Chalk artist Joshua Hinson was finishing up a community art project in Leon Valley, Texas when local cops confronted him over his art, which they incorrectly described as “graffiti.” Hinson’s arrest, which was captured on video, has raised questions about the protection of art under the First Amendment, and the overreach and abuse of power exercised by police in regulating public space. The charges against Hinson were ultimately dropped, but the problems his case raises about the police as an institution remain. Police Accountability Report investigates.
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. And today, we will achieve that goal by showing you the video of the arrest of a Texas man for reasons that I think will shock you, but even more alarming is what this encounter says about an ongoing problem with law enforcement in the US that we will address in 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 at 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. I know you see those hearts down there. And we do 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 you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.
Now, as we’ve talked about before on this show, our country might not have enough doctors, nurses, school teachers, or electricians, but one thing we certainly have in abundance is police officers. Just to be clear, I’m not talking about the debate over how many cops, cities, or small towns say they need or the jobs that are budgeted for but not filled across the country. What I’m talking about now is the expansion of policing as a social process. That is, how law enforcement has expanded to infiltrate more facets of our lives without debate over why it’s happening or if we need it at all. Because let’s face it, a recent report shows that crime is actually down 12% across the country.
Meanwhile, police departments say they’re understaffed or having trouble hiring a full compliment of cops. So that seems odd, right? Fewer police and less crime, which is why I think we need to do some digging into why fewer cops have actually led to less crime and what it says about how we use police, how many we hire, and hopefully what we can do to reveal why we need less, not more. Because even though some cities say they’re having trouble finding cops, the officers that are on the job do not seem to have trouble producing useless arrests. Just a few weeks ago we showed you this entirely bogus DUI charge against a Dallas firefighter who lost his job despite the fact the case itself was never filed with prosecutors.
But an even more glaring example might be the video I’m showing you now. It involves a man in Leon Valley, Texas who was engaged in exercising his first amendment rights until a cop who apparently disagreed used handcuffs to prove it. The story starts on May 15th, as I said, in Leon Valley. There a man named Joshua Hinson, who is also known as Lakey 360, was using sidewalk chalk to complete another piece in the series of work he does to beautify communities across Texas. However, unbeknownst to him, someone, I’m guessing an Art Karen, had called the police and complained that he was “creating graffiti.” This led to a visit from not one, but two Leon Valley police officers. Let’s watch.
Speaker 2:
Somebody called because you do graffiti. If you don’t have a permit, unfortunately, you have to stop.
Joshua Hinson:
It’s freedom of expression to create on public property.
Speaker 2:
It’s public, yes.
Joshua Hinson:
Yeah, I’ve been arrested, going to court three times now. I mean, if y’all need to arrest me for it, you can arrest me and then we can go to court after that.
Taya Graham:
Now, interestingly, the sidewalk chalk does not meet the legal definition of graffiti, and there is a reason for that. Because as cops failed to recognize, it’s not permanent, a fact that these officers seem to overlook as they escalated the encounter. Just watch.
Speaker 2:
Graffiti?
Speaker 4:
A what?
Speaker 2:
The whole crossing from the corner by the bus stop on the… How do you call it?
Speaker 4:
Marker or what?
Speaker 2:
No, it’s chalk.
Speaker 4:
Okay, is that an arrestable offense?
Speaker 2:
Yes, because it’s chalk marker, permanent marker, all that stuff. I’m going to read the statute again. I want give you a break.
Speaker 4:
The marker for class D has to be indelible, meaning not erasable. Chalk is washable.
Speaker 2:
I don’t know, the water is not washing off, so it’s going to take a little time.
Speaker 4:
Chalk is not considered a permanent marking.
Speaker 2:
Okay. I told him, hey, what is he doing? I’m going to give him a break. Okay, just stop. No, no, I’m doing the art. This is my right. I can do this in public.
Speaker 4:
He did it on the sidewalk?
Speaker 2:
On the sidewalk.
Speaker 4:
Okay. That’s [inaudible 00:04:50] going to be arrestable offense.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, I’m going to check right now. If that is the case, just let him go.
Speaker 4:
Yeah, double-check. But tell him to be careful, because if we bring something back here like that and then if we unlawfully detain him, then that opens up stuff for lawsuit.
Speaker 2:
Okay.
Taya Graham:
Finally, after ignoring Joshua’s explanation, said he was merely doing what the First Amendment allowed. And what the transient nature of sidewalk chalk would permit in the light of the law, the officers used the most destructive tools of the over-policing industrial complex, handcuffs and a cage. Just look.
Speaker 2:
You have any weapons on you, man?
Joshua Hinson:
No.
Speaker 2:
You got any knives or anything’s going to poke or stick me?
Joshua Hinson:
My backpack, my artwork over there.
Speaker 2:
All right, man. Just give me a minute. Just go ahead and I’m going to go ahead and take him the back my patrol car, and we’re going to figure out what we’re going to go ahead and do, all right? At this time, you’re just detained. You’re not free to leave. These are the elements of the crime. These two, this one.
Speaker 4:
Okay, we’re going to book him?
Speaker 2:
Yep. For graffiti. [inaudible 00:06:10].
Taya Graham:
Now this was not the first time that Lakey 360 had faced law enforcement pushback because believe it or not, this was not the first time he was arrested, cuffed, and taken to jail for chalk art in Texas. In fact, this was just the beginning of his struggles with police criminalizing his work, an ongoing ordeal that is the classic tale of the consequences of over-policing. And for more on that, we will be joined by Lakey 360 later. But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who has been researching the law, reaching out to police and delving into the details of the case. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me,
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
So first, what do the graffiti laws say in Texas? Did police have the right to arrest Joshua?
Stephen Janis:
Taya, I think this is a perfect example of why if you’re going to enforce the law, you should read it. Because basically the graffiti law says paint, indelible marker, an etching process. Not anything related to sidewalk chalk. So really this is a perfect case of a cop who doesn’t seem to understand the law, have read it, be familiar with it, or also perhaps doesn’t understand the distinction between paint and an etching device and sidewalk chalk. So it’s almost funny if it didn’t result in an arrest and a detainment, but it certainly shows the cops need to brush up on the law before they enforce it. That would be my recommendation.
Taya Graham:
Now, what are the police saying in Leon Valley, Texas about his arrest? How have they handled the fallout over it?
Stephen Janis:
Taya, what’s very different and I think interesting about this case is it wasn’t the police who were doing the apologizing. The city council was apparently so embarrassed that Lakey 360 had been arrested for sidewalk chalk that they apologized publicly. Very, very odd because usually we’ve seen city councils or mayors tend to hide behind the police department and not comment. But in this case, I guess they were just so utterly embarrassed by the whole ordeal, they felt like they had to say something publicly and they did.
Taya Graham:
So Stephen, you have done a lot of reporting on this idea of over-policing. Why is it so important and why do we have to stay vigilant about it?
Stephen Janis:
Taya, I’m going to talk about this subject by telling you a story. I was a young reporter, I was doing investigations on police overtime and we had cops logging in 24 hours a day saying they’d worked 365 days a year, including holidays, and it didn’t make any sense. And when I exposed it and I went to a counsel hearing where they confronted the cops, the counsel said this. “Do you need more money? Are we not giving you enough money?” And to me that was representative of what is wrong with over-policing. Because basically what it does is it circumvents the process of accountability and it ends up infiltrating all of our lives with bad arrest, bad policing, and unproductive use of government resources. It is something we have to think about, it is something we have to understand and it is something we have to stop.
Taya Graham:
And now to get more details about the consequences of his arrest and of his other encounter with Texas police that ended badly, I’m joined by Joshua, also known as Lakey 360. Lakey 360, thank you so much for joining me.
Joshua Hinson:
Thank you very much for having me.
Taya Graham:
So first things first, why were you drawing on the sidewalk?
Joshua Hinson:
I just like creating in public places. Sometimes I do it in places where it’s somewhat expected. Other times it seems sort of absurd. That one ended up just being right down the street from a friend’s house and there was a storm coming in and I was like, oh, well let’s see how much art I can do before it rains today.
Taya Graham:
So you have actually been noted in local newspapers for your efforts to beautify the city, and you’ve even taught kids chalk art too, isn’t that right? You’ve been publicly acknowledged as an artist?
Joshua Hinson:
Yeah, out in east Texas and Longview and then little bit here in San Antonio area.
Taya Graham:
When you were approached by police in Leon Valley, what did they say? I mean, how did they approach you?
Joshua Hinson:
So they got out of the car, they were approaching me. And I don’t know, just sort of the body language, I figured it wasn’t going to be the most positive encounter. But just stayed calm and everything because I’ve had the police interrupt me in pieces before. Every once in a while, it’s a compliment, some nice words. But this one he was telling me early on that someone had called me, called on me for graffiti or something and I was like, well, this is chalk, it’s going to be washed away. He said something else about how I needed to stop and I said something along the lines of how I’d been ticketed for it and everything multiple times in the past and nothing ever comes of it. And it ended up being less than a minute of us speaking before I was in cuffs then.
Taya Graham:
Do you know why you were put in cuffs? All you had in your hands were chalk.
Joshua Hinson:
He was saying it was because of graffiti. I haven’t spent a ton of time in Leon Valley, but I do know that they’re trying to tighten up a whole lot on homeless people. And even I went to their city hall a couple of nights ago and that was one of the points that they were going to talk about in there. So part of me wonders if he thought that I was homeless and technically, that line is gray as a traveling artist. I haven’t had my own home in a long time. And then he also saw the tip jar and asked if I was doing it for tips out there and I said yes. So part of me wonders if it was like he saw me as a homeless person. He’s like, I need to get that person out of here. Or if he really thought it was graffiti. But I mean, the box of chalk that I had out there is Crayola. So it says washable, non-toxic sidewalk chalk.
Taya Graham:
Were you surprised that a supervisor had to tell the arresting officer he might be violating your constitutional rights, allowing the department to be sued? Were you surprised when you overheard the conversation they had when you got your body camera video?
Joshua Hinson:
I knew he had asked someone and they told him that he didn’t have anything against me, but seeing it on camera, I was like, wow, I couldn’t have expected anything better. Just being like, “Hey, this is wrong.” I’m also a little bit weird, like why didn’t this supervisor try to stop this situation? Those are things that myself and every internet justice, I can’t think of the word, people who think they’re a lawyer or whatever, they’re like lawsuit, lawsuit. But it does feel way different to have his superior say that. Like someone who is very clearly an officer, him acknowledging that that was the issue there. And then also it was weird that the superior officer wasn’t like, “No, you can’t lock him up. We need to fix this right now before it goes any further.”
Taya Graham:
Now, this isn’t the first time that you’ve been arrested for sidewalk chalk art. Didn’t this also happen in Longview, Texas? Can you describe what happened during that incident?
Joshua Hinson:
I wish I had pushed further on that one because I feel like it was even deeper and more weird because first I was front page news for my sidewalk chalk there and a few of the different news stations covered it on the nightly news and everything, and that’s while they were applying for an art district in that city. And then I did my summer travels through 2019 mostly in Chicago and then I came back and they had the art district and it was the day before art walks. So I was like, well, I’ll go out here and cover as much downtown as I can with art before the event. It’ll be like this first art walk, will be some great thing. And a couple of hours into it had a couple of guys approached me asking me to stop and maybe explaining situation and saying that I wasn’t going to, and then some police coming and asking the same thing.
And since I was in a small town and I had family there and I was thinking about staying longer, I was like, well, I’ll go ahead and move to at least this other area where I’m even more sure that it’s public property. I’m in front of a sculpture garden, not even by any businesses. So I went over there and started creating and within 20 minutes the police showed up again asking me to stop and I told him I’m not breaking any laws, I’m going to go ahead and keep going. So they went ahead and handcuffed me and took me in and they decided I needed a cavity search and then locked me up in general population for the first time in my life and I was in for 18 hours just over sidewalk chalk.
Taya Graham:
So what were the charges and how were they adjudicated?
Joshua Hinson:
So on that arrest, it wasn’t a graffiti one, they said it was encumbering a public right of way. So I was encumbering the sidewalk, they said. Even though I’m usually very mindful of let people know you can walk on the artwork, it’s public property, don’t worry. So saw the judge from jail, and at first I pleaded not guilty and then I pleaded no contest because someone had told me I’d be able to get out quicker and I wanted to go to the art walk that day, but then ended up getting released soon thereafter. Then I went to the courthouse to pay the hundred dollar ticket and they said they had dropped the charges in the interest of justice and then there was never any apology or anything done to make anything better, but the charges were dropped.
Taya Graham:
So what do you hope will be the result of sharing your experience? What do you hope happens next?
Joshua Hinson:
With this officer, I feel like if you are going to arrest someone over something as minimal as sidewalk chalk and be so quick to do it, you probably shouldn’t be policing people. Because had I been nervous or any number of things could have gone wrong or I panicked, or let’s say I was a person who had a record and I was like, “Oh no, I didn’t expect chalk was going to get me in trouble.” And you respond in some negative way. So with him, I feel like he should probably be fired.
And then with how officers should respond to it, I feel like it’s pretty obvious. You should just let it fly. But with other people, like average individuals, I don’t think people realize how powerful of a tool something as silly as sidewalk chalk is because it’s impermanent. You can make positive stuff. There’s so many different kinds of creative ways to use it to be kind of a jerk activist that really pushes the envelope, but no one can tell what you’re doing wrong, or there’s other ways of just trying to create very positive things and it still rises up people’s negativity, certain ones of them. It’s weird to have power with something so like cheap, insignificant, childish, and to see the responses people give to it.
Taya Graham:
Now, as I discussed with Stephen, my concerns about over-policing are not just focused on how much or how little law enforcement we have or need, it’s just another iteration of the more cops are good, less cops are bad debate. The reason I talk about this concept is because there’s an aspect of policing that goes beyond the number of people authorized to wear a gun and badge. A distinct facet of law enforcement we often overlook when we discuss what good policing might look like. Because while ostensibly cops are supposed to focus on fairly enforcing the law or solving crimes, police have another purpose made necessary by our wholly unequal society, a role that gets less attention but must be considered if we’re going to discuss what it means when we say there is just too much of it. That’s because police are in part social boundary enforcers.
What I mean is that in this country where the top 1% owns 32% of the nation’s wealth, law enforcement plays a critical role in allowing that imbalance to flourish. So let’s just think about it. If a smaller and smaller group of people control a larger and growing share of our country’s resources, the imbalance of power is destabilizing. When the top 1% controls 20 times more wealth than the bottom 50%, the result is a type of fiscal power, which means the political process, the path to equitable representation, and even the media are all tainted by the undue influence of excessive wealth. And this imbalance, this basic and excess influence, creates instability. It punishes and protracts poverty and it hoards and obstructs opportunity. It overwhelms accountability and induces institutions that are meant to protect us to instead attack us. But most important for this discussion, it demands enforcement. And that’s where the aforementioned role of police as social boundary enforcers comes into play.
When we witness unnecessary tickets, useless arrests like what we just encountered, excessive fines, superfluous demands for ID overly harsh sentencing, or when we watch pretextual stops, warrantless searches, warren drug style warrior cops, it all boils down to a simple truism. All of these inexplicable misuses of police power are about enforcing the line between us and the elites. It’s all to ensure that our political efficacy is sullied and that our inalienable rights are subject to the whims of those who have the power to negate them. It is simply put a pretty efficient way of making sure we stay in our place. That we, the people who create the wealth of this country through hard work, dedication, and creativity, don’t demand our fair share. In other words, excess police power is intentional. It’s designed to seep into our lives as an impediment to true freedom, a thoroughly anti-democratic impulse that if not tamed, could implicate all of us.
How do I know? Well, let me show you. Take a look at this intriguing video of one of the most ridiculous arrests I’ve ever witnessed, and that of course is saying something. It started when a New York resident decided to do what any American should be allowed to do, exercising the recently enshrined right to enjoy a joint in a public park. New York, like many other states, has done away with the principle pillar of the country’s notorious war on drugs and allowed residents to legally enjoy a plant that our brains literally evolved to benefit from. But this fact that marijuana is legal did not inhibit this aggressive intervention by the New York City police. There they swarmed on the suited gentlemen when not one, not two, but eight officers encircled him, demanded his ID and otherwise threatened him with arrest. When he stood on his right to privacy and refused to comply, this squad of social boundary enforcers pounced, placing him in handcuffs and under arrest for exercising his right to move about freely and smoke a wholly organic substance.
What this video shows and the arrest itself is that the power to arrest indiscriminately is the most profound tool for the aforementioned social boundary enforcers. It is the single most potent way to simply annul our constitutional or legal rights with the click of handcuffs. Because what this encounter shows is that our rights and the law is provisional. That is even when a legislative process enshrines freedoms for us under the law. A single cop, just one, can simply extinguish that right at their discretion. In other words, the entire system we expect to guarantee our rights is completely susceptible to the arbitrary power of policing. What this example illustrates is the idea I discussed prior to showing the video. That is when we witness over policing, we are actually watching the enforcement of social boundaries. When we watch a man being harassed, intimidated, and finally incarcerated for exercising his lawfully granted rights, we are also observing firsthand how police turn democratic space and individual freedoms into a completely provisional idea.
And once that happens, they are no longer right. Instead, they’re simply ideas on a piece of paper which can be balled up and tossed in the trashcan at the discretion of a person wearing a badge. That’s how much they’re worth when over-policing becomes the norm. That’s why I think it’s essential we understand and analyze policing in ways that provide fresh insight. And that’s why I think it’s also important not just to report on the examples of over policing, but work to understand and acknowledge the broader imperatives that drive.
We must in order to fix it truly comprehend what makes it possible in the first place. That’s why we produce this show, which as we say is not just about the bad behavior of individual cops, but the system which makes bad policing possible. And in this case, it’s the system that needs to be fixed. I want to thank my guest Lakey 360 for taking the time to speak with us and for using his art to bring some beauty into the world. Thank you, Lakey 360. 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 of course I have to thank mods and friends of the show, Nolie D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you. And a very special thanks to our Accountability Report Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every single one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, John ER, David K, and Louis P, and super friends, Shane [inaudible 00:24:45], A 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 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 and Facebook. And please like and comment, I do really read your comments and appreciate them. And if you can 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.
The mysterious death of Emily Hauze at the Park Charles apartment building in Baltimore more than a decade ago continues to produce vexing details that raise questions about the official police report. According to police, Hauze fell down the trash chute of the apartment building while looking for a bathroom. Aside from the implausibility of this theory, there’s also the fact that another person, Harsh Kumar, died in exactly the same way in the same building just one year before Hauze. Following previous reporting on the deaths of Hauze and Kumar, Land of the Unsolved returns for a fresh look, drawing on a previously unreleased police interview with the last person to see Hauze alive.
Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham, Jayne Miler Post-Production: Stephen Janis
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Stephen Janis:
Anyone who watches crime dramas could reasonably conclude that when someone is murdered, barring bizarre and extenuating circumstances, the case is solved. That is through high-tech forensics, moral resolve, or simply the near mythic competence of American law enforcement, killers are ultimately sent to jail.
But as an investigative reporter who has worked in one of the most violent cities in the country for nearly 15 years, I can tell you this is not true.
Taya Graham:
And that is the point of this podcast because unsolved killings represent more than just statistics. It’s a psychic toll of stories untold that infects an entire community, the final violent moments of a victim’s life that remain shrouded in mystery.
Stephen Janis:
I’m Stephen Janis.
Taya Graham:
I’m Taya Graham.
Stephen Janis:
And we are investigative reporters who live in Baltimore City.
Taya Graham:
Welcome to the Land of the Unsolved.
Welcome back to the Land of the Unsolved, the podcast that explores both the evidence and the politics of unsolved murders and mysterious deaths in Baltimore and beyond.
In our last episode, we told you about the death of Emily Hauze. Emily was last seen leaving Baltimore’s Fells Point neighborhood with a young man she had just met. The next morning her body was found in a dumpster in the basement of the Park Charles, a [inaudible 00:01:55] apartment building. The dumpster was attached to a trash chute connected to the upper floors of the building.
At first, police could not identify the young woman, but shortly after the gruesome discovery, a police officer observed a young man carrying a plastic bag out of the lobby of the building. It turns out in the bag where the belongings of the person whose body was lying in the dumpster, Emily Hauze.
That is where we pick up this story because that encounter led police to question the man for several hours. An interview for which we have a transcript, and we’ll be sharing it with you shortly.
