3:

I’m not a drug dealer.

Officer Palomares:

He’s got meth on him. He don’t want anybody to check his stuff.

Speaker 3:

The guy owes $20.

Officer Palomares:

So, I want a K-9 to come up here. We’ve been having a problem with meth up here.

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:07:49] drug dealer.

Officer Palomares:

Say again?

Speaker 6:

Did you already find something?

Officer Palomares:

No, but he’s got it right here… Dude, they’ve already dimed him out inside that he’s out here.

Speaker 3:

One guy.

Officer Palomares:

Sir, close your mouth. Sir, close your mouth. So, apparently he’s threatened one guy [inaudible 00:08:01]-

Speaker 6:

It’s too early for beer, too.

Officer Palomares:

So, there was a guy that he just threatened-

Speaker 6:

It’s too early for that.

Speaker 3:

I just come over here and eat breakfast, that’s all. What did he tell you?

Officer Palomares:

Hey, ma’am, this is Robert 336. Do you have a K-9 available that can make my location?

Speaker 5:

Can I get a visual [inaudible 00:08:14]?

Officer Palomares:

Yes, ma’am, drug dog.

Speaker 3:

But there’s no reason to call a dog, that’s crazy.

Officer Palomares:

Sir, yes there is. You’re not going to tell me what I’m not going to do, sir.

Speaker 3:

I’m not trying to tell you, but I’m just saying [inaudible 00:08:24]-

Officer Palomares:

If you take off and get off running-

Speaker 3:

It’s not going to be-

Officer Palomares:

You’re going to be evading detention. You’re going to be arrested.

Speaker 3:

I’m not running.

Taya Graham:

Just a note, drug-sniffing dogs are notoriously inaccurate. Statistical analysis puts their accuracy rate somewhere between 40 and 60%, an error that would give pause to anyone subject to it, especially because if the dog makes a mistake, you may have to go to jail and wait for your day in court to prove your innocence. Still, at this point, the officer’s inability to intimidate the man into consenting to a search boiled over. That’s because despite his outwardly calm demeanor, the officer again paints a decidedly false picture, just watch.

Officer Palomares:

Okay, I’m having them get ahold of a drug dog. So yeah, he’s putting up a fight. I’m going to get that guy’s information real fast.

Speaker 6:

Okay.

Officer Palomares:

So if he tries to take off, just hit me on the radio, and I’ll run out here real quick, because he already tried that once already apparently.

Taya Graham:

Now, this is a point where things get really interesting. That’s because without the benefit of due process, the officer has the man criminally trespassed, meaning he cannot enter or be near the premises again, a move that seemingly makes the officer angry.

Speaker 5:

I’m on my way.

Officer Palomares:

So, Dora’s going to come out here and advise you that you can’t come up anymore. So, you’re going to be criminally trespassed.

Speaker 3:

What? I didn’t do anything.

Officer Palomares:

And you’re still detained, and I got a drug dog coming up here.

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:09:45].

Officer Palomares:

If I were you, the second you try to get up and be slick, and so if I were you, don’t-

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:09:50].

Officer Palomares:

Listen to me very carefully, sir, because ain’t nobody playing games with you.

Speaker 3:

Why are you yelling at me?

Officer Palomares:

Because you’re interrupting me and talking over me, that’s why I have to get louder with you, because you don’t listen very well. At this point, if you take off, jump up, take off running, and fight, you will have additional charges. Do you understand me sir?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I haven’t [inaudible 00:10:08]-

Officer Palomares:

Okay, so if you take off, it will be evading detention.

Speaker 3:

I haven’t even tried [inaudible 00:10:11]-

Officer Palomares:

I just want to be clear with you. I’m being very clear with you since the time we started talking. I’m not playing any games with you. I’ve been very direct with you and very straight-up with you.

Speaker 3:

Why are you yelling?

Officer Palomares:

The only one playing games is you.

Speaker 3:

I didn’t do anything.

Officer Palomares:

And doing illegal activity, sir.

Speaker 3:

I didn’t do any illegal activity.

Officer Palomares:

It doesn’t matter, sir. I got a drug dog coming up here. We have the right to do that. The police has the right to investigate. That’s what we do.

Taya Graham:

Then, something unexpected happens, an incident that perhaps is more revealing than it would seem on the surface. A cop watcher arrives, specifically Manuel Mata. And in this case, not just a cop watcher, but an independent observer, someone who turns the focus around onto the police and puts them under scrutiny for their actions. Mind you, not with a drug dog or threat of arrest, but with a simple cell phone camera. Take a look and notice how police respond when the spotlight turns on them.

Officer Palomares:

Sir, we got a guy with drugs here, sir. Sir, you cannot be here in the spot. You can record over there. Sir, you got to record over there.

Manuel Mata:

What’s your name and your badge number?

Officer Palomares:

Sir, you’re going to be arrested for interfering.

Manuel Mata:

What is your name and your badge number? If you touch me, you will lose qualified immunity. I’m on the public sidewalk.

Officer Palomares:

Stand on that side over there, sir.

Manuel Mata:

No, I don’t have to.

Officer Palomares:

So, you’re interfering.

Manuel Mata:

No. Call your supervisor. If you’re going to put your hands on me, call your supervisor, because this is the sidewalk.

Officer Palomares:

I’ve already asked you to move.

Manuel Mata:

Nah, I’m not trying to hear that. You have to understand people’s rights.

Officer Palomares:

I’ve already asked you to move, sir.

Manuel Mata:

Nah, go ahead, do your thing.

Officer Palomares:

I’ve already asked you to move.

Manuel Mata:

Call your supervisor.

Officer Palomares:

I’ve already asked you to move.

Manuel Mata:

Call your supervisor. I don’t listen to unlawful and illegal orders.

Officer Palomares:

You’re going to step over here-

Manuel Mata:

Call your supervisor. You just threatened me with arrest.

Officer Palomares:

Sir, you cannot step over here.

Manuel Mata:

No, call your supervisor.

Officer Palomares:

Put your hands behind your back.

Manuel Mata:

No, don’t touch me.

Officer Palomares:

Put your hands behind your back.

Manuel Mata:

Don’t touch me.

Officer Palomares:

Put your hands behind your back. Put your hands [inaudible 00:11:53]-

Manuel Mata:

[inaudible 00:11:53].

Officer Palomares:

Put your hands behind back.

Manuel Mata:

Go ahead.

Officer Palomares:

I got to stop doing what I’m doing, because you’re interfering, you’re going to be handcuffed.

Manuel Mata:

I’m First Amendment protected [inaudible 00:12:02]-

Officer Palomares:

I understand that, you can record, but if I have to stop to do what I’m doing-

Manuel Mata:

Call supervisor.

Officer Palomares:

… To take care of you.

Manuel Mata:

Call your supervisor.

Officer Palomares:

Come over and have a seat.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not sitting down nowhere.

Taya Graham:

That’s right, the cops respond with an arrest, never mind that Mata was exercising his First Amendment rights by holding the officers accountable for their actions and forget that Mata was documenting their use or possibly abuse of power by trying to coerce a man to give up his constitutional rights. No, Mata’s camera was the real problem. Forget about the ineffective use of law enforcement powers, and boy, do these cops punish him again, falsifying the circumstances in real-time to threaten Mata, just watch.

Manuel Mata:

Don’t worry, man. I’m not moving nowhere, man. You’re hurting my fucking hand, dog.

Officer Palomares:

Stop pulling away from me, sir.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not. I am not pulling away.

Officer Palomares:

Stop pulling away from pulling away from me.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not, stop lying.

Officer Palomares:

Stop escalating-

Manuel Mata:

Stop lying, I’m not escalating.

Officer Palomares:

Stop escalating.

Manuel Mata:

The only one who escalated anything was you.

Officer Palomares:

Stop escalating.

Manuel Mata:

You escalated everything by putting your hands on me [inaudible 00:13:03]-

Officer Palomares:

Stop fighting.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not fighting.

Officer Palomares:

Stop fighting.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not fighting, dude.

Officer Palomares:

Stop fighting.

Manuel Mata:

Stop being aggressive.

Officer Palomares:

Stop fighting.

Manuel Mata:

Stop being aggressive. I’m sitting right here on the floor where you illegally threw me on the ground. I’m not violent, I’m not aggressive, that’s you. You’re the one that’s aggressive and violent. You’re the one that doesn’t understand the law. You did it based on your feelings and your camera… Stop doing that with my hands.

Officer Palomares:

Stop fighting, sir.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not moving.

Officer Palomares:

Stop pulling away.

Manuel Mata:

Stop hurting my hands. And this officer that failed to render me aid, you’re all wrong. Hey, can you get this motherfucker off me, man? What is he doing? I need you all supervisor right now.

Officer Palomares:

I got a narcotics investigation going on.

Manuel Mata:

I need your supervisor right now.

Officer Palomares:

So, he’s trying to interfere.

Manuel Mata:

No, I’m not.

Officer Palomares:

[inaudible 00:13:51].

Manuel Mata:

It’s not illegal to film you, dog.

Officer Palomares:

He’s going to keep yelling.

Manuel Mata:

And I need the ambulance.

Speaker 8:

I know [inaudible 00:13:55].

Officer Palomares:

I appreciate that.

Manuel Mata:

I need the ambulance.

Taya Graham:

And now, finally after all of these protracted efforts to get this man to consent to a search, including the threat of a possibly inaccurate drug-sniffing dog, arrest, criminal trespassing, unsustained accusations of drug dealing, and violence, the arrest of a cop watcher, and some would say violent use of force, after all of this, what are the results? What is the outcome of this extensive and protracted investigation? What finally happens? Well, simply put, nothing. Nothing at all. And you just take a listen if you don’t believe me.

Officer Palomares:

The front door Ring, they added that Ring. They added cameras all around, just this side doesn’t have one. I’m going to tell her to add one here.

Speaker 9:

It’s maybe a gram.

Officer Palomares:

Okay.

Speaker 9:

And that’s like personal use. I don’t think he’s… He might be splitting his personal use with somebody, but I doubt he’s dealing it out. What we’re probably going to do is we’re going to suspect case him, see if it’s going to work a little bit.

Officer Palomares:

Cool, yeah.

Speaker 9:

[inaudible 00:14:55] cut the warrant, he’ll get a possession case after that, but he probably has some good information about what’s going on. He just didn’t want talk in front of everybody.

Officer Palomares:

Whatever you all can do, I appreciate it, man.

Speaker 9:

So, what we do need to probably do is [inaudible 00:15:07] transporting him to jail, but take him over to the [inaudible 00:15:12] sector and we’ll try and do an interview with him out there.

Officer Palomares:

Okay, I appreciate you. Thank you.

Taya Graham:

That’s right, the alleged drug dealer does not have enough in his possession to actually deal. So, instead of charging him for being a drug dealer, the cops resort to taking him to the station as if he were under arrest to try to glean some more information from him about, you guessed it, drug dealing. In other words, convert him to a criminal informant. And for the record, creating a criminal informant is a very unregulated and opaque process, and becoming one is an incredibly dangerous occupation to be forced into. If you want to learn more, start by researching Rachel’s Law.

But there is so much more to this story than a failed attempt to turn a small-time drug user into a criminal informant, behind the scenes details that turn this case of bad policing into an example of law enforcement malfeasance. And for more on that, I will be talking to cop watcher Manuel Mata, who was arrested at the scene and has been fighting the case ever since, but first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been reaching out to police for comment and investigating the details of the case and the circumstances surrounding it. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So, what are Fort Worth Police saying about the arrest of Mata and the detention of the man for suspicion of drug dealing?

Stephen Janis:

Well, they’re not saying much to us. We sent an email with a couple of questions. One being, how do they approach cop watchers? How do they approach major drug investigations? Although, we did overhear on the body camera that there’s a lot of talk about cop watchers. There’s audio that we did not put in this particular show about how they were aware of Mata, how they’re aware of other cop watchers, how they’re like, “I can deal with it,” and how they talked about in roll call of ways of suppressing cop watching. So, very disturbing that First Amendment activists are on police radar in such a significant way.

Taya Graham:

Now, this community shelter provides food and household items for people who are unhoused. What can you tell me about it and why were they hiring police officers?

Stephen Janis:

Well, this is exactly what we talk about in the show all the time, using police to solve complex social problems, which is a result of massive inequality. People there are unhoused, they have drug addiction problems, they have all the problems that come along with being impoverished in this country. And yet, what do they do? They hire a police officer. I think it’s an antithetical to the cause of helping people overcome these problems rather than arresting them. As we can see in this case, that’s exactly what occurred.

Taya Graham:

This prolonged investigation and subsequent arrest by police are symbolic of the concept, you have termed, blanket criminality. Can you talk about that idea and how it applies here?

Stephen Janis:

Well, as you see, this investigation took multiple officers, took an hour, they tried to call a drug-sniffing dog. They made every effort they could to criminalize the behavior of a single person and then spread it out through the community by involving other people in this. So, really it was like saying, “This whole place is a crime scene and we’re going to sit there and kind of work through it with our police. More police are going to show up, more cop cars. We’re going to arrest a cop watcher, we’re going to detain a man, then take him down to the station for no reason and try to get him to become a criminal informant.” What could be a better example of the criminalization of working class people? It’s why this country has the problems it has, and it’s why police are the worst answer or antidote to this kind of problem, Taya.

Taya Graham:

And now to talk about his arrest, the events leading up to it, and what he has learned since, I’m joined by Manuel Mata himself. Manuel, thank you so much for joining us again. We appreciate it.

Manuel Mata:

Thank you. I’m glad to be here again, to bring you another story of corrupt officials.

Taya Graham:

So, can you describe for us the officer’s interaction with him before you arrived? It seems like the man was detained for nearly 50 minutes. Can you describe a little bit of that interaction at the very beginning?

Manuel Mata:

Yeah, well, when I pulled up, I actually seen a police officer, to me it looked like harassing two people at a shelter. So when I pulled up, I didn’t know what was going on, and I didn’t ask them. I just wanted to film. So, it turns out that the guy in the blue shirt was the one that the cop decided was the drug dealer, which he wasn’t, and the debt wasn’t over drugs. He owed him 20 bucks, because he let him borrow it to buy cigarettes and food. So, that’s what he asked him for it. The actual drug dealer was right next to him. And as soon as the cop comes, he tells the drug dealer to leave. So, that’s what I walked up on and they were trying to search his stuff and I never got to see how it ended, only in body camera in trial.

Taya Graham:

So, although the man said he was getting his mail at the mission and just asking for the $20 owed him, Officer Palomares questioned him and insisted he was going to bring a K-9 to sniff him. And the man said, “You know there’s no probable cause. I haven’t done anything wrong.” And the officer said, “I don’t care. Someone told me you’re a drug dealer, sit down, and show me your pockets.” Now, I know you’re not a lawyer, but when you look at this interaction, what do you see? How do you see his rights being violated?

Manuel Mata:

Yeah, and being detained. And see, I didn’t know how long he was sitting there, because to me, I just saw it. I didn’t know the total extent until I got the actual body camera. He had him detained for like 40, 45 minutes, almost an hour before I even got there. So, to me it looked like he was being held against his will. That’s what it looked like to me. And he kept telling him, “Hey, sir, this, that.” And he kept telling him…

Because when I pulled up, he was telling him, “You can search me, but not my stuff.” And then that’s when it all went sideways, when I stood right there, because to me how it seems is like if you don’t want to pay someone, just call the cops, and they’ll take care of it for you. That’s what it looked like to me, because the actual drug dealer, he told him to leave. So, now you’re messing with a guy that the complainant states, “I did not buy drugs from him. I do not do drugs.” But then you hear the officer, “Oh, but you know he sells drugs.” And I’m like, “Wow, that’s all…” Everything looks so wrong the way the guy was looking and how the situation was, and I just tried to capture it on camera and I failed at that.

Taya Graham:

I think you’re being hard on yourself. I don’t think you failed, but one thing I noticed is that the officer says to the man, “You’re getting aggressive with me,” so I’m just going to play a little bit of the video where the officer’s talking to the man saying, “You’re being aggressive.”

Officer Palomares:

So, they dimed him out basically. So, I come in here and talk to him, “Hey, man, look, straight-up, I’m Officer Palomares, blah, blah, blah.” I said, “Why are you talking to me?” I said, “Have a seat.” He tried to get a little aggressive. I said, “Hey, look, I’m talking to you, because you’ve been identified as a guy that’s selling drugs. If you’re not, let me know who you are.” I said, “It’s not going to be tolerated.”

Taya Graham:

So, when I look at this video, and I want your opinion, does this look like aggressive behavior to you?

Manuel Mata:

How do you try to talk to one, “Hey, sir. Hey, sir,” and then just to resort to aggression, violence, and I have to control you. None of it made sense to me. I don’t understand how someone walking up… And then like the guy was, he was asserting his rights to be safe and secure in his property and papers, and it’s like the cop wasn’t trying to hear it, because in his mind, he caught a big drug dealer, and that’s all he cared about. He didn’t care about his rights or the process of criminal procedures. It just went out the window, because this officer had it in his mind that he created a good enough story, and I just totally disagreed.

Taya Graham:

Just to clarify, I want your thoughts on the accusation that this man was a drug dealer, considering that this information was provided by people in the mission who can be telling the truth, or they could have been trying to settle a personal score over owing money or they could have even been referring to a different person as a dealer. Does this concern you that someone could just point a finger at you and bring down the police on you without any evidence?

Manuel Mata:

Yes, but you know what was the most troubling to me when I saw it was the fact that them two people did not identify the man in the blue shirt as the drug dealer. The man said it was the other guy in the white shirt, same thing as the woman. She said, “It’s the other guy in the white shirt.” And even the officer afterwards, he kept trying to explain to the drug investigators, “He’s the drug dealer, and there’s another one right there with the white shirt.” So, I’m confused as to what your job and what you’re doing, because this man’s telling you, “I barely have $5 to my name. I’m on a bike.” He has a cooler and he has a BB gun for rats, because he lives outdoors. Not only that, he’s at a homeless shelter trying to get assistance. Now, that is not a drug dealer.

Taya Graham:

So, another thing that stood out to me is that the officers talk to the woman who’s running the mission, and he says to her that even if he doesn’t find drugs on him, and even if the K-9 doesn’t sniff anything, he’s still a dealer and should still be trespassed. Do you think it’s fair that this man who needs the services of a Christian mission should be denied them due to suspicion that hasn’t even been validated or adjudicated?

Manuel Mata:

No, because that’s not what those places are designed for. And then plus, this cop has no authority to trespass anyone. And what the problem is here is what was exposed in the 97-page report that was done on the Fort Worth Police Department where relationships: husband, wife, boyfriend and girlfriend. This is one of those scenarios where he is dating a woman that’s working there, and this is the constant harassment that these two do to innocent people, because all he has to say, “I don’t want him here.” The girlfriend said, “Okay, babe.” He trespassed me, and I wasn’t never on the property. I never set foot on the property. I was on the public sidewalk the whole time, and he convinced a lady to trespass me. So, this is the problem we’re facing. When you hurt someone’s feelings and you’re in a position of power, you should lose it, because you’re dealing with a people with emotions, not the law, not human decency. And basically above all, not Christian-like, because that place is funded through God’s money. So, for him not to even understand what it means to help others, not hurt them.

Taya Graham:

So, I was watching the video and about 50 minutes into this man’s detention, you arrive and you ask the officer to identify himself. He refuses and immediately says, “You’re interfering with the investigation,” and barely one minute into the conversation you were in cuffs. Were you surprised by this?

Manuel Mata:

Actually surprised, no. But kind of disappointed? Yes, because at that point I had thought I made it clear about what my intent were, because my intent is never to harass, interfere, disrupt, or impede anything. And the fact that they’re able to say that, because you’re recording and you take my attention away, which is not in the penal code, it doesn’t state, they took my attention away, and this is what is frustrating because all I’m doing is holding a camera.

Taya Graham:

So I was wondering, do you feel you were treated differently, because you’re a known cop watcher and activist, as opposed to someone else who might’ve been standing there filming? I witnessed how you were singled out at the trial of Aaron Dean while you were there supporting the family of Atatiana Jefferson. So, I’m wondering if you feel you were treated differently, and what rights of yours you feel were violated.

Manuel Mata:

Since I’ve been doing this, I know for a fact that automatically I’m going to be treated differently, looked at differently, and even it’s just a whole different vibe that I get from these officers, because during roll call, you hear them. Whenever I hear a cop say that he was mentioned at roll call, they always explain this, “He harasses and films us.” And then I’ll give you a quote from a Homeland Security report that was done on me by a South Division police officer sergeant, that they know that I film and that I go and film trying to get officers to violate my rights. So, if this is something you all are assuming, wouldn’t it be something that makes you all and not even participate in what you’re all witnessing on this video? But it doesn’t stop them, it encourages them, because they want to be the one that says, “I got him.”

Taya Graham:

So, it looks like the officer, when he’s putting his cuffs on you, it seems like you’re being thrown to the ground. I hear you saying, “Stop pulling all my hands.” And it looks like he was getting rough with you, but it’s kind of hard to see. Can you tell me what we were missing?

Manuel Mata:

See, what happened was he wanted me to sit down and I told him, “No, I’m not going to. We’re just going to stand here, whatever.” And he stated that I was getting aggressive with him by telling him, “No, we’re just going to stand right here.” I never pulled away from him, I never ran, I never did anything. And when he grabbed me by my shoulder, he yanked me down and he literally pulled me off of my feet and I landed butt first on the ground, and then that’s why I told him, I’m going to stand back up. See? And what made me mad is the officer that’s on duty turned around, so it wouldn’t be caught what he just did to me on his body camera. And if you look behind him, that’s what you’re going to see. He’s turned around to the guy in front of him the whole time.

Taya Graham:

I believe I hear you request medical, but I know you were taken to the jail instead. Can you tell me how you were treated and if you received any medical treatments?

Manuel Mata:

Yeah, because the whole thing was that whenever he threw me on the ground, he kept doing this. You know how the two cuffs are like this and it has them two little links right here? Well, he was grabbing it right there and doing this. And if you have noticed, my hands are already messed up. So, this whole thing was swollen after… And I told him, “I need medical.” And they were trying to put me in a car. I wasn’t resisting the transport, because they weren’t taking me nowhere. They had to wait for the ambulance to get there and check me. And then when he did, he said, “He’s cleared to go to jail.” When I get to jail, when they take the handcuffs off, my hand is so swollen that I tell the guard, “Look at my stuff.” And they’re like, “What?” So, they take pictures and they send me to the hospital. I go to the hospital, I get treated. They say something about break of skin. I don’t remember what it was, because I didn’t get it.

Taya Graham:

Now, I have to ask you this, but it’s because I know there are going to be some people who will say, you were provocative, you used foul language, and you raised your voice with the officer, and maybe they’ll say that they feel that you were being aggressive or that you were trying to provoke them. How would you respond to someone who would say that?

Manuel Mata:

It is not only our right, it is our obligation to check and balance when someone steps out of their box of control. Now, they used force, they used violence to gain control. I used my words and the tone of my voice to do the same and it’s protected. And second part, if they’re trained to deal with high stressful situations where guns are being pointed at them, a car is flying at them, you mean to tell me that you all passed that type of training where it doesn’t break a sweat to where you all can say me saying a bad word, vulgar, raw, loud is enough to make you all come out of you all skin?