But first I want to introduce my guests who will be taking us through this investigation and review the evidence that we have gleaned from a very reliable source: the criminal case file, which we obtained. In it are hundreds of pages of documents, interviews, and of course an autopsy report.
But there are also some things that are left out, which is why I’m joined by investigative reporters, Jayne Miller and Stephen Janis to review it. Thank you both so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis:
Thanks for having us too, Taya.
Taya Graham:
First, Jayne, what strikes you as the most critical question after reading through the case file?
Jayne Miller:
Well, I mean there’s a big gap here in terms of knowing exactly what happened. So what do we know? What do we know? What we know about this case is that we have this young woman who is out partying and met a man, a guy at the party, and the two of them have had a number of drinks, et cetera, and they end up going back to his apartment, which is in the building where the trash chute is.
We know that she’s in the building, we know she’s in the apartment. The man’s roommate saw her come into the apartment. The story of the man is that at some point they were in bed and at some point she said, “Don’t go anywhere. I’m going to the bathroom.” And that was it. That’s the last time of any trail of her.
What happens next is we presume that sometime between 2:00 AM, after 2:00 AM, the next thing that happens in this case is that a little after 8 o’clock in the morning, the maintenance person for the apartment building finds the body of a young woman in the trash bin that is below the trash chute of the building.
That turns out to be the very same woman, Emily Hauze, who had gone out for partying, came back to the apartment with this guy she met and ends up dead in the trash chute.
There’s a big gap in terms of how did she get there? Did she get into the chute by herself? Did someone put her in the chute? Did she get into the trash bin some other way? There’s no video in the building. At that time there were no cameras in the building. This happened in the middle of the night. There’s no witnesses to what happened. So the biggest question is what happened? How did she get into that trash container? It’s really the compactor.
The other thing that I think is really important to note here is that, in some ways, trying to link and identify and track injury is a little difficult because she was injured also by the compactor, even though it may have been postmortem as the autopsy points out. But there was contact with the compactor that also caused significant injury, so in terms of being able to say, oh, that was caused by the fall and that was caused by whatever, that could have been a little bit difficult because of what happened once the body was in the trash compactor.
Baltimore has this history of having these cases that are like, what? I mean, you have a young woman who’s out partying at night and says she’s going to the bathroom and ends up in the trash bin, in the trash compactor, which is not like, one doesn’t lead to the other. The bathroom’s in the apartment that she was in, the trash chute is down the hall. The chute itself is, this isn’t like a regular door. Anybody who lives in an apartment knows what we’re talking about here. Small door opens from the top, like 18″ by 20″, something like that, and is intended to put your trash bag in, not to put yourself in, simply by the construction of it and the way it’s constructed.
Taya Graham:
And so to get a better grasp of the questions I will read from the transcript of the interview with the last person to see Emily alive. Now just to be clear, we are not sharing his identity because he was never considered a suspect by police, nor was he charged with anything related to Emily’s death. We are simply sharing this transcript to answer the questions both Stephen and Jayne have raised.
How exactly did Emily end up in the trash chute and what, if any, clues could explain her untimely death, all that coming up on the Land of the Unsolved.
Hey, this is Taya Graham from The Land of the Unsolved. If you enjoy our podcast and would like us to investigate even more cases, consider supporting our work by either subscribing on our Anchor page or you can also buy one of the books Stephen and I wrote that are available on Amazon and a variety of other websites. Why Do We Kill: The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore written with former homicide detective Kelvin Sewell, and You Can’t Stop Murder: Truths About Policing in Baltimore and Beyond, also in collaboration with a former detective and guest on our show, Stephen Tabeling. Or if you’re in the mood for fictive take on how Baltimore’s struggle with violence and aggressive policing has affected the psyche of the city, I recommend you pick up This Dream Called Death, a book Stephen wrote while he was covering the city’s failed attempt to implement zero tolerance policing and how he reveals the truly corrosive power of that policy by casting it into an alternate reality where the mind and our dreams become the new frontier for government surveillance.
Welcome back to the Land of the Unsolved, the podcast that explores both the evidence and politics of unsolved murders and mysterious deaths in Baltimore and beyond. Today we’re on the third part of our four-part series on the death of Emily Hauze. As we discussed before, police were at a loss to explain how Emily ended up in a dumpster in the basement of the Park Charles apartment building. At first they couldn’t even identify her body. But then an officer observed a white male exiting the lobby of the building with a plastic bag. In it were the belongings of the woman they could not identify, Emily Hauze. That is why police decided to interview the man who they learned was the last person to see her alive.
It’s an interview we can actually share with you. That’s because we have the transcript, which I will read from. But first we want to explain why we are not identifying this person. That’s because police never indicated he was a suspect, nor was he ever charged with a crime. And so now here are the excerpts of that conversation, which I will read.
Before I start, I want to warn listeners that some of the details of this transcript are graphic and might be disturbing. We have limited them as much as possible. However, we felt it was necessary to include at least some of the questioning only to give a fuller picture of what transpired during the interview.
Detective: Okay. All right. On your arrival back to your apartment, again, you went into your apartment and you guys began in sexual activity. Student: Yes. Detective: In that sexual activity, you don’t mind me asking, and again, I’m pretty detail oriented, so forgive me, was there ever any point in time that she requested for the sex to be concluded? Student: No. Detective: No? Student: No. Actually, I don’t recall exactly how it came to an end. I just kind of remember laying there afterwards. Detective: Did you ejaculate? Student: I did not. Detective: You did not? Student: I did not. Sergeant: Are you positive? That’s a pretty key element. Student: Right. Sergeant: You know, who knows if she turns up somewhere with your baby, you know? Student: All right. No, I’m pretty certain that I didn’t. Sergeant: Okay.
Detective: Okay. And to your recollection, can you recall where your shorts were that you loaned her, where they might have been at at that time? Student: No, that’s all quite honestly, really unclear to me. Detective: Unclear? Student: Yes. Detective: Those shorts that you referred to, were they boxer shorts or regular shorts, like the ones you’re wearing now? Student: They’re just regular shorts, like gym shorts. This is like a vague memory I have. I remember reaching in my bedroom drawer and grabbing two pairs of gym shorts. Detective: Yes sir. Student: Handing her one and taking one myself. Detective: Can you recall what color? Student: No, I can’t. I mean I could. Detective: What pair did you keep for yourself? Student: That’s what’s not specifically clear to me. What I guess were the black ones, the lacrosse ones, so I was wearing my old ones. Sergeant: And please take no offense to any of our questions. Okay? Student: I understand. I understand.
Detective: Referring to your apartment when you directed us to the apartment, when we responded with you in plain view, there was a bottle of some medical lidocaine. Student: Yes. Detective: Now I’m not privy to medical information as far as descriptions, but lidocaine is something that’s oral or something that has to be injected? Student: Injected. Detective: Injected. Okay. Student: It’s like a numbing that you have before a local procedure. You know, the doctor will inject a little bit of lidocaine and numb the area. Detective: And I took notice that this was actually on your living room table. Student: Yes.
Detective: Now I understand that you’re a physician, but what was the reason the lidocaine was there? Student: So yeah, I just want to say I had this growth, like an infection, in the skin of my ear and the skin infection had swollen up and become kind of gross and it had some pus in it, so I asked redacted if he would mind if one of these ways to get better is to cut it open and let the pus out. And I think this was last week. Detective: Yes, sir. Student: Yeah, so I had him inject some lidocaine and open that up for me. It’s mostly healed now. Detective: Okay. So the lidocaine was more or less in the house. Student: In what? Detective: In the house. Student: Yes.
Detective: Okay. So I took notice that in close proximity to the lidocaine there were some rolling papers. Do you smoke? Student: On occasion. Detective: Now when I say smoke, I’m a little street oriented, so when I say smoke, I could refer to cigarettes or I could refer to marijuana. But for the purposes of our encounter, are you referring to cigarettes, tobacco, or are you referring to marijuana? If you don’t mind me asking. Student: I assume you’re asking about marijuana. Detective: Yes, I am. Student: Yeah, on occasion, on average, every couple of months. Sergeant: For your glaucoma, correct. Student: No sir. Sergeant: It’s a joke.
Sergeant: You taking any other drugs, illicit drugs or anything? Student: At no point, no. Sergeant: That you or Emily participated in last night? Student: No, it’s nothing. And we certainly drank a lot, but to my knowledge there was nothing. Nothing else. Sergeant: Okay.
Sergeant: So the entire time this young lady, Emily, was more or less involved with you, she was in your presence between the bar and your apartment, is that correct? She was in your company? Student: Between the bar and our apartment, yes. Detective: Okay.
Detective: And so as far as what’s to say, while at your apartment, again, there was no one else that came inside your apartment while you were there with her Student: Correct, to my knowledge. Detective: And upon waking up this morning, you had no knowledge as to where she went? Student: Right. And just to clarify. Detective: Please. Student: My roommate was home already, but no one else came into the apartment, to my knowledge.
Detective: And your roommate, again, is presently at work, is that correct? Student: Correct. Detective: Okay. Well again, let me just ask this lastly, because our encounter is based on you coming down to the lobby, and upon coming down to the lobby, you were there, from my understanding, to meet some friends of Emily. Is that correct? Student: Yes. Detective: Okay. And upon you coming down to the lobby to meet these friends, you had some items to give them, is that correct? Student: Yes. Detective: And these items were? Student: Her belongings. Detective: Okay. And during which time the police were there on the scene, is that correct? Student: Yes. Yes. Detective: Okay. And at any point in time between the initial time you woke up this morning and the time that you found that she was not there, she being Emily, the time that you woke up again around 11 is when her phone went off. Student: Yes. Detective: At any point in time did you notify 9-1-1 or the police? Student: I did not.
Detective: Okay. But did it strike you as bizarre that she was not there? Student: Yes, and I was just, honestly, I think I was just praying and hoping once I like dozed back, I don’t know, I was just hoping, I was dreaming, or I had a nightmare or something because, yeah, that’s certainly not normal. And now I’m pretty upset with myself for even dozing back off. Of course, I wish I would’ve acted on that.
Detective: Why were you alarmed more or less? Student: What’s that? Detective: Why were you alarmed when you woke up and she wasn’t there? Why were you actually alarmed? What startled you? Student: Just because I remembered that she had come home with me and, I don’t know, it’s not normal that she would be gone a few hours later when I woke up for sure. Sergeant: And just her being gone was strange or would anything make it even stranger? Student: Well, certainly. Sergeant: And how about the fact that she was gone and her belongings were there? Student: And that’s when I recall, that’s when it hit me, I think. Sergeant: So the odds of the female that you had a great time with last night, being butt naked, leaving your apartment to try to find her way home, what kind of odds do you think that would be? Have you ever seen any other naked girls wandering in your apartment building? Student: I would say. Sergeant: The streets of Baltimore? Student: No. Detective: Ever in your life? Student: No.
Sergeant: Well, one more thing. I mean, you woke up your first time at 9:30. Student: Yes. Sergeant: you said you checked for her. Where did you check? Student: I walked out and looked into the family room. I didn’t see her on the couch. I checked the bathroom. I thought maybe she fell asleep there. Sergeant: Right. Student: Obviously she was not there and I looked into redacted room to see if maybe she had gotten into that bed, and. Sergeant: So you checked the apartment pretty thoroughly. Student: No. Yes and no. I checked the whole apartment in a cursory manner, assuming that if there was a person. Sergeant: You would see her. You didn’t look under beds. Student: Right. Sergeant: Or look in drawers. Student: Right. Sergeant: Or in the refrigerator. Student: Right. And I was almost afraid to do that. If she wasn’t … I was in my head, I guess, hoping that she was hiding in a bizarre place. Sergeant: Right. Student: Which would be like, aha, that’s a funny story to look back on. But I didn’t want to find out that she wasn’t actually in the room.
Now the whole time you were in her company last night, what was her mental state? What was your mental state? Describe the time you guys were having. Student: Yeah, everyone was really happy, having a good time and I don’t know, I’m a very happy person. Like the one new friend, redacted, commented on how I was always laughing. She said, “Bring me around because you always laugh at my jokes or whatever.” I guess I’m the one who gets the crowd started. Sergeant: Right. Student: That’s just like how I am.
Sergeant: And how about Emily? What was her mental state. Student: She seemed like she’s having a great time. I mean, I just met most of them. And from what I understand, they all went to college together. And so it was like they’re all college friends. Sergeant: I mean, let’s be blunt, you were having the time of your life. You went to a house party with friends, met a pretty girl, and were getting lucky. Student: Yeah, we were having a good time.
Sergeant: Single guy? Student: Yeah. Detective: You said you searched the interior of your apartment, is that correct? Student: The what? Detective: You searched the inside of your apartment, the interior. Student: Yes, yes. Detective: Did you ever respond outside to check? Student: I opened the door and peeked my head out and there was nothing to see. Detective: You’ll never go outside your building to walk around the building or the neighborhood? I understand that you have a person that works at the front desk. Did you ever speak to the desk person? Student: Not until I came down and all the officers were there. Detective: Okay. Student: And that’s when I said. Detective: But prior to this, you’ve never done so? Student: Correct. Sergeant: At any time last night or this morning, did you ever throw out any garbage. Student: No. Detective: You’re sure? Student: Yes. Detective: When was the last time the garbage had been dumped from your apartment? Student: Earlier this week, I think redacted did it. We had a bag that was just about full and I remember weird things, so we took it out and we put a new bag in the canister, but then left the older one because sometimes there’s more room you can fill in there and I think we we’re using that, and then I think one day I came home and assumed redacted had pitched it.
Detective: Okay. So where do you throw the trash? Where’s the trash. Student: There’s a chute right outside the apartment. Right outside our door. Sergeant: Okay. Detective: There’s a chute right outside the door? Student: Yeah, it’s immediately 20 feet over. Detective: Okay. So let’s say there’s your front door. Do you make a left or a right? Student: Coming out of the apartment, you make a right. Detective: Are there any other apartments between your door and the chute? Student: Not between, no. Detective: Okay. And so at no point in time last night or this morning, did you come out to throw anything away? Student: No. Detective: You sure? Student: I’m certain. Detective: Okay. You were going to say something. Student: No, I was just telling you before we got started that I’d overheard something and I was just. Detective: Well? Student: Well, praying it didn’t pertain to this.
Detective: Okay. And for the purpose of this taped interview and for the purpose of this encounter, have you heard or seen from Emily as of yet? Student: No. Detective: Okay. I don’t know what you may have heard inside of an office now and since you’ve been here, has anybody come into the room, which is just outside this office, spoken to you, told you what to say, threaten you with anything, anything of the sort? Student: No.
It’s been brought to our attention that the remains of a young lady have been located at the vicinity of that building. Student: Remains as in no longer living? Sergeant: Deceased. Detective: The person, she’s no longer living. That is a fact. And that persons remains to be consistent with that of the individual you described. And right now it appears that at some point we may find out who this person is and if that person is in fact probably a person by the first name of Emily, the last person that was with her may have been you.
Sergeant: Well, may have been from your own words, you were the last person. Student: To my knowledge, yeah. Sergeant: To your knowledge in the apartment? Okay. Well sir, right now, unfortunately we’re investigating a suspicious death and I would hope that everything that you’ve told myself and the Sergeant has been the truth. Student: Yes.
Detective: I would hope. Sometimes in this profession I’ve been wrong and I’ve asked such young people as yourself to tell me the truth. Now, if there was something, sir, that unintentionally occurred, let’s say that young person, this Emily, between yourself or anyone else and Emily, speaking about you specifically, I implore you this ain’t TV. This isn’t the movies. I’m not looking to make a book, nor is my partner here. I’m not here to disrupt your life any more than it may have been from this point on. However, as a man, as a prudent individual with enough sense because this person, Emily has a family. Student: Yeah. Detective: Had a family. Student: Of course. Detective: Now if something happened that was unintentional, whether it be, I don’t know, love making, drugs, whatever the case might be, I don’t know. I wasn’t there, nor my partner here, however, allow us to work these things out right now. Student: I completely understand what you’re saying. Detective: Let me ask you flat out. If this young lady, Emily, and you were the last person based on our investigation right now, that this was in fact this young lady, the very last person, there is no way. Student: I mean I couldn’t have been the last person with her.
Detective: Let’s say that someone out in Baltimore City is walking around with a naked young lady and her belongings are back at your apartment up there at Charles Street. Well, let’s just say for the purpose of this investigation, she was in fact with you, and I’m going to ask you flat out, did you do any harm to that young lady. Student: In no way harmed her. I’m serious.
Detective: Did you kill anyone that we found that was at the vicinity of that apartment today? Student: No, sir. I’ve never. Detective: You didn’t? Student: Never done such a thing. Detective: Okay. Sergeant: Did you give her any date rape drugs? Student: No, sir. Sergeant: Did you inject her with lidocaine or any other medical? Student: No sir. Sergeant: Devices, drugs, anything? Because testing will be conducted on her body, okay? Student: Absolutely. Sergeant: And if lidocaine comes back in her system and lidocaine is found in your apartment, I mean, you know have some explaining to do. Student: Yes, sir. No, I completely understand the situation and, as I have been, I’m only going to be cooperative. Detective: Thank you. Student: In every way I can be. Detective: Thank you very much.
Sergeant: I don’t know if you directly answered the question. Did you provide Emily with lidocaine last night? Student: No. Sergeant: did you inject Emily with anything? Student: No, sir. Nothing. No, I didn’t. Honestly, there was no foul play. Nothing at all. Detective: Okay. And again, the last time that you had any kind of correspondence with her is when she said to you something to the effect of, “Don’t go anywhere, I’ll be back.” Was she completely naked at that time? Student: I believe so, yes. Detective: Okay. And you haven’t seen her since? Student: I have not. Detective: Okay.
Sergeant: A lot of things that you stated you appear not to be sure about. I think maybe in your own words, it’s kind of like in a haze. I don’t remember if she put the shorts on before or after sex. It’s something that comes to mind that you’re unsure about. Could you be unsure about anything else? Student: No, I think those things I’ve been unsure of, I’ve said that. Sergeant: Could you be unsure if you accidentally hurt her in your apartment? Student: No, I couldn’t. And I know there’s no substance or alcohol that would make me harm anyone, but specifically her. Sergeant: You know I’m not saying intentionally. Student: I understand. I understand.
Sergeant: So you choose not to call nine one one from a cell phone to report a girl, that you had a sexual encounter with, missing, with her belongings still in your apartment, but you choose to bag them up, and pardon the phrase, almost discard them as trash, to walk them out, to give to her friends to say good luck finding your naked friend? Student: No, not at all. This all happened so quickly. I was like, yeah, I’d come here and I figured we’d talk and then to see there was a police car parked outside our building, so I figured if I was going out there to meet them, I would be able to talk to the police officer. Sergeant: So what do you think could have happened to Emily from the time you see her naked, telling you, “Don’t move, stay right there,” to exiting your bedroom naked? I mean, now think outside the box. What happened to where we could find her deceased this morning? Student: Truthfully, I can’t even imagine. Sergeant: Just think about it.
Student: I mean, she could have wandered outside of the apartment, wandered outside of my specific apartment. Sergeant: What do you mean wandered outside? As been in the hallway? Student: Yeah, I mean, truthfully, I assumed she would be coming right back. Detective: So is there anything else you might be able to think of that may be able to assist us in part? And obviously we’re going to try to find out whether or not the remains of this young lady is Emily, but hopefully we’re wrong. Is there anything you can think of that might be able to assist us in finding out about her whereabouts or what might have happened to her? Student: Nothing comes to mind.
Student: I can’t even imagine. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to give a better hypothetical. I can’t. I assumed she would walk back into the bedroom.
Detective: Okay. So when you woke up, Emily wasn’t there at all. Student: Correct. Detective: Well, what did you do from that point? Student: I got up, I looked around, my heart was racing because I had no idea where she would’ve gone. I looked around the apartment, I freaked out, and I was texting redacted hoping that maybe on his way to work or something, she had gone straight to the bathroom and said, “Can I get a ride home?” Or something like that. And he was like, “No, I’m pretty sure she was still there when I left.” And yeah, then I think I was just laying on my bed texting him and I kind of dozed back off and that’s when I woke up for good around 11 and I was like, “Oh my goodness. Her phone had been ringing.”