Something’s not adding up right. So to me, why not? Why not cuss at them? Because to me, I’ve been in an environment where I couldn’t let these people disrespect me, because I wouldn’t be able to live in this environment. The way I do it now is like I’m punching them with words. I’m defending myself with the right to say this and that, and I remind them, Houston v. Hill, Glik v. Cummings, Turner v. Driver, all of these cases involve speech that is protected and the most protected speech isn’t favorable. It’s the one that makes people mad and upset. It creates tension.

Taya Graham:

So, I saw there was a conversation between two officers who had conflicting statements on the amount of illegal substances found on the man. One officer said he saw roughly over a gram, maybe just enough for personal use, and then the other officer speaks to the woman and said he had enough for over 100 hits on him? What are these conflicting statements? What am I even seeing here?

Manuel Mata:

See, what happened is the Palomares thinks he’s a drug investigator. So when the real ones get there, they’re not understanding why they were even called in the first place, because they know an addict, they know a buyer when they see one. So they’re left with, okay, this is their only choice, because he’s not a drug dealer. “Why don’t you go ahead and tell us who you bought the product from? Help us help you. You don’t have to just help us. Help you by telling us where you purchased your product from.” And that’s what the man agreed to, because he did not want to go to jail. It was easier for him to tell on someone than go to jail, and that’s exactly what happened, because when the real investigators show up, the real detectives, they seen that this was straight garbage.

Taya Graham:

But something I noticed and really wanted to pay attention to is I heard an officer not in uniform say, “Let’s just make it look like you’re arresting him, that he might get possession, and then we’re going to take him and see if we can get some information out of him.” So, it looks to me like they were trying to turn him into an informant and they were cutting him off from resources where he could get help at the same time, so basically cutting him off from resources and possibly his freedom. This seems to me like targeting a vulnerable person to become a CI. What do you think?

Manuel Mata:

That’s exactly what happened, because they knew that this guy was just a regular street person, and majority of those don’t want to be in jail, so it’s easier to manipulate and influence him to tell. And sad to say, that’s exactly what happened here. They put him in a car, they drove him down the street to where the police station was on Hempfield and Magnolia, and they let him out. And the cops, while they’re letting him out, they’re like, “You’re just going to go in here and talk to these detectives. You don’t have to tell them nothing, but to help yourself, just go ahead and tell them.”

Taya Graham:

So, what were your charges? From my understanding, just last week you were supposed to report for 180 days in jail. Can you tell me what you were charged with and what you’re facing and what happened?

Manuel Mata:

Well, I got charged with interfering with public duties and resisting arrest. Not only was I charged, I went to trial and I was found guilty on both of those cases, and I received 180 days and I appealed it. And yes, yesterday I was supposed to turn myself in and the strangest thing happened. I did not have a warrant to turn myself in. What happened is I was given a court date for another sentencing hearing. Now, I don’t know what’s going on, and I don’t know what’s going to happen, but all I do know is I don’t care because I know one thing, when I chose to believe in something stronger than myself, I don’t need to be afraid. I don’t need to be worried. I don’t need to understand evil people anymore, because I know two things. This too shall pass and lean not on my own under understanding. Those two things I keep to my heart, and I remember this is selfless, so I can’t lose. The only I’m doing is I’ve made the world notice Fort Worth Police Department and their awful, awful tactics and their culture of torture. That’s it.

Taya Graham:

Okay, let’s take a second to break down what we just saw and examine it through the prism of a concept that I think does not get the attention it deserves, namely the ever expansive and destructive growth of police power in the service of some nebulous notion that if we consent to it, we’ll all be safer. Well, I, for one, am skeptical, and there is plenty of evidence to prove that that skepticism is warranted. First, it’s important to note that many categories of crime have gone down this year, especially some of the most violent and serious crimes, which have fallen since they rose dramatically during the pandemic. In most major cities, that has meant roughly a 20% drop in murders. In my hometown Baltimore, the drop has been even more precipitous, with homicides roughly 30% below their peak, but all of this good news came with a bit of a confounding asterisk.

It happened amid a nationwide shortage of police officers. Numerous reports have accounted how difficult it’s been for police departments to maintain staffing levels. In our hometown of Baltimore, we’re short a record 678 positions. It’s been called a crisis by the mainstream media, a shortage of officers on the street that threatens public safety, and law and order, and the future of civilization, and yet that’s not what occurred at all. Instead, we experienced one of the steepest drops in violence in recent history, all of which occurred in the timeframe when there are simply less officers on the street and fewer cops making fewer arrests. But here’s a question, how on earth could that happen? More cops equals more safety, right? More law enforcement means more law and order, right? A gun and badge are the best way to ensure that chaos and crime are kept under control, right?

According to police partisans, this drop in crime could in no way be due to the lessening of social isolation and economic stressors at the end of the pandemic. Of course not, it couldn’t be due to the revival of in-person social programs that scientists say are the most effective form of violence reduction strategies, over and above aggressive policing, never. It couldn’t be in Baltimore due to the group violence reduction strategy that tries to intervene in the lives of people most likely to commit a murder with jobs and support, rather than handcuffs and bars. Absolutely no way. It just couldn’t be any of those programs that mitigate poverty, uplift communities, and generally work with people as if they’re human beings, not human chattel to be arrested, caged, and locked away until the end of time. It’s just not possible, right? There’s only one solution to violence.

There’s only one way to get results, right? Give cops more power, give them more guns, form more SWAT teams and specialized units, and discard those pesky constitutional rights that keep on getting in the way of effective crime fighting. That’s what we should do if we want to stay safe, correct? And of course, despite relinquishing our constitutional rights, police will treat us fairly, protect the innocent, and not steal from us, right? Oh, okay, that last statement might’ve gone a bit too far, but just consider a recent decision by our illustrious Supreme Court, which seems to relish in retracting our rights, not expanding them. The court was asked to consider the request of two people who have been victimized by overly aggressive civil asset forfeiture, or as this article in The Nation describes it, When Cops Steal Your Stuff. The plaintiffs had asked the court to rule on a seemingly modest request that when police confiscate property, they should have a prompt hearing on if the seizure was legal.

Now, first you have to remember that despite our Fourth Amendment protection from unwarranted searches or seizures, police in this country can pretty much take our property, even if we’re not criminally charged. And worse yet, if you want that property back, you have to file a civil suit and prove that it doesn’t belong to the police in the first place. That question came to a head before the highest court in the land when it was asked to consider the petition of two plaintiffs who had lost their automobiles to police, both had never been accused of a crime. Instead, a person who was caught with drugs in both cases had borrowed their cars, which police subsequently seized. To get their property back, the burden was on the plaintiffs. They had to file civil cases and argue the seizures were unwarranted. They wanted the courts to instead require police departments to have a preliminary hearing to justify the taking of property.

But in a 6-3 decision, the court said no. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor noted that 80% of asset forfeiture cases are civil, meaning they are not directly tied to a criminal case. This means that most property seized by police is not linked to direct criminal behavior, but rather is simply proximate to a crime, like the aforementioned case I just recounted. What this means in real life is that if someone dumps a couple grams of weed on your property, in the right state, police can seize your car and other properties and make you fight to get it back. And what’s even more stunning is that it’s not even clear what connects all the seizures to the original idea used to justify it. Namely, seizing assets is supposed to deprive major criminals of the resources they need to commit more crimes. It’s an idea that was touted by police by pointing to the threat of major drug dealers.

But like most policies based on fear, it has turned into a cash machine for police departments. In the case before the Supreme Court, these kingpins had simply lent their cars to the wrong people. All the cops accomplished was depriving innocent people of using their cars for work, transporting kids, and generally taking care of themselves, and their family. But of course, the underlying premise is the same fallacy I cited at the beginning of this rant. The more power we give cops, the safer we will be. The more we relinquish our constitutional rights, the less crime will occur, or the more we diminish ourselves, the more cops will protect us. Well, let me ask you, is that what’s really happened? Are we safe because we gave up our rights? Are we more productive because police can seize our assets? Is our country happier and healthier because law enforcement has taken the Constitution and used it like old newspaper for puppy training?

Well, I don’t think so. Instead, we have a destructive, ultimately Faustian bargain that I think we all need to reconsider, because as you can see, once we give up our rights, the powers that be are determined to never give them back. And fighting to get those rights is surely history we don’t want to repeat. I want to thank Manuel Mata for speaking with us and keeping us updated on policing in Fort Worth, Texas. Thank you, Manuel. And of course, I have to thank intrepid investigative reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen. And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R. for their support. Thanks, Noli D.

And a very special thanks to our Accountability Report Patreons, we appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R., David K., Louie P., Lucida Garcia, and super friends, Shane B., Kenneth K., Pineapple Girl Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com, and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook, and please like and comment. You know I read the comments and appreciate them, and we do have the Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

A Wisconsin man making Doordash deliveries in the vicinity of Lake Superior had his world suddenly turned upside-down by a traffic stop gone terribly wrong. Body camera footage of the stop shows police officers barking contradictory orders at the driver, who does his best to comply, before mercilessly using a taser on him. The man, who was later charged with resisting arrest and driving the wrong way up a one-way street, says he was not informed about the reason for the stop before police brutalized him. Police Accountability Report examines the facts and unpacks what this case reveals about law enforcement’s broad powers to deploy force against civilians.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production, Stephen Janis, Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As we always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today, we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video. It depicts police using violent force against a DoorDash driver for turning onto a one-way street. But when you watch how this car stop unfolded and how dangerous the situation became, you’ll understand why we need to drill down into all the details and how and why this harrowing car stop happened. But before we get started, I want you watching to know that, if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at P-A-R @therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or X at tayasbaltimore. And we might be able to investigate for you.

And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out, and it can even help our guests. And you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there. And I’ve even started doing a Comment of the Week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. And we have a Patreon called Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, one of the most precarious powers we confer upon police is the discretion to use deadly force. It’s a truly terrifying idea to contemplate and something that can lead to irrevocable injury and suffering to the people subject to it. One of the problems with the ability of police to use violent force is how often it is deployed for what could best be described as questionable justifications.

This is why, today, we will be reviewing the video I am showing you now, and it’s an example of how little impetus police need to use it and how easy it is in a situation where force is deployed to completely spiral out of control. The story starts in Lake Superior, Wisconsin. There, a DoorDash driver named Ian Cuyper was en route to make a delivery. He was a bit confused, because he was navigating an unfamiliar neighborhood. And Ian took a wrong turn down a one-way street. Realizing his mistake, he immediately stopped his car, but before he could turn around and right his error, the police pounced. And inexplicably, without even speaking to Ian, they began to order him out of the vehicle. Take a look.

Police:

[inaudible 00:02:43] door. Do it now. With your left hand, grab the door handle, open the door, do it now.

Ian Cuypers:

Come on.

Police:

Unlock it. Keep your hands up. Slowly step out of the vehicle and face away from us.

Ian Cuypers:

What?

Police:

Face away.

Ian Cuypers:

[inaudible 00:03:08] happening.

Police:

Keep your hands up, face away from us. Right now.

Ian Cuypers:

[inaudible 00:03:16].

Police:

All right, put your hands behind your head and interlace your fingers.

Taya Graham:

Now, you’re probably wondering why police were so aggressive from the onset. So were we. So we obtained the officer’s report after the incident occurred. In it, the officer cited furtive movements as the reason for taking such extreme actions, seriously. I just want you to watch as the officers continue to bark orders at Ian and see if his movements are indeed furtive.

Police:

Just listen to his instructions. Move slowly backwards to sound of my voice. You understand? Start moving. Slow down. Keep forward. Keep on walking.

Taya Graham:

The officers continue to escalate, and as you can see, Ian becomes confused. First, I think the instructions are somewhat contradictory and difficult to interpret. And second, there are no less than four officers on the scene making this situation even more chaotic and stressful. Just watch.

Ian Cuypers:

I feel like I’m being assaulted.

Police:

Put your hands on top of your head. Put your hands on the top of your head [inaudible 00:04:25].

Ian Cuypers:

I feel like I’m being kind of…

Police:

Stop moving. Hold up. Let me take over for a second. Keep looking forward. Don’t do anything other than keep your hands on top of your head. That’s it. Put your hands on top of your head. Stop moving.

Ian Cuypers:

Guys, you have guns on me. I really do not feel like I’m being…

Police:

Follow our instructions.

Ian Cuypers:

What are these lasers?

Police:

I want you to get down on your left knee. Get down on your left knee.

Taya Graham:

Still, Ian tries to comply. He’s obviously terrified, but still trying to follow this police-conjured game of Twister. Unfortunately, one of the officers decides he’s not complying enough. Take a look.

Ian Cuypers:

Can I please get an explanation?

Police:

Do it now or you’re going to get tased. Get down on your left knee.

Ian Cuypers:

No.

Police:

Don’t move or you’re going to get tased again. [inaudible 00:05:31] Keep watching the vehicle. Yeah, get this guy dried back. Let’s get this vehicle out of here.

Taya Graham:

Here’s the question this video raises, what happened prior to deploying the taser, which necessitated using it? I asked this question, because as I said at the beginning of the show, the use of deadly force is a power that police have both the freedom to use and abuse. And it’s up to us to make sure the latter doesn’t happen. Still, as you can see, officers continue to use a taser to send thousands of bolts of electricity through Ian’s body.

Ian Cuypers:

I can’t feel my legs.

Police:

Okay. Do you need medical attention?

Ian Cuypers:

Do I? Fuck, is that going to cost me money?

Police:

Do you need medical attention?

Ian Cuypers:

What does that entail?

Police:

It entails an ambulance coming to look at you to make sure that you are medically okay.

Ian Cuypers:

Can I get some time to collect my thoughts?

Police:

We’re going to need you to stand up now or we are going to stand you up. You either do it yourself or we do it for you. Hands up.

Ian Cuypers:

You can stand me up. There’s one in the…

Police:

Who else is in the vehicle? How many people?

Ian Cuypers:

There’s no one in there. There’s no one else in the car.

Police:

Okay.

Ian Cuypers:

I have shirts in the back seat covering the windows, because I banged in there one time.

Police:

[Inaudible 00:06:49] hands off.

Ian Cuypers:

Look, there’s no one in there.

Police:

So we’re going to sit you up. Take your knees and bring them forward.

Ian Cuypers:

I didn’t think to use…

Police:

We’re trying to get him up and moving. Bring your knees to your chest. One, two, three.

Ian Cuypers:

I give you consent to just put me however you want.

Police:

Ready? One, two.

Ian Cuypers:

Thanks. Yeah.

Police:

Walk him back this way. You okay? We’ll get it. Just walking him back.

Taya Graham:

Now, usually, I would end the video review here. There’s no reason to show more than once the pain and suffering experienced by Ian. However, in this case, there is critical evidence that unfolds as the police effectuate the arrest. First, Ian asks why he was stopped, tasered, and what his charges are. Take a listen. Okay,

Ian Cuypers:

Is my car suspicious or something? I just really would like to know what’s happening.

Police:

Okay, we’ll explain what’s happening in a second. My partner pulled you over and called for more squads, and here we are. And then, we’re in this position, because you were not following our commands.

Ian Cuypers:

Well, I pulled over right away, and then, a bunch more cops showed up.

Police:

You were not following our commands. That is why we are in the position we are in.

Ian Cuypers:

I followed all your commands.

Police:

You sure didn’t.

Ian Cuypers:

What didn’t I do?

Police:

You sure did not follow…

Ian Cuypers:

What did I not do?

Police:

We can discuss that in a little bit.

Ian Cuypers:

Okay.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So nothing from the police that we hear appears to justify the use of force, but now, before I get to more of the evidence about this flimsy justification, I want you to watch something that is rarely witnessed by the public, the painful consequences of a taser, beyond the literal paralysis of your nervous system. I’m talking about removing the barbs that pierce the skin and create the current that electrocute your body. They have to be removed. Normally, that’s left up to a doctor or EMT or at least a medic to ensure less bleeding and that the puncture site is properly sterilized, but the cops in Superior decide they’re superior enough to do it themselves. Take a look.

Police:

[inaudible 00:08:44] the light. Yeah, hold the light. [inaudible 00:08:51] Lift your hands up for me, up. Like that.

Ian Cuypers:

It’s like a lot of commands [inaudible 00:09:02]

Police:

So I’m going to have to get this. I got them. Sorry. We’re just going to have to…

Ian Cuypers:

So am I under arrest?

Police:

At this point, you are not free to leave. You can talk with my partner more about that in a second. You want me to cut one of… Yeah, I want you to cut the wires. Hey, stay leaning against the vehicle. Otherwise, Jason, I know you have shears too. [inaudible 00:09:37] I know. I just don’t want you to fall over or move or any of that kind of stuff. Take a breath. Figure out what you got to do next.

Ian Cuypers:

Yeah.

Police:

[inaudible 00:09:53] Yeah.

Taya Graham:

And now, finally, more evidence of how questionable this use of force was. Unguarded moments captured on body camera. Just listen as the officers try to figure out what to charge Ian with.

Police:

Oh, I was under it. Oh, I don’t think… Do you want ask him if he wants his whole wallet or do you just want [inaudible 00:10:24]? He wants that too. So that’s why I was like, “Hey, need another squad.” We were doing our drug court. That’s what I figured. He was diving across the side of vehicle. I was like, “That’s super weird,” because he was like, [inaudible 00:10:39]. Because I pulled off at 28 from Tower and got behind him, because I was way behind him. But his tag light was out, so I started trying to catch up with him. He turns on 23rd, goes up Ogden, turns here, stops, and rolls the roadway. Cars go.

Then he eventually, a car is behind between us. [inaudible 00:10:58] makes a full stop and then he pulls up from here, and I lit him up. Well, he’s going the wrong way on a one way, first of all. Well, I know, but I was really going to… But all the other stuff too is a little bit weird. No, you made a good call. Then I’ll cite him for… Did you search his vehicle at all? Or are we leaving it? I think he wants us to just lock it up and leave it probably maybe try to gain his consent to turn it [inaudible 00:11:18] You can ask. Or is it okay to just leave it? I just don’t want to get towed.

Taya Graham:

So that’s it. End of story. The only other debate they had was whether they could deliver the DoorDash order he couldn’t complete.

Police:

Dang. Really? Yeah. Should we deliver their food for them? Is that what he was doing? DoorDashing. I’m down for doing that. He said he locks the food to just them just get refunded. Otherwise, we could leave it here, and that’s where I was going with that. He said, “I just want it to just get refunded.” So lock up the car and let it be where it is. Yeah. And I don’t think it’s blocking the alley, probably facing the wrong way, but I’m not actually that extremely worried about that. No, we know we’re not going to tow it, and you can put it in your report that you left it facing that way.

Taya Graham:

It’s really just troubling to hear how thoughtless and cavalier the officers are about what they just did, how little they question their own actions, and how casually they try to come up with some sort of charge for a young man who was, simply put, unjustly harmed. But there is much more about how this happened and the consequences which Ian will share with us later. Ian will discuss behind the scenes information about how the legal system is treating him, shortly. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been digging into the case and reaching out to police. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So what does the statement of probable cause say? How did the officers justify the arrest and their use of force?

Stephen Janis:

Taya, this is really kind of sketchy, because there’s not much information there. They talk about the furtive movements that you already mentioned. They talk about him driving down a one-way street, but they don’t talk about any other suspicious activity or anything else that would really, I think, justify the use of force. It’s really weird. I’ve seen police sort of not say anything in a statement of probable cause, but given what police did, given that they used a taser, there’s just not justification. There’s nothing in there that says the breaking and entering that you talk about, later on, when you ask about it. Nothing about that is in there. It’s really just he drove down a one-way street and then, very little explanation as to why this happened.

Taya Graham:

So you’ve reached out to the Superior Wisconsin Police Department. What are they saying about how the officers acted?

Stephen Janis:

Well, Taya, apparently, they’re too superior to get back to us, because we haven’t heard from them. But we asked them a lot of extensive questions about use of force, because I feel a lot of smaller rural departments or small town departments do not have the right guidelines. And in this case, we said, “Do you have a use of force report? What is your policy about use of force?” We heard nothing, but we’re going to keep on them. Because I think this is a really important oversight and lapse that needs to be addressed. Also, we got in touch with the public defender’s office in that county to ask them what their criteria is for offering services to people who are indigent or poor. Again, we have not heard back, but that’s another thing we’re going to pursue. Because it seems like this young man certainly qualified. We’re going to follow up on that. We’ll let you know what happened.

Taya Graham:

So tasers are technically known as less than lethal weapons, but you’ve reported on them extensively. What do you think?

Stephen Janis:

Well, Taya, from my reporting, they’re decidedly not less than lethal. I have reported on them being lethal in many situations. At least half a dozen cases during my reporting career in Baltimore, I have investigated and also written about, but one of the things that really stunned me about tasers was how the primary cause of death is ruled when a taser is used. You see, medical examiners are reluctant to rule a taser as being the primary cause of death, because, I was told, they will get sued by the manufacturer. And the manufacturer has made it very clear to the medical examiners across the country, “You make taser the primary cause of death, you will get sued.” Now, when you talk about something that shocks the electrical system and the body, it seems like there are a lot of things that can go wrong. And I have medical examiners tell me off the record, “Stephen, these are deadly weapons, and they should be classified as thus.” But again, in this country, corporate power and corporate money rule. And so, tasers are dangerous, but do we really know, because information is being concealed?

Taya Graham:

Okay. And now to learn about the events leading up to his arrest and how the police justified it to him and what the legal system has done to him since. I’m joined by Ian. Ian, thank you so much for joining me.

Ian Cuypers:

Oh yeah, thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk.

Taya Graham:

The incident that we witnessed on camera shows a great deal of force being used on you. Can you tell us how this began? This was a traffic stop, right?

Ian Cuypers:

Yeah, so what was happening is I was delivering for DoorDash. I’ve been up here in Minnesota for a couple of months and I’ve been mostly making money through DoorDash. I had to take a delivery from Duluth over to Superior, just right across the bridge. It was a Taco Bell delivery, and it was actually two orders. And it was just nighttime. I was sort of confused about where I was, because Superior was a new area. And there was a one-way street. It was dark. So I turned onto it, and right when I turned on, I saw that there was a one-way sign. So I was about to make a U-turn. And there was an officer behind me, I guess. He turned on his lights, and then, I pulled over pretty much right away.

And then, I was just looking for my insurance. And by the time I had my ID and everything ready, there were officers like a bunch of, I don’t know, two more squad cars pulled up, and there were a bunch of officers shouting at me to put my hands up. So I put my hands and my face out of my window to greet them and try to show them that I wasn’t a threat. And then, they told me that I had to open the door from the outside with my left hand, which was immediately just kind of distressing, because that’s a lot to take in all at once. And so, I was trying to open the door, and it was locked. And yeah, that’s how it started.