Detective: Her phone? Student: Her phone had been ringing. She left all her belongings. Detective: Well what do you mean she left all her belongings? What do you mean? Student: There. Everything that she came with was still in my room. Detective: Describe it to me. Everything that she came with? Student: Her purse, her clothing, her shoes, her underwear, her jeans, her shirt, her bra, everything was still on the floor in my room. Detective: On the floor in your room? Student: Correct. Her phone was in her purse, which was near those things, near her shirt by my nightstand, and it was vibrating, so I woke up to that. I had missed the call by the time I got her phone out and returned the call to her friend, redacted. Detective: Hold on. You said initially I asked you if the alarm clock woke you up and you said you just woke up, so. Student: That was at 9:30. Detective: Okay. Student: I had just woken up and then I dozed back off while I was texting redacted to try to figure out what happened. And then I woke back up around 11 to that phone vibrating. Detective: Her phone? Student: Correct.
I called back one of the numbers that had called. It was her friend redacted, who I also met last night. And I said, “Hi,” and she said, “Hey, is Emily there with you?” And I was like, “Actually, no, I have no idea where she went. And I was praying she was with you guys somehow.” And she said, “Oh my gosh.” And I was like, “Yeah, has this ever happened before? Does she sleepwalk or anything like that?” And she said, “No, this has never happened before.” Do you want me to just keep talking to you guys? Sergeant: Yeah. She said, “Okay, well I’m coming over there right now, where do you live?” Or whatever, and I was like, “All her things are still here.” And she’s like, “Okay, we’ll get her things.” And I just said, “Okay.” I hoped that in the meantime she would be lying out somewhere else. I checked the couch, hoping maybe she wandered and slept back there. She wasn’t there, so I got her things together and I was just going to wait and try to make some calls and see if anybody had any idea. And then I saw the officers in the lobby and so right away I was like, “Well, these are the right people to speak to.”
Detective: You seem to be a prudent minded person. At any point did you notify authorities? Student: No. Detective: No? Student: I did not.
This concludes my reading of the transcript of the interview between Baltimore Police and the last person to see Emily alive as far as we know. I will be discussing what I just read with Jayne and Stephen on our next episode. We will also be sharing new information we have just obtained about the case, so be sure to join us.
Also, if you have a tip or comment, please email us at landoftheunsolved@gmail.com. We always want to hear from you and always appreciate your feedback and input.
My name is Taya Graham. Thank you so much for joining me for this episode of The Land of the Unsolved.
Too often, the rule of law just means the rule of police—but knowing your rights can still be an important way to protect yourself from police injustice. Here on Police Accountability Report, we often document how frequently the police conduct unjust and illegal stops, searches, seizures, and even arrests. But the significance of being educated on your rights isn’t just important because of rampant police abuse; there’s also a lot of misinformation out there. And when it comes to keeping yourself safe from capricious cops, disinformation is just as bad, if not worse, than no information. Legendary cop watchers James Madison and James Freeman join PAR for a special “Know Your Rights’ Livestream about how you can protect yourself and exercise your rights to fight back against police injustice.
James Freeman is a copwatcher who runs his own YouTube channel.
James Madison Audits is a former police officer whose own personal experiences at the hands of cops turned him into a copwatcher and activist. He runs his own YouTube channel.
Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham Studio Production: David Hebden
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, this is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. Know Your Rights, protect Your Rights Livestream, a show where we will talk to people who know how to do both, to give you the tools and the perspective.
Taya Graham:
Sorry. I’m having a little issue,
Dave. I’m having a little technical issue. Yeah, sorry. Sorry, you guys. This is a show where we’ll talk to people who know how to do both, to give you the tools and the perspective to ensure that when and if police challenge you are prepared. But we’re also going to delve deeper into why American law enforcement can seem so interested in entangling people in the legal system rather than improving public safety. And what we can do, not to just fight back, but think back, meaning how we can collectively think of ways to create a community where police aren’t in charge, but we are, and that law enforcement serves us and not the other way around. And to make this happen, I am so excited to share this with you. We have two guests who have a tremendous amount of experience and expertise, both dealing with cops and in one case actually being a cop.
The latter is a former cop turn cop watcher, James Madison, who’s known for his unique insider’s perspective on how police use their law often to their advantage, or they sometimes choose to ignore the law entirely and what you can do to counter it when they do. Also, he has an exceptional investigation he is working on, and you all will be some of the first people to see parts of it here on our channel. Then we’ll be talking to the legendary James Freeman, who’s actually fighting the entire justice system to protect his right, to hold them accountable. It is an absolutely epic battle between transparency and power to keep the inner workings of government secret, which we will be unpacking for you in all its ugly details. And at the end of the show, there will be a special shout out to all my Patreon patrons for their kind support.
It’s just one small way I try to show the people that help this show and make it possible show. Just show them how much I appreciate them. And during the show, I will try to get your comments on the screen and answer some of your questions for our guests. But please remember, this is live. As you may have noticed, this is very, very live. So please try to be patient with any technical glitches we might have. But before we get to that, I want to turn to my reporting partner, Steven Janis. Steven. Hey, Dave. Could do you think you could find Steven on the live stream?
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. Stephen,
Taya Graham:
Stephen. Stephen. We have a live stream tonight. Have so many could
Stephen Janis:
Nuts tonight.
Taya Graham:
Seriously.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, what do you We have a lot. What do you We have a lie. What do you want,
Taya Graham:
Stephen? We have a live stream.
Stephen Janis:
We have a live stream tonight. Are you kidding me? Look, I’m doing, I’m fine, Tay. Thanks at me, but no thanks tonight and
Taya Graham:
Stephen. Good, didn’t
Stephen Janis:
You right now? All right. Okay. Okay. I’m raised my hands. Seriously. Drop the, you see my hands. Jesus. I’m coming in. Would you
Taya Graham:
Drop the nuts? Dropping the nuts. Thank you.
Stephen Janis:
I’m coming inside.
Taya Graham:
Thank you. Don’t
Stephen Janis:
Worry.
Speaker 4:
Here it comes.
Taya Graham:
I seriously can’t believe this. You know what? It’s technical difficulty after technical difficulty tonight. Honestly, I think Steven’s getting a little too uncomfortable outside. But while we’re waiting for him to get inside the studio, let me share with you our audience, how we intend to break down these stories for you and why they’re essential and why, as we always say, you have the right to be informed. I think the idea for this show started with our investigative report on Texas firefighter Thomas C As you remember, Thomas was pulled over by the Denton County Sheriff’s Department in April of 2021 for what they say was speeding. Although Thomas denies this after he was pulled over. However, police had a different agenda. That’s because they immediately started to accuse Thomas of being drunk. Now, first, it’s worth noting that Thomas has not had a drink for 30 years, and he does not use illegal drugs of any kind, but that didn’t stop police from charging him with a D U I. Let’s just watch a little bit of what transpired.
Speaker 4:
Hello? Hello. I’m Deputy Brant with the Danton County Sheriff’s Office. I didn’t catch you earlier. Where were you coming from today?
Speaker 5:
From,
Speaker 6:
Yeah, my left. Yeah, you’re right.
Speaker 4:
What happened to your eye again? I only call part of
Speaker 5:
That. I had a detached retina, and then the subsequent surgeries have led to it. It’s kind of got a blue haze right now. Okay. Yeah. And so it’s just hard to see through this eye, but okay. Sometimes it gets kind of irritated. It turns red and yeah, I don’t know if it is now, but looks
Speaker 4:
Liquidated right now. Yeah.
Speaker 5:
Is it really? Looks, is this one is? That’s clear. Clear? Okay. Yeah. So, okay.
Speaker 4:
Once the last time you said you took any medications today,
Speaker 5:
Like three,
Speaker 4:
Two, about three o’clock today. Two o’clock
Speaker 5:
Or something. Okay.
Speaker 4:
One o’clock. At this point, I just want to Sure, you’re safe to operate a vehicle. Just giving kind of everything I’ve seen so far. I just want to make sure you’re safe to operate your truck. Oh. So we’re going to bring you through just a few standardized field tests and we’ll kind of go from there. Okay? All right. Have you ever had traumatic brain injury? Never. Okay. Nothing like that. Other than detached retina, any other medical issues?
Speaker 5:
No.
Speaker 4:
Okay. Nothing like that? No. Diabetes, hypertension?
Speaker 5:
Well, I’ve had hypertension. Okay. I’ve taken medicine. Was taking medicine.
Speaker 4:
Okay. Other than Adderall, are we taking anything else right now? Just Adderall. And what’s the Adderall for?
Speaker 5:
Attention deficit.
Speaker 4:
A adhd? Yeah. Okay. Or a D. D. Okay. You can set ’em up.
Speaker 6:
Okay. Just stand right here on the flat ground together like this, your arms down this.
Speaker 4:
And so I asked him like, well, what else besides your eye hurt? Anything else? No, just my, I mean, I gave him every opportunity to explain to me like, legs aren’t working right, arms aren’t working Right. It came out the truck looking good, like walking pretty decent. Little heavy footed, but he wasn’t stumbling out. Do you believe he’s intoxicated?
Speaker 7:
I believe he’s unable to drive from whatever he has. I
Speaker 4:
Dunno about alcohol. Is that a medical emergency or we talking about intoxicated on something, but I don’t think alcohol. Do you think they have a medical emergency here? No. Okay. So if it’s not a medical emergency, is he normal or would you believe possibly he’s intoxicated under something? Yeah, I think he’s intoxicated on something. We’re probably going to go that route. We’re probably going to try to do a Dre we.
Taya Graham:
Well, thank you for gracing the studio with your presence.
Stephen Janis:
Steven, you could’ve told me we had a live stream.
Taya Graham:
I
Stephen Janis:
Think I did. I was outside. I was outside. I was comfortable. I was there for the night. Yes, I know. I had my freaking coordinates. I know,
Taya Graham:
I know. But you have other obligations. I think you’re getting a little too comfortable.
Stephen Janis:
Do I use this mic or this one?
Taya Graham:
I think you use the This one,
Stephen Janis:
The bigger one. Sorry. All right. Yeah. Well, I mean, it’s nice out there. I’m learning a lot. There’s a lot of things that happen. Bringing me inside, just kind of messes up my vibe as a reporter. I am breaking stories constantly out there reporting and you’re like, oh, come on in for a live stream. But what do I get out of it?
Taya Graham:
Well, you know what Stephen, the problem is, is that everyone
Stephen Janis:
Know poor nuts are not enough for a man
Taya Graham:
To survive.
Stephen Janis:
I need more than that.
Taya Graham:
Listen, everyone expects you to be a hard-nosed investigative reporter. Yes. You got to give the people what they want. That means you got to be out there beating the streets. Okay. Putting in that work. Okay,
Stephen Janis:
Let me just put it this way. I’m willing to do a documentary about what it’s like to be outside. I’m willing to the documentary tell the secrets. A lot of people ask me about our esteemed editor, max, the famous Maximilian Alvarez. I’m willing to give you guys the inside scoop, but I need one thing. We need to raise a little money. So we have
Taya Graham:
Super chats tonight, I think.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, we have Super Chats chat. That’s right. We
Taya Graham:
Actually chat, have Super chats for their first time tonight. So I’m really excited.
Stephen Janis:
So I’m just saying to people out here, if you want to know what I was actually doing before Taya interrupted me, I guess wasn’t, and what really goes on outside. Yeah, we need to raise some money, but not a lot. A couple hundred dollars would be nice. So I can hire a director, cinematographer, some of the things I need to execute my vision.
Taya Graham:
You’re just trying to get more coffee and corns,
Stephen Janis:
Hey, these things are really expensive and they’re hard to find. But nevertheless, I am inside now. So I’m here. I’m ready to participate. And I’m looking forward to hearing more about Thomas’s case. Well,
Taya Graham:
Actually, as I was saying, Steven, go ahead. You will see the cops basically charged Thomas due to a highly subjective and easy to fail field sobriety test, which Steven, you’ve learned has literally almost no scientific basis. What’s
Stephen Janis:
Really interesting about this hay is I did some research because I thought there was so much subjectivity when we looked at the documents. Yes, having your clothes being ruffled or
Taya Graham:
Disheveled or the way that was his attitude. Was it apologetic? Was it irritable? Just so many subtleties that are so subjective when it comes to a cop’s determination. And
Stephen Janis:
We talk about the law enforcement industrial complex. This is the forensic industrial complex where they create things. This was created out of a wholecloth by a couple of psychology professors. Nothing scientific about it. And also really, so the entirety of this idea of a field sobriety tests, and it varies from state to state. There’s nothing scientific. It fails every time to really learn if a person is drunk or not. And it’s highly, highly, highly just made up out of whole cloth. And so I’m not going to go through all the actual research, but I can say this very specifically, there is no scientific basis for a field sobriety test. And yet in this particular case, in Thomas’s case, it was the sole justification for arresting. And that’s the problem. I don’t think any of us have a problem with a police officer using some subjective diagnostic tools or even subjective judgment when they’re looking in, when they’re investigating some of, but to ruin a man’s life over your impression that he was talking slowly or he was a little heavy footed or some of the other subjective ways, they now analyze it.
I think especially in light that we have breathalyzers and that we have blood tests, I just think is highly problematic. And I think what this particular type of law enforcement diagnostic tool shows is that there’s this sheen of absolute certainty that rubs off on these things over time. Cause over time, they just become recirculated and recirculated. We had an example out in Colorado where people are inex using ketamine during arrest to subdue people and people died and they’re like, how did this happen? And no one really knew. When I dug into it, it was almost impossible to figure out. So in this case, I think we need to call into question this way. None of us support drunk driving and almost think it’s serious, but we should not have a system that is completely dependent upon the subjective. And I think the bias, I mean, I think that the most interesting thing about Thomas’s case is I think they’d already made up their minds. They just needed to stat. I mean, we’re still looking into it and we’ll get to that. But yes, these tests are completely subject to the officer’s whim, and that’s very scary and very dangerous considering the consequences for either getting it wrong or getting it right.
Taya Graham:
Steven, you actually have an update. You did not let go of this story. I know that you were very moved by what happened to Thomas, the ending of his career and the loss of his firefighting family. But you kept on pressing and asking questions. Tell maybe you can share some
Stephen Janis:
Of the cover. Well, so here’s the biggest thing. Now everyone knows in a misdemeanor case or any sort of criminal case there, there’s supposed to be a judge and a prosecutor’s a check on the police. Police can charge anything they want, and it goes into a court and a judge, a prosecutor looks at and says, well, this evidence is weak. Or judge. Well, it turns out Thomas’s case never made it to the prosecutor’s. I asked the Denton County Prosecutor’s office, do you have this case in your system? Why are you prosecuting? I didn’t even really ask them that. I said, why are you prosecuting this case given the evidence is so flimsy? And she wrote me back and said, there is no record of this case. This case never existed. So think about that. The profound consequences for Thomas Thomas is fired from his job. They do an internal investigation, and yet there’s no case in the system.
He has to hire a lawyer, pay thousands of dollars. There’s no case in the system. So I went back to the Denton County Sheriff’s Office and I said, well, this case isn’t in the system. Where is it? And well, you actually sent the email to their spokesperson. And a couple days later they got back and said, oh yeah, we tried to submit the evidence after the statute of limitations had expired. So it’s literally insane how they tortured this poor man, how they extended this case for two years. He didn’t even know it was in the system, and technically it was not an active case. They said, we tried to put it in the system after the statute of limitations, limitations expired, and the system rejected it. Well, you’re law enforcement, you don’t pay attention to the statute of limitations. It’s a misdemeanor in Texas, so it’s only two years.
You got to get your case. And they blamed the crime lab, but they’d already had a negative test on the alcohol. So they had zero on that. So they didn’t have a narcotics test. They weren’t going to get anything anyway. They just made this man miserable. And then when I said, could you release the blood test on the narcotics because we’d like to know what you found. And they said, no, we can’t release it because of the public shield laws that don’t allow you to release information on cases that had been dropped. So they basically were able to cover up their own tracks on this case after they had literally destroyed this man’s life. So it’s really, I think, a very, very troubling use of the power of law enforcement. And unfortunate for Thomas too.
Taya Graham:
You know what? What’s interesting, some of the comments here, and I’ve been doing my best to throw some of them up on the screen, someone said, I think it’s Alan Killian. Field sobriety tests are all about collecting evidence against you. And I think earlier it might have been catman, and I apologize if this is incorrect, but they said the field sobriety test is about as accurate as the canine test. So we’ve seen, right, right. We’ve seen some terrible ways. Can nine have been used as an excuse to be able to access someone’s
Stephen Janis:
Field? The thing ISS alarming is there’s an entire industry of dui, aggressive d UI traffic enforcement that is built upon the field sobriety test. So it’s quite alarming how subjective and unscientific this is. And it’s used to such an extent that really it can put someone in jail, you can lose your license, you all sorts of horrible repercussions. And also I think maybe there’s a lot of drunk people that could pass it to be even worse. So I don’t know what the answer is to this question, but I do think we need to stop walking around and thinking, or at least as mainstream media rep, not main as reporters. We need to stop this idea that somehow there’s some scientific certainty in this process of field sobriety tests.
Taya Graham:
And we, we’ve got some great comments in here, and some of them I wish I could put on the screen, but I can’t put all of them on the screen. But some of them are very funny, John Eagle. So as we move on, given the consequences for Thomas and the very flimsy evidence, we decided to spend some time not just on how to protect your rights, but also trying to understand why cops do what they do. Meaning why do we keep seeing this type of abuse of power over and over and over and over and again with very little actual reform? Why do cops continue to make bad arrests and why when they’re clearly presented with evidence, do they continue to try to entrap people when it would just be so much easier to just let them go and allow them to move on? I think this aspect of law enforcement has become more fascinating.
And at the same time, more inexplicable for me mean. And bear in mind, I watch a lot of videos of police encounters. In fact, I’ve spent the past five years just knee deep in body camera and cell phone videos of police behaving badly. And many times when I do, so, I find myself asking the same question, why can’t the cop just walk away? Why do they so often escalate? And what can I do to help people overcome bad policing? And I’m hoping that I have at least part of the answer, because often we don’t know our rights, and even more importantly, how to apply them given the circumstances. And I have watched many routine encounter with a cop go wrong. And I’m struck by just how subjective it can be and how much dissembling police often do, how often they simply ignore the law or in the worst cases, just make up their own rule book entirely. And that’s why we’re going to address this. So let’s call it the law enforcement knowledge gap. And we’re going to do so by having a series of discussions to share that information, to help you and help close that knowledge gap. Because I literally watched three Deputy Sheriffs destroy Thomas’s life. And I honestly thought I need to do something, not just as a reporter, but as a human being. I mean, not that those two things are mutually exclusive, but meaning
Stephen Janis:
Sometimes they’re
Taya Graham:
Meaning we need to do something. We need to talk about, not just why, but how these types of cases continue to happen. And we need to discuss what we can do to fight back. And this is conversation that involves more than just talking about the law and your rights and other important aspects of our legal system. It’s also discussion about the underlying imperative that drives all the ills mentioned earlier, a system that trains them to embrace a psychology. The idea of that their job is not to police for us, but against us to use the law as a barrier, not a common set of rules for everyone. I think we have to try to understand what and who these cops are really working for and why often they seem to have other priorities besides keeping us safe. I mean, Steven, I think we’ve probably had this conversation a million times before about the underlying imperative that drives policing. But why is this important? Why even talk about it? Why aren’t we just showing videos of bad
Stephen Janis:
Cops? Well, I think it’s very important when we look at a case like Thomas’s and other cases we’ve covered that there’s this sense when you report on that this is an example of law enforcement gone wrong. But I think what we need to do in our conversation is flip that around. This is actually, in some sense, if you examine the system, what we call the system that allows bad police, makes bad police impossible. This is an example of actually, I think from the perspective of the way law enforcement has been construed in this country of law enforcement succeeding. And when I say that, you’re like, what are you talking about? Why is that success It? It’s because law enforcement is not construed in many ways for public safety. As many of our cop watchers point out. It has a million other agendas. I think there’s this famous saying, the arc of justice, the arc of the universe bend towards justice.
Well, the arc of the law enforcement universe bends towards inequality and bends towards enforcing laws that are about monetizing processes, monetizing poverty, many monetizing many social ills so that when you see a case like Thomas, you’re not saying law enforcement has gone bad, which is the way we report it. And of course, that’s kind of the way it’s perceived. It’s also, we have to think about it. Maybe this is the way law enforcement is intended to work. In many of these cases. It wouldn’t exist if didn’t, the powers that be didn’t want law enforcement to make these kind of so-called mistakes. They wouldn’t happen. And that’s why we have to acknowledge it and think about it in kind of a different way. We have to sort of say, wait, this is law enforcement working as it’s intended to work. And when we look at it that way, I think we have a better chance way of saying, pointing out what’s wrong with it on a systemic level, not just on the individual cases.
I mean, you and I have watched enough body camera, oh gosh, to know things go bad quite often, but we have to be able to look at it in a larger picture and say, well, what’s working here? Why isn’t it working? And it’s not working because it’s not intended to work for the people, for the working class of this country. That’s not how law enforcement is constructed. And that’s not how we see it work. And so when we report on it, we kind of have to flip the, it’s like narrative inversion, right? We’re trying to come up with a way to tell this story in a different way so we understand, okay. It’s sort of the idea I’ve had about, I’ve talked about police corruption. There’s no such thing as a corrupt police department. There’s a corrupt society that creates and begets a corrupt police department.
That’s a good, the corruption and police department simply reflects the power structure, the elites and the society. It really serves not the people. So we have to kind of dismiss this notion that there is corrupt. And then over here, there’s this great utopian police department that comes out and serves the people. And that can sound a little harsh, but I think sometimes when you see the things that happen and we see people’s lives, it’s destroyed and everyone, no, I mean, everyone I called, no one wanted to talk about Thomas. No, wanted to talk on behalf, right? This guy served his community for 30 years as a first responder and they throw him out. So you think that you’re, say the system’s not that indifferent. Oh, yes. We know how indifferent. It’s because every time we call on people’s behalf, whose lives have been literally torn as thunder, no one responds.
People will be like, I’m not going to talk about it. We’re not going to talk the department of public safety number. We’re not going to talk about it. We can’t talk about this, blah, blah, blah. But you sure can charge him. You can fire him. Absolutely. You can put him in jail. You can make him hire a lawyer. You can do all that. But what you can’t do is talk about it. You can’t explain why you ruined this man’s life. And that’s what I’m trying to say. Like law enforcement is not constructed around serving the working class and the people. It’s constructed around. Well, an elite sort of way of parsing us and saying, you’re here. You’re bad. You’re good. We’re the heroes. So anyway, sorry. Didn’t very true.
Taya Graham:
No, I’m sorry. Look, you get fired up sometimes. Well, yeah. And just got to let you,
Stephen Janis:
I think I got a little upset when you called me inside.
Taya Graham:
Maybe
Stephen Janis:
That’s, I’m telling. I’m so happy out there. And Max gives me one bag of CORs every night, max, I know you’re watching. He says, Stephen, you can
Taya Graham:
Have this
Stephen Janis:
Whole
Taya Graham:
Bag. You know what? You will get a suit eventually with these coronets. Oh God, you’re right. You know,
Stephen Janis:
He gives me a bag every night. It’s pretty cool. Not many employees have those kind of benefits union power. Anyway,
Taya Graham:
So I just want to let you know for some of the people who have put in questions, I’m going to, I’m putting them aside for later, so if there are any questions or comments, I’m going to make sure to put them aside, and I’m going to throw ’em up on the screen later for when James Freeman and James Madison join us. And back to moving forward, I think when we talk about our rights, we have to remember, based upon our experience reporting across the country, we have learned that quite often our rights are conditional. Meaning they’ve either been watered down by the courts or in the name of the drug war, or simply ignored in the service of racking up stats for fines, as we’ve seen in a variety of cities and small towns as well. But that idea also applies to something that is important to acknowledge about the law itself, which it is often subject to interpretation.
And unfortunately at the moment, the interpretation of the cop is what we would call in legal terms, controlling. In other words, an argument over the law that involves an encounter with a cop is usually hashed out after you’ve been subjected to it. So it’s something to keep in mind when you cite the law, because an officer can simply ignore it while you suffer the consequences. And only after you’ve been jailed, ticketed, arrested, can you go to court and try to right the wrong. And that is why part of the Know Your Rights Show tonight will be focused on getting a better understanding of police, why they do what they do, and of course, how they think. And I can think of no guest better than a man who used to be a cop and is now a cop watcher. His name is James Madison, and he’s a former law enforcement officer who has used his talents as a content creator to share valuable insights into policing your rights and how to defend yourself.
But he has also applied his investigative skills to the benefit of the public, as evidenced in his most recent work about the breaking the story about a police lieutenant in Daytona Beach who brought his three and a half year old son to the station and put him in jail. And excuse me for saying this, but for going to the bathroom in his pants, that same cop also admitted that he put previously put another one of his children in jail for a similarly unusual crime. So thanks to James, this story has just started to receive national attention. Let’s run a clip of his work.
Speaker 8:
He’s not here right now. And that’s, what’s his name? He’s new, right? Yeah, Bob Michael Fowler. Fallon. That’s it. And let me ask you, I guess there’s an IA going on. That’s why you said this is a big deal. I would hope. I dunno. I dunno about that. Okay. Oh, excuse me. Hey. Hey, what’s going on, mark? Oh man, not much. I heard you in a meeting, but hey, I just got a tip or something like that. I dunno if you want to make a comment on it, but two police officers that were put their kid in a jail cell. Yep. I got no comment now. But is an ia, you go upstairs and get that is an IA active there? I Well, I couldn’t comment if there was, you can. The state statute allows you the details of the I. There’s not one. No. Oh my gosh. All right. You do a request for you to see her calendar.
Speaker 9:
I don’t have her calendar.
Speaker 8:
Who does? Do you know
Speaker 9:
Sherry Schwab? Schwab would have all public
Speaker 8:
Documents. Do you know what time she left or when she left?
Speaker 10:
She
Speaker 9:
Left at 10 o’clock.
Speaker 8:
10 o’clock. All right. Sounds good. I appreciate it.
Speaker 11:
Okay. And I think you’re probably saying the same thing. This is a big runaround, right? And heard that background noise, right? She did not want me going into these elevators. This is a community center and upstairs is the public information office. Now, this request to her was done in March, five months after the initial request
Speaker 12:
Here to stand by for them to do a thing. And then, we’ll, right here, Mike, bro, thanks Smith, man. Devin ld, Mike Scho. Hello. Hi, Kathy with DCF Pleasure. Mike. Sean, bro, nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Let me gate back. I hear the hear puppies. I hear doggies too. There are, hang on a second. I walk your time. No.
Taya Graham:
So I just wanted to let you know that for the follow up report that James has on his channel, Nolie D in the live chat is going to be dropping a link so that later you can follow up and take a look at these incredibly disturbing allegations. He actually has the officer on record saying exactly what he did to his young child. And now I’m going to introduce James Madison. James, thank you so much for joining us tonight. I know, oh, you are actually on mute right now, unfortunately. So if you can just,
Speaker 11:
No mute,
Taya Graham:
Now you’re back.
Speaker 12:
We’re good. We’re good. You’re
Taya Graham:
Good. All
Speaker 11:
Right. I hope I didn’t miss it. Yeah, good evening too. Thank you. It’s been a while. So last time was about two years ago, so yeah.
Taya Graham:
Thanks. Well, we’re fi glad to finally have you back. It is absolutely our pleasure. But before we talk about your investigation, I just want to get your feedback just to get your opinion on the D U I video that we watched together. What is your assessment of the police tactics? I mean, what could a driver and who ended up being the victim of this false d u ire arrest, what could he done to protect himself? What could he have done differently from your perspective?
Speaker 11:
Well, the least that you talk to law enforcement is always the better it is. Everything you say yes can and will be used against you, whether it’s Mirandized or not. And in this situation here, I was watching that video and unfortunately, the cops were asking things that my doctor would ask me. And I’m not going to be answering questions like that to law enforcement, depending on the state by state. You’re not required to do field sobriety exercises in Florida. That’s specific here. Some of the other states you might be able to or be required to. But at that point, when I know that I haven’t been doing anything and I haven’t been drinking, I’m going to say, Hey, listen, you need to do what you need to do. I don’t want to answer those questions. They kind of violate my HIPAA rights. I don’t want to have my public information out there or private information out there. And that’s where I would’ve stopped at that one and just said, Hey, listen, if you have something, let me know. But when you get stopped by the police, I’ve stopped people several times. It is nerve wracking you. You’re nervous as it is. I mean, that’s it. It’s nerve wracking. So you might talk a little bit more. And that’s what people do sometimes when they get nervous.
Taya Graham:
Well, I think that is absolutely excellent, and that fifth Amendment in our wonderful constitution, it’s the right not to incriminate yourself. Please make sure to avail yourself of that. But Steven, I know I’ve been doing a lot of talking. Let me give you an opportunity.
Stephen Janis:
Well, first of all, James, congratulations on your investigation. But first, just tell us, so how did you get ahold of this story? I mean, I’m fascinated, just so everyone knows. As Teo was saying, a police lieutenant put his son in jail because he pooped in his pants. Excuse me. But how did you get wind of this? I mean, this is a fascinating process. This is some really outstanding investigative reporting, I guess. So tell me how first you came across this story, who tipped you off? Well, you don’t have to give me your sources, but how did you learn about it?
Speaker 11:
Yeah, so just like law enforcement, you, they’re going to be reliant on sources. And so am I, because I can’t dig in every little spot and find out. And that’s it. If someone wouldn’t have came to me and told me about this, this would’ve been buried and dead and nothing would’ve happened of it. But instead, we learned that they were on their ia. They were charged with allegations of committing a felony. So that’s pretty serious when you have law enforcement doing that. When general citizens run around, if we commit a felony clink time, you’re going to be arrested. And so you have to rely on sources there. And thankfully, there are a few good cops that are still out there. However, those few good cops, they don’t go and punish though.
Stephen Janis:
So explain to me how a police lieutenant believes he has the use of the facilities, a jail facility, to bring his child in there, how that even becomes a reality in any way, shape, or form. I mean, I can’t even really kind of wrap my mind around who would ever do that to their own child. But how does he get the idea that he can go ahead and do this?
Speaker 11:
Well, I don’t know, and I can’t speak for him, but if I were in his position and it was 20 years down the road, or 15 how many ever years he’s been there, there’s probably come some complacency. And there’s probably some idea that, Hey, I’ve worked here so long, I can do what I want. And I’m not speaking that that’s what he did. But if I was in a job for that period of long time, that’s my maybe how I feel. I don’t know. Yeah. I’m not in his shoes. So
Stephen Janis:
Now, one of the things you were talking about before the show is the coverup is worse of the crime. So when you got this tip, you’ve, you’ve this crazy tip, which I’m sure when you first heard it, you’re probably like, what? But you get this tip, you’re going to be, how are people pushing back and what are they saying when you first kind of say, Hey, I know this information. I know it’s true. What kind of pushback and what were people saying to you when you were trying to uncover this?
Speaker 11:
Well, it was that very, you felt the resistance almost immediately. You asked for something. Oh yeah, you either get a delay or you get excessive charge. So when I first asked about it, the first time that I was able to speak to someone, was there the elevator, I have had some really good luck. One of the participants or one of the subjects in the investigation, I was able to somehow get in the same presence of her at a restaurant and obviously no comment, but was able to ask her a question, Hey, let me tell you about the child. Same thing with the chief. I went to the PD there, and somehow or another, that chief is coming down that elevator or that coming out that elevator as soon as I’m coming in there. And it’s just been a luck, luck of the draw there
Stephen Janis:
With that. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. That’s really interesting. So when you first confronted them, were you saying the way they responded, you said, because this is pretty smart, you’re like, oh, I know this is true. Just by the way they responded to you. I’m kind of fascinated by that because that that’s really some gumshoe kind of reporting.
Speaker 11:
I mean, we all know body language. If you’re married, if you’re not your kids, when someone’s lying to you, you feel it. Right? It’s just one of those things. And when I asked him that question there, and he was reaching to knock on the door to get away from me as soon as possible, I was like, yeah, there’s something going on. And at the time that I asked him that there was no ia, which it was true, there wasn’t one. But the situation did occur, and it was something like 22 days after the incident. So there should have been an IA already started. If we learn later that you’re being alleged that you’re charged with violating policy that says you committed a felony.
Stephen Janis:
So do you think your question started the IA investigation, or did they then they knew you were snooping around. They knew someone knew about this, so they kind of tried to cover their backsides, in other words, and just try to quickly assemble an investigation.
Speaker 11:
Yeah, it’s possible. That’s what happened. I don’t know. I don’t have those details in there. But many times that is what happens in law enforcement. It’s all swept under the rug until someone finds about, oh, we got to do something about it. I got to either, I got to smack you with a day off or two, but you’re going to have to deal with this now because now the public knows. So, I mean, there is a lot of cover up in different departments. They don’t want you get it out.
Stephen Janis:
Well, congratulations you for bringing this to public, but explain that to people who don’t understand it. So you’re a cop. You see someone lieutenant, bring his kid and lock him in jail, and you’re like, wow, that’s really messed up, but I’m just going to keep this under the rug. We’re just all going to look the other way. And even though a great injustice occurred, or you see it in arrests and beatings and all, explain that psychology to people who aren’t cops who don’t understand it. Cause it’s kind of fascinating.
Speaker 11:
Yeah. Someone told me one time that the thin blue line is not a brotherhood of law enforcement. It’s actually whoever you’re loyal to that’s in the head of the department. Because if you cross that line, you’re out of there. And that lieutenant said that there was people that seen this happening and what was going on, and a few of ’em came out and said something. They were interviewed by F D L E, but from what I was told by the source is that they were ultimately punished somehow or some way. So that’s it. If you’re in that psychology there, you see something like this, even though police tell us citizens see something, say something, right? And they make our information public. But when a police officer can see something, right, they generally don’t say something because they’re afraid that if they cross that thin blue line of whoever’s their chief or their supervisor, they’re not going to have a job. And if you dig into shores and look at it, there’s been several resignations, a nine year veteran, I think it was put on probation mysteriously. And there’s no record of why.
Stephen Janis:
So you’re saying that if you see something really messed up, you’re more at risk of getting in trouble for saying something about, than not saying something about it in the sense that if this person is connected or higher up, he’s a lieutenant, he’ll quickly file a complaint against you and put you in this system. Is that, that’s kind of what you’re saying,
Speaker 11:
Right? Yeah. You’re a rat.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Speaker 11:
I mean, that’s the term. Don’t be a rat,
Stephen Janis:
But that’s, that’s a criminal term. Okay. Yeah. That’s what mafiosos call people rats, right? Criminals, not cops, but you, there are things such as things as, I’m not naive, but there are rats in cop land. Is that what you’re saying?
Speaker 11:
I mean, that’s what it is. You’ll hear that term when you’re working there is like, oh man. For instance, when I was working, something occurred with a juvenile and he had a little small amount of cannabis on him, and none of us wanted to do a report. We didn’t want to do a report because it took so much paperwork to get this. We took the stuff, threw it down a storm drain. I didn’t, someone else did, but took it down the storm drain, which is fine. I would’ve done it too. Took it. And then the one person that saw it was like, Hey, I saw that we can’t be doing that. And the other guy said, what are you going to be a rat?
Stephen Janis:
Wow.
Speaker 11:
And it favored the juvenile. It was in the cusp of when cannabis was coming to legalization, but it was, you know, hear that. And that’s what the scary part is. You’ll be called that, and then you are pretty much blackballed as a police officer, and no one will trust you.
Stephen Janis:
I mean, that just seems so inimical to the idea of having a just system where if you say one wrong thing, your career is, if you say one, if you expose anything that’s wrong, it just seems to me that the system will ultimately be corrupted. By that, I mean, there’s no way around it that it won’t be corrupted. People can’t say, Hey, you made a mistake or you did something wrong. But if I say anything, it’s the end of my career. I just don’t see how that system functions.
Speaker 11:
Well, let me break it down in syllables, it’s justice system, right? Okay. Just us. That’s generally what it is. I mean, you think about it, right? Yeah. And that happens in every agency. I did another story where a captain of a police department was taking money from a disabled adult. Everybody knew about it, but they turned a blind eye to it and, and that’s just the way it is in this law
Stephen Janis:
Enforcement. Yeah. So what was the turning point for you where you said, I can’t take this anymore. And I know you told this story to before, it’s still fascinating, but where you said, I’ve just got to not be a part of this system. What was for you? Was there a moment or was it just a long progression where you said, okay, I’m done. Yeah, I’m going to be a civilian.
Speaker 11:
Well, leaving the law enforcement, I was making 35 to 45,000 a year, and I was getting a girlfriend, my wife and I just couldn’t afford to live like that. I mean, it was a low paying job. I was making 11 eight. And then when I was on motors riding the motorcycle, it turned into $16 an hour, and that’s after eight years of work. And then at Wow, I said, you know what? I’m done. I’m going to go pursue a career with a father, with a construction company. And that was it that,
Stephen Janis:
Do you have any regrets or are you happy with the choice you
Speaker 11:
Made? Oh my gosh, it’s so freedom. There’s so much freedom when you work for yourself. And ultimately, I started a little small businesses that kept us afloat during the 2008, 2009 crash. But those blossomed into shipping businesses, and I love it. It’s working from home. It’s freedom. And after I left law enforcement, I actually watched the guy that is in here in the standby room, James Freeman. I was watching him afterwards. And what happened is I was building a house and the neighbors were upset. He called code enforcement a bunch of times. Turns out he was married to one of the people at the city, and they just ultimately were after us for building this house calling code enforcement violations. And that was the turning point. I said, what is going on here? They came and searched my backyard, tried to write me up on code violations, and then the police came, wouldn’t let me sign stalking charges against the neighbor. And I said, if they’re doing this to me, are they doing it to someone else? I turned on YouTube, and I found, I’m telling you, I found James Freeman
Stephen Janis:
And the couple other people I think of, think James Freeman said a lot of people on the cop watching path. Oh, yes. But yeah, just let me ask you a question, and this is for me personally, so think’s better being a journalist or being a cop, what do you enjoy more?
Speaker 11:
Oh, being doing what I do now. I love this. I mean, it’s intriguing. There’s some elements of the surprise when you find something, when you open up an email and you look through the email string and you find some detrimental stuff in there, it is perfect. You get excited for that. You find it. And also you help people all the time helping people get some satisfaction with law enforcement and some resolution with them too.
Stephen Janis:
Well, I think the public owes you a huge debt for breaking that story.
Taya Graham:
Oh, absolutely.
Stephen Janis:
That poor child. I mean, I can’t even imagine. I know. Talk
Taya Graham:
About, I know. And the thing was is that I had been listening to some of the video evidence that James had gotten, and I was listening to the police officer describe what he did with the child saying, oh, I only put the child in handcuffs and in the jail cell for 13 minutes, and I knew the jail cell’s really dirty, so I made sure to put them in the part of the jail cell that was the least problematic. And he did what I expected him to. He started to cry. That was the response I expected. And he had mentioned that previously his wife had done the same thing, and he brought the child back because it hadn’t worked. Now, interestingly enough, someone in the comments said, it’s his child. He can do what he wants. Well, that’s an interesting response. First amendment. First amendment.
Stephen Janis:
I mean, look, we want to have a robust discussion, right? Absolutely. I don’t necessarily agree with that idea, but I think the more important point in James’s story is that people should know about it. If you’re going to use a public facility to discipline your child in a very sadistic way, I think the public has a right to know, because James, I mean, in a lot of ways, some of these cops become chronic in some sense, where they do one crazy thing and they get away with it, and they do another crazy thing. I mean, it’s not just always an isolated incident.
Speaker 11:
And listen, there in our area, there was two teachers that were teaching the E ESC students exceptionally education. I don’t know the acronym, but they were teaching those students and they were having some issue. They stuck ’em in a bathroom and locked the door. They were arrested for false imprisonment. And yes, that’s different from what the viewer was saying about we should be able to parent parental discipline, our child, but the trauma that a child receives when they are utilized as they are in something like this, if I don’t have dogs, but if I have a dog crate in my house, and I stuck my child in there, because guess what? My dog doesn’t poop in the crate. It always waits to go outside. I would be arrested for false imprisonment. I mean,
Stephen Janis:
Good point.
Speaker 11:
Exactly. It there would be in there. But then you add the element of handcuffs. That’s just not that My child is five years old. He has some potty training issues. Sometimes he has that every once in a while he has an accident. We don’t go off into some tangent and do that to our child. And I agree that I have a cat in the background.
Stephen Janis:
Well, James, can’t you just write him a citation?