Taya Graham:

Did you follow the officer’s instructions during the traffic stop? The officer says to use your left hand, open the door, and leave the vehicle, which you did. They said to move backwards with your hands behind your head, which is difficult, but you did it. And you stopped when you were told, and then, the officer shouts for you to get down on your left knee. And you were still complying and only took a moment to ask a question, and in under a minute, you were tasered. Do you have any idea why the officers chose to use force, even though you have been compliant the entire time?

Ian Cuypers:

Well, no, I have no idea. I have no idea why they, in the first place, even told me to get out of my car. I especially was surprised when they tasered me. Even before that, I was really shocked when I just saw that there were laser sights everywhere. It was just mind-blowing to me.

Taya Graham:

I guess another thing I’m trying to understand is why so many officers were called to the scene. At no point in the video did I see you offer any resistance. Why do you think there were so many officers there?

Ian Cuypers:

No, because I pulled over right away. And so, the only reasonable situation that I can imagine is like, “Oh, if this guy is dangerous, maybe I should have someone here with me to see what’s going on.” But then, six people showed up, and they just immediately assumed I was armed and dangerous and started treating me like a criminal, which didn’t seem rational to me.

Taya Graham:

Well, I think it was because they suspected you of another crime, possibly a B&E. I listened to the dash camera footage very closely, and the initial conversation with dispatch mentioned a B&E, which might explain why he called for backup. And I think at least some criminal history could have been shown with your tags. It seems like they could have realized that you weren’t a real threat, but at the time, weren’t you actually working?

Ian Cuypers:

Yeah, I don’t want to override the conversation or anything, but it did seem to me, while it was happening, about halfway through, it was very surreal. But I do remember thinking to myself, “This really seems like, are they conducting an exercise on me or something? It seems like they’re just sort of ignoring the situation that’s actually at hand and just sort of doing something that they wanted to.”

Taya Graham:

So when did the officer decide to use force? Do you have any idea why she decided to use it? She gives you a brief warning, and then, in less than a minute, she’s tasering you. Do you have any idea why she thought this was necessary or why another officer had a gun trained on you?

Ian Cuypers:

See, like you were saying, I thought also to myself briefly that maybe they think maybe my car looks like the car of someone who’s recently done something terrible. And at that point, I was like, “Oh, okay, that sort of would explain what’s happening,” but I think they would tell me you’re under arrest or something like that. And so, the way they were treating me, it was confusing, because they were just giving me orders, and I didn’t know that I was under arrest until after they tased me. And I think I asked them a couple of times, and they didn’t give me a clear answer at first. And then, they did. But yeah, it was confusing.

Taya Graham:

It seems, from what you’ve described, they were quite relentless with the use of the taser. What kind of pain or injury did you suffer from it? Did they have to pull the barbs out of your skin? It sounded incredibly painful. Can you describe what it was like?

Ian Cuypers:

Just in case you think the officer that pulled me over is the one that tased me, he did not. It was one of the people who called for backup is the one that tased me. He was holding a gun, not a taser. I can explain how it felt by saying, I’ve explained this before, it’s like my body sort of turned into a vapor. It felt very painful, as though I exploded into a mist. That’s how it felt when I was electrocuted. And then, after that, I was just in shock and in so much pain. I think I was still being electrocuted when I hit the ground. But anyways, when I did hit the ground, my head hit pretty hard and I couldn’t even feel that, because of how much pain the rest of my body was in.

So I had some bruising on my chin. It was a pretty nasty bruise. I took a picture. And yeah, it hurt really bad. Also, I think it was six barbs went into my skin. And I don’t know if this is important right now, but they didn’t take pictures of the ones on my legs, even after I asked them to. They brought me into the station, I think, mostly for that reason. And then, when I asked, “Can we take the pictures for insurance purposes?” He was like, “No, we don’t have to do that.”

Taya Graham:

I’m pretty certain a medic is supposed to take those barbs out with sterile tools. That really doesn’t sound right, Ian. So you didn’t have access to your personal property. Did you consent to let them go and search your car or trunk? I believe you consented to them turning off the lights in your car, is that correct?

Ian Cuypers:

No.

Taya Graham:

So what happened next? Were you given medical treatment? Were you taken to a hospital? Or were you taken to jail? What happened?

Ian Cuypers:

Well, they asked me if I needed an ambulance, but I have heard things about ambulances and I didn’t have insurance at the time, so I said no to the ambulance. Because I didn’t want to get stuck with two grand of medical bills, that I have no way of figuring out how to pay. But then, yeah, after that, they didn’t really give me any time to think. I did ask them if I could just have a minute to breathe, which they didn’t give me a second to gather my thoughts or anything. They just said I had to get right up, and then, they ripped the probes out of my back.

Taya Graham:

That’s terrible.

Ian Cuypers:

She just yoinked them out, like she was starting a lawnmower or something, through my jeans.

Taya Graham:

So one aspect of this assault, an unjust arrest you endured, that really bothers me, is that, on camera, you can hear the officers realize that you were driving food delivery, and they laugh, joking that maybe they should finish the delivery for you. How does it make you feel when you hear that?

Ian Cuypers:

So when I got the USB drive with the footage and I was able to watch everything, it was, yeah, it really was a little bit gut wrenching to see the transition from they’re willing to annihilate someone to they’re chuckling about that same person who they’re about to do some things that they don’t even know how they’re affecting that person. The fines that they charged me with are more than I could imagine being able to afford with a month of what I do for work. And it’s probably not even that much money to them. I don’t know. Yeah, it’s just sad to me.

Taya Graham:

I can only imagine what was going through your mind. One moment you’re working, providing for yourself and maybe your loved ones, and then, you’re engaged in a simple traffic stop for going the wrong way, and the next, you’re being shouted out on the ground, surrounded by officers, being repeatedly tasered. How are you coping with that? Because honestly, this really does seem traumatizing. How has this impacted you physically, emotionally, or even financially?

Ian Cuypers:

I definitely don’t feel comfortable driving around the police anymore or for DoorDash. I’ve been getting, I don’t know if it’s tremors, but I’ve been getting shaky whenever I think about it. And my blood pressure, I went to the urgent care clinic four or five days after I got tasered, and they took some diagnostics, anyways, my blood pressure has been high. And they sent me to the emergency room right away after I told them that I got tased a couple of days earlier. They said that I should go to the emergency room, where it turned out my body is functioning properly, just under a lot of stress. But anyways, yeah, it’s been very distracting. I think about it during the day and at night, and I just think about if I could… At first, I was thinking a lot about if I could have done anything differently, because sure, if I would’ve just shut up and done everything they asked me to do, I don’t know.

In my head, I was thinking, “If I make a wrong move, I’m going to end up with bullets inside me.” So my fight or flight instinct kicked in, and I decided that the best thing to do would be to figure out what was actually happening and not just get myself ready to be shot. Because that’s what I felt like was about to happen. Yeah, that’s, I guess, it is pretty traumatizing. It’s difficult to talk about, because I haven’t been able to get a therapist or anything yet. So I guess, if this isn’t a very good explanation, I guess it is just still difficult to talk about, for sure, as far as explaining it properly.

Taya Graham:

Another thing that gets me is that, on the car ride, they try to justify your treatment. The officer says, “I pulled you over for going the wrong way up a one way.” And then, he says he called the other officers and gave you commands because you made furtive movements, which you explained to me you were just trying to get your insurance ready for them. Furtive movements have been used to excuse a great many tragedies of police violence. Does it make any sense to you that they responded with such aggression and force for a traffic stop like that?

Ian Cuypers:

It doesn’t. No. Even if I was armed or even if I was dangerous in some way, I don’t think that the way that they treated it was reasonable at all. I think, before you escalate to an immediately deadly situation, you need to have someone there to negotiate terms like, “Is this person about to do something dangerous? We’re here. You’re here. What’s about to happen?” before, “We’re telling you what’s going to happen, based on little to no evidence.”

Taya Graham:

So what was the end result of this interaction with police? What were you charged with? And what are your next steps? And what sort of financial costs are you looking at?

Ian Cuypers:

So I was charged with resisting arrest.

Taya Graham:

I can’t believe you were charged with resisting arrest.

Ian Cuypers:

With going the wrong way down a one way, which that one is fair, if he wants to be really picky. I just made the turn, and the street is designed in such a way, there’s a little passageway in between the two one-way streets, just in case somebody does make that wrong turn, I’m sure, is why that’s there. It’s immediately there, and I was about to correct myself. And I’m sure people do that all the time. But yeah, that’s a fair charge. I did turn the wrong way. Anyways, as far as costs for that, those fines were, it was $350 for resisting arrest. Or no, it was more than 350, it was $375 or something like that. And then, it was 170 something for going the wrong way down a one way. Altogether, it’s around $800, there’s 700 something dollars.

I don’t make that much in a month with what I do lately. And as far as other costs, I did have to go to the emergency room, but I got insurance recently. So I don’t know how much that’s going to be able to cover. And then, I’m going to, of course, have to try to hire a lawyer, because they won’t provide me one, which I thought they were supposed to. But they will not. I will have to buy a lawyer or figure that out somehow. And lawyers are expensive, but if I want to get a good civil lawyer, I have a GoFundMe that I just set up actually. And if I want to get a good civil lawyer, I don’t know, it’s probably like a couple thousand dollars at least.

Taya Graham:

Has this changed the way you perceive law enforcement? Or perhaps I should ask, how has this experience changed you?

Ian Cuypers:

So it’s actually a really interesting phenomenon, I guess. On the bridge on the way over to Wisconsin, I was thinking to myself, “Wisconsin cops are probably nice.” I thought to myself that while I was on my way there that night, and I proved myself wrong. I was like, “Small town areas, people know each other. Should be a friendly basis with the local law enforcement,” but it was not a friendly basis. So yeah, my worldview sort of did change a lot after that happened. I’d always heard about this sort of stuff happening and I knew that there were issues in the system that need to be looked at, at the very least, but yeah, definitely having it happen somewhere where I just assumed that it was safe and now, I know that it’s not safe. And looking into it, the Superior Police Department, I guess nobody likes them. They’re not friendly, I guess, and I didn’t know that.

Taya Graham:

Last thing, something that really disturbed me was the reaction to your compliance. They even blamed you, saying that your movements were furtive, that you searching for your insurance was a furtive movement, and therefore, somehow, the force was warranted and deserved. I recently reported that people who have an impairment or disability, like being hard of hearing or an intellectual or mental health challenge or being on the spectrum, are much more likely to experience police brutality, because of their stress response or inability to follow commands perfectly. And it really scares me, because I have family members with these issues. And I’m really fearful for them to have an encounter with police.

Ian Cuypers:

I tell you what, this is something else that went through my mind, and I do believe perhaps I was profiled a bit, because my car, I can’t afford a car wash. It’s covered in dirt. It looks dirty. Who’s to say maybe drug dealers drive dirty cars is what people think, but regardless, I can’t afford a car wash. So my car is dirty, even when I go to work. I work with disabled adults, and I drive them places. So if that scenario happened and I had one of my low functioning people with me, that went through my head, that that would’ve been absolutely, like they wouldn’t have taken a second to think about that.

Taya Graham:

I have to say that this really hits home with me, because the hidden minority that is most often the victim of police violence is a person with a disability. The estimates range from 33% to 50% of people killed by police have at least one disability. That’s just one of the reasons why these judgments of furtive movements can be so dangerous. Okay. Usually, during this part of the show, I focus on a broader theme that I connect to the incident we covered earlier in the program, something that links bad policing back to bad policy, so that we can ponder how both can be addressed. But today, I’m going to narrow it down a bit. In fact, I’m going to literally boil down my entire rant to the import of one single word, namely “furtive.” Okay. Now, before you start saying, “Taya, what is this some sort of PAR word game? How can you even boil down a rant on American law enforcement into a single term or phrase? How can you discuss the extremely pervasive overreach of law enforcement by playing YouTube Scrabble? Are you even serious, Taya?”

Again, I’m talking about furtive. Furtive, adjective, attempting to avoid notice or attention or being secretive. You know the term thrown about by cops and statements of probable cause used to characterize almost any movement or action by a supposed suspect, the word that sounds vaguely menacing and overly judgmental, that can be used to justify almost any action by police? In my hometown, it was the word used to excuse the killing of Edward Lamont Hunt. In 2008, Hunt was shot three times in the back after he walked away from an officer who had patted him down at least twice. The officer said he had the right to shoot the young man in the back, because he made so-called furtive movements. Mr. Hunt died. The officer was charged with murder, but was acquitted at trial.

And likewise here in Ian’s case, the police again used the completely vague idea of a furtive movement to justify the deployment of a taser and one I would note was used long after he had exited the vehicle and was clearly not a threat to anyone. But of course, the charging document used this highly charged word to justify a range of behavior that is as hard to understand as it is to rationalize. But that brings me back to the word itself. What does it mean? Why is it so potent when it comes to policing? Well, to understand it, I think perhaps we need to use a little bit of literary theory to unpack how this word became shorthand to describe behavior, to justify almost anything. So first, let’s just go back to the meaning of furtive.

It’s a technical definition, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, and it’s behaving secretly or dishonestly. But of course, that definition leaves much of the work to the beholder. In other words, it’s a purely subjective characterization, and I think that’s the point. Because the word imbues the person who uses it with the power to define the actions of the others in the most deleterious way possible. In other words, subjectively speaking, a furtive movement can be almost anything and in the end, almost always bad. Let me show you. If I lower my glasses, is this furtive? If I hold my hands together, is this furtive? If I look into the camera and then, quickly glance away, was that furtive? Well, how can you really know? And that’s my point. The word itself defines something normal as threatening. How can you really know what my intentions are?

How can you know, when I reach down to my pocket like this, that, somehow, this discreet movement actually portends something harmful? This shows, in an indirect way, the real, but less tangible, power of law enforcement. Literally, a cop can define reality with a simple word, that has a purely subjective meaning. And not only can an officer use this nebulous descriptor to imply criminality in the most innocuous behavior, but as we saw in the video we just watched, use it to justify deadly force. I want you to think about that, how utterly it is that we have constructed a law enforcement industrial complex that can take our lives by invoking a word with a definition that is as subjective as it is ill-defined, meaning the entirety of our existence can often sit upon the threshold of an officer’s personal and really non-objective assessment of behaviors that could be just as innocent as they could be menacing.

It’s really, in a way, frightening to contemplate that such a flimsy justification can be used literally to administer street justice. And I think it should give us all pause, because like police describing a motorist as nervous to justify dragging them out of a car or bystander’s actions being suspicious to initiate an arrest, how we treat this word has massive real world implications. I liken it to another less obvious word that our legal system uses regularly, but also deserves scrutiny. It’s so common we hardly think about it, yet it has equally devastating consequences when misapplied. “Crime,” that’s right, the most serious and commonly used word that describes an almost incomprehensibly wide variety of human behavior, a term that serves as an umbrella for so many different actions. It’s probably one of the most broadly defined terms in the English language. Think about it, what we define as a so-called crime has huge implications.

Some things that seem minor, like using a drug or failing to feed a parking meter, are crimes. Not mowing your lawn or rolling stop on red are technically crimes. But I want to focus on where it seems to come up short, activities that should be crimes that aren’t and how this speaks volumes about how our country uses and misuses law enforcement. I’m going to start with a story that should have been big news, but really didn’t get much attention. It starts with an obscure government body, that rarely makes headlines, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission or MEDPAC. Now, just to give a little bit of background, MEDPAC is a body authorized by Congress in 1997 to advise Congress on how to make Medicare, the program that provides healthcare to senior citizens, more efficient. Last week, that body released a report that got hardly any notice, but has huge implications.

In an extensive study, it found that Americans enrolled in private insurance companies through Medicare Advantage cost $83 billion a year more to the government, compared to the people directly enrolled in Medicare. So translated into percentages, each person who was covered by private insurance was 22% more expensive than a person who simply had Medicare directly. To put it simply, private insurers were charging significantly more for the same service and getting away with it. And this was no minor expense. $83 billion is just 20 billion shy of what the government spends on food assistance for poor families. And it’s roughly 30 times the budget of our entire national park system. But of course, has there been any mention of this by the mainstream media, which nightly recounts all the chaos and mayhem and fear generated by crime? Has the constant drumbeat of bad news, that’s supposed to make us feel unsafe in our homes and unsure of our future, been interrupted by news of an $83 billion overcharge for healthcare?

Now, I’m not downplaying the adverse effect of crime in my community or others. I’m not saying that theft or dealing drugs or even carjackings are something to be ignored, but there do seem to be actions that I would consider crimes, that are rarely reported on on the nightly news. What I’m pointing out is how our choice of words to describe actions does not always equate to the harm being described, meaning too often, the word does not fit the misdeed. Think about it, overcharging seniors for vital healthcare really isn’t a crime. It’s an accounting problem. Ripping off the taxpayers of this country does not make a company or a person a criminal. It makes you a savvy business person. It’s so interesting to me how these contrasting behaviors are characterized by words. Moving your hands when a cop has pulled you over is reaching for something. Literally absconding with $83 billion in government money is overcharging. Acting confused when a cop is pointing a gun at you can be described as furtive. Knowingly ripping off the federal government is simply good business.

The rights in the Constitution are malleable, debatable, a statement of probable cause, solid, true, and always accurate. You get my point. While we often think of the justice system as some sort of immutable paragon of reason, it is often defined by subjective interpretations of words and laws that can be bent, warped, twisted by those who control its meaning. Essentially, we are often subject to the whims of language constructed by the people who wield the power to define it. It’s a phenomena that I don’t think we acknowledge enough or really understand its potentially devastating implications, but it’s also at the root cause of much of the unequal treatment under the law that is so often the topic of this show. It’s why it’s important that you see the videos that we showed you today. It’s why it’s important that every encounter with police and every incident is viewed with the proper context, why every decision by police to use force needs to be scrutinized, and why every word police use to describe our behavior must be accounted for and must be fully examined and must be fully understood by all.

That’s why we do this show, why we painstakingly review every video, every charging doc, and every law to give the most accurate and most transparent rendering of the truth. That’s a promise I make to you each and every show. I want to thank my guest, Ian Cuyper, for coming forward to speak with us, and we hope that, by sharing his experience, he can help prevent this type of excessive force from happening again. Thank you, Ian. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Laci R for their support. Thank you both and a very special thanks to our accountability report Patreons. We appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon Associate Producers Johnny R, David K, Louis P, and super friends, Shane B, Pineapple Girl, Chris R, Matter of Rights, and Angela True. And I want you watching to know that, if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us, and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at P-A-R @therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct.

You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly at tayasbaltimore on X or Facebook. And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. Like I said, we don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham, and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Speaker 8:

Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most. And we need your help to keep doing this work. So please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to The Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

Former Baltimore Police Sgt. Ethan Newberg’s disgraceful downfall continues as new body camera footage reveals an incident in which the ex-cop made three illegal arrests, and then threatened to arrest entire block full of witnesses. Although they were initially responding to a neighborhood dispute, Newberg and his partner arrested a local resident who was not involved in the altercation almost immediately. When neighbors began to protest, Newberg escalated to arrest two more residents—and threatened to keep going until the whole neighborhood was in handcuffs. Police Accountability Report returns with exclusive footage of Sgt. Newberg’s outburst, and what it tells us about the state of policing in Baltimore and around the country.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report.

As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops, instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today, we will achieve that goal by showing you this video of a cop that made not one, not two, but three illegal arrests, all of which occurred during a dispute between neighbors that was unremarkable, to say the least. But it’s also an example of how bad policing can literally spiral out control to the extent that it changes the psychology of an entire community, which is why we will be showing it to you in exacting detail.

But, before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me directly on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there, I give those hearts out, and I’ve even started doing a PAR comment of the week to show you all how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. And we have a Patreon called Accountability Reports, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything can spare is truly appreciated.All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, one of the problems with the advent of body-worn cameras is that even when police are caught making bad or illegal arrests, the video is not always made public. Ironically, police departments, using transparency laws, have been able to hide their questionable behavior and thus circumvent the whole purpose of wearing body cameras in the first place.

And today we have a perfect example of that problem, video that the police did not want you to see, but we are showing you here for the very first time, despite having to battle the government for two and a half years to obtain it.

It depicts Baltimore police officer Sergeant Ethan Newberg, wreaking havoc on the community, an authoritarian style of policing that leads to multiple illegal arrests. It is in fact a stunning example of how easy it is to abuse police powers and the consequence when that abuse is hidden from the public.

Newberg was charged in 2019 with multiple counts of misconduct in office for making nine illegal arrests, 32 counts to be exact. The body camera remains secret until we won an appeal to have it released. And now in a series of shows, we are revealing it to you for the very first time.

This story starts in Baltimore, Maryland when a neighborhood dispute attracted the attention of the police. As you can see, Newberg arrives on the scene, and instead of talking to the residents or trying to understand their concerns, he immediately becomes combative. Notice that one of his fellow officers decides that talking in their own backyard was actually illegal.

Take a look.

Newberg:

What is going on?

Woman in Dispute:

First of all, I live here. I don’t know what the hell’s going on. I just got off work.

Newberg:

So nobody knows what’s going on.

Woman in Dispute:

No. Nobody.

Cop 2:

Who called us here? How about that?

Woman in Dispute:

I don’t know! One of the nosey-ass neighbors called!

Cop 2:

Is everything okay here?

Woman in Dispute:

Yes! Everything’s okay!

Cop 2:

Do you need us here?

Woman in Dispute:

No!

Second Woman in Dispute:

We live here. I live here. I got a son!

Cop 2:

Oh my God. Okay.

Newberg:

Hold on. Hold on. This is what’s not going to happen. We’re not going to have a group of people outside in the block screaming, and shouting, and yelling.

Taya Graham:

But one of the neighbors decided to push back. Take a listen.

Woman in Dispute:

She done left!

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

That’s a public street. I thought we can do what we want.

Newberg:

Hey, let me tell you something, big mouth.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

Excuse me?!

Newberg:

Leave! Leave! Leave!

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I am leaving.

Newberg:

That’s a great idea.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I know.

Newberg:

Let me see your ID.

Cop 2:

Is this your car right here?

Taya Graham:

That’s right. He says, “It’s a public street. I can do what I want.” That’s it. He didn’t shout ACAB, or F the police, or any other anti-police type of behavior. No, just an accurate rendering of his Constitutional rights. And what kind of response does the First Amendment right to free speech elicit? Handcuffs.

Newberg:

Illegally parked. Let me see your ID.

Cop 2:

Let’s see your ID.

Newberg:

You want to play these games, big man?

Cop 2:

There you go.

Newberg:

You’re so close to going. Don’t even think of it. Put your hands…

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

What?

Newberg:

Based off your actions right now, you’re going in handcuffs.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

Record. Record.

Newberg:

Yeah, please do.

Woman in Dispute:

Want me to take [inaudible 00:04:49]?

Cop 2:

No [inaudible 00:04:50] this vehicle.

Woman in Dispute:

Why?

Cop 2:

Why?

Woman in Dispute:

That’s my vehicle.

Newberg:

Okay, well right now it’s illegally parked.

Taya Graham:

So he left. He actually left, even though all he did was express himself, so to speak. His only crime invoking the right to peaceably assemble, but the police were not satisfied. Just watch.

Woman in Dispute:

And we can move it!