Speaker 11:
Well, I mean, you should be able to do something like maybe conducting a thorough investigation instead of just throwing it under a bus. Right. But yeah, I would never absolutely put my child in No. Any cell. I never threatened my children with, oh, there’s a cop over there. If you do something bad, they’re going to get you. Because I want my children to be able to go to a police officer if they need help. Very rare that they would, because they’ll be with us and that. But along the lines of you don’t want them afraid of people because No,
Stephen Janis:
Just
Speaker 11:
That’s what you condition your children for.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. Now, you said before we went on air that you were going to work on a skit. What if a police officer is in retail? Is that actually something that your viewers can look forward to seeing?
Speaker 11:
Yes. So we’ve got three people that are involved in it, and it’s going to be banter back and forth. If you walk up to a a counter and you say, Hey, real quick, I just need to ask you something out there. It will be the responses of the law enforcement, how they would treat you on the street, but it will be in a retail setting. Yeah, right.
Stephen Janis:
Oh, we can’t wait to see
Taya Graham:
That. I cannot wait to see that. Now, look, I just wanted to make sure there are one or two questions we have here. I’m hoping you’ll stick around. There’s one question I had to make sure to ask you because of your level of expertise, James? Yes. And what would be, now this is of course, you’re non legally binding. You are not a lawyer advice, but what would your advice be when someone is stopped by police while they are in the process of recording, what would your advice
Speaker 11:
Be? So if I’m out there holding the camera where you, you’re filming and you’re approached and confronted by the cops, the first thing you want to say, sir, am I being detained? And if he Yes. Then you say, well, I don’t have anything to say to you. I’m just going to stand here quietly if you have any questions. I want to direct him towards my attorney. I don’t want to have him here during questioning at all times. And that’s it. And then it should be over. They shouldn’t ask any questions. They may ask you for that driver’s license id. And if you can always ask them. I mean, if you ask more questions than they do, it puts ’em on the offensive, am I being detained? Well, yeah, you are. Well, can you just tell me what I’m being detained for? So I know what I’m expecting here?
What did I do? How do you recognize me as the person that you need to detain? I’m standing here filming, doing a legal and lawful activity, and if they continue on, you may have to provide id. A lot of people say, take the arrest. And that’s just one of the things that you never want to do. You can be violated without being arrested, because that starts the criminal justice program. And as you said earlier, two years on this case, right? They will stretch out these criminal cases so that you have nothing for a civil case later on.
Taya Graham:
Wow. That’s good point. That’s an excellent
Stephen Janis:
Point. Run out the statute of limitations on the federal.
Taya Graham:
That really is an excellent point. And James brought up something really important, which is initially there can be a stop that’s consensual, and then there’s a stop. That’s a detention, right? Yeah. So you need to find out, am I being detained? If you’re not, my advice is get out of there unless you absolutely feel obligated. Point to continue to recording’s A, because I personally don’t want to see anyone have to interact more with the criminal justice system than necessary. I have seen it destroy too many lives, and I don’t want to see anyone else go through
Stephen Janis:
That. And if you say, even
Taya Graham:
For the best of reasons, James,
Stephen Janis:
Can you say, if they say yes, you’re being detained, could you say, what’s your probable cause? Or what’s your reasonable articulate suspicion? Can you go that far? Or is it better just not to say anything more?
Speaker 11:
Well, the reasonable, articulate suspicion is for the charging affidavit. They don’t have any obligation to tell you that. But if you can peacefully and get that out of them, well, I think you’re suspicious. You set yourself up for an easy dismissal for a case if they do arrest you, not legal advice, but Right. What could happen if they’re saying, well, you’re just out here and you’re walking around with a camera, that’s kind of weird. I need your id. That’s not reasonable. Articulate su suspicion of a crime. You putting some opinion on something that you’re trying to make it illegal for me to be here filming. Oh, and now you’re going to set me up for resisting or failure to id.
Stephen Janis:
And that’s really smart, because you’re kind of turning, when you say anything can be used against you, you’re making the cop explicitly state why they’re detaining you, and thus you can use that against them. Yes. I guess if you have it, especially if you’re recording. Yes. Which is why you want to record,
Speaker 11:
Right? Yeah. Cause if you’re not recording, then it’s hearsay. You could submit the video as evidence, and if they don’t have body cameras, that’s a cue to get out of there quicker than anything else. Right.
Stephen Janis:
All right. Well, Jim,
Taya Graham:
This has been great. That’s great. You know what the thing is, there are so many questions I would love to ask you just to get more details, because I think even I learn something about the law every day. I mean, the crim, the criminal code, that Section eight team, or all the criminal codes, you could literally spend lifetimes going through it and still not across every criminal code. And unfortunately, yeah, unlike police officers, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for us. No. So there’s no qualified immunity for the law, no qualified immunity for us citizenry. Right. So I just think, I guess, which should we bring in James? Yeah. Should we bring in the other James? It’s so funny. There are people in the comments who are saying, it’s ginger night. Definitely.
Speaker 13:
Ginger night.
Taya Graham:
Whoa. Okay. Oh my gosh. So let’s bring in James night. Well, let me, oh, you know what? Let me give Ja the other. James got an intro, so this James deserves his intro too. Okay. Okay. So let me give it to him. Now, our next guest is one of the most popular, and I would say humorous cop watchers out there. His approach to watching cops has always been creative and innovative, and I think it goes a long way towards revealing the psychology of law enforcement that we have talked about today. Because James Freeman has a way of teasing out the truth from cops who really aren’t prepared for his approach to covering them. In other words, his tactics often create a power reversal that surprises them to the extent that they tell on themselves. For those out there who don’t know James Freeman, let’s run James Freeman confronting a cup
Speaker 14:
Says, sheriff, I don’t know what county though. Criminal interdiction unit. State of Texas Sheriff’s Office. Sorry. License plate. Hey, what’s up? Yeah, how about you? What department are you with? I work for Collin County Sheriff’s Office. Collin County? Yes, sir. You got ID on you? Yes, sir. I do. Can I see it please? You want to see my, yeah, please. I need to see your id. Yeah, yeah, no problem. You licensed to carry that firearm for real. Okay. Can you do me a favor and, sorry, hold on. That’s kind of loud. That’s you. Do me a favor. While I’m dealing with you, can we go ahead and put your firearm up for my safety? Absolutely.
Taya Graham:
So you might notice here that James is putting a little spin on the way cops ask us questions. Instead, he’s asking cops the questions they have a tendency to ask us. But the reason we’re talking to him tonight is because now he’s fighting for something that I think is incredibly important to almost anyone who believes that power needs to be held to account. And namely, that’s transparency. The ability of citizen journalists to cover and report on elected officials, cops, and what they do in their official capacity. It turns out that the Torrance, New Mexico Circuit Court administrators don’t want him covering them. It seems that some of James’s reporting exposed how the internal workings of the court were often incompetent and even downright absurd. But James’s effort to shed light on this has prompted this very public institution to fight back by banning him and just to show James’ work to hold him accountable. We have one more clip for you. Let’s take a look.
Speaker 15:
A New Mexico YouTuber and journalist with nearly half a million subscribers is now suing the Seventh Judicial District Court.
Speaker 16:
He says they’re not letting him do his job. News thirteens, Alexis Kki has that story.
Speaker 17:
Will you be able to give me all of the details?
Speaker 18:
His followers know him as James Freeman, a YouTuber who calls himself a government watchdog documenting the actions of local leaders in law enforcement. But behind the scenes,
Speaker 17:
I started trying to point out government corruption because in my daily life running a business, I was constantly dealing with issues with this little stuff with the state where they were constantly breathing down my neck. For
Speaker 18:
The past six years, he’s been in and out of the courtroom covering cases, but lately he’s not allowed because
Speaker 17:
There are some very specific ones that people have asked me to at least view and show the public what’s going on. And they denied me at every corner. Not only that, but they started calling the police on me and tried to have me arrested.
Speaker 18:
He says, it all started back in January when he sat in at a court hearing in as Stasia Springer says, he was just observing when a hearing officer yelled at him to leave the courtroom, he later requested the court audio and published a story about what he heard.
Speaker 17:
He had allegedly told both of the individuals on both sides that it was illegal to cuffs, cuffs at each other in a text message, and that they could be thrown in jail for a year for doing it.
Speaker 18:
As part of that story, he confronted the hearing officer,
Speaker 19:
I just asked you to leave my courtroom, and if not,
Speaker 17:
Well, I was told by quite a few people back there that you had demanded that they arrest me and bring me back into the courtroom for a contempt hearing
Speaker 16:
That you were told very
Speaker 18:
Wrong. And that’s when Springer says the order came down.
Speaker 17:
After I ran that story, they made an administrative order saying that I can’t come to the courthouse anymore.
Speaker 18:
Court documents say Springer was harassing staff, but he denies that he’s now filed a lawsuit going after the Seventh Judicial District Court, two judges, a court clerk and a court administrator who he says are violating his civil rights. The goal he says, is to bring transparency back to the court system.
Speaker 17:
They’re not always doing it right, but they’re, they’re not always doing it wrong, but transparency is needed.
Speaker 18:
Alexis Eski Care, QE News 13.
Speaker 16:
We reached out to the Seventh Judicial District Court. They said in a statement they do not comment on pending litigation.
Taya Graham:
So as you can see, James has applied his uniquely deliberate reporting style to the wheels of justice in New Mexico. And the people and institutions he has put under his own unique microscope just don’t like the attention. So to talk about his fight and the lawsuit, why his coverage is critical in the state of government and cop watching in general, I am joined by Mr. Freeman himself. James, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 17:
Hey, thank you so much for having me on again. It’s always a pleasure to be with you guys. Oh,
Taya Graham:
It’s so great to see you. First off, I have to ask you, are you still asking cops the same stupid questions they ask us?
Speaker 17:
It doesn’t work as well as it used to because I’ve gained such a reputation for it that they already know that it’s coming. I approached a Farmington, New Mexico police officer just yesterday and was going to try and get that going, and right off the bat he goes, oh, Mr. Freeman, your reputation proceeds you.
Stephen Janis:
So
Speaker 17:
It doesn’t work as well when they know it’s coming.
Taya Graham:
Oh, that’s great. I mean, I’m disappointed, but I’m glad that your reputation proceeds you. No, I think that’s just terrific. And I’m also just, I was so glad to see that the mainstream media actually acknowledged A, that cop watcher existed, and B, that they can actually do something useful for the community. How is that process interacting with the msm, with your local news?
Speaker 17:
I wasn’t entirely shocked myself because what I’m dealing with this court, the mainstream media is also dealing with, we are all constantly trying to get the truth of all kinds of stories out there and government. It’s not just us cop watchers and independent journalists. They try to stop everyone from doing it. And so I think that the mainstream media realized if they’re going to do this to me, they’re going to do it to as well. And so a precedent needs to be set here that this is unacceptable and that it’s not going to be allowed. So
Stephen Janis:
Is this a federal lawsuit you filed and is this a municipal, is it a circuit court, or what kind of court is this a state court that this is occurring in? Just to understand some of the details.
Speaker 17:
This is a district court and New Mexico. It’s kind of a rural area. So it actually covers, I think four or five different counties. And we did file the lawsuit in federal court simply because we don’t believe we were going to be able to get justice anywhere in any of the New Mexico courts because we believe that they’re getting their orders from the Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Stephen Janis:
So is this a First Amendment case or what’s your basic argument? And I’m fascinated by this because we have the same problem here in Maryland. So is this a First Amendment case or what are you arguing in your suit?
Speaker 17:
Yeah, so what they did is after I ran that story, they made it an administrative order saying that I can’t come to the courthouse at all unless I have official business. But they don’t recognize reporting on their corruption as official business. They don’t, of course not
Stephen Janis:
Recognize that.
Speaker 17:
And so essentially what it did is there was no due process either. There was no hearing, there was no trial. It was just boom, your first amendment rights are gone and there’s no due process. I continued to go to the court and I continued to report anyways for about three months, and then finally the judge said, all right, you violated the order. We were already getting ready to file a lawsuit simply because of the order itself. And then one day the judge said, you know what? You violated the order by continuing to report on us. We are going to have you come in for a hearing and we’re going to try to throw you in jail for contempt of court. Oh God, for disobeying the order, violating your first amendment.
Stephen Janis:
Well, now James, this is very disturbing because there’s nothing more public than court, nothing where there’s more laws about what should be public. A court hearing evidence, what basis did they use to order you out of a courtroom? What was their I don’t even see where they’d have a legal basis.
Speaker 17:
So no, they definitely don’t have a legal basis, but the state of New Mexico, the court system, there’s a reason they don’t want me in there. And it’s because they don’t use the law in their courts. They use whatever they feel like at the moment. What they put on the actual administrative order was that after I ran the story, there were people who viewed the story and called the courthouse to redress grievances and to let them know, Hey, we’re upset with what you guys are doing here, and we want you to get your act together. And so they specifically are articulated in the order, you cannot come to the courthouse due to the fact that other people have contacted us and they claim that it was on my behalf. I mean, obviously you can’t conceal all that. I didn’t.
Stephen Janis:
Right?
Speaker 17:
Yeah. And so they didn’t even ban me for anything that I did. They banned me for things that other people did when they saw the corruption that I published.
Stephen Janis:
I mean, this is so ridiculously first amendment fraught wrong that it’s hard for me to understand. It just sounds like they’re just, like you said, making up the laws as they go along. So then they have a hearing. You said, what happened in the hearing? Was there actually really a hearing? I mean, was there evidence presented and arguments made or what actually happened?
Speaker 17:
So once they decided to schedule that hearing, my lawyers fast tracked it and said, that’s it. We’re filing the lawsuit today. There were a few other things we were waiting on some open records request to, because once you file the lawsuit, they’re going to clam up on everything and not give us anything. And so we were trying to wait until we had some more evidence of the things that they were doing. Once they said, Hey, let’s bring him into court and throw ’em in jail. We immediately filed the lawsuit that day and the judge had to recuse herself. We asked for injunctive relief from the federal court, which they haven’t even given us yet. And so this, they’ve continued to retaliate against me since we filed the suit.
Stephen Janis:
How are they
Speaker 17:
Retaliating? So yeah, there was no hearing.
Stephen Janis:
How are they retaliating? What are they doing?
Speaker 17:
So there’s this, one of the stories that I was covering in that courthouse, there was another hearing just today for him, and he had asked me to be there to record documents so that I could report on the final leg of his story with that court system. The chief judge, Mercedes Murphy, refused to allow me into the courtroom, and it was just a remote hearing through Google, whatever the
Stephen Janis:
Right
Speaker 17:
Zoom or whatever. But she refused to let me into the hearing. And
Stephen Janis:
Wow. It’s interesting because you have sat in a courtroom, I’ve sat a lot in a courtroom, and we know both Eric Brat had had, who’s another cop watcher called a lot of attention to the court process. Just talk about why you see a lot of things go on in a courtroom that just don’t really make any sense and don’t seem to be following the law. Can you talk about why it’s so important to have eyes in the courtroom like yourself, why it would be important for people to see stuff or know what’s going on?
Speaker 17:
As a matter of fact, in the very first story that I broke on the Seventh Judicial District Court in Torrance County, they had said, well, you know what? This is a court of record. We record everything ourselves. Now, previously, a lot of courts weren’t even recording audio or video. They just had somebody typing what they could catch. And there were a lot of problems with that. If you go in and actually record, you’ll find that the record does not match what you record.
Stephen Janis:
Absolutely.
Speaker 17:
And I showed that in the very first story that I ran on them, that even though they were recording, they went off the record and then the hearing officer did and said some things that he later denied He did and said, and the only reason we had evidence that the hearing officer Gordon Bennett lied was because there happened to be a deputy in the courtroom with his body camera on him during that time that he was off. Supposedly off the record, that it,
Stephen Janis:
It’s, wow,
Speaker 17:
These hearings are public.
Stephen Janis:
Go ahead. No, but I was going to say, I mean, one of the things I’ve learned as a reporter being in the courtroom is like, wow, you think there’s this idea of the law and everyone’s following the law, but you realize it’s really, really up to whatever the whims of a judge and can be very capricious. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because sometimes when I go leave a courtroom, I’m like, I’m pretty scared because if I ever ended up there, I don’t think I’d get a fair shake.
Speaker 17:
Y Yeah. I’m no lawyer, I’m no attorney. I work with attorneys, and so they kind of show me the process and have specifically shown me while I’m watching court hearings and on hearings that I’ve reviewed or recorded, been able to go back and watch ’em with lawyers and they say meant that this judge isn’t even following the legal process. Right. And even I’ve got one of my lawyers that’s representing me that has a recording of him telling a judge, Hey, you’re not following the legal process, and he wants to read it into the record, and the judge is yelling at him. No, no. You can’t read the legal process into the record because she just blatantly doesn’t want to obey the law. And so she doesn’t want it on the record that she’s aware of what the law is.
Stephen Janis:
Do you think, I mean, I know we both know Eric Brant, he’s now in prison for threatening judges, and it’s a very interesting case allegedly, but allegedly exactly correct. Thank you for that. But he would always say judiciary does not get enough attention. Yeah. Is that something you agree with?
Speaker 17:
Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. And I mean, you talk about qualified immunity for police officers, judges, prosecutors have, it seems to be absolute immunity. Please correct me if I’m wrong. No, but it seems to be absolute immunity untouchable. Yeah,
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. No, and it’s a little scary because really when you think about it, classic, traditionally prosecutors, or at least judges are supposed to be a check on police and other types of law enforcement. But often, I mean, what I’ve seen is that judges pretty much are in cahoots with police in so many cases. And I, we’ve had many corrupt cops who have run through courts forever lying, just blatantly lying and cops and judges doing nothing about it. And I guess that’s what you’re trying to watch out for in this court system. Right.
Speaker 17:
And I’ve been trying to show people too, look, this whole system of three branches of government and checks and balances, that exists for a purpose. These branches aren’t supposed to be working together. They are supposed to be butting heads. They are supposed to be challenging each other. I totally agree. They are supposed to be refusing to cooperate with each other. And I’ll tell you what, with this case, over the last three months, I have seen something that I never thought that I would see in my lifetime. The local law enforcement in this area have refused to enforce the judge’s orders. I have been ordered to be arrested multiple times by hearing officers and judges and the Torrance County deputies and the local police department next door. They have tried to call in every police department possible because none of them will touch me. Wow. And it’s because they know that what the judges are doing is wrong.
Stephen Janis:
So wait, a judge literally issued what? A bench warrant for you, or just an order to arrest you for no reason?
Speaker 17:
Yeah, just an order to arrest. Said, Hey, you know what? He came to the courthouse. He wasn’t supposed to come to the courthouse to report on us. It was a hearing officer just a couple weeks ago, ordered me to be arrested. And I haven’t even uploaded the footage yet. And the two deputies are saying, well, he’s not doing anything illegal. We can’t arrest
Stephen Janis:
Him. I mean, this is an administrative order. You didn’t break a law. Okay, right. So how on earth can this judge justify an arrest? I mean, what? I think the deputies are behaving correctly because they’re following the law, right? It you’re exercising your First Amendment rights and you violate administrative order. It should be an administrative sanction, not an arrest. What’s wrong with this judge?
Speaker 17:
Well, besides that, the administrative order shouldn’t exist in the first place either. True. It violated due process. Right.
Stephen Janis:
But I don’t understand how you jump you to arrest from an administrative order. I don’t get it.
Speaker 17:
I really don’t know. You’d have to ask the judges and the hearing officers why they think that. Actually, one of the hearing officers, when he ran out of excuses and realized, we really can’t get him on violating this order because even the order says he’s got to have a police escort. And I had two deputies with me the whole time. He said, well, I’ll have you arrested for disorderly conduct. Then I said, where did you get your law degree? Do you even know what disorderly conduct is?
Stephen Janis:
It’s like this just is the go-to pickup line for cops. I mean, that this is just really, really, really concerning. And so have the deputies at all or anyone said, Hey, James, we know this is illegal and we’re not going to enforce it. Or is it just kind of implicit? Do they actually tell you, or do they say what they’re thinking is here?
Speaker 17:
I don’t necessarily want to say like we were talking about with James Madison earlier, and that’s been really, really, really tough about this case. For me, people have asked me before, Hey, why don’t you talk about good cops on your channel? Said, because I don’t want put a target on their back. Get control. That’s why, right? And it’s been tough. No. Cause some of these deputies have outwardly, you can request the body cam footage. They have outwardly made it perfectly clear, no, they are not going to follow an unlawful order. And a lot of them, it’s been really tough because the sheriff at the top, David Frazey, is a nut job who would love to see me arrested, but he won’t do it himself, and his own deputies won’t do it for him. So I mean, some of these deputies have really, really stuck their necks out. And I’ve been so conflicted with this incident going, all right, do,
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, that really,
Speaker 17:
Do I published this and praise them or,
Stephen Janis:
Well, I think you’re wise to let them be in the sense that I think as we’ve seen, like you said, we just talked to James Madison, there’s a retaliatory structure there, and if this comes out, they’ll probably be in trouble. And I think probably just be grateful. But that is a really interesting dilemma for you because you’re technically a person who holds cops accountable. And in this particular case, the police are actually, the cops are actually, deputy sheriffs are doing the right thing. But that this is just an amazing case. Mean really to me, this is a premier First Amendment case that the media should be covering all over the country, that you’re doing this, you’re having this battle. Because they could do this to any reporter. And one of, there’s another thing I have to talk about court covering as a reporter, the arrogance of the people in a courtroom, you know, have your phone open because you need to get a story out.
And they’re like, they’ll confiscate your phone. They’ll kick you out of the courtroom if they think you’re, I don’t know what, I’ve encountered so many jerk judges as a reporter who have harassed me. And just for sit in the back of the courtroom, move over here, don’t do that. Or I go to and try to talk to maybe a suspect’s family and say, can I talk to anybody? Why are you talking in my courtroom? And it’s not that I don’t understand, you have to have an order, the courtroom, but the arrogance of the people in the court system is insane. They think that we are, we’re there because they’re letting us be there. Not because the Constitution has the first amendment, and not because we’re doing a job that is protected, but they make it seem like, oh, we’ll let you come in here, you know, can come, but you don’t really have any right to be here. And your perfect example of that case where they’re saying, just because of our whims, we can get rid of you. We don’t like what you say, we can get rid of you. That, I mean, there’s a lot of arrogance, these courthouses, right?
Speaker 17:
Yeah. And I think that’s why they are going to fight this really hard. We believe that the Attorney General of the state of New Mexico is about to weigh in on a very heavy way because they, they’ve been completely out of control for a very long time and gotten away with everything. And it’s wrong it, and they know it, and they know that if we set precedent in this case, it’s going to change a lot of things across this country.
Stephen Janis:
I hope so.
Speaker 17:
It’s just going to be the beginning. And I think they know that.
Taya Graham:
So you know what, we have a bunch of questions both for you and James Madison, but I have one or two questions for you first that I want to hit you with, if that’s okay. James Freeman. Is that all right? Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. Just want to make sure. Okay. So the first question is, has flipping the script on a cop ever gone wrong?
Speaker 17:
Gone wrong? I don’t think I’ve ever gotten arrested doing it. I’ve done it a lot of times and I don’t always get the results that I want. The result that I want is for the roles to literally be flipped to where I’m the dominant one who’s a total jerk. And the cop becomes the submissive one who’s like, oh my gosh, do I do you start stumbling over his words? We do often when we’re confronted by police and we get nervous. I wouldn’t say it necessarily went wrong though.
Taya Graham:
You know what? Now this question is kind of tough, but I did promise that if someone asks, I would throw the questions up there. How do I find an attorney to file a federal lawsuit in Texas? That can be kind of tough. Texas.
Stephen Janis:
You’re the fifth circuit. You’re screwed in Texas. Well,
Speaker 17:
Sorry. No, no, I got you there. That’s, that’s going to be Brandon Grable, Grable and Grimshaw.
Taya Graham:
Oh,
Speaker 17:
Great. He represented us on the Leon Valley case. He’s representing quite a few other people. Actually, one of the cases that you guys covered a family who was recording police, I can’t
Stephen Janis:
Remember where it was. Oh yes. Oh,
Taya Graham:
That’s
Stephen Janis:
Hoagland. Yes.
Taya Graham:
Oh, yes. And really appreciate, and she really appreciate your help in helping connect her know
Stephen Janis:
We have to
Taya Graham:
Useful
Stephen Janis:
Lawyer. We have to connect Thomas with this lawyer because the firefighter who was forced out out of his job.
Taya Graham:
That’s a
Stephen Janis:
Great idea. Not that it’s our job to, but we should at least connect them, right. And do them that. Yes. At
Taya Graham:
Least.
Stephen Janis:
Well, thank you, James. That’s a great recommendation. Absolutely. But I mean, just can’t say enough about this case that James, this case is for all the journalists all over the country. We have to go into courtrooms and beg forgiveness for reporting on what people are doing, how people are exercising, government or power against them. I really, James, I am so impressed and supportive in whatever we can do to help you. And if you could send us a lawsuit, I would like to write a story about it for the real news, because this could be critical. I mean, I don’t know how it works, how the interchange interplay between federal and circuit courts, but it’d be great to set some precedent that they can’t just make things up as they go along. I mean, ultimately hope that’s what’s going to happen. I hope. I mean, hope you’ll win that. Right.
Taya Graham:
By the way, we have someone rather insistent in the chat, wants to know their question is, can I be Freeman’s intern from Matt R in the chat? So do you have interns? Do you have interns? Do you have an internship program? I wasn’t aware you did, but I don’t want to assume
Speaker 17:
I’m a one man show.
Taya Graham:
Okay. A one man band. Okay, got
Speaker 17:
It. Sorry.
Taya Graham:
Sorry about that. Met
Speaker 17:
R I’m paranoid. I’m paranoid. So every, everybody’s a the Fed. Understandable.
Taya Graham:
Oh my gosh, I didn’t even think of that. Yeah. Oh, that’s a good point. You’ve got to be really careful. Yeah. I’m sorry to deliver disappointing news met R, but I did ask for you. So you know what? This is so great. You know what I was just thinking You saw, I have to ask you just to get your perspective. You saw Thomas’s interaction earlier, the firefighter who was put through that field sobriety test. One of the things that really stood out to me is the officers, they take him to all these tests and they’re judging him so harshly. One of the things they did was they did a Romberg test where he has to stand there with his arms at his side and his head back and count to 30. And when he believes he counts to 30, he says, done. And so the officer stands there and does a timer.
And if you have between 25 seconds and 35 seconds, when you say stop, then it’s considered a pass. But the firefighter said, stop at 36 seconds. So they considered that a fail of the test. So that field sobriety test was, it was just cruelty. I thought of so many reasons why it would be difficult for someone to pass a field sobriety test effectively if you’d had a long day at work and you were just a little bit shaky. Yeah, this gentleman literally had a tumor pass it in his ear. I couldn’t, as a matter of fact, I made Steven try to do the field sobriety test and I walked him through it. And I think honestly, a lot of guys who’ve been athletic have tight hamstrings or don’t do yoga, won’t do well at it. I’m being honest. I’m being honest, believe it
Speaker 17:
Or not.
Taya Graham:
No, you don’t do yoga as far as I know. But I just wanted to know what, what’s your advice would be if someone is stopped for, allegedly for an investigation to see whether or not they have been drinking or driving. What sort of advice you would give or what would you say to Thomas, Hey, this is what I would’ve done in your situation.
Speaker 17:
Are you asking Freeman or you Oh, you Madison. Okay.
Taya Graham:
You, sorry.
Speaker 17:
Okay, you
Taya Graham:
Freeman,
Speaker 17:
I, that is a really tough question because it seems to me as a non-attorney that you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. You don’t take the test, they’re taking you to jail. I really don’t know. I would almost rather the blood draw though. And yeah. And besides that though, there’s so many other elements to this particular case that are just bizarre.
Taya Graham:
I agree wholeheartedly. Yeah. I mean, in all honesty, the reason why, even though the alcohol test came back completely negative, allegedly there was a backlog. So the drug blood test didn’t come back in a timely fashion. He was dismissed simply for having the arrest charges. Not because he was convicted, but because he simply had been arrested. And so he lost his job as a driver engineer, a career he’d loved for 30 years. He said the fire department was his family. It was absolutely heartbreaking. Absolutely heartbreaking.
Speaker 17:
And that doesn’t happen to police when they get pulled over for dwi. Oh, absolutely. As they’re put on paid administrative leave quite often and innocent until proven guilty. And really, that is the way it should be, even though I’m not a fan of police. That should be the same across the board, that we’re all innocent until proven guilty.
Taya Graham:
Very well said.
Stephen Janis:
Well, as we report on that show, there’s a thing that New York police officers get called courtesy cards that they give out to their relatives and friends. Yes. And speaking to what we’re talking about, James, we were talking about good cops getting in trouble. We reported on this police officer who got sick of these courtesy cards because he’s pulling people over for reckless driving and all sorts of stuff. And they’d give him this card and he was supposed to let them go and he wouldn’t do it. And so guess what happens? He suffers retaliation, his career is destroyed. He sent to Staten Island, has to work the 12 to midnight shift or whatever. So there are two sets, sets of laws in this sense. And I think James, you see that probably every day, or I’m not asking you to agree, but that is something that is Oh,
Taya Graham:
That’s right. Which James,
Stephen Janis:
Oh my God. Whoa.
Taya Graham:
Yes. I know Mr.
Speaker 17:
Freeman. We we’re bringing James Madison back in.
Stephen Janis:
No, Mr. Freeman. Mr. Freeman.
Speaker 17:
Yeah, absolutely. There are definitely two sets of laws. And really more than anything else, that is what I’m trying to show on my channel through every single video that I do, every single, it’s, Hey, we’ve created these rules and laws so that we can have a civilized society. And we all kind of agree, look, these are the rules we’re going to obey. These are the rules we’re going to follow so that we can all get along and be civilized. And you and I do it. And then there’s this class of people that we call government that don’t and that are not accountable to it.
Stephen Janis:
And I mean, the only way that we’re ever going to be able to win that battle and have accountability is if people like you can go into a courtroom and make people uncomfortable. They’re not supposed to be comfortable around reporters. I mean, we’re not trying to make people uncomfortable. We’re not like cops are not harassing people, but they’re not supposed to be comfortable with everything we report. That’s not how the First Amendment works. It doesn’t mean that we’re rude, but it means that we tell the truth and the truth makes them uncomfortable. And I’m just really, we want to follow your lawsuit all the way because I, I’m just hoping that a federal court, which circuit is that the sixth or what
Speaker 17:
Circuit? 10th.
Stephen Janis:
10th. Oh, 10th, okay. Yep.
Speaker 17:
Same one where we just got the case law out of of Colorado from Azaria and
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, the one where the Eric was filming the traffic. Stop that one,
Speaker 17:
Right? Yep.
Stephen Janis:
Yes. Yep. So the 10th circuit that you have some hope there. I mean, when we were talking to Thomas, his lawyer was saying The fifth Circuit is really difficult when you’re suing cost. So we need to get into the details of that. But James, we support you. I as a fellow reporter, and we will cover this story. And we wish you the best of luck with this. Cause if you win, maybe I can go in the courtroom and actually do my job without getting harassed by a deputy sheriff who doesn’t like the fact that I have a cell phone. Right. Exactly. As if that’s really important. But anyway, so I think,
Taya Graham:
Oh my gosh, at first, I just have to thank every single James that Yes.
Stephen Janis:
Joined us. Oh, all
Taya Graham:
James, I realized we are going a little over
Stephen Janis:
On our
Taya Graham:
Time and we have one or two more things to do, and I really wanted to make sure to highlight people’s comments. So I’m down here in the chat trying to throw comments on the screen, but we might need to move forward a little bit. Okay. Because
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, it’s past everyone’s bedtime. It it’ll
Taya Graham:
Be past everyone’s bedtime. Yeah.
Stephen Janis:
Soon you, so let’s get to the let’s
Taya Graham:
We should move forward. Yeah. And I’ll just say talking to James about what he’s dealing with brings to mind how important essentially citizen journalism is to the health our of our democracy. I mean, the hardest hit facet of the news business is local journalism. There’s just not a business model that can sustain it. And Steven, actually, we were talking about this the other day, how YouTubers and some cases have stepped into fill the void. Yeah. Can you talk, I don’t know, maybe a little bit
Stephen Janis:
About local journalism you did that? Well, you see with James there, the mainstream media, which I came from, you’re taught to sort of operate a certain way. But the chaos that’s created by lack of accountability and power has to be met with a very creative type of journalism. And that’s the type of journalism that James can do that we do at the Real News. We’re much more creative. We follow the case of Thomas to the Bitter End. Yes, most mainstream media would’ve moved on, but we don’t move on. That’s fair. And I think that’s what James, James is going to all sorts of court hearings and would get no coverage whatsoever. The only way to respond to the chaos that lack of accountability creates is with creative journalism. And that’s why cop watchers and independent journalists are great.
Taya Graham:
Steven, that’s such an excellent point. And I think there’s an underlying question that informs a lot of this discussion, and that’s why is any of this important? Why is local journalism important? Why is knowing your rights important? Why is it important for Steven and I to sit here and talk to you all about this? And even more critically, why are you the people who watch us and talk to us and comment on our work so important to this, our entire question of preserving our right, I guess these are what we would call existential questions, which means in part, they’re about constructing or perhaps in what Steven was talking about, defining the type of world we want to live in. For me, I see in the work of James Madison and James Freeman, a struggle to reconcile worldviews that although not explicitly explained, are at the core of who we are, how we think about ourselves, and how a subtle change in the balance of power can forever alter our lives in ways that I think can be hard to live with.
I have a sort of simple way to boil this down into two words that are critical to understanding what I’m talking about. One is consent, and the other is dissent. One cannot exist without the other. And both are critical to maintaining and expanding our rights to live our lives as we choose with a government that serves us not the other way around. Okay. What do I mean? Let me try and explain. I think the whole notion of holding power, cops, politicians, the government in general accountable, starts with the idea of consent, the foundation, the assumption underlying the whole concept of governance by and for the people, there lies a simple notion that wielding power cannot occur without the consent of the people. And I think the idea is self-evident in what it means, but still important to reexamine consent means that there is an implicit agreement in every government action that we have consented to the use of power for some sort of common good.
That means, essentially, if police are empowered to write traffic tickets for speeding or reckless driving, we the people have consented to this because we believe this use of power is for the good of all of us. And that so-called common good outweighs the intrusion on our personal liberty in order to benefit everyone. So when you see police writing tickets for quotas or to fund their own salaries or to accrue accolades, or simply make an arrest just because they feel like it, that implicit consent is being erased. When you examine tools like the field sobriety test or these fake forensic techniques that are used to incriminate innocent people, they are offensive to us, to all of us, because that’s not what we consented to. We didn’t consent to erode the Fourth Amendment. So law enforcement, industrial complex could continue to fight the ill conceived war on drugs.
And we didn’t also consent to have our property confiscated without due process so the police could profit from the spoils of the aforementioned war on drugs. Nor do we consent that America’s well-oiled punishments machine could wear us down with fines and fees to fund the same apparatus that continues to grind us into the ground. These things seem intrinsically wrong because none of us consented to them. And that’s where the other word dissent comes in. Because the way we fight back when the political system ignores our consent is by dissenting. And the best way to do that is by using the process of accountability. For example, affirming our First Amendment rights, filing freedom of information Act requests to let those people in power know we don’t agree to your terms of service. This is why people like James Freeman and James Madison and other cop watchers. And you know what?
I’m going to list a few. Okay. Yeah. I’m going to list a few. Go ahead. Cop watchers like David Barn and Monkey 83, and out of the Watchdog and Liberty freak in the Batusi and Lackluster and San Joaquin Par Transparency and Chuck Bronson in Blind Justice. And I think I saw Mrs. Justice earlier, Laura Shark, Tom Zebra, Joe Cool. Writes Krispy Irate Productions, H B O, Matt Corners News, Amanda Acura, long Island Audits News Now, Johnny Five Oh, so many others are so important. It’s also why independent journalists like the Real News or Truth Out or our partners in these times are important as well. And even our mainstream media counterparts who we do give a hard time on occasion are vitally important to the process of descent because it takes all of us to take on the messiness of descent. Wouldn’t you agree, Steven?
Stephen Janis:
I totally agree.
Taya Graham:
Well, yeah, me, you described descent as messy, and I think I’d like to give, do you want to talk about
Stephen Janis:
That or should I Well, yeah, I mean, think that’s the thing. The whole thing with the Thomas story we unpacked tonight was messy. It was messy, yes. It wasn’t something you could organize in a big investigative piece. You had to go piece by piece and confront different aspects of governance that were really not answering. And the only way you can really do it is by being messy yourself in some ways. So yeah, it can, dissent is not always a clean, and that’s why cop watchers and other types of creative forms of dissenting need to exist because it can’t always be copacetic and clean. Sometimes it just has to seem as messy as a system it’s trying to address. And
Taya Graham:
You know what, Steven, I’m glad you talked about the messiness of dissent. And I’m also glad you talked about how important transparency is and how important it’s to have journalists and citizen journalists and cop watchers participate in this. And let me give you an example. It starts with a story of a group of state police officers in Connecticut facing a dilemma. They wanted to write lots of tickets to garner the approval of their superiors and special rewards and promotions, but there was just one little problem getting in the way. People aren’t violating the law enough to meet their goals. So you know what, Dave, if you could just put a few clips on the screen so people can see this amazing reporting that was done, but these ingenious heroic, oh, you don’t have, that’s okay. But these ingenious heroic cops decided they wouldn’t be deterred by the people complying with the law.
No. They devised a plan to bend the system and the law to their benefit. What did the cops I mentioned do? Okay, this is what they did. They entered hundreds if not thousands of bogus tickets into the system. They simply made up violations out of whole cloth. Now, an investigators say it doesn’t seem like these tickets were issued against anyone specifically, which of course raises a whole bunch of other questions about what happened. A preliminary investigation found that over 25,000 fake or inaccurate tickets were submitted, and now almost a quarter of the entire police force participated in some form or fashion. There were a few officers who wrote over 600 bogus tickets each, and they also found that part of the motive was to juice the stats to show troopers have written tickets to more white motorists in an attempt to dodge an accusation of racial bias.
I’m not even going to touch that, but here’s the part where both the consent and dissent work together and why both concepts are equally important. That’s because none of this, and I mean none of it would’ve come to light if a local newspaper had not unearthed the investigation into the fake tickets and reported it to the public. This whole manipulation of the criminal justice system to the advantage of a bunch of rogue officers was kept secret, so secret that until it was reported by journalists protected by the First Amendment, these officers literally had no consequences. That’s right. After falsely swearing out thousands of bogus tickets, the officers received only mild internal discipline, a veritable slap on the riffs for committing professional perjury on a massive scale. And these same professional liars were allowed to go out into the community and continue to write tickets, make arrests, testify in court, and earn their lucrative pensions all at our expense.
And let me repeat, it was only after a report by a Hurst owned newspaper, only after the dissenters made us all aware of the issue that the state government promised to undertake a criminal investigation into those troopers. And now even the governor himself has been forced to call for a criminal probe of the professional fraudsters who are still armed with guns and wearing badges. Now, who in their right mind would consent to that? Rogue ticket writers and congenital liars emerging unscathed. But my point here goes beyond the bad apples apparently living happily in the rotten barrel known as the Connecticut State Police, what’s more important here is how easily, and apparently without conscience, the whole system of law enforcement can be used to facilitate widespread abuse of the power for some at the expense of the many. And how little the officers who are supposed to represent us care about that overreach.
That is why we have to dissent consistency and continually, that’s why we need local reporters, cop watchers, activists, auditors, citizen journalists, TV journalists, and of course even us independent journalists here at the Real News, even us to provide this continuum of dissent that ensures that the government by consent remains intact. That’s why we need people to use their cell phones to film police, and we need YouTube and citizen journalists like James Friedman and Madison to have access to courtrooms regardless if it makes someone uncomfortable. What I’m saying is that we need all of us, every single one of us to contribute, participate, and otherwise join the fight to preserve and expand our rights. No single person can do it alone, but together. I know we can. Right Steven?
Stephen Janis:
I’m willing to stay outside as long as it takes.
Taya Graham:
Oh, that’s beautiful.
Stephen Janis:
Yep. I’ll go right back out there after the show and I’ll be standing out there where you saw me at the beginning of the show doing journalism.
Taya Graham:
That is actually kind of beautiful. Yeah.
Stephen Janis:
Well
Taya Graham:
Commit commitment. That is beautiful. Commit commitment. You know what? I think that’s actually a great way to end this show. Absolutely. With your renewed commitment to journalism, the great outdoors and corn nuts.
Stephen Janis:
Right. Corn nuts.