Newberg:

And based off your actions, you’re not following orders.

Cop 2:

Put him over here.

Newberg:

I hear nothing.

Cop 2:

Put him on the sidewalk.

Newberg:

Scoot back! Scoot back!

Taya Graham:

Okay, so let’s just review. The officer says, “Based on your actions right now, you have committed a crime.” Really? You mean speaking politely? Leaving when asked? And showing your ID? How and why does this add up to a crime? How is that illegal?

But it gets worse as Newberg decides to bully the rest of the neighborhood.

Cop 2:

You can laugh all you want. I’m giving you a lawful order. Scoot back! It’s off…

Woman in Dispute:

Okay, we’re back!

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You do what you do!

Woman in Dispute:

Babe!

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You do what you do. I’m scooting back. Look at that shit.

Newberg:

Y’all think y’all tough, huh?

Cop 2:

Put your hands behind your back. Put your hands behind your back.

Speaker 5:

We have another unit. 2200 Ashton street [inaudible 00:06:06] I don’t know what the problem is.

Taya Graham:

That’s right. Newberg makes another illegal arrest. Cuffing someone who was filming on a public street. We’ve seen some overreach by police, but this might actually just take the cake. What was the crime? What was he doing that justified handcuffs? But Newberg only ups the ante, threatening the remaining residents who are standing on a public street, just observing the police. They aren’t protesting, they aren’t yelling, but even if they were, it wouldn’t matter because that, again, is not illegal.

Just watch.

Cop 2:

Now you threaten me.

Newberg:

Scoot back! I will take everybody! Out the street! Out of the street!

Cop 2:

It’s a felony to threaten me.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I don’t fucking threaten you. I said don’t touch her of my baby. My baby…

Cop 2:

You said you ain’t shit without that badge or whatever.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

It was not a threat. I just said, you ain’t shit without that badge. That’s what the fuck I said. It wasn’t a threat.

Cop 2:

Negative. Hey!

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You got my hand on twisted up.

Cop 2:

30.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You hear me?

Taya Graham:

Okay.

The observation that Newberg is not, you know what, without that badge is that man’s truth. It’s not a felony. But that is what happens when law enforcement is allowed to operate with impunity. Speaking truth to power becomes a crime, and exercising your rights becomes an arrestable offense. And Newberg continues to embrace that form of policing. Take another look.

Cop 2:

Get another cage car up here on Longwood.

Woman in Dispute:

I don’t give a fuck!

Cop 2:

Get this crowd back! Get this crowd back! Hey, your car unlocked? I want this guy separated. Stand up.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

Hey babe, get this man’s badge number.

Cop 2:

Stop yelling in my ear.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I’m not. I can fucking yell if I want.

Newberg:

Scoot back!

Cop 2:

I got to get a search on him.

Newberg:

I got it.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You got nothing. I just got money and my ID. Can I give that money to my fiance?

Newberg:

No.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

Well, y’all better not talk about money, though.

Newberg:

Shut up, dude. You’re getting annoying.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I mean, y’all’s annoying.

Newberg:

Just take your charge.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I’m taking it.

Newberg:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

So as you heard there, the infamous Newberg credo, “Take your charge.” In other words, “Forget about your rights or if you’re innocent, just accept the fact that I am the law and you are subject to my whims.” But Newberg is not finished. Not hardly. Just see for yourself.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

My fucking arm! You got my arm all twisted!

Newberg:

Handcuffs are not made for comfort, sir. Put your feet in the vehicle.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You put my hands straight.

Newberg:

Put your feet in the vehicle.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

Can you switch this cuff, please?

Newberg:

Put your feet…

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I just need to put my hands straightened and I’m good.

Newberg:

Okay, well the problem is you keep inciting the rest of the crowd. So you need to… No, you are, you’re inciting a riot. Get in the vehicle.

Taya Graham:

So I ask you, is he really inciting a riot? Can’t the police at least accommodate him so he’s not in pain? Apparently, not in this land of law enforcement run amuck. It seems to me that the police are trying to enforce silence, if not obedience. It’s a push for street supremacy that escalated when police tried to make yet another arrest.

Woman in Dispute:

All he said was you ain’t shit without that badge.

Newberg:

Get out of the street! You’ve been warned! I have units in route! Whoever does not live in this block will be going to jail! I’m giving you a lawful order! I don’t care! Until we clear this scene and make it safe! Everybody’s out of here!

Second Woman in Dispute:

Police [inaudible 00:09:41].

Newberg:

You talking to them. When these units get here, people are going to go in handcuffs. I can guarantee it. And, ma’am, you’re going to be the first one to go.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So now Newberg has basically threatened to arrest the entire block. Forget the fact that standing on the sidewalk does not require a residency test. Forget that the right to peaceably assemble prevents police from effectuating just a sort of arrest. Neither Newberg nor his fellow officers seem to care.

Newberg:

Say one word!

Woman in Dispute:

[inaudible 00:10:21]

Newberg:

Let me tell you something. You want to be a show off? You can join the other two that’s going to jail.

Second Woman in Dispute:

She needs to…

Newberg:

No, you need to mind your business! Don’t walk up here and run your mouth!

And if I do?

Try it! Do it! Go ahead. Go ahead. Yell at him. I dare you.

Second Woman in Dispute:

[inaudible 00:10:38]

Cop 2:

Take her.

What are you doing?

Newberg:

You’re making a fool of yourself.

Second Woman in Dispute:

I want to leave. Get up.

Newberg:

No, you’re going to jail.

Second Woman in Dispute:

Y’all are hurting…

Newberg:

You’re going to put your hands behind your back. Let her go. Let her go.

Second Woman in Dispute:

Don’t push me like that.

Newberg:

Then walk away while you still can! Take her out of here!

Speaker 9:

Come on. Come on, come on. Come on. You got your car…

Taya Graham:

Then, after failing to arrest the woman, who again was simply exercising her right to push back against the government, police arrest another woman for reaching into the police car to get her keys. All of this is due to the initial illegal arrest that put her in the predicament of having to retrieve her keys in the first place. A perfect example of the cascading effect of bad policing. Just take another look

Newberg:

Young! Well, hey, Cisco, do me a favor, let’s tow this truck out of here. It’s blocking the whole thing. What are we doing with her? What are we doing with her?

Cop 2:

I don’t know. She decided to reach in the car and not…

Newberg:

Oh, that’s lovely.

Cop 2:

It’s up to you.

Newberg:

No, you cannot! You can walk away!

Cop 2:

[inaudible 00:11:58] multiple times to go to the end of the block.

So you want me to order a tow for that?

Newberg:

Yes.

Cop 2:

Okay. Where are you going if those cuffs come off?

Second Woman in Dispute:

Home.

Newberg:

Where’s home?

Second Woman in Dispute:

Down the street.

Newberg:

So those cuffs come off, you’re walking down the street?

Second Woman in Dispute:

Well I planned on driving down the street.

Newberg:

No, well that’s off the table.

Cop 2:

That’s off the again.

Newberg:

So you have two choices, jail or walk away, which one you want?

Second Woman in Dispute:

I need my truck.

Cop 2:

Okay.

Newberg:

All right. So she needs to be transported then.

Cop 2:

Okay. All right.

Newberg:

To jail.

It’s your call. I mean, I can’t understand what’s happening here. They’re definitely going! Oh, they’re gone! Just few… They came up here to start trouble and now they’re going to jail.

Taya Graham:

And then Newberg decides that as a final insult to injury, he will continue to taunt that victim of his illegal arrest in jail. Just watch.

Newberg:

Okay.

Cop 2:

Hang on.

Newberg:

Search him.

Cop 2:

Hot Spot. Check [inaudible 00:13:19] Avenue.

Newberg:

Is your ID in here?

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

No. You got it.

Newberg:

Got it. All right. Well that’s a charge.

Cop 2:

Oh yeah, felony. It’s you said?

You said, “Yeah. Okay?”

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I didn’t say nothing. I just said okay. [inaudible 00:13:52] Y’all had no reason to lock nobody up. Nobody did nothing.

Cop 2:

Y’all know each other?

Newberg:

Don’t explain anything to him. Just… It’s over.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

It’s over for your badge. That’s all.

Newberg:

Stay on for the other one.

Taya Graham:

And that final video illustrates a point about a so-called “minor” arrest that I think is worth illuminating. In the end, that minor arrest leads to an innocent person being locked into a dirty, filthy, tiny cage. A moment without dignity that I believe the public must see to understand that there is nothing minor about an arrest, because it always ends up with someone, somewhere, locked in a cage.

So let’s watch that again and keep in mind that no arrest is inconsequential.

Newberg:

You got the ID on him?

Cop 2:

You want his ID, too?

Newberg:

Mm-hm.

Cop 2:

That’s his.

Taya Graham:

But there is more to this story than just the questionable actions of Ethan Newberg and his fellow cops, details that my reporting partner, Stephen Janis has been digging into during our ongoing investigation into what was going on behind the scenes and the possible motive police had for trying to keep this video secret.

Stephen, thank you so much for joining me,

Stephen Janis:

Tay, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

First, Stephen, we have been trying to get this video for over two years, but the state’s ombudsman, the official of last resort when the keeper of records, in this case the police department, refuses to release those records. So this ombudsman gave us some very troubling reasons for not releasing the body camera footage. Can you talk about it?

Stephen Janis:

It was almost like we were talking to the police department, which it turns out we were, because I did a little research. Now this ombudsman is, you said it’s supposed to be the person of last resort, you appeal to when your MPI request is turned down. But she ended up making the argument that releasing this body-worn camera before Newberg was sentenced would prejudice the judge.

Now this is evidence, so this is very strange. So I did a little background check and it turns out the ombudsman is actually under the auspices of our Attorney General. In other words, our ombudsman represents law enforcement, and that’s exactly what went down when we spoke to her.

Taya Graham:

So do you think the release of the video prior to sentencing would’ve affected that outcome that Newberg did not receive jail time?

Stephen Janis:

Okay, Tay, I’m going to be a bit of a skeptic and say the judge wouldn’t have done anything, but the public would’ve seen it, and perhaps that would’ve put pressure on the justice system to do its job in this case, which I think is to hand out a fair sentence based on the crimes committed, which were extensive. S.

O I think the judge had already decided he was not going to give Newberg anytime, which he didn’t. But I think if the public had seen it and there was public pressure, it would have made a big difference.

Taya Graham:

I thought the video was a good example of why there is really no such thing as a minor arrest. What’s your take?

Stephen Janis:

Well, it’s amazing because as you watch the video, and as we just showed it, there’s a young woman who’s trying to retrieve the keys for the truck from one of the young men he arrested, and then Newberg hassles that woman and threatens her with arrest. But the point is that he’s got his keys, they take his possessions, and then they’re going to tow the truck.

So a family, for an illegal arrest, is out of its transportation for who knows how long they have to pay to get it back. So as you can see, one arrest can sow chaos throughout an entire family and the community. I think this is a perfect example.

Taya Graham:

Interestingly, Baltimore has returned to a form of quality of life arrests. How is that working out?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I would call Zero Tolerance life. They’ve been writing summons for people supposedly who commit quality of life arrests like drinking on a sidewalk or spitting on a sidewalk. There haven’t been that many citations written. Almost none, actually. It’s just really performative and I think it shows again that law enforcement can’t solve complex social problems like poverty in Baltimore, or crime, or whatever. You need the community and the people.

Taya Graham:

The Baltimore Police Department has been rocked with a series of scandals, including the Gun Trace Task Force, which was eight officers who robbed residents, dealt drugs, and stole overtime money right out of the taxpayer’s wallets.

How does Newberg’s issues fit into the broader picture of a police department be set with such corruption? Well,

Stephen Janis:

Well, Tay, I think it’s really interesting because we talk about big corruption like dealing drugs by officers and things like that, but it’s like the minor corrupt culture of police that we see in Newberg’s videos that it’s important to recognize. 14 cops standing around and arresting a guy who has a drug problem, five or six cops around arresting a whole community that’s having a minor dispute, that’s the real corruption that we have unleashed policing in these communities that can least afford it and deal with it, and expect it to solve the problems of poverty, low wages, all sorts of other things. The fact that people can go broke when they get sick, all those things can’t be solved by policing, and when you send them in to do that, you get Ethan Newberg style of policing. And I think that’s why these videos are so important to watch and why we will continue to bring them to our viewers.

Taya Graham:

Okay, now I think there is quite a bit to unpack about the video we just watched. Truisms about American policing that are often overlooked during the debates over the role of police and the broader powers of law enforcement, which is a topic of our show today.

Generally speaking, when political parties spout tough on crime narratives, they miss a salient point, a hidden consequence of unleashing law enforcement on vulnerable communities that rarely sees the light of day. When law enforcers become lawbreakers, it undermines not just our belief in our rights, but the idea that we are entitled to equal protection elsewhere. In other words, what we often miss when we confront the examples of police abuse we witnessed is how the malfeasance affects our minds. And, to a certain extent, I feel like that oversight is intentional. That is the psychological effect of over policing is simply dismissed as a byproduct of law enforcement obsessed political establishment, but it’s also something that needs to be addressed because caging our minds can be just as bad as caging our bodies. So I’m going to address this idea right here, right now.

Let me start with a story. It’s about a Mississippi sheriff’s drug unit who, believe it or not, called themselves the Goon Squad. Now this particular unit was quite adept at something far field from policing. They were, in fact, practitioners of terrorism. How can I make this claim?

Well, consider some of the facts that have been recently exposed regarding how this unit operated. And I have to warn you, this is graphic. In their efforts to allegedly make drug arrests, this unit of sheriff’s deputies committed acts that would be more akin to a fascist’s torture. They choked an innocent man with a lamp cord and then waterboarded him. They tasered another man while he was stuck in a ditch full of water. They conducted illegal raids in the middle of the night, often handcuffed and interrogated innocent people, accusing them of holding or dealing drugs without evidence. Sometimes all of this unconstitutional intimidation was done while the victims were staring down the barrel of a gun.

Oh, and the man they tasered while he was submerged in a ditch full of water, eventually they shoved a stick down his throat until he coughed up blood. But here’s the kicker, this type of unacceptable behavior continued unabated for nearly 20 years. That’s right, for more than two decades, this group of so-called law enforcement officers pretty much acted like an extra judicial tribunal, meting out punishment and intimidation in violation of every precept of our legal system.

In fact, as the New York Times reported, this behavior would’ve gone on unchecked if not for a grizzly incident that occurred in 2019. And I do need to give you a warning that I will describe graphic violence.

2019, roughly five deputies stormed into the home of Michael Jenkins and Eddie Parker, falsely accusing them of dealing drugs. Deputy Hunter Elward then proceeded to unholster his gun and shove it into the mouth of Mr. Jenkins. He then inexplicably pulled the trigger, seriously wounding him. This all occurred after they were both forced to strip naked and were abused with sex toys. I’m serious. But, believe it or not, it actually gets worse.

That’s because the sheriff in charge of the so-called Goon Squad expressed disbelief that this type of abuse behavior was happening at all. Rankin County Sheriff Brian Bailey said, and I’m quoting, “Never in my life did I think this would happen in this department.” Never? In a department that has less than 50 employees, you had no idea? Turns out that this particular sheriff must have been managing a different department, because an investigation by the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting, along with the New York, Times found allegations of similar brutality going back to 2004. That’s right. For almost 20 years, the Goon Squad had been terrorizing the community while committing crimes all in the name of law and order.

Allegations that the so-called law enforcement community apparently knew nothing about. And I say “apparently” because this excuse that the people who are charged with administering justice simply did not know about a large unit of cops regularly committing crimes strains, not just credulity, but logic itself.

And you know what? That’s also because it’s so familiar. I’ve heard this line almost every time a scandal like this comes to light. And what I think this excuse reveals comes straight from the How To Use Law Enforcement to Sow Chaos in Communities playbook, a few pages from the operating manual they use to keep the engine humming for the American law enforcement mayhem machine.

So let me try to explain why this is an outright lie, and it’s more than just camouflaging the truth, and share what it says about the actual imperative that drives these units to commit crimes with often unfettered impunity.

First, we have to understand one aspect of the structure of law enforcement that often goes unexamined. A police department is essentially a military organization operating, technically, at the behest of a civilian hierarchy. That is, all police departments are structured around the command and control of a military style hierarchy with oversight by civilians.

That’s why officers are often designated for military ranks like sergeant, lieutenant, captain, et cetera. And that’s why civilian control of the police is considered such an important element of reform. It’s also how police departments are managed, by ranking officers who give orders which the rank and file are expected to obey, no questions asked. This means that regardless of circumstance, those same rank and file officers are acting under the orders of supervisors regardless of what the top brass says when things go awry.

So all of this begs the question, why would a top-down command structure be unaware of the actions of officers who are subject to direct orders? Why would an organization, allegedly under the auspices of military style management, be able to run amuck without anyone knowing?

Well, aside from the fact that often the people in charge are simply lying, I think there’s another factor that makes a continued drumbeat of specialized unit in scandal after scandal emerge from the apparent shroud of mystery that surrounds law enforcement leadership. It’s a factor that’s routinely underestimated with the mainstream media and political elites hand wringing over, “How could this have happened?” fairytale, they tell themselves, not us, when the news breaks about a veritable torture unit masquerading as police.

Put simply this unit targeted impoverished areas just like Sergeant Newberg, just like the notorious Gun Trace task force that robbed residents and dealt drugs in Baltimore, just like most of these cases, they all occur in places struggling or suffering from poverty. Whether it be the big city cases I just mentioned, or the rural community subject to the Goon Squad, bad policing is focused primarily on poor and working class neighborhoods. This is as true for Mississippi as it is for Baltimore. Meaning when it comes to unleashing the power of bad policing, the worst of it tends to trickle down.

Now that’s perhaps not such a surprising revelation. The idea that our political elites would seek to unjustly punish the working class is hardly breaking news. What’s perhaps less understood is why, and that’s what I’m going to break down for you here, and I’m going to do so by making a point about something that may seem tangential, but is actually part of the reasons cops like to cause chaos in communities that can least afford it. The topic is social security, the trust that is supposed to, in part, fund retirement for working people that is apparently on a path to run out of money? The meager benefit for people who work their whole lives that apparently over promises to workers and needs to be curtailed, or otherwise altered, to ensure that it has enough money to cover the benefits that were earned by hard, backbreaking work.

Well, guess what? One big reason social security is underwater is due to this, generous benefits to the rich. That’s right. Unlike other countries, like the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, which limit what the top earners can take from the system to keep it sustainable, the US grants benefits that, in some cases, exceed $117,000 per year for the highest earning couples. That’s three times what the same couple will receive in Britain, the contrast is so extreme that the Cato Institute, that’s right, the Cato Institute, which incidentally is no bastion of liberalism, called our Social security system, a “golden parachute for the rich.”

The point they make in the report is that the richest Americans, just like their counterparts in the UK, don’t need the extra money, which is why the cap exists in England. The point of this pension system, and supposedly ours, is to make sure every American who retires does not become impoverished. But our system actually does the opposite, it enriches the already rich.

And before you start saying, “Oh, Taya the rich pay more so they deserve more.” Just stop. It’s not true. That’s because our social security system has a cap, meaning you only pay into social security tax on a maximum of $168,000 in annual earnings. So a person who earns $50,000 a year pays multiple times more on social security tax on a person who makes $500,000 a year. Let me say this another way. The richer you are, the less you put in the system. Every dollar you make over $170,000 a year is not taxed. This also means that if the cap were lifted, and everyone was taxed at the same rate, rich or poor, the entire system would not just be solvent, but might even be overfunded.

But the reason I bring this up in a rant about law enforcement is simple, the elites are ripping us off and they don’t want us to know. They’re literally burdening us to pay welfare for the rich and they don’t want us to focus on just how bad a deal it is. Instead, they want us to focus on crime, how bad it is, how out of control it is, how many new punitive laws we need, how we need to pay cops more and more, and spend more money on law enforcement.

It’s a nice compact misdirection play. “Don’t look over here while we’re writing bills that tax you more than the filthy rich so they can retire in luxury while you go broke buying insulin or trying to afford an EpiPen. Don’t stop fixating on that crime because if you do, you might realize we’re being fleeced and call for change and more fairness in this system.” Now we wouldn’t want that, would we?

The point is, the powers that be want to keep us confused, off balance, and fighting for our rights instead of demanding more. They want us to be pleading for mercy from the militarized units that terrorize our communities rather than saying, “Wait a second, you want me to pay more taxes than a millionaire?”

I find it hard to believe they just didn’t know that deputy sheriffs were breaking the law on a daily basis. I think it was purposeful, willful ignorance, because that was the point, to have our rights degraded, and to make our minds pliable, and worn down and ultimately make us psychologically unable to demand better. In sum, they simply want to imprison our minds. That’s why videos like the ones you just watched need to be revealed. That’s what the so-called scandal in Mississippi, portends. That our ability to imagine something better is imperiled. That’s why we need to fight back for it because freedom, our freedoms, started with a thought, an idea, and we need our minds clear and our imaginations free to define these freedoms. We, the people, need to be the ones to define it, not a bunch of rogue cops.

I’d like to thank the Baltimore City Police Department for giving us the body camera footage that gave us such powerful insights into the culture of policing. And of course, I want to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods and Friends of the show, Noli D. and Lacey R. for their support. Thanks to you. And a very special thanks to our accountability report, Patreons, we appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, particularly Patreon Associate Producers; John E.R., David K., Louis P., Lucy Garcia, and super-friends Shane B., Kenneth K., Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us, and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment, I do read your comments and appreciate them. And we will have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do, because anything you can spare will truly appreciated.

My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.

Speaker 5:

Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories and struggles that you care about most and we need your help to keep doing this work. So please, tap your screen now, subscribe and donate to the Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

Like hundreds of thousands of other Texas motorists, Thomas Reader found himself in an unending debt spiral as a result of the state’s Drivers Responsibility Act. Due to the program’s surcharges and late fees, Reader owed $13,000 to the state—an amount he simply couldn’t pay until he was finally granted a form of amnesty. The occupational license, which was a direct result of this program, limited his ability to drive, and as a DoorDasher his increased time on the road only meant increased exposure to police looking to write tickets to secure revenue. When Reader, out of frustration, “flipped the bird” at a Texas Sheriff patrol car, officers conveniently claimed to have witnessed a traffic violation, pulling Reader over and arresting him. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report examine the footage in the case and its wider implications on the corrosive power of revenue-motivated policing, which is increasingly a factor in the behavior of law enforcement nationwide.

Studio Production: Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephe Janis, Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. To do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

Today, we’ll achieve that goal by showing you a video of a traffic stop that led to the questionable arrest of a man who had simply shown his dissatisfaction with police by giving them the finger, but it is the abuse of power that led to the encounter, a program designed to entrap motorists, which we will be breaking down in the show. It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of incentivizing law enforcement, and what happens when fines and fees are motivating cops rather than upholding the law.

But before I get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com, or you can reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @TayasBaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out, and it can even help our guests. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see the little hearts I give out down there, and I’ve even started doing a Comment of the Week to show you just how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have.

We do have a Patreon called Accountability Report, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is really appreciated. We always make sure to thank our patrons like Shane B, David K, John Rowe, Lucy Garcia, or Lucy P. Okay, now we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, one of the biggest problems with law enforcement in our country has nothing to do with enforcing the law or even the shortage of officers. What often makes American law enforcement so fraught is that it is structured around a word that seems far afield from investigating crimes, namely profit. That’s right, fees, fines, penalties, bail, you name it. It’s an imperative to generate revenues that often prompt police to behave like bill collectors rather than public servants.

And no arrest embodies the bad consequences of treating cops like government-sponsored ATM machines than the video I’m showing you now. It’s a cautionary tale of what happens when the government turns to law enforcement for revenue, and how that emphasis can often twist the law into a tool for financial oppression. The story starts in Kerrville, Texas last year. There, Thomas Reader was working as a delivery driver for DoorDash. The job was a lifeline to help him with a problem that had little to do with his willingness to work or his commitment to the job.

Instead, his financial woes were completely the result of a government-conjured burden. That’s because Thomas had been repetitively ticketed under a program called the Driver Responsibility Act. The policy incentivizes officers to write traffic tickets to fund highway construction and emergency rooms. The program has been controversial, as you’ll learn later, and it has been halted. But that was too little too late for Thomas, because he was the recipient of numerous tickets from that program for minor traffic infractions.

And because the program added fees and surcharges when drivers had trouble paying, Thomas was put in debt, and that debt was an ever-growing tab with penalties that kept piling on top of the fines, to the point where he owed, and I’m not kidding, $13,000. But Thomas wasn’t alone. For example, in January 2018, 1.4 million Texans had suspended licenses for not paying surcharges, and all of this boiled over for Mr. Reader when Kerrville Police pulled him over last year.

That’s when, as I said, he was driving to make a delivery when police started to follow him. He had not committed a traffic infraction. No, they targeted him because that program limits your driving abilities when you can’t pay. But Thomas, already frustrated with the constant harassment that he believes is tied to the incentives I mentioned before, exercised his constitutional right and gave the cops the finger, and that’s when they pulled him over.

Not initially for a traffic violation, but because the officer said the bird drew their attention, and they used his license restricted from the debt as an excuse to further investigate him. Let’s watch.

Video:

Can I see your driver’s license?

No. [inaudible 00:04:16] anything like that?

Okay. Go ahead and turn around for me.

For what?

Go ahead.

Sir, get your phone out.

You pulled me over for no reason, man.

No, sir.

Yeah, you can’t do this.

I know you’re not to have an eligible driver’s license.

I do have an eligible driver’s license.

Taya Graham:

Now, you’ll also notice that the officer immediately accused him of driving without a proper license, and this turned out not to be true, but that didn’t stop them from slipping handcuffs on him. Let’s watch.

Video:

You pulled me over for no reason, man.

No, sir.

Yeah. You can’t do this.

I know you’re not to have an eligible driver’s license.

I do have a eligible driver’s license. Do you want me to get it out?

Yeah. That’s why-

You guys are making a huge mistake.

That’s why I asked you for your driver’s license.

You’re making a huge mistake right now.

Here, step right over here real quick.

Record, Sawyer.

She’s fine. She can record.

[inaudible 00:04:57] You’re retaliating because I gave you the fucking finger. You can’t do this.

Just stand right here real quick.

Man, you’re breaking every fucking law, man. You’re a piece of shit, dude. Y’all can’t do this. You are violating my rights. My license is valid. I have an occupational license.

Okay.

We are DoorDash. Why am I in fucking handcuffs?

I just want to come confirm that.

No, you’re telling me [inaudible 00:05:16]. You have no fucking [inaudible 00:05:17].

1448-6640-1448-6640. Okay.

Yeah. Why do you think you got the finger?

Do you have your occupation… Hey, do you have your occupational paperwork with you?

It’s right there. No, I don’t. We’re DoorDashing right now and you can see we’re DoorDash.

Taya Graham:

Now, almost immediately, Mr. Reader pushes back on the officer’s assertions that he should not be driving and using let’s say, colorful language. He did indeed have restrictions on his license due to the Driver Responsibility Act. But none of those restrictions precluded him from earning a living. Still, the police persisted.

Video:

Okay, but do you have your paperwork with you?

I don’t know where my paperwork is in the car.

You have to have that paperwork with you.

No. I have an occupational driver’s license.

You have to have paperwork with you.

Y’all retaliate. You can do whatever you want.

No, sir. Do you have the paperwork?

No, I don’t have it. I have it on my phone. I have it on my phone. I have it electronically on my phone. I already talked to the judge and he said it was okay.

Taya Graham:

Okay, as you can see, the police were simply uninterested in hearing his side of the story no matter how caustically he shared it. In fact, they kept insisting he was driving illegally. Take a listen.

Video:

[inaudible 00:06:17] shit.

So you’re okay teaching your daughter to [inaudible 00:06:20].

Hell yeah. Her grandfather’s a retired police officer.

Why don’t you do yourself a favor and just be quiet, okay? Until we get [inaudible 00:06:25].

I don’t have to be quiet.

Do you have that?

[inaudible 00:06:26] make it worse on yourself.

I’m not making anything worse for myself. Freedom of speech, buddy. You can’t tell me to be quiet. You cannot tell me to be quiet.

It’s still acting [inaudible 00:06:36].

I’m still talking. What are you going to do?

I’m just asking you to be quiet.

And I refuse [inaudible 00:06:41].

You have every right to refuse.

Yeah, because you can’t tell me to be quiet. You can’t tell what you do. I don’t have to [inaudible 00:06:44]-

Get it to where you can see how much hours-

Man, y’all are crooked, dude.

That’s not how works.

Y’all messed up.

Okay.

My license wasn’t suspended. Y’all keep harassing me, dude.

One hour-

Taya Graham:

Still, even after Mr. Reader showed the officer from his phone that he did indeed have the proper license to drive his car to earn a living, but these cops would not relent and they still gave him a ticket. That’s right, a man who for years had suffered with $13,000 in debt from surcharges was now just trying to [inaudible 00:07:11] out a living, and he was hammered with another $210 ticket. Just look.

Video:

Did you get him recorded saying I gave him the finger and so they pulled me over?

No, sir. I actually pulled you over because you failed to signal into this parking lot. Also, I need your driver’s license for failure. I also know that you didn’t have a good driver’s license.

You’re retaliating because I gave gave you the finger.

No, sir.

[inaudible 00:07:30] shit. That’s what y’all do. That’s what you do, Graham. It’s Officer Graham and Officer Vasquez. What’s your badge number?

Right there.

Let me tell the judge, asshole. It’s right there?

Yes, sir.

You’re such a crooked cop man. How do you guys sleep at night when you do this shit? I gave you the finger and your egos just can’t take it, can they, bud? That’s why he put me in cuffs-

I don’t even know you, buddy.

… immediately.

I don’t even know you.

That’s because you’re a piece of… I don’t [inaudible 00:07:55] you’re a piece of shit what you fucking did to me. You violate people’s rights on a daily basis. That’s what you do. You just did. Let me see your driver’s license and you fucking put me in cuffs immediately.

Yes, sir.

What a piece of shit.

Is DoorDash your full-time job or do you do something else?

Yeah, idiot. It’s not your business what I do, man.

Okay.

Fucking pignorance is what it is. Pignorance.

That’s kind of good.

You like that?

Yeah.

I’m glad you like that, Graham. You got a little sense of humor, bitch.

Oh, you like my pig right here?

Yeah. For my safety, I’m in fucking handcuffs, huh? Dummy. Fucking morons. Crooked ass shit. Sorry they’re holding you up, ma’am. They don’t care about your time. Sorry ma’am. You guys don’t give a fuck about other people do, do you? She’s innocent and look at you guys. We’re going to hold her fucking time up.

Who’s?

Her. She’s waiting for you guys to fucking move.

If you want, your daughter could get your food delivered.

If she has a driver’s license to drive.

I’m talking about the lady right there in front of her car, you morons. [inaudible 00:08:45] these fucking cuffs for you to fucking sign shit.

Actually, are you going to sign it?

Do I have to?

Yes, sir.

Then I’ll fucking sign it.

Okay.

Taya Graham:

And as a result, Mr. Reader now saddled with yet another fine after struggling with those fines and surcharges for years, decided to share his displeasure with the officers. Yes, he did use colorful language and yes, the cops listened, but in the end they just added more to his financial woes, which is perhaps why he expressed his displeasure even as the officers decided not to take him to jail. Take a look.

Video:

Hey, you know why I’m here? Because I prepaid for my electricity and I’m negative $3.

I thought you were here to drop off food.

I’m paying electricity too right away from DoorDash right there. I got to pay my electric bill. You want to give me another fucking ticket, asshole?

So then you’re not here for purposes of your DoorDash.

We’re just DoorDashing that apartment. So while I’m by K-Pub, I got to pay my electricity. Tell the judge that. Tell the judge that.

Again, you’re in violation of your-

We were still DoorDashing. We’re still active. But you pulled me over. My phone is still DoorDashing right now.

Okay, but you’re not delivering any food, right?

I can still be working. This is a hotspot too. Nice try.

Is it this?

Yeah.

Look at you guys trying to hem somebody up here. Fuck y’all, man. All y’all care about is [inaudible 00:09:51].

It’s the words that are coming out of your mouth that are getting you [inaudible 00:09:53].

No, they’re not against the law. It’s called Freedom of Speech. One thing you don’t know, Vasquez, is the law. And your law enforcement? So that’s a joke. You should study law.

Where did you get your degree?

You don’t have to have a degree no more than your ass.

Did you get your degree too in law? Where? Exactly. Don’t know where, do you?

Taya Graham:

Now we have been investigating this program and it’s burdensome use of fines and the impact it’s had on people like Mr. Reader. In fact, we will be speaking to him soon about what else was going on behind the scenes when those officers pulled him over.

But first, I’m going to talk to my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who has been investigating the Texas ticket machine and why it was able to saddle motorists with insurmountable debt. Stephen, thank you so much for joining us.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, you’ve been looking into this program. What have you learned? What happened and why did the governor finally discontinue it?

Stephen Janis:

Well, basically what happened is it was totally out of control. It became sort of a vicious cycle for drivers in Texas where almost 1.4 million drivers or 1.5 million drivers had lost their license. Because what happened is that you didn’t just have to pay the ticket, you had to have a fee on top of that ticket if you had too many tickets in a certain period of time.

And then, if you didn’t pay that extra fee in 105 days, you’d lose your license. A lot of people can’t afford to pay those fees so they kept driving because they have to go to work and then they get another fee. And before you know, it compounded so much that millions of people couldn’t drive in Texas legally. It was really out of control.

Taya Graham:

So this is not an uncommon phenomenon, law enforcement agencies ratcheting up fines. It seems to go beyond the need to ensure public safety. What do you think drives these policies?

Stephen Janis:

It’s interesting. There’s an untold story about this particular program. There’s a thing called the Municipal Service Bureau, which is a place that collects for Texas when people can’t pay. This company, this firm is private. They’re a private firm. So all those millions in fees, they’re getting money to actually collect those fees. And it turns out there have been 60 lawsuits filed in federal court against them because they harass people so much.

So, “Oh yeah, this is a great program. We’re collecting money for the trauma center,” but really what we’re doing is enriching private companies who can collect and done people because they haven’t paid their ticket fees, which is bad enough when you can’t even drive. Really, it’s a way of enriching the private sector too and we can’t forget that about these programs.

Taya Graham:

Now, these fine-driven programs tend to really be focused on the working class and can have devastating impacts on the people who can least afford it. What does the research say?

Stephen Janis:

Well, the research lines up exactly with your question, Taya. It’s pretty freaking straightforward that the people who can least afford, like people who are working people, living paycheck to paycheck, are the ones who end up losing their license. I mean, just look at our guests. He had $10,000 he had paid in fines and he still had another $13,000 to pay. It was insane.

How can a man survive? How can a man pay his bills when he’s got to pay $10,000 just to get behind the wheel? This is truly a tax on the poor, the impoverished people who are working and struggling. It is not a beneficial program for society. It does not even help drivers because it turns out that only 12% of the people who lost their licenses were people who committed some sort of DUI or some sort of serious infraction. The other 88% were just people who were speeding or something.

It really wasn’t getting to the root of the problem it was designed to solve. It’s really a total and utter mess. Taya, let me just say this before I go. I want you to watch really carefully. When this cop says he pulled over for not turning a signal, the cop was going in the opposite direction, but notice we’re showing you with arrows here, that he was indeed giving the finger and then the cop turns around. There’s no way, I think from his perspective, unless he had a very, very, very good sort of telescope quality rearview mirror, he could have seen the man not signaling.

I think really this was about getting the finger from a man and trying to show, “Hey, we’re in charge. You can’t push back against us.”

Taya Graham:

And now to learn how police have been targeting him and the impact this questionable overreach has had on his life, I’m joined by Mr. Reader. Thomas, thank you so much for joining me.

Thomas Reader:

Thank you for your time. I’m a big fan.

Taya Graham:

Well, thank you, Thomas. That’s very kind. First, please tell me why were you allegedly pulled over during the traffic stop we have been showing on the screen. What did police say?

Thomas Reader:

Well, they allegedly said they pulled me over for driving while with a suspended license, although I have an occupational. Yes, ma’am. I was working at the time.

Taya Graham:

Could you explain what an occupational license is?

Thomas Reader:

It just means your license is still suspended, but you can drive for essential purposes like going to and from work, picking your kids up from school, medical reasons. I DoorDash for a living, so I drive all the time. So that’s part of my work.

Taya Graham:

You said to the officer, “You pulled me over because I flipped you the bird.” What did he say in response and how did he react to that assertion?

Thomas Reader:

Well, Officer Vasquez is the one that said that got their attention and we have it recorded. And so I was glad we got that recorded. But he said that he pulled me over initially because he thought it was invalid, but he didn’t really even mention the bird. Officer Graham wouldn’t mention that. Officer Vasquez was the one that mentioned that.

Taya Graham:

Were you surprised that you were put in cuffs for a traffic infraction?

Thomas Reader:

Yes, ma’am. First, I didn’t see any lights. All I saw was them do a U-turn and I was going to pay my electric bill, so I was already parked. I was getting out of the car to pay my electric bill and saw them behind me. All I did was get out of the car and put my hands in the air. I never advanced towards them or anything. He said, “Give me your driver’s license.” I said something like “What for?” And immediately, I was put in handcuffs.

Taya Graham:

Now you seem pretty annoyed with the officers disrupting your workday for something petty like this. As you mentioned, your livelihood is tied to driving. Does it cost you money or time to unravel these tickets or basically can you explain why you were so upset? Was it the money or was it something else?

Thomas Reader:

Basically, it was for getting arrested out of my house for supposedly driving while invalid. Although, I never received a citation, any notification by mail, nothing. The only notification I got was police knocking on my door telling me I had to come out or I’d be also arrested for resisting without violence. That’s why I started getting upset and started actually giving cops the verge just to let them know my displeasure with what they have done.

Taya Graham:

Okay, so you’re telling me the police pulled you out of your home, put you in a car and took you to jail just for an alleged traffic violation. What happened next? I mean, how did you feel and how long were you in jail for?

Thomas Reader:

About three and a half hours. I felt very helpless. I just couldn’t believe they could come to my house for, first off, an invalid driver’s license. And secondly, I had never gotten a ticket for it, so I was really just stunned and actually kind of just wondering where this had come from.

Taya Graham:

Now you were pulled over just a few days ago. Can you tell me exactly what happened?

Thomas Reader:

Yes, ma’am. I was working, I was DoorDashing. I was waiting at McDonald’s for an order because that’s a hotspot, and a police officer was across the street getting gas and instead of her leaving, she pulled a U-turn and faced me across the street. I thought nothing of it. Ironically enough, I got a Burger King order where she was parked and went to get my order. When I pulled out I wanted to thank her for an officer that had done me a favor and she immediately tried to initiate a traffic stop saying I was driving while suspended.

Taya Graham:

That just seems like overkill to me.

Thomas Reader:

She said there was no infraction. She said she just ran my tags because that’s what she does. There was no infraction except for I was operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway while suspended. Although, occupational does come up when she calls dispatch.

Taya Graham:

This really shows me that once you’re pulled into the system, the system still keeps pulling you back in and taking money and time.

Thomas Reader:

Yeah, we don’t live in town anymore. We had to move seven miles out into the country because I don’t want to live in Kerrville anymore. I did also find out while I was pulled over, while I was arrested out of my house for an driver’s license, I later found out it was because an officer had pulled me over two months prior for a headlight out, although my headlight was not out. We got it on video and that’s when he said I was suspended.

My daughter was in the car and I was like, “I’m not suspended.” He goes, “Yeah, you are. You had a failure to appear today.” I was like, “No I didn’t. I called and had it reset. I have the email right here.” He would not look at it, but he insisted I was suspended, didn’t give me a ticket for it, just gave me a ticket for the failure to change my address of all things because my headlight was working. He was the one, because at the end he goes, “I’m going to look give you a break this time.”

I was like, “Oh my God, can I lick your boots? Please, please. Let me lick those boots.” My daughter has it on video, and he was very offended then. After he let me go, he went to the county attorney and had her put in a warrant for my arrest for driving.

Taya Graham:

So it does seem that these officers were offended by the way you expressed your First Amendment rights. Something I have to ask you is, are you at all concerned that talking to me will make things more difficult for you and your relationship with local police?

Thomas Reader:

Not at all. I just want to get them exposed. I mean, I just want somebody to hear my story. I’m sure it goes on all over Kerrville. People get pulled over for no signal all the time. Officer Graham has bragged about it in the courtroom. I have people that have told me. It’s a small town, so I have friends that work there and he jokes about it. “If I can’t find something, I’m going to get you for no signal.” We got him on dash cam lying about it, so we got it dismissed and then that’s when we filed our 1983.

Taya Graham:

Now let me ask you something. There’s some people who are watching this that might ask, what if someone flipped you off while you were working? I mean, how would you feel or react? I mean, personally I have to say putting someone in handcuffs and threatening them with an arrest might be what you want to do to someone who hurt your feelings, but it’s probably not really appropriate. How do you respond to someone who says, how would you feel if the role was reversed?

Thomas Reader:

Well, if I was just in my normal capacity DoorDashing, then I would probably give the bird right back. But if I’m a public servant, I’d be expected to have a standard professionalism that these guys need to have and they didn’t have it. They retaliate and it’s obvious, the retaliation.

Taya Graham:

You must believe that since you filed a 1983 lawsuit that your constitutional rights were violated by these officers. What would you like to see result from this? Or for example, would you like the officers to go through retraining or maybe you’d even want an apology from the officers who cuffed you? What would you like to see happen?

Thomas Reader:

I would like an apology from Officer Graham. I know Officer Vasquez was involved in the stop also, but it was Officer Graham who whipped the U-turn and decided to put me in cuffs. I think Officer Vasquez was just, if you notice him in the video, he is just kind of trying to stay out of it, kind of. Even when I’m in cuffs, if you notice I’m kind of standing by myself in cuffs, and you’re supposed to be holding the prisoner or whatever, if I fall in custody… So they’re known to be close and Vasquez didn’t want no part of it. It was Officer Graham. I’d like an apology from him and I would definitely like retraining.

I’d like for police all over the nation to not hear “When you pull a car full of people over, you need to get everybody’s ID.” They’re told that every morning probably before they leave to go get their donuts that “Hey, you better get everybody’s ID.” So they’re under pressure from their sergeant and you can tell when they pull someone over, it’s like crack. They want that ID so bad.

I even said it on the last video, that five minute video when I got pulled over last week, “It’s like crack you guys. You just can’t let it go.” And so, I just finally had enough and so I just want them be retrained. I’d like to be compensated. I’ve lost a lot of money. We got evicted out of our last house because I was afraid to drive because I’ll go to jail and I can’t DoorDash. I’m a single dad of three kids.

Their mom has been absent for three years. They’ve seen her one time in three years. So it’s just me and the kids. That’s my livelihood and I try to work in DoorDash to make money and I couldn’t drive for a month and a half just in fear of being pulled over. So we got evicted, had to move seven miles out of the town, which I’m glad we did. That was voluntary, but thank God we found a house. My friend let us move into his house and everything’s been good since.

Taya Graham:

I’m really glad you mentioned your family because I think it’s important for officers to know that these arrests have an impact not just on you but the people who you put food on the table for, that this is not just a matter of a man’s pride, but these tickets and arrests interfere with your livelihood and your ability to be a provider and a father.

Now as we have recounted in both the interview with Mr. Reader and Stephen’s reporting on our nation’s traffic fine industrial complex, there is a trend in this country that is both troubling and on the rise. It’s a transformation of our public institutions from agents of public good to agencies premised on profit. In other words, governance that was intended to serve some greater purpose has ended up becoming cash machines to public coffers for pensions and luxury cop cars and other forms of wasteful overspending.

It’s an evolution that I think often goes unnoticed, a transformation of the ethos of governance that I think explains the lack of faith Americans have in those same institutions. It’s a malaise that needs to be understood so that we can demand better and expect better. Just consider for a moment a slew of new legislation across the country premised upon the concept of making bail less affordable. That is new laws creating burdensome costs for people who are swept into a system through no fault of their own.

Let’s remember that as many of our previous guests have explained on the show, bail often becomes the punishment inflicted upon the innocent. It’s a penalty without recourse assessed on people who are already struggling economically and that does not get refunded even if the underlying arrest was illegal, unjust or otherwise unnecessary. This imposition of fines upon the innocent is not a meager wealth extraction mechanism.

A study by the Prison Policy Initiative found that of 600,000 people locked up in local jails in 2016, nearly 70% were pretrial, meaning that they could not afford to pay the bail to be free until their case was adjudicated. This is a number that has barely nudged since. It points to a serious problem, which is this, our constitutional right to be punished only after due process actually has a price tag and it’s quite steep.

In 2022, large insurance companies netted roughly $2.4 billion in profits, charging fees to make people pay bail payments. The same study shows that the money is extracted from people who can ill afford it. That’s because more than half of the people in jail awaiting trial earn in the bottom third percentile of income for all Americans. But there is a bright spot in this story.

Across the country, community activists have acted collectively to help people overcome the onerous bail imposed by the government, grassroots organizers who are trying to fight the corporate takeover of our justice system. Known as bail funds, the groups raise money to assist people who cannot make bail without assistance. They have sprung up across the country specifically to help protestors who are subject to arrest by police for exercising their constitutional rights and often find themselves subject to excessive bail, all designed to infringe upon their ability to dissent.

We actually spoke to one of the most active funds in the country when we traveled to Atlanta to cover the ongoing protests over the construction of Cop City. Cop City of course is the $90 million plan funded by Fortune 500 companies to tear down an old growth forest just outside Atlanta to construct a veritable Coptopia. The facility is planned to have a fake city to practice military-style training, classrooms, a club, an auditorium, and even onsite housing for law enforcement, which is ironic in a city that is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis it has not been able to solve.