Taya Graham:
So you know what, before we go, I just have to make sure to thank James Madison and James Freeman for taking the time to be here with us to share their insights, to share the incredible work they’re doing. If you haven’t already gone to their channels, you should definitely check them out. And I know you folks in the live chat had noticed there’s some amazing cop watchers in there too. Maybe you want to go check out their channels. And I want to thank the mods of the show. Noli d and Lacey are thank you both for your support. Thank you for sticking by me for showing up every Thursday and just being an incredible help to me. Yes. And also a very special thanks to our Patreons. We appreciate you so much. And in one second, I’m going to thank each and every one of you personally, especially my associate producers, John R. David k, Louis P, and my p a r Super Friends like Pineapple Girl.
I saw you in the chat. Hi, pineapple girl, Shane Busta, Chris R Matter of Rights. But I want everyone watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, you can reach out to us. You can email us directly@therealnews.com. If you follow me on social media at Taya Baltimore on Facebook or Twitter, you can also reach out to me there. We have a police accountability report, Facebook page. We have a police accountability report, Instagram, we have a police accountability report, Facebook. So if you want to contact us that way, please do so. We’re actually going to be taking about a week or so off just to go through the tips we’ve gotten. We have some shows in the works that we’re working on. We’re doing an extra big show coming up. I think we’re going to be dipping back down into Texas.
And it’s going to be an in-depth show. We’re working on it now. It’s going to take us, at least, we’ve been working on it for the past two weeks. So that means it’s going to take us three weeks to complete this show. So I really hope you’ll stick with us to see it. And of course, we want to be able to reach out and help the people. We can. Like I’ve mentioned before, there are a lot of conversations I have with people interactions via email or messages where there’s never a show produced. I, I just try to connect someone to Legal Aid, legal help. I try to help someone fill out a Freedom of Information Act request, or just try to give them some general advice and guidance just to help them. And there’s never a show that comes from it, but it takes a lot of time to go through all those tips and emails and comments.
And I want to do what I can to help support people. So just so you know, I’m going to shout out all my Patreons and I want to thank each and every one of you that showed up here tonight to participate in this conversation. I love the live chat. I wish I could have put even more of your comments up and now for the great reading of thanks to the rest of my Patreons. And I apologize if I don’t get a name. First thank you to Matter of Rights. Shannon p Cameron. J. Farmer, Jane, U s A, Joseph P Marvin, g Kimmy, cat, p Dur Devil, Nope. Curt A Patty. Angela Tru T, social Nationalist, David, B Marcia, E, Daniel, W zero M, Louis William, D B M. Shant. Chemi. John, K X, X, X, X, potshot. Kenneth Lawrence, K Stephen, B Blitz. Cindy, K Dante.
John Keith. B M Joe, six, six, estate A, Z, John Miller, Gary, T, Janet, K, Ryan, mark, William, L, Noli, D, Kyle, R, guy B, Calvin, M, Stephen, D Ron, F, Allen, J, Trey, P, Julius, geezer, Omar, John, Ryan, Lacey, rod, B Douglas, Andre, H, Siggy, young. Stephen. J Michael, S L default Urine. Celeste, D, S, P, T, just my 2 cents. Talia, B, Peter, J, Sean, B, k, a, Joel, a Tim, R Larry, l Ronald h Tamara, a Artemis, LA John, K Jimmy, touchdown, true tube Live. Kenny, g A is Circle of the quantum Note. Brian, m Byron, m, felonious, punk, Loretta S, Mike K, Mike K. And to the new patrons, Michael Willis, Joice, Frank K, Mary M, we appreciate you, your support and to help make our work possible. And remember, 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 email us the tips privately at pa the real news.com. Thank you so much for everyone who was here tonight. I hope you enjoyed the conversation. I know it was live. I know it was glitchy, but we did it with love and we appreciate you so much. Please be safe out there.
Speaker 20:
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.
The ongoing saga of bogus DUI charges that prematurely ended the career of Dallas firefighter Thomas C. continues to get more bizarre. In a futile attempt to restart the case, the agency that initiated the charges now admits they tried to submit evidence after the statute of limitations had expired.
The revelations are the latest twist in a case that includes questionable statements by the Denton County Sheriff’s Office regarding body-worn cameras, a cursory internal affairs investigation by the Dallas Fire Department that led to the abrupt dismissal of the lifelong first responder, and stonewalling from a variety of Texas law enforcement agencies on why the case was mishandled from the beginning.
A Police Accountability Report investigative report initially revealed the story of the series of law enforcement miscues that led to the wrongful dismissal. Our investigation showed officers on body cameras concluding Thomas, a lifelong first responder, was not drunk when they pulled him over in April of 2021.
Despite that admission, a group of Denton County sheriffs swore out charges of driving under the influence against him. To justify the allegations, they wrote Thomas “walked slowly” and was “thick-tongued” during a field sobriety test. Officers also included his use of a legally prescribed medication, Adderall, in the statement of probable cause.
The charges led to an internal investigation by the Dallas Fire Department, which forced Thomas into early retirement in 2022 despite a blood test proving he was not drunk.
But when The Police Accountability Report asked The Denton County Prosecutor’s Office for comment on the status of the case, the agency that handles all criminal proceedings within the jurisdiction made a startling admission: they had no record of it.
“We did not receive any documentation from the DCSO (Denton County Sheriff’s Office) regarding this case,” Kim Geuter, an administrator with the Denton prosecutor’s office, told PAR in an email. “We would have no way of keeping track. The only reason I knew this was not submitted to us is because I looked it up specifically. Police agencies do not notify us when they have not submitted a report to us,” she added. This led to PAR asking the Denton County Sheriff’s Office why the case was missing. The department responded with a timeline that revealed they tried to restart the case even though the statute of limitations had expired.
The timeline shows the Denton County Sheriff’s Office tried to submit evidence nearly a month past the two-year deadline within which a misdemeanor DUI case can be prosecuted. This apparent overreach came to light after we asked DCSO for comment on the nonexistent criminal file.
A spokesman for the department blamed another agency, the Texas Department of Public Safety crime lab. In a written statement to PAR, DCSO Captain Orlando Hinojosa cited lagging turnaround times for the narcotic blood tests as the primary reason for the belated effort to press forward with the charges. “Due to a backlog at the Texas DPS Crime Laboratory it took almost two years to receive the results of the drug analysis.”
Oddly, the alcohol blood test, which was negative, was completed in less than a month, however it was sent to a different lab than the drug sample. The Texas Department of Public Safety, which runs the crime lab in question, did not return multiple emails and calls for comment on why it took two years to process the blood test. However, earlier this year, the Austin American-Statesmanreported that the average wait time for drug-related blood tests was 533 days.
Meanwhile, in an apparent bending of transparency laws, DCSO refuses to release the results of either blood test, citing laws meant to protect suspects whose charges have been dropped. “DCSO will not release the DPS lab report due to its practice of consistently protecting information,” Hinojosa said.
DCSO and the Department of Public Safety are not the only government entities currently stonewalling about their role in the dubious charges that had life-altering consequences for Thomas. The Dallas Fire Department, which initiated an internal affairs investigation against him after his arrest, has also declined to comment despite several requests from PAR.
We sought comment after notes obtained by PAR show DFD internal affairs investigators relied solely on the sworn affidavit of the Denton County Sheriff to sustain the allegations against Thomas of conduct “unbecoming” of a firefighter. The notes also reveal that the department was aware that the test for alcohol was negative but still forced him to retire early.
A spokesperson for the fire department did not return comment by the time of publication when asked to explain why they found Thomas guilty without conducting a separate investigation.
The lack of information leaves Thomas with unanswered questions. At the top of that list is why he was told the case was still pending if it hadn’t been formally filed with prosecutors—especially given the severe consequences. “I was told the case was still active; I didn’t know the prosecutors didn’t have the case,” he said.
The charge against Thomas was a class B misdemeanor, and Texas law requires a formal arraignment before a judge to determine if the allegations are sufficient to proceed for charges in that category. But Thomas says he never had a chance to dispute the charges or present evidence before a judge. Instead, the DFD forced him to retire early, and his lawyer told him to take a course on the perils of alcohol consumption to help his case, despite the fact he has not had a drink in nearly 30 years.
The handling of the case has been a bitter pill for Thomas to swallow. In numerous conversations with PAR he recalled how, during his career as a first responder, he never failed to try to help people in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Now he wonders why the community he served treated him with such apparent indifference.
“These people are doing whatever they want to people and harming them with no consequences,” he said. “I think that it would be hard to live with myself if I was fraudulently jailing innocent people.”
Arkansas resident Shawn Chaperone was cut off by a reckless driver and was shocked that police chose to pull him over. However, it was the local police department’s turn to be surprised when they discovered how well Shawn knew his rights and local ordinances! Join us for this episode of the Police Accountability Report, which illustrates the importance of knowing your rights and the dangers of arbitrary police power.
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 who tries to entrap a motorist with false accusations about a costly traffic violation. However, it’s how this driver fought back, and how police responded when he did, that shows how cops can bend the law when they’re caught misusing it.
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 at Facebook or Twitter @TayasBaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And also please like share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and can even help our guests. And of course, I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there. And we do have a Patreon, Accountability Reports. 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, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as we’ve reported on this show, there was no process more fraught with potential for both abuse and overreach than the American traffic stop. It is in some ways unique to our American version of law enforcement, simply because cops here think there is no better way to catch criminals than by randomly pulling over hundreds of people. How else can you explain the myriad of stops we have reported on for this show that have led to, let’s just say, bad outcomes, unnecessary and often futile efforts to entangle innocent Americans in our sprawling criminal justice system that often seems more motivated by greed, stupidity, or even just a hunger for power? And to prove my point, I’m going to show you this video of a traffic stop that explains all the preceding overreach and backwards rationalizations that American police use to justify their addiction to lighting up the roof and ensnaring often innocent motorists in the labyrinth system of tickets, fines, court fees, and more.
But this take on over policing also has a twist, which you’ll see leads to an even more revealing truism about law enforcement’s addiction to traffic stops than all the aforementioned incidents combined. Now, this story starts in Stuttgart, Arkansas. There, Sean Chaperone was driving home after a long day at work. He was traveling at the reasonable speed of 35 miles per hour, when suddenly a motorist jumped in front of his car, slowed to 20 miles per hour, slammed on their brakes, and cut him off. Now, Sean did what any driver would do when confronted with a reckless motorist, he switched into the next lane to avoid a collision and maintained his speed. But this seemingly reasonable reaction to a reckless motorist apparently caught the eye of the ever vigilant Stuttgart Police. This laser-like attention was not drawn to the driver who cut Sean off. No, these able practitioners of law enforcement where apparently focused on the fact he changed lanes to avoid an accident. Just watch.
Sean Chaperone:
So he’s behind me, but you couldn’t catch him, but you could catch me?
Speaker 3:
This is what I seen. I seen you slam on your brakes and come to a sliding stop in the middle of-
Sean Chaperone:
That is correct because he cut me off, sir.
Speaker 3:
Listen to me. Listen to me. Listen to me. First of all, I’m not going to roadside court. Second of all, your attitude, you should probably lose it right now. Do you understand?
Sean Chaperone:
Or what?
Speaker 3:
Do you understand?
Sean Chaperone:
Or what do you going to do, man?
Speaker 3:
It is a simple yes or no.
Sean Chaperone:
I don’t answer questions, man. You go do what you got to do.
Speaker 3:
All right.
Taya Graham:
Now, it’s interesting to note that this alleged traffic infraction caught the attention of not one, not two, but three Stuttgart cops, a veritable posse of law enforcement that descended on his car with a variety of allegations. Take a look.
Sean Chaperone:
Got a officer right here over here. Can I get your name and badge number? Are you going to be officer right here too?
Speaker 4:
Oh, the reason why I pulled you over, because I’m the one that actually pulled you over, is a high rate of speed.
Sean Chaperone:
Okay, well, I was cut off. Did you get my speed?
Speaker 4:
What I saw was a high rate of speed.
Sean Chaperone:
So this is-
Speaker 4:
I’m worried about people walking down the street.
Sean Chaperone:
Right. And I’m worried about someone cutting me off.
Speaker 4:
Okay. My issue is people walking down the street. I get it. At that point you should have called 911. “Hey, this is my issue.” We could have solved it then. But you speeding down the street, that’s-
Sean Chaperone:
Doing 35 in a 35?
Speaker 4:
Nu-uh.
Sean Chaperone:
Yes, ma’am. Absolutely.
Speaker 4:
Okay, so the reason why I pulled you over was a high rate of speed. We’re not going to play this game, okay?
Sean Chaperone:
Yeah. No, we’re not. We’re just going to go to court.
Taya Graham:
But even though Sean was now confronted by a full interrogation by these traffic enforcement vigilantes, he had an ace in the hole, so to speak. Because unbeknownst to the cadre of cops, Sean had a dash cam, which was running at the time of the near collision. And when he lets the cops know this, I think it’s curious how they respond to the fact that there is evidence that might challenge their capricious interpretation of the law. Take a look.
Sean Chaperone:
I ain’t got a problem with it. I got a dash cam. Y’all want to say that I’m speeding? Go for it. But the dash cam’s going to make y’all look really funny.
I mean, if she’s going to shine her light in my eyes, I can do the same back.
Speaker 4:
[inaudible 00:05:47], you mind coming up here please?
Sean Chaperone:
I’m going to need a supervisor. Can y’all give me a supervisor?
Speaker 4:
No problem. He just rolled up on here.
Sean Chaperone:
All right, perfect. Hey-
Corporal Williams:
How you doing, sir? Corporal Williams, Stuttgart Police Department.
Sean Chaperone:
All right.
Corporal Williams:
What’s going on, man?
Sean Chaperone:
Not much, [inaudible 00:06:01]. You don’t have to roll it all the way down. How’s it going?
Corporal Williams:
Pretty good. What’s going on?
Sean Chaperone:
Oh, not much. I had someone cut me off back there. They were on a traffic stop. They decided to pull me over. The guy that was behind me was the one that initially cut me off. They told me that they couldn’t catch him, that they decided to pull me over even though he was behind me.
Corporal Williams:
Okay. If he cut you off, how was he behind you?
Sean Chaperone:
Because I jumped around in front of him.
Corporal Williams:
All right.
Sean Chaperone:
He was doing about 25, getting ready to turn. I pulled back over in front of, got in the left-hand lane, passed him, got back over in the right-hand lane, took the right right back here at the stoplight.
Corporal Williams:
Okay. Well, according to the other officer, he said all he saw was you slam on your brakes, stop in the middle of Michigan-
Sean Chaperone:
I did. I slammed on my brakes because I had just gotten cut off and I slammed on the horn. That’s absolutely what I did.
Corporal Williams:
Okay.
Sean Chaperone:
He’s got that part right.
Corporal Williams:
All right. And the car cut you off?
Sean Chaperone:
That is correct. 110%.
Speaker 4:
Well the horn part-
Sean Chaperone:
Can you ask her to get her light out of my eyes, please?
Speaker 4:
[inaudible 00:07:02]-
Corporal Williams:
What’s that?
Sean Chaperone:
Can you ask her to get her light out of my eyes?
Corporal Williams:
Well, if he didn’t see what took place is what I’m saying. You understand that? If he didn’t see the car cut you off because he was on a traffic stop, obviously he’s paying attention to this traffic stop.
Taya Graham:
As I watch this video, I’m reminded of an idea that I think we sometimes forget: the notion that enforcing the law is often subjective and therefore arbitrary. But despite that truism, what happened to Sean here is a stark reminder that once the law is aimed at you, the subjective aspect of law enforcement is simply forgotten. Instead, we, and Sean, are subject to its exacting consequences, often solely because an officer, in their opinion, deem you guilty. And this exacting judgment persists even if the evidence presented challenges their assumptions. Just watch this idea play out as officers give Sean a ticket while simply ignoring his version of events.
Sean Chaperone:
Hey, it’s been well more than 15 minutes. Are we going to go or what? Are we being detained? We free to go? It’s been more than 15 minutes. Turned into an unlawful detainment three and a half minutes ago. We’ve been here 20 minutes, man.
Speaker 3:
Okay.
Sean Chaperone:
All right.
Speaker 3:
Go ahead and roll your window down for me.
Sean Chaperone:
It’s cracked. I can hear you just fine.
Speaker 3:
Okay. That’s cool. I need you to roll the window down.
Sean Chaperone:
I mean-
Speaker 3:
Roll the window open.
Sean Chaperone:
No, sir. I’m not going to. That is against my constitutional rights. I do not have to.
Speaker 3:
Okay. First of all, you need to learn your constitutional rights.
Sean Chaperone:
I do know my constitutional rights. Do…
Speaker 3:
So roll the window down.
Sean Chaperone:
… you know that your vehicle’s an extension of your house?
Speaker 3:
Yeah. Okay.
Sean Chaperone:
Okay.
Speaker 3:
So roll the window down so you can sign this citation.
Sean Chaperone:
I’ll sign the citation. All you got to do is just hand it to me right here.
Speaker 3:
No, I don’t hand my clipboard through the window. Roll your window down.
Sean Chaperone:
If you won’t hand it through your window, then how is rolling my window down going to help?
Speaker 3:
You’re going to lean toward me, you’re going to sign this citation, and we’re going to go about [inaudible 00:08:57], or-
Sean Chaperone:
I can step out and we can sign it. I can step out and we can sign it.
Speaker 3:
Or I’m going to take you to jail for obstruction. You understand?
Sean Chaperone:
Obstruction is a physical crime. You do realize that?
Speaker 3:
You are obstructing my justice.
Sean Chaperone:
Obstructing is a physical crime.
Corporal Williams:
You can go ahead. [inaudible 00:09:15] refused to sign, hand him his copy, and go [inaudible 00:09:17]. It doesn’t change it either way.
Speaker 3:
Are you going to sign my ticket?
Sean Chaperone:
I mean, did he just said… What did he just say?
Speaker 3:
[inaudible 00:09:27].
Sean Chaperone:
That’s why we have to have y’all’s supervisors here to keep y’all honest.
Taya Graham:
Now, the ticket was just the beginning of Sean’s ordeal, a series of events that have forced him to fight back in a way we will be discussing with him soon. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Steven Janis, who’s been looking into the case. Steven, thank you so much for joining us.
Steven Janis:
Taya, thanks having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
So Steven, you’ve been reaching out to the Stuttgart Police. What are they saying?
Steven Janis:
Well, Taya, not a lot right now. I reached out to the Chief of Police of Stuttgart through his departmental email, asked him a couple questions, most notably, why the obstruction of justice charges? I thought that was kind of weird. I asked him if he actually thought that was a legitimate use of that charge in that situation. I also asked him why they didn’t take into account Mr. Chaperone’s version of events, why they didn’t look for the other driver. I’m waiting to hear back. If I hear something, I’ll mention it in the chat. I haven’t heard it back yet, but I will keep reporting on it.
Taya Graham:
Often when reporting on these types of questionable tickets, there are some underlying reasons rather than just public safety. You’ve been looking into the town itself. What have you learned?
Steven Janis:
Well, it’s really weird. I went to the Stuttgart town website to look through their financial information, budgets, et cetera. Nothing was posted. It was completely blank. I’m showing you on the screen right now. They do not share budget information with the public, which I think raises a lot of questions. They’ve also given police officers a raise, although they weren’t making a lot of money, like $11 an hour for a rookie, so maybe they need to raise money and write a lot of tickets. I get that feeling because they really don’t share information. Lack of transparency always leaves questions unanswered.
Taya Graham:
So I talked about the idea of an arbitrary nature of police power and how it can infect the process of law enforcement. I know you have some ideas on the topic. Can you talk about them?
Steven Janis:
Yeah, Taya. There’s nothing more anti-democratic than arbitrary power, especially police power, because the consequences of when it is imposed upon us are life altering. So, really, giving someone the ability to, say, write you a ticket when it’s not justified, or put you in a cage when there’s no real basis for criminal charges, all results in the same thing, a sort of roving sort of mobile fascism that really can entrap you in a system that’s unjust. And I think that’s why we have to keep our eye on, and always hold in check, indiscriminate and, what we say, arbitrary police power.
Taya Graham:
And now to discuss this confrontation with Stuttgart Police, why he challenged the officers, and how he’s fighting back against the ticket, I’m joined by Sean Chaperone. Sean, thank you for joining me.
Sean Chaperone:
Thank you for having me.
Taya Graham:
So first, tell me why you were pulled over. What are we seeing at the beginning of this video?