Still, the protestors have continued to fight against the project and law enforcement has effectively criminalized their efforts as a result, charging people with RICO and domestic terrorism. To fight back, the Atlanta Solidarity Fund has sought to help those who find themselves charged. In fact, we spoke to one of the key people involved in their efforts, Marlon Kautz, and he explained to us how they were using grassroots organizing to help activists overcome the system, which wants to silence them.

Marlon Kautz:

What they’re trying to do is very clearly establish a precedent which says that based on your political convictions and your beliefs, you could be considered a member of a criminal organization and charged for crimes which you had nothing to do with aside from agreeing with the politics of a movement.

Taya Graham:

Several months after this interview, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation arrested Marlon and two other people who had run the fund. They were charged, and wait for it, for using funds raised through an umbrella group dedicated to stopping Cop City to pay for bail for jailed activists. The total sum in question $5,000. That’s right, $5,000 to stop a $90 million corporate-funded training center to school police on how to use military-style tactics against civilians.

I’m not kidding, but it’s actually getting worse. Much worse. Because the efforts by the small band of Atlanta activists to fight the system armed with guns and badges and hundreds of millions of dollars has apparently warranted even more action. The state government has stepped in too, legislators who are pushing to put an even steeper price tag on our constitutional rights that would pretty much make them an a la carte selection from an extremely expensive fascist-run restaurant.

That’s because the state senate in its infinite wisdom, has decided to impose even more punitive obstacles to obtaining bail. It has made cash bail mandatory for a variety of crimes including marijuana possession and unlawful assembly. Seriously, it’ll achieve these goals by making roughly 30 crimes eligible for no money bail. What that means is that people charged with these crimes will not be able to use a bail bondsman, which is already usury enough. Instead, they’ll have to put up cash only to be freed before their trial.

What that means is that if a judge set a $10,000 bail, you basically have to pay $10,000 cash upfront. What this legislation does is say “Pay up or sit in a cell before you have your day in court.” Isn’t that the opposite of innocent until proven guilty? I mean, won’t that force people to endure the punishment before being convicted of the crime?

The bill would also impose limits on bail funds to make bail less burdensome. It would prohibit them from bailing out no more than three people a year, effectively ending the ability of these same funds to operate. And Georgia is not the only state trying to pass similar laws. Several other states, including Virginia, have bills that impose cash bail or severely limit the activity of bail funds.

It’s a countrywide effort that is gaining steam that will essentially put an increasingly expensive price tag on our basic right to petition the government. How many people will speak their mind and peaceably assemble and protest if they know it could cost them thousands or that they could sit in jail for months before getting a trial? That’s what disturbs me the most about the series of efforts to prohibit protest, what it says about the true state of civil rights in our country that was founded upon them.

It’s a state-sponsored pushback that is both dangerous and offensive. Because, like I noted at the beginning of this rant, government officials when faced with pushback from citizens like Mr. Reader and others seem to turn to the same tool that allows them to diminish our rights without actually doing so directly. I mean, what I mean is that the powers that be have learned how to use a mechanism that makes the erosion of our ability to push back not only more difficult, but nearly impossible for anyone other than the wealthy.

They are doing so by charging us to exercise our own rights. Basically, they want to make our rights prohibitively expensive. As I said before, they want to put a price tag on the rights enumerated in the Constitution that we simply cannot pay. They want to make being an American citizen as expensive as possible, an interesting idea in a country already accustomed to paying the highest prices for things like education and healthcare.

Let’s think of it as a civil rights toll system. Each time you try to exercise your right, you get charged. Just to note, they haven’t yet come up with an easy pass system that allows you to glide through and pay later. No, these excise taxes are all paid upfront. I mean, can we foresee a future envisioned by science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, where all US citizens will have to sign a Terms of Service Agreement to access their rights to the Constitution? A dystopian society where like his character in Ubik ends up having to pay to use a door on an appliance, and the door won’t let him open it until he pays a fee. When he refuses and tries to pry it open, the door threatens to sue him.

I think it’s a perfect metaphor for the world of fines, fees, bail, and other charges we are living in today. Is it really that farfetched that this process of charging us to use our right only escalates, that politicians will continue to devise enough new levies that we will have to carry around a constitutional debit card that will be charged to us each time we show up to protest, seek a jury trial or simply want to walk down a sidewalk and shout without interference from police?

Are we really that far from a world of fee-for-service citizenship? I don’t think so. I mean, in a sense we are already living in it, even without the bills I mentioned actually becoming law. Just consider the guests we’ve had on the show. How many were innocent but had to pay bail, hire lawyers, hand over fees and fines even though they had never committed a crime? How many actually ended up paying fees for the right of presumption of innocence?

I mean, I can’t even count the number of people who reach out to us who are struggling to fight back against law enforcement, but whose biggest impediment is not the law, but their bank accounts. It’s really a disturbing reality to contemplate. I mean, what is more ideally democratic than raising money to bail out people who’ve been wrongly incarcerated for protesting? What is less democratic than allowing the government to cage people for a fine?

To me, it’s just another way the government, no, our government, has devised a way to restrict our agency. A frightening law imposed Cash App for our rights that allows them to dole them out, but charge us for the privilege. To me, there seems to be no limit to their greed and no checks, so to speak, on their rapacious desire to take what is rightfully ours and charge us to access our human rights.

Remember, we live in a country where despite the Fourth Amendment, the government can seize your property without charging you with a crime and make you prove in court that they should give it back. They can literally come onto your property, take your belongings, and make you pay for the honor to reclaim what’s rightfully yours known under the benign title, Civil Asset Forfeiture.

When we see a man yelling at the cops, we have to remember that his frustration is more than the result of just a ticket. It’s a consequence of turning law enforcement into profit extraction. It is the result of allowing cops to act as debt collectors, allowing them to infringe upon our freedom and then charge us if we want it back. It’s like a pay-for-play democracy. The question is, how much are we willing to fork over before we finally say enough?

I want to thank Thomas Reader for coming forward and sharing his experience with us. Thank you, Thomas. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

I want to thank friends and mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you. And a very special thanks to our Accountability Reports Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon Associate Producers, John ER, David K, Louis P, Lucy Garcia, and super friends Shane B, Kenneth K, Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or @EyesOnPolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @TayasBaltimore on Twitter or Facebook.

Please like and comment. I really do read your comments and appreciate them. Of course, we have the Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports. If you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars so anything can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

The weather outside is frightful, and so is the behavior of police departments around the country! In a special holiday-themed livestream, Police Accountability Report looks at a series of police abuse incidents around the country. From a Washington state trooper’s car crash to a botched raid in Kentucky, Stephen and Taya report live on the latest incidents of cops behaving badly and what it tells us about policing in the US today.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Studio Production: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the PAR, Police Accountability Report, end-of-the-year accountability livestream. What’s an accountability livestream? Well, it’s one of our shows where we hold police accountable, but in this case, we do so completely live. And that is we highlight cops who are abusing people’s rights in real time and let you, our viewers, weigh in. And that’s why today we will be reporting on several stories of cops who have used the powers of policing to engage in questionable behavior. And as we do, we will unpack some of the broader issues that, as we always say, makes bad policing possible.

And in the process, of course, we want to engage with you, our viewers. I mean, the whole point of producing this show week after week is for you, the people who watch us. We value what you say and think, and we want to understand your perspective on all these questions. So to get started, we have posted a poll in our community tab, and we’ll share a link in the livestream chat for you to weigh in. It’s a very important question about the efforts to reform police that we will be discussing at the end of the show when we will show you the results and, of course, share some of your comments. But first, just a preview of what we will be reporting on today.

So this is a video of an accident caused by a Washington state trooper. But despite the evidence of what you are seeing on the screen, police tried to frame an innocent truck driver and blame him for the collision. It’s a perfect example of how the cover-up is often worse than the crime. Then we will be talking to Chris Reiter, the copwatcher, otherwise known as For Public Safety, who has been documenting and investigating the misconduct of an Indiana sheriff who raided their home but is now facing serious charges himself. And finally, we will close out the show with one of our favorite guests, Otto the Watchdog. And he will be giving us an update on his fight for justice with Royse City Texas law enforcement. And he will share what his years-long ordeal fighting the law enforcement establishment there has taught him about the challenges of holding police accountable, and he might have some good news as well.

But first, as usual, even though we’ve been planning the show for weeks, I have to find Stephen. I mean, he knows he’s supposed to be here, but right now, he’s simply MIA. Fortunately, our excellent show director David Hebden has been looking for him too. Dave, do you have any updates? Oh, you found him? Thanks, Dave.

Stephen Janis:

[inaudible 00:02:32] so good. I’m going to have such a great Stephen outdoor-

Taya Graham:

Stephen. Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

… one over here. One over here-

Taya Graham:

Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

… one over here… Oh.

Taya Graham:

I cannot believe this.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, hey, Taya, what’s going on? How you doing? Do you like what I’m doing with the Christmas tree-

Taya Graham:

Stephen, what are you doing with the corn nuts? What are you doing?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I’m putting them up on the Christmas tree. Max gave them to me as a Christmas bonus and I thought it looked good to have a little Christmas thing for myself outside, as you know, it gets-

Taya Graham:

Stephen, we have a live stream tonight.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, we have a live stream tonight?

Taya Graham:

Yes, we do.

Stephen Janis:

Wow, I didn’t know that. So should I come inside?

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. Get in here right now.

Stephen Janis:

I’m coming, I’m coming, but I want to just finish with the corn thing and-

Taya Graham:

Yeah. No. No. Get in here.

Stephen Janis:

I want to finish my corn nuts-

Taya Graham:

No. And Max wants the corn nuts back. Get back in here. Seriously.

Stephen Janis:

He wants them back?

Taya Graham:

Yes, he does.

Stephen Janis:

All right, I guess I have to come inside then. All right.

Taya Graham:

Please, just come inside.

Stephen Janis:

Fine. Fine. Fine. Fine.

Taya Graham:

Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

I’m coming in.

Taya Graham:

Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

I’m coming in. I’ll be inside.

Taya Graham:

Oh, my gosh. I can’t even believe this. He’s a hard-nosed investigative journalist and he’s just used to being in the outdoors and beating the pavement for stories. It’s hard to get him back into the studio. Dave, thank you for locating him. As we wait, and this is live, you just have technical difficulties like this sometime. So as we wait for him to make his way into the studio, I think we probably just need to keep rolling.

So as I said before, we posted a new poll on our community tab, which we would love for you to respond to. It asks a question that is related to our last poll, but with a twist. Remember last week we asked you if you thought body-worn cameras had changed police behavior. Interestingly, more than half of you thought they did. But tonight, we have a slight iteration on that question that is related to the guests we will be speaking to later. And the question is, do you think copwatchers have had an impact on how police behave? That is, have copwatchers made police think twice before abusing their power? Have they made things better or worse? And obviously, we have done extensive reporting on copwatchers, but the controversy and, of course, their struggle to film police, and in doing so, hold police accountable. But we wanted to know what you think… Wait. Oh, thank you for gracing us with your presence.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I brought some corn nuts with me, so we can-

Taya Graham:

Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Are you okay?

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Stephen, I think you have the wrong mic in your hand.

Stephen Janis:

I don’t want to use this one. I can’t use my outdoor mic?

Taya Graham:

No.

Stephen Janis:

I’m pretty tapped.

Taya Graham:

You’re indoor now.

Stephen Janis:

Okay. All right.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Thanks.

Stephen Janis:

You sure? Okay.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, it’s cool. It’s cool. Since you finally decide to grace us with your presence, I’m going to ask you the question-

Stephen Janis:

Me?

Taya Graham:

Yes. That we had in our poll. I know you’ve covered this topic before, but what are your thoughts?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I’ve done a lot of thinking about copwatching. And to be honest with you, it’s a bit of an obsession with me because we’ve covered so much of it. And it’s, as we’ve talked about before, watching a movement unfold. But I was thinking about it in a very different light this morning when I was contemplating some of our guests and what they’ve been up to. And I was thinking about a concept that was known as gonzo journalism, right? Back in the ’60s, the ’70s, Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, where the idea was a reporter puts himself in the story and says, “I’m not objective. I’m experiencing this firsthand.” And why I think that’s relevant to copwatchers is because if you look at the period where it evolved and where gonzo journalism became a big thing and a dominant cultural theme, it was a time when people didn’t trust government very much, where there was a lot of mistrust of the establishment, so to speak.

So I think in a way, copwatchers are very much a gonzo journalism. The other thing they do that I think is quite interesting and very important is that they turn the panopticon around on the establishment. In other words, the power, the establishment, the police that are used to observing us and watching us suddenly had that reverse. A reverse in balance of power where they’re being watched, but they’re being watched by people who aren’t part of the establishment, right? I mean, let’s be honest, mainstream media sometimes works with police in ways that I think is deleterious to the process of journalism. But a copwatcher doesn’t really belong to an institution. And a copwatcher is a wild card. And I think that’s really important to remember that that’s what’s cool about it. It’s a wild card where you have people like Otto who we’ll be talking to, who’s very creative, or Chris Reiter, who is also very creative about the way… They’re approaching this with their own, as you will say later, inimitable style, their own way and context of doing it. They’re reinventing their own form of gonzo journalism at this point.

And so I think it’s very important to the whole… As we see journalism in this crisis, we see newspapers closing, we see this tremendous crisis of journalism, now we’ve got these guys and women who are stepping up and filling the void, in a way, I think that responds to what’s actually going on. You can’t always cover these extreme abuses of power with just neutral journalism. And they’re saying neutral journalism doesn’t apply. So I know we both watched the movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with Johnny Depp. And I’m not saying they’re that extreme, but there is a sense that something else is needed to fight the establishment narrative that ignores people’s true problems. And policing, of course, is a great lens through which to see that, but I think copwatchers fill a void, so to speak, from that perspective.

Taya Graham:

You have some support out here. Snark and Sass said, “He’s adorable.” I’ve never heard Stephen called adorable before, but I’m sure he appreciates it.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

So if you don’t know, I’m trying to put your comments on the screen while I’m running the stream. And I wanted to say to Linda… Let me make sure she’s up there. Linda, I got your contribution. That was awesome and thank you so much. Your card absolutely made my day.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, that was her card?

Taya Graham:

Yeah, I think it was her card.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, wow.

Taya Graham:

And I think I took her card and made a community post with it. It was a card that said thanks on it. So I just want you to know that if you send me mail or a donation, that I really appreciate it. We appreciate it a great deal.

Stephen Janis:

And we should point out right now that we’re in our fundraiser and that anything you donate to The Real News right now, which I was going to say… Is it okay if I ask for something for the tree? Because as you can see, my tree has got a bunch of corn nuts, but there are no lights. And so if people want to donate, I’m not saying I’m actually probably wouldn’t be approved to spend them on the lights, but nevertheless, if you donate now, your donation is matched by very generous donor. So if you donate $50, it’ll be $100 for us, and it’s really important… As we’re talking about journalism, journalism is in a really difficult place and it’s wonderful to have something independent like The Real News and have independent journalists who are not tied to any institutions really going out there and telling people’s stories. So if you can donate, we would really appreciate it. And I think it would be good for everyone to contribute to journalism.

Taya Graham:

You know what? I think I’m seeing some amazing people in our live chat right now. I think James Freeman, the James Freeman-

Stephen Janis:

The James Freeman?

Taya Graham:

The James Freeman-

Stephen Janis:

Oh, my God.

Taya Graham:

… also known as the GOAT, is in the live chat. I think we’ve got HBO Matt, Texas copwatcher there too. And I think I see [inaudible 00:09:40] from out in Colorado.

Stephen Janis:

So this is an impromptu copwatcher summit.

Taya Graham:

This might be a copwatcher convention.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, we need to change the title.

Taya Graham:

And you know what? I think I saw Mrs. Justice too. Blind Justice has a YouTube channel. He’s a First Amendment activist, and a well-known copwatcher and disability activist. And also, Mrs. Justice has joined him on his First Amendment activities and adventures. So hello to you, Mrs. Justice. And hello, [inaudible 00:10:04]. So one thing, Stephen brought up the donations, and I just want to say, I just have to reiterate, what’s actually amazing right now is that if you donate a dollar, any dollar you will donate will actually be matched, and so we’re very fortunate right now. So if you’ve ever felt inspired to donate, now is a terrific time. So I think the donate button is here directly underneath the live chat.

But I want you to know that if funds are tight for you and even a $2 donation is just too much right now, it’s okay. I understand how that can be. You can also help us by just taking the time to leave a comment, giving us a thumbs up, subscribing to the channel, and making sure to share this with your friends. Invite your friends to our live chat so they can be part of the conversation and hopefully eventually they’ll want to be part of the PAR family as well.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. And if you want a voice of the people, so to speak, a journalism organization that responds to people, that’s what we do with The Real News. We are not the voice of power. We are not the voice of the elites or the establishment. We literally go and talk to people and flip the script, really. Sometimes we describe the police accountability as cops, the show, in reverse, where cops that show the reality show that it’s always shot from the perspective of cops, tells a cop narrative, but doesn’t tell the narrative of the people who are experiencing what it’s like to be under the oppressive thumb of policing. So if you support us, there’s an independent voice out there for you, and that’s why we’re here. So-

Taya Graham:

Oh, my gosh. Joe Cool.

Stephen Janis:

Joe Cool.

Taya Graham:

Joe Cool’s in there.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, my God. We have-

Taya Graham:

Oh, my gosh. Okay, that’s so cool.

Stephen Janis:

The Luminaries.

Taya Graham:

Hey, Joe Cool. And I also just want to say hi to Julia Clark. I know that fight to get body camera is something else, so we’re still there with you. And we’re wishing you the best in getting that body camera.

Stephen Janis:

We care.

Taya Graham:

We do. And I also want to thank our mods, Lacey R. and… Hi, Noli D. in the chat, make sure to show our mods some love.

Stephen Janis:

I also hope Michael Willis is in the chat. He better be in there.

Taya Graham:

He might be in there. Oh, Oklahoma Outlaw Audits? Oh, my gosh. It is just happening in the chat right now. This is awesome. Hi, Oregon Rogue.

Stephen Janis:

We’re going to officially declare this a copwatcher summit at this point. I think we need to change the title of the show. I like the livestream accountability holiday special, but we’re going to declare this de facto-

Taya Graham:

I think we’re going to have to.

Stephen Janis:

We should check with Maximillian. Max, is it okay if we change the title to Copwatcher Summit?

Taya Graham:

Look, there’s Official MissConduct.

Stephen Janis:

Whoa.

Taya Graham:

Look at that. I’m pointing at the-

Stephen Janis:

Right. Don’t point. You’re going to confuse me. I’m trying to look at you.

Taya Graham:

Okay. I’m sorry. But just so you know, all these great copwatchers are in the chat, so you might want to just go and check out their channels later. But let’s get back to our first story of the PAR accountability livestream. Okay. So it’s a cautionary tale about what happens when law enforcement investigates itself. It’s a story that reveals that when it comes to deciding their own guilt, police have very little incentive and very few checks that force them to be truthful. So this story starts with a video. It depicts an accident involving a Washington state trooper who made an illegal turn and crashed into an oncoming vehicle. Just watch.

So even though the evidence was clear that the state trooper, and might I add, a rookie state trooper, had turned into the oncoming truck while attempting to perform a technique known as a rolling stop. Despite this, the state police hatched a plan. They decided to pin the blame for the accident on an innocent truck driver named Shawn Foutch. He’s a man who worked tirelessly as a commercial truck driver, crisscrossing the state to earn a living for his family. And as you may have guessed, the traffic violations would have a serious impact on his ability to earn a living. In fact, negligent driving, which is what he was initially charged with, could have cost him his CDL, his license, and that’s why he chose to fight back. And his lawyer found that the Washington state troopers had ignored evidence, tried to cover up the facts, and used their power to pin the blame on an innocent man.

And there was a collision technician who was also part of Washington state who examined the case and concluded it was not his fault. And that’s because of a public records request. So shout out to the lawyer and shout out to the local journalists at KING 5 who did an amazing public records request that helped Shawn as well. That request revealed that the collision technician working for the state examined the evidence and concluded it was all the fault of the trooper. In fact, emails from the Washington State Police show, despite this conclusion, commanders attempted to get a more favorable opinion on the case, and it also uncovered additional emails that they sent to prosecutors insisting they move forward against Mr. Foutch, despite the evidence showing he was innocent.

And it actually gets worse because despite the fact that Mr. Foutch does not drink, he’s a diabetic and he has not had a single drink for 30 years, state troopers forced him to do a field sobriety test, blow a breathalyzer, and have blood drawn, all of which came back negative. They even charged him with negligent driving in the second degree, which could have cost him his job. All of this to frame a man who relied on his ability to drive a truck to feed his family. And it also should be noted that Mr. Foutch spent months recuperating from the accident while living in fear he would be falsely accused of causing an accident that was not his fault. Now, I interviewed him before the show to get a sense of how this case affected his life and how it has changed his perception of law enforcement. Let’s listen to him as he explains just some of the impact this ordeal had on him.

Shawn Foutch:

In their reports, they put that they could smell alcohol. I haven’t drank since I was in my mid-20s, and I’m 53 now. So they did a breathalyzer, which came up all zeros. They did the field sobriety test, which I passed. And then they asked me if I would go down and do a voluntary blood draw, and they made it seem like it wasn’t such a voluntary thing.

And then a few months went by, and then all of a sudden, I get a negligent driving ticket in the mail. They sent it directly to the courts. They didn’t write me up or cite me or anything on-scene. [inaudible 00:16:48] financially, emotionally, all of it. Financially, because I couldn’t work. I was on light duty. And with my particular job, I couldn’t do it. So it affected me financially because I was out on labor and industries, and they were paying me less than 50% of my original wages. And then emotionally is because I was stressed all the time about whether I was going to be able to keep my CDL, whether I was going to have a job to go back to. And then physically because of my injuries and because of all of the pain that I was going through. My fingers going numb at times, not being able to sleep because of the pain and everything else.

Taya Graham:

Now, as we said before, Mr. Foutch fought back. And as a result, an independent investigation was launched, and it came to quite a different conclusion. Stephen, what eventually happened with this case?

Stephen Janis:

Well, he was totally cleared. I mean, eventually. Now this is eventually after he’d gone through this entire ordeal of having to face a breathalyzer test, of having to face the idea that he could lose his livelihood. He was cleared and the investigation was revealed because of good local journalism, and because of his lawyer, it was revealed that the cops had tried to cover this up, tried to use the levers of power to frame an innocent man and destroy his livelihood. So it was severe, but in the end, he triumphed because of the work of people who wanted to hold police accountable.

Taya Graham:

I’m sorry. I was just looking at some of these great comments. James Freeman had quite a good one. And I just have to say hi, Munkay 83. And just to acknowledge that I witnessed a copwatch by Munkay 83, the gentleman who’s in the live chat now, and I watched a police officer disappear in under 60 seconds.

Stephen Janis:

Yes.

Taya Graham:

So there’s a certain level of skill, and Munkay 83 has it. But let me get back to the topic at hand-

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, sure. Of course.

Taya Graham:

… Mr. Foutch. So what amazed me is how widespread the effort was to take away his livelihood. Have you ever witnessed anything similar in your reporting?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, I’ve seen so many incidents where police, if they feel threatened, they’ll take a very minor, minor thing or try to frame someone, and they have so many buttons to push. I call it something like asymmetrical situating, where you are so immune to any of the tools of oppression that you use that you become completely… You become pathological. Now, there was a homicide detective in Baltimore named Kelvin Sewell, who we covered for years, who had instituted community policing down in small city called Pocomoke. And it was very successful. But they came after him really hard. And after he was fired for, I think, reasons that are completely nefarious, they looked into a 2014 accident, two years after he was fired, and charged him with misconduct in office because he didn’t charge somebody. Because he didn’t charge somebody.

So I have seen the tools of criminal justice system, the power, all the attendant power and force of criminal justice used in these ways to take, by people, who feel, I think, that they’re completely immune from any of the consequences of the power that they’re using. It’s almost like the psychology of being in this bubble where you know there’s no way you’re ever going to get arrested or charged. Any of these horrifying consequences are just improbable to you. And by being improbable, I think it creates a psychopathy, because I’ve seen it in so many ways. And this is just a perfect example. I mean, it wouldn’t have been any problem for the trooper to accept responsibility other than maybe… I don’t know. But here they’re going to destroy a man’s life, take his livelihood. So, yeah.

Taya Graham:

And there’s another good point that this trooper was a rookie. From my understanding, rookies are known… They’re told, “Look, you’re going to have a car accident your first year out there being a trooper.” So basically, it’s understood. And someone asked about the police officer… I just want you to know, the police officer walked away from the accident. And as far as I know, he had no injuries that were sustained other than perhaps just being a bit shaken up. And you can also see him walking away from the accident. So I just want to let you know that the police officer wasn’t seriously injured. And I understand your concern.

Stephen Janis:

I think if there’d been a serious injury of the police, they would’ve come down even harder. So you know by the way they just eventually-

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Stephen Janis:

If they didn’t charge him with possible, I don’t know, reckless manslaughter… Something crazy. I think you know that the trooper was… Believe me, if there were serious injuries, there would’ve been even worse consequences.

Taya Graham:

Right. And someone asked in the chat, I believe it’s my Patreon patron, Matter of Rights… Hi, Matter of Rights. Asked in the chat, “What were the consequences for the police officer? Did he actually win any money back for lost wages?” And as far as I know, the last time I spoke with Shawn, he hadn’t told me that he had been reimbursed for his wages in any way, shape or form.

Stephen Janis:

And he was getting disability pay, but it was one half of his regular pay.

Taya Graham:

Exactly. So, I mean, what he won was his right to still be a truck driver. That’s what he won.

Stephen Janis:

Yes. What he already had at that time.

Taya Graham:

Right. And as far as I know, there has not been any disciplinary action taken against the officer who was involved in attempting to push these charges against Shawn. And as far as I know, there isn’t any discipline. But if there is, I will be happy to update you because tonight is a livestream for accountability.

And speaking of a prolonged effort to hold errant police accountable, no one knows how difficult and vexing that process can be than our next guest. So earlier this year, we told the story of Indiana resident Chris Reiter and his wife Tiffany, better known as For Public Safety. So the couple were home one night when police conducted a raid. Startled at first, and later, distraught, the raid turned up nothing, prompting Chris to push back as well. And his question was simple. Why would Clark County Sheriffs target his home with the often deadly and intrusive tactic of a SWAT raid? What had he done to deserve such a troubling violation of his rights, a violation that led to Tiffany being seriously reinjured?

Well, that’s what started his years-long effort to fight back. Now, part of that fight was for public records requests for himself and to help others in his community. That led Chris to the sheriff’s department where he was also helping Joe, a father of a young man who had been severely beaten by police. He was there to help him file a complaint. But an hour after he arrived, and after multiple requests for a supervisor, police decided to arrest Chris for an outstanding warrant from 1999. I repeat, an outstanding warrant from 1999, for a single marijuana cigarette. I could not make this up, people. Take a look. First, you’ll see the raid, and then you’ll see their records request. Just watch for yourself.

Tiffany:

Coming. I’m coming. Wait.

Speaker 1:

Hold on.

Tiffany:

Wait.

Speaker 1:

Hey, we’re opening it.

Tiffany:

Wait. Wait.

Speaker 1:

Okay.

Tiffany:

Oh, my God. Oh, my God-

Speaker 2:

Oh, my God! Oh, my God!

Shawn Foutch:

Can you hear me? We’ll try this one more time. We need some assistance out here please if there’s a clerk available. Okay. Yeah, probably. Would you mind coming out and speaking with us, sir? Well we’re going to have to talk about an incident we’re going to need records on. [inaudible 00:24:21]. Oh, there you are. I’m Chris.

John:

John.

Shawn Foutch:

Nice to meet you, John.

John:

Well you mind turning around and putting your hands behind your back? You have an active warrant.

Shawn Foutch:

For what?

John:

From 1999, possession of marijuana.

Shawn Foutch:

You’re full of shit.

John:

No, I’m not.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah, you are. I have never had marijuana.

John:

Turn around and put your hands behind your back.

Shawn Foutch:

All right. Yeah, he can film.

John:

You got to put that phone down.

Shawn Foutch:

I don’t even do marijuana.

Taya Graham:

You heard it, a warrant from 1999. To explain why this has happened and what he has uncovered since, we are joined by the man himself, For Public Safety. Chris, thank you for joining me.

Shawn Foutch:

Hey, Taya. Thanks for having me.

Taya Graham:

So we’re so happy to have you back and let me just take you back. I know this raid happened a little while ago, but we have to address it. Just for the people who don’t know, tell us a little bit about the raid, what it was like, and what steps you are taking to address it.

Shawn Foutch:

Well the steps I’m taking to address it makes it where I can’t talk about it a whole lot.

Taya Graham:

Right. You don’t have to go into specific details.

Shawn Foutch:

We’re in a very active lawsuit which we’re doing very well. We’ve got great attorneys who are handling business with this as it needs to be done. It’s been a long, tough three-year road on that whole situation.

Stephen Janis:

I was going to ask you and I didn’t mean to interrupt you, but when you first experienced this raid and had these things happen to you, did you have any idea how difficult it would be to push back and what a toll it would take on you personally? Because I think sometimes people go into this and they have no idea and it’d just be interesting to hear how it has changed your perception of law enforcement.

Shawn Foutch:

It’s changed my perception of everything. First of all, I’d like to say I was one of those people who never thought something like that could happen to me. It came right very shortly after the Breonna Taylor incident happened less than 20 miles from my house. That was on everybody’s mind at the time, that raid was. Then they came through our door. To us, it was just like unreal this can happen to us and here it is. It is very violent and destructive and it turns your whole world upside down. I remember one detail I will talk about is after the five hours of them completely destroying everything and hurting us, they just left and I remember saying, “You’re just going to leave?” They said, “Yeah, you didn’t do anything. We’re leaving.” That’s how it works and then you have to figure out how to pick up all the pieces on your own.

Taya Graham:

Let me ask you a question. Someone asked, [inaudible 00:27:11] asked was this a no-knock warrant?

Shawn Foutch:

Yes, it was a no-knock warrant. They tried to bust in the door. I opened the door while they were trying to bust it in.

Taya Graham:

Okay. From my understanding, this raid is why you started your channel, not just to help you and Tiffany, but to help other community members in their efforts for transparency. Tell me a little bit about what we saw when you and Joe were attempting to file a complaint and make a records request in Hardin County. Why were you there and why did it go so poorly?

Shawn Foutch:

There was an FBI investigation being conducted on Joe’s son’s incident.

Taya Graham:

Okay.

Shawn Foutch:

I have been in touch with the FBI after our raid because we reported our particular situation to the FBI which put us kind of in conjunction with some investigators from the DOJ. So I kind of had a little bit of an open line of communication with some of those investigators. I learned by talking to one of them about Joe’s son’s incident that no complaints, there wasn’t any paper trail on the Kentucky State Police office that they were wanting to investigate, and I thought, “Well I should look into this because it doesn’t seem right that an officer would behave this way that has no complaints on him whatsoever filed.” So I contacted Joe and he told me that every time his family members or anybody had tried to go to KSP to file a complaint that they were getting turned around and pushed out and told no. I thought, “Well Joe, let me strap a camera on and I’ll come with you and see what happens.” You all saw what happened.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean I was stunned they tried to pull up, say you had a 1999 warrant. I mean first of all, was that true and what on earth, how on earth can they unearth a warrant for a marijuana cigarette? Is that even possible legally?

Shawn Foutch:

I mean it makes no sense. The charge, the whole story, it never happened. None of that ever happened. I was never cited for a marijuana cigarette in 1998 or ’99. I was never on probation. I’d never gone to court, none of that. I think they just made the whole thing up just to try to get me the heck out of their lobby.

Stephen Janis:

Do you get the sense that they grasped the gravity of what they were saying and doing? Conjuring something from your past even if it was true is so unbelievably not a crime of any sort that would impact society in any way. Do you think they grasped what they were doing to you? It’s just so hard for me to believe they say, “We’re going to go out and take a man’s freedom for something that happened in 1998.” It’s beyond my understanding. Do you think they’re just … What is wrong with the police that you were dealing with at that point?

Shawn Foutch:

Well here’s the way I think they’re seeing it, Stephen. I think they see it as, “We’re trying to protect our officers from getting federally indicted for the reason this dude’s here.” So they’re willing to fabricate a little marijuana cigarette case on somebody in order to protect one of their officers for potentially getting charged with-

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

… at minimum an assault, a very heavy assault and then at maximum potentially maybe attempted murder.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Shawn Foutch:

They hit Josh in the face with a Maglite, one of the big, huge Maglites 28 times that you can count in the video.

Stephen Janis:

And this is a young man who was pulled over just so we understand what you’re talking about right now. Who is Josh just so I know?

Shawn Foutch:

Josh is a young man that was pulled over.

Stephen Janis:

Right. Okay.

Shawn Foutch:

He was trying to flee in his car and then he decided, “I’m not going to run anymore,” pulled over-

Stephen Janis:

Got it.

Shawn Foutch:

… and the cops yanked him out and beat him up.

Stephen Janis:

Okay. Taya, you want to-

Taya Graham:

Yeah, it was that incredibly brutal video that we saw that also involved tasering that tasered the young woman who was in the car as well who was pregnant. I mean it was really a terrible scenario.

Stephen Janis:

Let me just ask you a question. Do you feel safe now given that you’ve caused so much commotion with law enforcement in your area? Do you feel like your personal safety is in jeopardy at all honestly? Because if they’re willing to conjure up a 1998 bogus charge, what else are they willing to do?

Shawn Foutch:

Stephen, I think Tiffany and I are like the dogs backed in the corner where we got nothing left, but to bite. No, we’re not safe obviously. They’re always trying to get us somehow hemmed up whether it be a direct violence situation which we’ve encountered recently with Tiffany. She was almost … She was beaten up and almost tased in the heart by a cop just a couple weeks ago. Our direct physical safety is in jeopardy regularly, but I think more so they tend to want to utilize their positions and their authority to sort of cause damages. When you’re always recording and you’re on your toes always looking to catch them doing something wrong, it makes it very hard for them to pin anything on you because you’re transparent and they’re not. So transparency has been our protection system.

Taya Graham:

Let me go back a little to the sheriff at the heart of the raid. From my understanding, it was that raid that made you start your channel. This is really an epic sage. I think you’re aware he was hoping to be a TV star. I think he was involved with the show 90 Days In. He was hoping to maybe star on Narcoland, but instead, he’s starring in a court case with 15 felony charges. Tell us a little bit more about Sheriff Noel, the charges he’s facing, and how vindicating it is to see this accountability from the sheriff that caused you and Tiffany so much pain and so much strife.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah. So that sheriff was responsible for it. He is the author of the show 60 Days In. They were trying to do a show, spinoff show called Narcoland, and in that, there was a few of his officers that were heavily involved in the television drama series that fabricated a lot of paperwork to do a bunch of these raids on people. That’s how ours ended up happening, but we started digging, Tiffany and I, because we needed the records from our own case. As we were finally getting somewhere with records and finally starting to see what actually happened and what was happening to other people, like I said, we were in contact with the FBI from the DOJ. As I would find things and as people would reach out to me and say, “That’s not all. What you’re exposing isn’t anything else. There’s more,” then we would find that proof and we would give that to the feds and the feds were giving it to the Indiana State Police. Ultimately, it blew up into this investigation and now you’re starting to see the outcome, which it took several years. I mean we’re almost three years in now and you’re seeing some of the charges that we have effectively as a team in this area uncovered and a lot of it was used, exposure through my and Tiffany’s YouTube channels.

Taya Graham:

Chris, I have to interrupt you right here because someone in our live chat … Because we address all comments whether positive, negative, or neutral, someone said, “15 trumped up charges. Geez.” I feel like, Chris, we need to help people understand what type of charges he’s facing. Let me start out. For example, Sheriff Jamey Noel was found with over 130 cars on his property. He was also pressuring police officers and other employees of the state to do work for him around his house like fix his HVAC system or pour concrete, all types of things, and the taxpayers paid this tab for him and the employees didn’t feel like they could say no because he was their boss. So using taxpayer money to pay people to do renovations around your house and also the 130 cars, where exactly did that come from? You know what, Chris? Let me let you take the wheel here because there’s a lot behind these 15 felony charges. To say they’re trumped up does not do them justice at all.

Shawn Foutch:

Matter of fact, they were lightened up a little bit in what was published on the mainstream news because here’s what avenue I was looking at. Yes, Jamey was ghost employing people to come work on his own properties, but do you know where those people came from, Taya? Those were people who were supposed to be watching the inmates at the jail. That’s what we reported.

Taya Graham:

Oh, my goodness.

Shawn Foutch:

We said, “Look, you’re under-staffing that jail and it’s causing problems.” There were 28 women that were victim of a really bad incident because that jail was so severely understaffed. That’s where the staff was, out lollygagging, working for Jamey.

Stephen Janis:

How do you think he became so powerful? How did this one individual able to accumulate all these cars, have people work for him? Was it sort of the hybrid … Was it becoming Mr. Hollywood? What made him so powerful?

Taya Graham:

I think him wiretapping his own office might have had something to do with it. Chris, what do you think?

Shawn Foutch:

That was the sheriff’s department that decided the wiretapping, but no, here’s what it really is. So Jamey is very established in different political roles. I mean one, he’s the Republican Party chairman for the state here, and then of course he has all these affiliates and he came from the Indiana State Police originally. So you’ve got the Indiana State Police position. You’ve got all these county politicians that he’s been involved with. Then you get the state politicians that he’s ran alongside of. Then he gets the state’s Republican Party chair. Then he takes office for sheriff and then he’s doing the TV show with the other sheriffs in all these other districts. You get a lot of political power in a position like that when you’re-

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, it’s amazing because it kind of shows how America is constantly fed this constant stream of a law enforcement entertainment industrial complex.

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

It shows you how unhealthy that can be to be combined like the power of Hollywood with the power of policing. It’s not really a good mix and it seems to be quite toxic particularly in this case. Right?

Shawn Foutch:

Yes. Yeah, absolutely. I mean they should have learned their lesson 10 years previous because Jeffersonville, Indiana, Clark County was also the epicenter of where the TV show Live PD started and that one tanked because-

Stephen Janis:

Oh, right.

Shawn Foutch:

… of all the conflict of interest.

Stephen Janis:

Right. Right. It’s really amazing to me that people think this is entertainment, watching the worst moment of someone’s life, and that Cops has existed for 30 years, kind of becoming anti-working class propaganda basically, anti-working class propaganda machine that they use sort of the fodder of an average person having a bad day as entertainment grist for billionaires in Hollywood. It’s amazing, but it is interesting to see. I mean listen. You deserve a lot of credit.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:

The work that you have done is astounding and it just shows that cop watching is not just about going out and filming someone from a sidewalk. You have done the hard work and you deserve a lot of appreciation from the people in your community and appreciation from journalists because you’re doing real work here. That’s an amazing accomplishment to sort of put someone in check who obviously needed to be in check.

Taya Graham:

You know what? Let me just-

Shawn Foutch:

Thank you, Stephen. Oh, I’m sorry, Taya.

Taya Graham:

No, no. I’m so sorry I interrupted you thanking Stephen because, first, I just wanted to add my kudos as well. Some of the things that you’ve uncovered, I mean we honestly-

Stephen Janis:

A reporter would win a Pulitzer for this, you know?

Taya Graham:

A reporter would win a Pulitzer for this and honestly-

Stephen Janis:

Or maybe.

Taya Graham:

… we could spend four hours in the livestream just talking to Chris just unwinding all the things that he has uncovered seriously and I tell you you wouldn’t be bored for a moment. Make sure you go check out his channel, For Public Safety-

Stephen Janis:

For Public Safety.

Taya Graham:

… because he has some amazing videos there, some playlists that’ll help you understand it, help you learn it all. I just want to ask you one final question before we let you go. A lot of people ask me and I’m sure you’ve had people turn to you and ask you this as well. When you were going through your process of filing your lawsuit, you had two lawyers who didn’t do you justice to say the least. You actually ended up having to file pro se. I just want to not ask about the specifics of the lawsuit at all, but just what the process is like to try to file your own pro se lawsuit, a little bit about your experience, and if you have any advice for people who want to file a lawsuit for harm.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah. Well Official Misconduct sitting here with me, she was the one that was able to actually figure out how to get it in documentation form and get it turned in. It took the two of us as a team working our butts off to figure out how to do a lawsuit of that size and stature. I guess my biggest recommendation is if you truly have a situation that really requires a full-blown lawsuit like that like back injuries and major damages and property that’s been destroyed, of course I’m going to recommend try to find an attorney. That is not as easy as it sounds. You need to stay on the phone 24 hours a … Well they’re not open 24 hours.

Stephen Janis:

Right.

Shawn Foutch:

From 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM, five days a week until you get that lawyer established and make sure that it’s a good civil rights lawyer, but if you do have to do it yourself, study, study, study, and you need allies. You need people that you can talk to. You need to be involved. You need to get out there and become one with the people in the legal system, other attorneys, even police officers and chiefs of police and people at the courthouse and the clerks. You need to get involved because you need to learn their world and you need to learn it quick if you’re going to file a lawsuit.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Shawn Foutch:

There’s a lot.

Stephen Janis:

It’s interesting to me because there’s so much cynicism in this world and yet you see people like Chris and we’ll be talking to Otto who have fought back one way or another whether it be using the system, the system that seems unavailable to them, but they’ve been smart and courageous and also innovative enough to actually turn that system around. That’s what I love about the story of cop watchers and stories like Chris because he really just said, “I don’t have a high-priced lawyer. I’m just going to find a way to do it,” and then he finally got a lawyer and now look at the results. This is a testament to the power of cop watching, the power of grassroots movements and organizing. I think it’s pretty amazing, Chris.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah. Thank you, Stephen. I just want people to know you can do it if you put your mind to it.

Stephen Janis:

That’s a beautiful thing.

Shawn Foutch:

If you would let me address you were talking about the support, I do want to say this while I have the opportunity on such an amazing platform as what you all have for me here. Thank you so much for allowing me to come up here and say this. We couldn’t be, Tiffany and I could not be more happy and grateful for the amount of support that we’ve got from all the people in this world, on television, and from our locals and even some of the people in the government system that have been helpful for us, including the attorneys. We couldn’t have done it without you.

Stephen Janis:

Well that’s great.

Taya Graham:

Aw, that’s beautiful, Chris.

Stephen Janis:

That’s a great note to end on.

Taya Graham:

That’s a beautiful note to end on especially considering the season we’re in. I just want to say you might have noticed I threw up a comment from Official Misconduct. That’s Chris’s other half.

Stephen Janis:

Yes, Tiffany.

Taya Graham:

You know what? I think … I know her name.

Stephen Janis:

No, I was just saying. Yeah, yeah. It’s true. You do.

Taya Graham:

I’m just saying we might have to do a ladies night Cop Watcher special. So let me know if that’s something you might be interested in. I’m thinking Laura Shark. I’m thinking Official Misconduct. If there are any lady cop watchers that you think I should talk to, please let me know because I think it might be cool to have a ladies night.

Stephen Janis:

Well thank you, Chris.

Taya Graham:

Thank you so much, Chris.

Stephen Janis:

Please-

Shawn Foutch:

Thank you all and it’s always such a pleasure to talk to you two. Love you guys.

Stephen Janis:

Love you too.

Taya Graham:

Aw. The pleasure’s ours.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Now, this is … Okay. I’m getting the warm fuzzies right now. Okay.

Stephen Janis:

Well Taya, just to … People are very jaded about our system.

Taya Graham:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

But in a way, Cop Watchers and the people who do this themselves are affirmation of our system-

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Stephen Janis:

… that a single person, a husband and wife who have faced an oppressive police can turn it around on their very own with a YouTube channel and their own ingenuity. I feel like that’s a pretty wonderful message in a world where we feel kind of like we’re all incapable of changing things. It’s something to think about, right?

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. I think I’m starting to see some support for the idea so I’m very excited.

Stephen Janis:

Okay. Good.

Taya Graham:

This is a perfect segue from Chris is our next guest, another cop watcher who’s experienced firsthand the extreme lengths the police will go to to pursue someone who refuses to be cowed by them and perhaps would even dare to make fun of them. He’s one of our favorite regulars, a longtime cop watcher and a bit of a comedian, and his run-ins with Texas Police are legendary. What started as a dispute over a sign that some residents allegedly deemed offensive in Royse, Texas turned into a years-long ordeal for him which has finally come to some resolution and some good news, more good news like I promised you. But first before we talk to Otto, we want to show you, our audience, how absurd the battle with law enforcement has been. I just want to play a small clip of Otto being threatened for holding a sign. Just look.

Speaker 3:

We’ve been through this before.

Otto:

Yes, we have. So why are you here?

Speaker 3:

I’m here because I got a call, a complaint from people of the city, citizens. They’re complaining about you.

Otto:

What are they complaining of?

Speaker 3:

Your sign.

Otto:

Okay. Looks pretty peaceful to me, man.

Speaker 3:

We got phone calls. People come by. They’re not going to stand here and confront you because they don’t know what kind of idiot you are.

Otto:

Wait. Hey, fuck you. I’m not an idiot.

Speaker 3:

I didn’t say you were.

Otto:

Yes, you did.

Speaker 3:

I said they don’t know what kind you are.

Otto:

Okay. Well why don’t you get back in your car and go away?

Speaker 3:

Why don’t you want to try something?

Otto:

What do you mean try something? Try what?

Speaker 3:

You telling me what I’ve got to do. No, I don’t have to-

Otto:

I’m not breaking the law.

Speaker 3:

I said-

Otto:

So go away.

Speaker 3:

… you told me to go away, what you wanted to do.

Otto:

I want you to go away. I want you to leave me alone.

Speaker 3:

No, I’m not going to. I’m not going to at all.

Otto:

You’re now impeding my First Amendment right to free speech.

Speaker 3:

No, I’m not. I’m asking you what you’re doing here.

Otto:

I’m giving away food. I told you that.

Speaker 3:

I have seen no one come up here for food.

Otto:

How long have you been here?

Speaker 3:

How long? Well I’m going to stay here to see how long it takes you to find one person.

Speaker 4:

You know you’re soliciting without a permit. You text me earlier, Otto.

Otto:

Yeah, I told you that I was going to give food away.

Speaker 4:

Which is not your real name by the way. We do have a complainant that’s willing to sign a statement against you.

Otto:

Okay.

Speaker 4:

… for the language on the sign.

Otto:

Oh, well that’s not even a crime, is it? So what if I get somebody that says they’re not offended by the sign?

Speaker 4:

Doesn’t matter. I have a complainant.

Otto:

How does that make it-

Speaker 4:

Either you’re not going to use the sign or you are. If you’re going to use the sign, then you’re going to be under arrest for disorderly conduct.

Taya Graham:

And now joining us as our final guest of 2023 is the inimicable, the incomparable Otto the Watchdog. Otto, thank you for being here.

Otto:

Hey, I’m glad to be here. Thanks for having me.

Taya Graham:

So that first video clip comes from a playlist on your channel called Otto versus Hawk Cove and it’s where you experience some police pushback for your sign allegedly because it had profanity on it although I do think it’s debatable if any drivers were truly offended enough to call the police. But be that as it may, this isn’t your only infringement of your First Amendment rights for holding a sign on the side of the road. I just want to mention to people these signs did not contain threats, mentions of specific political parties. They simply explained a simple, heartfelt truism. Otto, tell me about the lawsuit you filed that you just won and I believe it’s in Royse City. You’ve got to tell me about the flop, the nonviolent resistance.

Stephen Janis:

That’s a lot of questions. Why don’t we answer the Royse City-

Taya Graham:

Okay. Tell me about Royse City and then later tell me about the flop.

Otto:

Okay. I filed the lawsuit against Royse City.

Shawn Foutch:

So, I filed the lawsuit against Royse City. It was actually not from that specific incident that you just showed. It was the next day. I was holding the same signs, and they arrested for displaying those signs. So, the flop. I was charged with felony resisting arrest on that, and in depositions, they said I was resisting because I was using the force of gravity against the officers.

Taya Graham:

Sorry. I’m sorry.

Shawn Foutch:

So, gravity.

Stephen Janis:

The force of gravity. Sorry, Otto.

Taya Graham:

I’m sorry. That’s so unprofessional, but that is so crazy.

Stephen Janis:

Wait, Otto. Go ahead, go ahead. Finish what you were saying. I’m sorry. We were laughing.

Shawn Foutch:

I could not have written that as a joke. You know what I mean?

Taya Graham:

So good.

Shawn Foutch:

It’s just too ridiculous. I wouldn’t have written that. It wouldn’t have been funny if it didn’t come out of their mouth, you know what I mean?

Stephen Janis:

Right.

Shawn Foutch:

Right.

Stephen Janis:

Go ahead. I’m sorry. Go ahead.

Shawn Foutch:

No, they were serious.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

It wasn’t a joke for them.

Stephen Janis:

Right.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

It was interesting, because when I was watching the video, the first video, it was interesting because the police officer says something that I hear over and over again, and I want you to talk about this. He says, “You’re not going to tell me what to do.” And it seems cop watchers have a penchant for challenging that idea. Do you notice that cops get pretty upset when you say, when you start telling them go away or something? That seems to really trigger them?

Shawn Foutch:

Oh, absolutely. They don’t like it one bit. As a matter of fact, James Freeman has probably one of the most triggering phrases that there is, and that is, “You are dismissed.”

Taya Graham:

Ooh.

Shawn Foutch:

They absolutely hate it, and it’s true. I mean, there’s no reason for them to be there. They’re putting themselves there. They just will not leave.

Stephen Janis:

Right.

Shawn Foutch:

So, go away. I mean, just stop.

Stephen Janis:

Right.

Shawn Foutch:

It wouldn’t have been an incident if they had just left.

Stephen Janis:

Wow. I mean, because I think some of the things about cop watchers, as we talked about them tonight, and particularly in your case, is that you kind of, by challenging that authority that they seem to have over space, where they can tell anyone what to do, you bring out an absurdity of police power in supposedly a constitutional democracy or whatever. And it seems like every time you push them on that, they seem to do something crazier. It almost seems to make them crazy, right?

Shawn Foutch:

I don’t know what it is.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

I guess.

Stephen Janis:

I’m thinking of the time-

Shawn Foutch:

I don’t know why they just can’t let it go. I guess it might be part of their training or something. But if they start, if they initiate the process, they can’t just stop doing it. They have to continue.

Stephen Janis:

Right.

Shawn Foutch:

It never stops with let me see your ID. Then you hand them your ID, and then they have another question. There’s always another question.

Stephen Janis:

Right.

Shawn Foutch:

That is part of their training, to continuously have another question. It doesn’t matter what the answer is.

Stephen Janis:

But is it their training, or is just something about the power, the cultural power of policing? Because what I love about your video is, the time you were bowing down to the cop, you kind of exposed that sense of if I come into a situation, I can control all the events, even though there’s a Constitution that says they can’t do that. It’s almost like you’re kind of delving into the psychology of police, which is showing how absurd is it they can order someone around for apparently no reason.

Shawn Foutch:

Right. Well, I was not arrested for bowing to them. Okay? So, keep that in mind. Take it for what it is.

Stephen Janis:

Right, right. Right.

Shawn Foutch:

And as you said, I’m a comedian. I got in this trying to tell jokes. I just wanted to be funny. I don’t align with a political party specifically. I try to stay in the middle and just make fun of whatever it is that’s funny, and sometimes, that’s hard. Sometimes it’s real hard.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

And you have to get a little bit dark on it.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

But I’m just out there telling jokes, and if they don’t like it, they could look away. They don’t have to be there. They can leave. They can just go away. It’s fine.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

That’s a really good point. There’s a lot of situations I’ve seen on body camera or cell phone camera where the police officers actually had the discretion to just leave. They were under no obligation to keep pressing or escalating the situation, and sometimes I wonder, why didn’t they just walk away?

Shawn Foutch:

Did we get Otto’s information about what happened with his lawsuit? Did he say?

Taya Graham:

Oh. Well, you know what? Oh, by the way. The channel is Otto the Watchdog. Someone asked, and I wanted to answer.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

If you want to go see, it’s Otto the Watchdog. It’s on the YouTube, and it’s on the Facebook as well.

Stephen Janis:

But, yeah. Otto, did you tell us, did you win your lawsuit, or what happened?

Shawn Foutch:

Oh, I filed a lawsuit against Royse City specifically, and also in Rockwall, which is the town next door, and I won both of those lawsuits.

Stephen Janis:

Wow, congratulations.

Shawn Foutch:

The payout was a little over $100,000 combined.

Stephen Janis:

Whoa.

Taya Graham:

Oh my gosh, I’m so happy for you.

Stephen Janis:

Are you going to become a monthly sustainer of The Real News?

Shawn Foutch:

Well, I mean. Yeah, I guess so. I guess so. But the problem is that I wanted them to stop violating people. I was initially irritated at my local sheriff’s department because they would drive fast and down in front of the road, they would speed, in front of the road, constantly pull people over on that road. License plate, lights, pre-textual stops, a lot of that. And it bothered me. And then I started looking. I found that you can look up public information, and I looked up the blotter, and I found that most of the people who are arrested are from out of town, right? So, it’s just people passing through town.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

Probably going to work or something like that.

Stephen Janis:

That is true. Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

And heaven forbid they should have a license plate light that went out.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

Or things of that sort. And it just spiraled into people sending me reports of corruption, and then I would look into that, and it just continued into what you have today.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Otto, I want to get a little personal with you.

Shawn Foutch:

Sure.

Stephen Janis:

Because you told me a story, when we were working on a bigger project about cop watching, and you told me a story that I thought was really interesting. You said, “I was kind of feeling like.” It was about the signs. You said, “I was kind of feeling angry. I was angry, but I didn’t want to be an angry person. So I started creating signs, and that’s when I came up with the, I won’t say the word, and stuff.”

Shawn Foutch:

Right.

Stephen Janis:

Can you talk a little bit about that? Because I think that’s really interesting that you decided to channel that into what you were doing, kind of your art, so to speak.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah. So, I’ve always tried to make things funny, tried to make bad things, lighten it up so that nobody feels crummy. And when you talk about problems, nobody really wants to listen. They don’t really care what the problem is or what the solution is. They just want to talk about it. So, I was trying to figure out a way to get people engaged in something, just engaged at all. And I thought that something that had absolutely no meaning when you just looked at it, but it does have a meaning. Everybody, you can understand the meaning, but it doesn’t tell you what I’m talking about. And then you can just fill in the blank. And that took me some time to come up with, a couple of phrases that fit that bill. And I wrote them down on signs, poster boards from the dollar store. And it was funny.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

It was funny. Most of the people would stop and just take a photo and post it on Facebook.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Shawn Foutch:

So, it was mostly just an impromptu stopping and getting it kind of thing.

Taya Graham:

You know, I wish I could play this for folks, but perhaps someone in the chat can let people know where, if they want to hear a song that Otto and another cop watcher and activist named Eric Grant in Colorado created. It was called Happy Something the Cops Day. And if you would like to find out about it, I am sure there’s someone in the chat that can direct you either to Otto’s channel or the song itself, if you’re interested in some of the ways that Otto uses humor to express himself.

Now, because one of the themes tonight is when the coverup is worse than the crime, in the case of the city of Hawk Cove, it seems to me that the police department and city hall’s attempt to cover up the crime of misusing the law caused a judge to be forced out of office. I mean, he wasn’t even allowed to resign. He was terminated after he signed his resignation in protest, and this is an amazing case, because this happened when a judge was standing up for the law, and he was punished for it, and you’re right in the middle of this case. You’ve got to tell us more about it.

Stephen Janis:

Yes.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah. So, the very first time I brought out the sign was, so, I have to back up a little bit. I was giving away, I was going to food banks and collecting food for several houses and taking it to them because they didn’t have a car. And then, the church where I was picking up the food boxes found out about that and decided that I could do more, I could help more people, if I had more stuff, and for whatever reason, they gave me a truckload of potatoes and carrots and stuff like that. And I had already been looking into some stories in Hawk Cove, and I’ve got friends and family there. Hi, by the way. So, I went out there and I’d called the chief, or I’d texted the Chief of Police, Rhonda McKean, that morning and let her know that I was going to be doing that, and she told me I’d need a permit, which I disagreed with, and that was what brought the signs with me that morning.

And anyway, so they ended up giving me a ticket. It took four officers an hour and a half to decide that the most appropriate ticket, or the most appropriate thing to do to me was to issue me a citation for solicitation, because I didn’t have a permit to give the food away. Well, there was no ordinance by which to cite me under, so they wrote it after the fact and just kind of slipped it in there, into the rule book. So, they wrote the ordinance after they wrote me the ticket.

Stephen Janis:

What?

Shawn Foutch:

And then back dated it and slipped it into the code book.

Stephen Janis:

So, who’s they?

Taya Graham:

Okay, so this is incredible. Okay. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, one second. Because I was trying to look up ordinance 100-11 online. This explains why I can’t find it, because it doesn’t actually exist. It was written just for you, back dated, and slipped into a pile of files? Just for you?

Shawn Foutch:

Yes.

Stephen Janis:

Without any sort of legislative function? It wasn’t the council that passed this? The police department literally just made up a law?

Taya Graham:

Well, I think the city council was in on it. Right, Otto?

Stephen Janis:

Were they in on it?

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah, but so, the council, you’re correct, Steven. That’s the proper method, right?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

It is written, and then it is read twice at council meeting.

Stephen Janis:

Right.

Shawn Foutch:

In an open council meeting.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

And then the council votes on it.

Stephen Janis:

And adopts it.

Shawn Foutch:

And then it becomes an official ordinance.

Stephen Janis:

Yup.

Shawn Foutch:

None of that was done. They just wrote it, back dated it for the day before, because there was a council meeting the night before.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Shawn Foutch:

So, they back dated it for the day before, and then wrote me a ticket for it the next.

Stephen Janis:

So, they back dated as if the council had approved it when they had not.

Shawn Foutch:

Yes. As if the process had been done.

Stephen Janis:

Right, yeah. Wow.

Shawn Foutch:

And I had, my local contact there let me know that this was happening, and then that was the day that Freeman and I showed up.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Shawn Foutch:

To attend the council meeting in which they were discussing the termination of the judge.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Shawn Foutch:

Right. So, the judge actually had written, or had contacted the mayor, and told the mayor that this ordinance was invalid, and what had been done with it, and he didn’t do anything about it. He didn’t say anything or make any changes. And then I go to court on that, and the ordinance was still in place as if it was okay. And the judge dismissed my citation. And if I had the experience and education that I do now at the time, I would have filed official complaints and lawsuits on that, because it’s, this is absolutely egregious. I just wasn’t capable at the time.

Stephen Janis:

But you know, it’s really interesting you should say that.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

Because just as we talked to Chris Reader, you were someone, again, who was unfamiliar with the law, and now you’re quite familiar with the law, right? So, you kind of taught yourself, just like he did, just like Eric Brant, who we’ll talk about a little bit later. You kind of taught yourself the law, right? This is all something you’ve learned in the process.

Shawn Foutch:

Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:

And I guess what’s interesting, what have you learned? I mean, what’s your big takeaway from all the things you’ve gone through? Through the lawsuits, the charges of felony camping. All the crazy stuff that’s been thrown at you as a person, what’s your takeaway from it? Just out of curiosity.

Shawn Foutch:

Oh, man. Trying to narrow it down would be-

Stephen Janis:

I know. I know.

Shawn Foutch:

Oh, man. So, getting past the intellectual stuff, learning law and the process of the law, and actually, more about my rights than I ever could have imagined when I picked up the sign for the first time. And besides all the intellectual stuff, I’ve learned that random strangers can come out of the woodwork and absolutely save your bacon. And if it wasn’t for people coming around and helping people that need it when they need it, there would be a lot of us.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

Victims of police. I don’t even want to say misconduct or whatever, because it’s never misconduct according to them, right?

Stephen Janis:

True.

Shawn Foutch:

But victims of police behavior.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

We would be in a much tighter spot.

Stephen Janis:

Okay.

Taya Graham:

I just want to ask, and actually, this is a question for both you and Steven, because I think Hawk Cove might be an example of the over-policing that we see in a lot of small towns and rural areas, where police departments really have to work to justify their salaries, and they struggle to generate fines and revenues for the city, and the way they do it is usually by ticketing and citing just the regular folks. And in the beginning of this exploitation of the small town, and this is according to a change.org petition. This town’s roughly 500 people. Property taxes were increased by 53% in 2022. Their sewer bill was increased by 52%, and they had an intake of one million dollars in January 2023, and this is a town of 500 people. So, I mean, Hawk Cove actually has the highest rate for taxes on sewers in all of north Texas. So there’s just so many ways that governance works to exploit the population, and policing is often the tip of the spear. I mean, taxation, water tax. I mean, that’s all part of it.

Stephen Janis:

Well.

Taya Graham:

So, Steven, Otto, what are some examples to you that come to mind when it comes to seeing over-policing and aggressive taxation? It seems like it’s a pattern to me.

Stephen Janis:

Well, Otto, do you want to go first? Or you want me to go?

Shawn Foutch:

I’m going to say that all those things that you just mentioned are the least of the problems in Hawk Cove.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

I mean, the tax rate. Who really cares about the tax rate? I mean, the sewers are jacked up. They’ve never worked. There was a multi-million dollar project on those sewers. It never worked.

Taya Graham:

Oh my gosh.

Shawn Foutch:

The city maintenance has been accused, and they say that it’s not true, but there’s so many things that are going on, all right? The tax rate being way higher than it’s actually even legally allowed to be for a town that size. The city has fudged their residence numbers for years.

Stephen Janis:

Wow.

Shawn Foutch:

In order to get more funding and qualify for grants and things of that sort. So, even their population numbers are inaccurate. I don’t trust the 500 number. I’ve also heard 741, and I don’t trust either one of those numbers. I don’t think we have an accurate count. And that’s just the beginning. It can just continue on from there.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, one thing I’ve noticed about policing in small towns is that there are many small towns we report on like Milton, West Virginia, or even Pocomoke City, Maryland, where they have a very well-funded police department but, as Otto points out, their water systems in both cities are completely below grade, and have serious problems cited by the EPA. And it seems like policing sucks up a lot of resources that would be better spent on improving a community. So, don’t worry about your drinking water, but there is someone standing by a stop sign who will write you a ticket if you roll through it. And I think it’s exemplar of the disconnect between the people who have the power and the working class who does not, and police are the perfect boundary setters for that. And that’s why you see these situations today.

Taya Graham:

I think Otto, and please correct me if I’m wrong, you mentioned something in that Hawk Cove case, that these officers who were involved in creating a new ordinance and being a part of that, that each one of those officers actually has received a promotion. Is that correct?

Shawn Foutch:

I’m not sure about that. They don’t really have, in Hawk Cove, they don’t really have far to be promoted.

Taya Graham:

Oh, okay.

Shawn Foutch:

They already rule absolutely everything.

Taya Graham:

Oh, okay.

Stephen Janis:

Right.

Shawn Foutch:

But in my other cases, in the sign case with the flop in Roy City.

Taya Graham:

Okay.

Shawn Foutch:

Officer Dial is now a Lieutenant.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Shawn Foutch:

And he is in charge of receiving the complaints for the department.

Taya Graham:

Oh my gosh.

Shawn Foutch:

Which must be very convenient.

Stephen Janis:

That’s ironic.

Taya Graham:

Oh, that’s horrifying. Ironic, indeed.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah. Short was elected Mayor, re-elected Mayor after that. So he’s Mayor of McClendon-Chisholm. He’s also a Sergeant at a different police department down the road. And Officer Landingrock in Rockwall that arrested me for flipping her off has also been promoted, so she’s now a Sergeant and doing field training for other officers.

Taya Graham:

So incredible.

Stephen Janis:

Hey, Otto. I want to ask you a question, because I’ve always wondered. When you do the flop, I can kind of, there’s not much audio. What do the cops around you say when you flop? Just so people know, Otto just, they came up to him, he had the sign, they were going to arrest him, and he just flops down on the ground. It’s kind of a technique of many activists. But what do they say when you do that? Do they say anything to you?

Shawn Foutch:

I don’t think they said anything immediately. Dial told me to roll over, which I wasn’t going to move. I didn’t want to be resisting any further.

Stephen Janis:

Right, right.

Shawn Foutch:

You know what I mean? Or assaulting an officer. I’d hate to roll over one of their toes. I think everybody was just pretty stunned. Maybe a little bit disappointed. Maybe they were afraid that they were going to have to carry me to the car. I don’t know.

Stephen Janis:

Okay.

Shawn Foutch:

I don’t know. I just knew that-

Stephen Janis:

I’m sorry to throw it in there. I was just curious.

Shawn Foutch:

Yeah. I just knew that I didn’t want to participate in their shenanigans.

Stephen Janis:

Understood.

Taya Graham:

Fair enough. That is honestly quite fair.

Shawn Foutch:

I tell everybody, of course talk to your attorney. I am not an attorney, and I’m damn sure not your attorney. But talk to your attorney. If you feel like flopping is good for you, take a couple practice runs before you do it.

Taya Graham:

Well, I have to admit, something I thought was really interesting when you told me about it is that you said that a lot of civil rights activists use passive non-resistance. You don’t resist, but you don’t participate in your own, as some people call it, in your own kidnapping or your own false imprisonment. And you just took it to another level.

Shawn Foutch:

I did. I did.

Taya Graham:

Like Otto just has a way of doing. I just wanted to make sure, because I think you touched on this, there’s a court case that I’m sure must be near and dear to your heart, and actually someone in the chat mentioned it. It’s Cohen v. California, and that’s the Supreme Court case that famously held one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric. And so, this court case is so important because even speech that is undignified or offensive to others is still worthy of protection, and without this protection, the government almost has limitless power over our speech. So, you recently, I believe, won another lawsuit to protect freedom of speech. Can you just tell us a little bit about the process and just let people know how hard it is to fight one of these cases? Because I think people hear a cop watcher won a lawsuit here, or a cop watcher won a lawsuit there, and they don’t know how many years it takes, the process.

Shawn Foutch:

I was arrested on December 16th of 2018, and the case finally settled in, actually it was either February or June of 2023. So, you can add that up. That’s pretty typical. It takes a lot. I, of course, recommend an attorney. Well, I would recommend an attorney, but then I would preface that by saying a competent attorney. And those are even more rare than an attorney that’s willing to take a case that’s going against the establishment. So, it is definitely a challenge, and you do have to work very hard. I was fortunate enough, about halfway through my process, my court cases, that I found an attorney that was willing to help me find a criminal defense attorney, because my criminal cases just dragged on forever. No convictions, by the way. No convictions. I have no criminal convictions. I did plead guilty to a speeding ticket, which I was speeding, so. It was a speed trap, and we can discuss speed traps and their efficacy at a later time.

Stephen Janis:

That is a whole show.

Shawn Foutch:

But, I think that’s pretty good for a person who’s been arrested at least a dozen times.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Shawn Foutch:

Probably somewhere around 15 or 20. So, I’m very well-versed on how the discretion of an officer can turn your life around, and if I had stood up for my rights every time that they were about to violated or was violated, I would have been probably 30 or 40 times that I’ve been taken to jail. Because it truly does depend on the education level of the individual officer that you happen to be dealing with at the time.

Taya Graham:

Let me just ask you a very quick question, because someone in the chat asked this. Joe Deed, she said, “Can nothing be done to help Eric Brant?”

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, [inaudible 01:12:00] Eric Brant. Yeah.

Taya Graham:

If you can just give me a-

Taya Graham:

Eric Brandt.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I do want to bring up Eric Brandt.

Taya Graham:

If you can just give me…

Stephen Janis:

An update.

Taya Graham:

Just a quick update. Just for people who don’t know, Eric Brandt was an activist for the unhoused in Denver, Colorado. He was a First Amendment activist. He was known for some of his more impressive stunts. He would dress up in a Pikachu onesie or go to court wearing an American flag as a sarong.

Shawn Foutch:

Or spaghetti strainer.

Taya Graham:

Or spaghetti strainer on his head because his religion was Pastafarianism. He was a very creative person. But unfortunately, he was imprisoned for violent threats against judges. It was a matter of speech. The courts unfortunately decided that instead of just receiving three years for the threats, he would receive three years, three years, three years, three years consecutively, meaning a twelve-year sentence for speech. So just for people who didn’t know Eric Brandt’s story. In the chat was asked, how is Eric doing? Is there any update on his case?

Shawn Foutch:

So he’s still appealing some of the details of that case, and that of course takes a very long time. Usually, it takes just about as long as it does just to get out of jail on your own. They’re going to stick him for as long as possible, for sure. Other than that, he’s in good spirits. He’s currently in a leadership role and writing bylaws for the Committee of Inmates, so he never quit. He’s still very much an activist. He’s still helping people out just like he always has, just a little bit different now. Taking things a little bit slower.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Well, thank you so much for sharing that.