Sean Chaperone:
So initially, I had turned left onto the street that I was on. There was a vehicle that had cut me off and had their right turn signal on. After they cut me off, they turned their turn signal on signaling that they were going to turn into the motel. Well, when they had cut me off, I was doing approximately 35. They were doing about 20. They cut me off, I slammed on my brakes, slammed on the horn, and then got in the left-hand lane, went around them, and then got back in the right-hand lane. They never ended up turning into the motel and ended up coming up behind me. Well, I took a right at the stoplight, and that’s when the police got behind me and pulled me over and said that I was going at a high rate of speed.
Taya Graham:
I think it’s interesting that the officer said that he chose to stop you as opposed to the more reckless driver. How did they explain that?
Sean Chaperone:
Yeah, well, initially in that video, he says that he saw both vehicles. He saw me and the vehicle that had cut me off. And then in the video three times, he denies ever seeing the vehicle cut me off. So my question is, what did the officer really see? I think he just heard some things. He just heard me slamming on my brakes and blowing on my horn, and then decided that I was the aggressor even though I was driving defensively.
Taya Graham:
Sean, some people might say you were confrontational, and others might say you were standing on your rights. How did the cop respond to your pushback?
Sean Chaperone:
He initially walked up to the vehicle with an attitude, yelling at me. Personally, I mean, I was just acting defensively. Yet again, I was driving defensively, and then when he comes up acting aggressively, now I’m acting defensively. And I’ve seen people say that, “Well, this is a bad time for an audit.” Well, first of all, this wasn’t an audit. I’m just on my way home. So this is… Exactly, this is just me standing up for my rights. And unfortunately, he got a little upset about it.
Taya Graham:
You seem very knowledgeable about your rights and the rules surrounding traffic enforcement. How do you think that helped you in the situation? How do you think things would’ve turned out if you hadn’t?
Sean Chaperone:
Oh, it definitely helped me in the situation. I mean, towards the end of it, they’re threatening to arrest me. So, I mean, definitely know your rights and record the police. Even if you don’t know your rights, just record the police to hold them accountable because there’s so many times that their body cams come up missing when it comes to court, and the only thing that you have to stand on is your evidence.
Taya Graham:
How did you become so knowledgeable about your rights? What inspired you to learn so much?
Sean Chaperone:
Well, my father’s a retired police officer. He is a retired K9 officer, so that definitely helped. As well as him being a police officer, he has also gone over the last probably four or five years and really hammered to me, educating me on my rights, because he sees it as well. He sees the officers that are stripping people of their rights and he never was that way, but he sees it happening now and he sees that if we don’t stand up for it, we’re going to lose it.
Taya Graham:
Did you have any concern that the officer might violate your rights because of your pushback, because of the way you asserted yourself?
Sean Chaperone:
Absolutely not. If they’re going to violate my rights, if they want to arrest me, I guess that they have every right to do so. I’m not going to let them intimidate me or try and bully me in any way, shape, fashion, or form. Let’s say they would’ve arrested me. I mean, we’d be going to court right now on a counter suit for unlawful arrest. So, no. I mean, for me, personally, it doesn’t intimidate me.
Taya Graham:
So I noticed that you were counting down the time, that the officer only had 15 minutes to write you a ticket. What was your next move if he took over 15 minutes?
Sean Chaperone:
I mean, I wasn’t going to run. That’s for sure. It’s a state specific law. It’s Arkansas Criminal 3.1 that states that an officer only has 15 minutes to write you a citation. So it’s a very state specific thing. I wasn’t going to leave, but I was definitely going to get out of my vehicle, start asking questions, because now it’s starting to turn into an unlawful detainment. So that’s pretty much what I would’ve done.
Taya Graham:
So what exactly was the ticket for?
Sean Chaperone:
So the ticket ended up being for… I think it was reckless and prohibited driving. It’s $150 ticket and currently we are going to court. The court date is, I believe, August 3rd. So it’s going to trial and I will be representing myself and I look forward to seeing the officers on the stand.
Taya Graham:
Now, I think it’s important to expound a little bit on the idea Steven and I discussed, namely the arbitrary nature of police power. It’s important because I think it acknowledges that policing is just as much an idea as it is an institution, and for that reason, something worth examining beyond the usual critiques that views cops and badges as the inevitable result of our ongoing experiment with self-governance.
Let’s remember, as we’ve said before, modern policing was one of the last iterations of democratic governance to emerge, an institution that didn’t evolve until the form resembles today until the mid 19th century. Which is why we need to sometimes examine it in a way that doesn’t simply assume it should, or even inevitably, exist. Not so much to say we don’t need police, but rather a way to truly understand what the prevalence of policing in our country truly engenders. In other words, how does the existence and growth and proliferation of law enforcement actually affect the way we live? To answer that question, as I already mentioned, we need to explore the notion of the arbitrary nature of police power, meaning how the latitude to enforce the law, take our freedom, and sometimes even our lives, affects how we both move through the world and even view ourselves.
First, we need to focus on the idea of what it means to be subject to arbitrary power and how it affects us. I want to examine this idea through the prism of another refrain we hear over and over again from politicians and other elites. Namely, “No one is above the law.” Now, this idea has become an oft used talking point of the mainstream media and their elite group of proselytizing pundits. The concept that the law is an unbiased arbiter that applies to everyone is pretty much a mantra for elites to pat themselves on the back as objective arbiters of justice.
Well, fair enough. But it’s an intriguing invocation when you consider just how the law works, especially if you view it through the lens of the stories we have reported on for this show. Because as we’ve seen, in case after case, how the law is applied can be quite arbitrary. In other words, whether we’re talking about a Texas firefighter falsely accused of a DUI, a man whose car was searched while he was walking his dog, or this story about a quite subjective rendering of traffic laws, all of this means, in reality, is that the law is arbitrary for those of us who actually have to live with it. Which, of course, sits in stark contrast to those who don’t, namely the cops who enforce it. How do I know?
Well, consider the predicament of a dedicated New York City traffic cop, Matthew Bianchi. Bianchi was a veteran officer who actually liked enforcing traffic laws. That’s because, at a young age, Bianchi lost a friend in an accident to a reckless driver. Therefore, when he felt someone was being particularly over the top and driving poorly, he would write a ticket as the law requires. That is with one fairly broad exception. Turns out New York cops are given what are known as courtesy cards. What are courtesy cards? Well, basically a get out of jail free pass handed out by police unions, so officers can give them to friends, family, and anyone else they want to. So when an officer pulls someone over, regardless of the infraction, the informal rule is to let them go, provided they have a courtesy card.
Unfortunately, for Bianchi, this was a problem. He found himself often having to let people go who were endangering others. To prove his point, he cited an encounter when he pulled over a driver who was not just recklessly speeding but didn’t even have a license or insurance. That same motorist had a courtesy card, which he refused to honor and subsequently ticketed the driver. But this exercise of officer discretion did not go unnoticed. Soon he found himself the recipient of retaliation across the department. He was demoted and the union told him it would not protect him. He was sent to work in the borough of Staten Island, where he estimated half, that’s 50% of the people he pulled over, had courtesy cards.
To make matters worse, officers can buy them for a dollar a piece from the union, no word on who keeps the dollar by the way, and hand them out to anyone they want. Things came to a head when Bianchi refused to honor a card from a relative of the department’s highest ranking officer, a move that led to further demotion. Now, Bianchi is suing over what he says is unfair retaliation and abuse of his discretion. But I think this whole ordeal makes a more interesting and important point. And that is, of course some people are above the law. In fact, the people who are empowered to enforce it are not just above it, but can grant impunity to friends, family, and anyone else they please. And this so-called unqualified immunity is applied indiscriminately to anyone and everyone who happens to know a cop who happens to have a dollar.
But it also points out the impact arbitrary enforcement has on a democratic, supposedly free society. Because if the people who enforce the law are not subject to it, then the law itself truly has no meaning. If the cops who profess to be the bastion between uncivilized and civilized society can dole out pardons like confectionary treats, then what we have is not a nation of laws, but a Congress of tyranny. That’s right. I said it. I know it sounds a little discomfiting, but it’s true. And please let me explain why I used it.
Let me start with a question. Have you ever worked for a bad boss who made your life miserable? Who constantly changed your assignments, ignored your input, belittled you in front of others, called you at all hours and otherwise just treated you like a toy? Because if you have, then you know what it’s like to work for a tyrant. Someone who’s bounded by no rules, a person who implicitly works under the assumption that what applies to you does not apply to them. And by embracing that notion, they are then free to wreak havoc on your life any way they see fit. Well, that’s called tyranny, and I think you can see how this concept is applicable to the police. Because if cops in New York can enforce laws on others that don’t apply to themselves and their friends, then they’re basically above the law. And if they can retaliate against people who follow the law honorably, they can assure they are immune from it. That means they, in a sense, become the law itself, which literally allows them to engage in a form of individual tyranny towards the people they subject to it.
Think about it. How can the institution that professes to fairly enforce the law simply exclude themselves from it? How can a group of people called law enforcers use that same power to evade it? The point is that this idea of occupational immunization simply makes the law wholly subjective. That is, when the law enforcers can also be the lawbreakers, the whole process becomes subject to the whims of an individual, namely a tyrant. That is why we have to continue to hold cops accountable, because clearly it’s up to us, the people, to guard our freedoms and preserve our rights from the people who would otherwise abuse them.
I want to thank Sean for coming forward and helping educate us about our rights and sharing his experience. Thank you, Sean. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Steven Janis, for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you, Steven.
Steven Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
And I want to thank friends of the show, Nolie D and Lacey R, for their support. We appreciate you. And a very special thanks to our 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., and Louis P., and Super Friends, Shane Busta, 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 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 and 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. 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.
Bradley was finishing a walk with his dog along a nature trail near the rural town of Plattsmouth, Nebraska when local police suddenly pulled him over. When the officers immediately went for Bradley’s center console and produced a CBD pipe, he knew something was off. When he confronted the police, they admitted they’d searched his parked car while he was away—and then waited for him so they could pull him over while driving. Police Accountability Report examines this disturbing case, and what it says about the activities police departments devote their bloated budgets toward.
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 who tried to search a man’s car while it was parked and he was walking his dog. But it’s what happened when the officer confronted the motorist on the road that reveals just how destructive and unfettered police power really can be.
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 @tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It does help us get the word out and can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there. And we do have an Accountability Reports Patreon page, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. Anything you can spare is truly appreciated. Okay, we’ve gotten that out of the way.
Now, if there is one refrain we hear from police unions and cop partisans and tough on crime politicians, it’s that there just aren’t enough cops. The complaint, no matter how much we fund them, is that law enforcement is simply stretched too thin to do their jobs. Of course, if that is true, I think the video I’m about to show you now will require some explaining from the elites who demand more dollars for cops and less power for us because the encounter with the cop on the screen now calls into question the entire, “We need more cops,” mantra, a sequence of events that paints an entirely different picture than the conjured crisis of a country chronically short on law enforcement.
Because if it’s true, why would the officer who I’m showing now on the video do what he did here? That is, searching for a parked car in rural Nebraska next to a nature trail with no evidence of a crime. If there are too few cops, then I am all ears as to why this particular act of law enforcement is worth the precious time of the dwindling number of officers on the job.
Now the story starts in Plattsmouth, Nebraska. There, Bradley Connolly was walking his dog on a nature trail after a hard day at work. At the time, Connolly was building a dollar store for the town, which is why he was taking a breather and enjoying nature with his beloved dog, Rosebud. Afterwards, Bradley and Rosebud hopped into his car and headed on their way. However, he was almost immediately pulled over for a traffic stop and was surprised that the officer reached straight into his car and headed for the center console and retrieved his CBD pipe. When Bradley confronted the officer and asked the officer how he knew where the pipe was, he made a shocking discovery. Just listen.
Sargeant Sommer:
I said I smelled marijuana coming from your vehicle, and that’s not marijuana, sir?
Bradley Connolly:
You went in my car… No, that’s CBD, but you went in my car when I was over there.
Sargeant Sommer:
So now you know you’re playing games with me.
Bradley Connolly:
I’m not playing games.
Sargeant Sommer:
Yeah, because you knew.
Bradley Connolly:
That you went in my car. You went right to it. Yeah. You shouldn’t have went in my car. Nobody gave you permission to go in my car.
Sargeant Sommer:
Yes. So let me explain how this works, okay? Your vehicle is a rental car. It’s parked in a place that it’s not supposed to be.
Bradley Connolly:
We’re on a trail.
Sargeant Sommer:
Let me me explain to you the situation. If you want to listen, I’m more than glad to explain to you, okay?
Bradley Connolly:
I’m listening. I’m listening.
Sargeant Sommer:
Like I said, you’re parked in an area where you’re not supposed to be parked. We just had a bunch of break-ins and cars stolen out here last week.
Bradley Connolly:
That’s not me, man. I just explained to you, I’m here-
Sargeant Sommer:
It doesn’t matters if it’s you. I’m explaining to you, your car is not registered to you. It’s a rental car and it’s parked in a place-
Bradley Connolly:
I’m here-
Sargeant Sommer:
I’m not going to continue to talk over you.
Bradley Connolly:
You’re being idolatry.
Sargeant Sommer:
You can stop and listen-
Bradley Connolly:
This should be a consensual conversation.
Sargeant Sommer:
It should be a, you listen to me because I’m explaining to you the reason why we are where we are right now. Okay?
Taya Graham:
This officer revealed that he had opened his parked rental car, carried out a search without his permission or presence, and then waited for him to drive away to pull him over.
Sargeant Sommer:
Okay? You’re parked in a place where you’re not supposed to be parked.
Bradley Connolly:
Not a crime.
Sargeant Sommer:
I’m sorry?
Bradley Connolly:
That’s not a crime.
Sargeant Sommer:
Blocking the road is. I could have towed your vehicle.
Bradley Connolly:
I was off to the side.
Sargeant Sommer:
Your tire’s in the roadway, okay?
Bradley Connolly:
I’m glad you didn’t. I’m glad you didn’t tow.
Sargeant Sommer:
Yeah, I’m glad I didn’t either. I was waiting because you know what? I’ll be honest with you. I’ve already run you. I know you have warrants in Illinois for burglary-
Bradley Connolly:
They’re unextraditable.
Sargeant Sommer:
… For burglary and drugs-
Bradley Connolly:
Out of Illinois.
Sargeant Sommer:
See? Exactly. You know, all this, and yet you want to play games with me.
Bradley Connolly:
I do. I’m not playing games.
Sargeant Sommer:
When I asked you for your ID, you could have simply given me your ID and we would’ve been done.
Bradley Connolly:
I didn’t want to.
Sargeant Sommer:
But you want to argue and you want to play games.
Bradley Connolly:
So you broke into my car…I’m not.
Sargeant Sommer:
I did break into your car. I have a right to determine if this car is stolen and who owns the vehicle.
Bradley Connolly:
You could have run the plates. All that other stuff is irrelevant.
Sargeant Sommer:
I did. You know what? Rental cars aren’t reported stolen until 30 days after.
Taya Graham:
Now, Bradley was of course disturbed by the officer’s actions. So he did whatever US citizen has the right to do and he asked the officer to legally justify the search. But how the officer responded is a troubling commentary on the state of our constitutional rights at this particular moment. Just watch.
Sargeant Sommer:
You can sit here and argue the law with me all day, but guess what? I’ve been a cop for over 20 years.
Bradley Connolly:
Okay.
Sargeant Sommer:
I know what the law is, okay? So all you have to do-
Bradley Connolly:
Then you know that warrants are unextraditable.
Sargeant Sommer:
Yeah, exactly.
Bradley Connolly:
Yeah, and so-
Sargeant Sommer:
All you had to do was provide me a driver’s license.
Bradley Connolly:
I shouldn’t have to, man.
Sargeant Sommer:
Yeah, you should.
Bradley Connolly:
This this isn’t Nazi Germany.
Sargeant Sommer:
If you’re in an area doing something illegal-
Bradley Connolly:
This isn’t Nazi Germany. I wasn’t doing anything illegal. I was walking my dog.
Sargeant Sommer:
I have reasonable suspicion that you have a vehicle that’s not registered to you.
Bradley Connolly:
Not so.
Sargeant Sommer:
It’s a rental car parked illegally in an area that had break-ins last week.
Bradley Connolly:
Not so.
Sargeant Sommer:
I have every right to do an investigation. That’s what I’m going to do.
Bradley Connolly:
Listen, I’ve been up here seven weeks building that store, man.
Sargeant Sommer:
Right.
Bradley Connolly:
No trouble. As a matter of fact, the police in Plattsmouth were very, very good.
Deputy Murphy:
[inaudible 00:05:39].
Bradley Connolly:
I can’t believe you went in my car.
Sargeant Sommer:
This is very simple.
Bradley Connolly:
No, it’s not simple. When you break into my car-
Sargeant Sommer:
It’s not breaking in, sir.
Bradley Connolly:
It is. You can’t-
Sargeant Sommer:
No, it’s not.
Bradley Connolly:
You can’t just go in the car.
Sargeant Sommer:
You left the vehicle unlocked.
Bradley Connolly:
It doesn’t matter.
Sargeant Sommer:
I have a right to go-
Bradley Connolly:
No, you don’t.
Sargeant Sommer:
… In your car and determine who owns it.
Bradley Connolly:
So anybody has the right to go-
Sargeant Sommer:
I have a right to-
Bradley Connolly:
Come on, man.
Sargeant Sommer:
I’m a law enforcement officer. It’s a difference.
Bradley Connolly:
Yeah, and I’m a citizen of the United States. Free.
Sargeant Sommer:
There’s a big difference.
Taya Graham:
Just a note. Searching a car that is on a public road requires two prongs, so to speak, for it to meet the threshold of conducting it lawfully. One, the officer must have probable cause to search, and that means reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred. And two, there has to be exigent circumstances. That means the car has to have been on a public road where someone can move it.
So in this case, that means probable cause is critical to making this search lawful because the car is parked on the side street where, conceivably, it could drive off. Which is why I want you to listen again to the officer legally justifying the search. But also, take note of how once he realizes how his case is weak, he throws every theory against the wall, so to speak, to see if it sticks. Take a look.
Bradley Connolly:
And I’m a citizen of the United States. Free.
Sargeant Sommer:
There’s a big difference.
Bradley Connolly:
Free.
Sargeant Sommer:
Yeah, exactly.
Bradley Connolly:
Yeah, exactly what? You can’t just go-
Sargeant Sommer:
And you want to stop arguing. Yes, I can. By law, I can determine who owns this vehicle and where it’s supposed to be be, okay?
Bradley Connolly:
You don’t have a supervisor?
Sargeant Sommer:
I am the supervisor.
Bradley Connolly:
Man. You can’t go into go into somebody-
Sargeant Sommer:
You lied to me, first off. Okay?
Bradley Connolly:
I did not lie to you.
Sargeant Sommer:
I’ve explained this and I’m not going to continue to explain it.
Bradley Connolly:
I understand what you’re saying.
Sargeant Sommer:
You did lie to you. I did say I smelled marijuana in your car. You said, “There’s no marijuana.”
Bradley Connolly:
You went in my car and you found it, man. Without my permission.
Sargeant Sommer:
I smelled it before.
Bradley Connolly:
No you didn’t.
Sargeant Sommer:
Yeah.
Bradley Connolly:
Because I haven’t smoked it in two days.
Sargeant Sommer:
Guess what? It doesn’t matter. Marijuana has a distinct smell and I smelled it earlier. It’s on my body camera. When I was looking in your vehicle for a rental agreement to determine who owned the vehicle to make sure it wasn’t stolen.
Bradley Connolly:
Okay.
Sargeant Sommer:
All completely legal-
Bradley Connolly:
Was it stolen?
Sargeant Sommer:
Under the state law and under the constitution, okay?
Bradley Connolly:
Well, I’m not trying-
Sargeant Sommer:
Simple. Plain and simple. And so this is CBD, it’s not marijuana?
Bradley Connolly:
That’s correct.
Deputy Murphy:
[inaudible 00:07:47].
Bradley Connolly:
That’s correct.
Sargeant Sommer:
Okay. So when it gets tested, it’s not going to come back as marijuana.
Bradley Connolly:
That’s absolutely 100% true.
Taya Graham:
Oh really? You smelled marijuana, Officer? But wasn’t the car door closed? Isn’t that what you admitted on camera? So how did you smell this marijuana? I mean, had Bradley literally been smoking a bong two hours prior to your arrival so that the car reeked? Because your probable cause only works if you opened the door, and that is before you have met the legal threshold. So we’re going to have to give you a fail on our impromptu field constitutional policing test.
But don’t worry, I’m not going to ask you to touch your finger to your nose or stand on one foot. I would just suggest you take some time to review a few law books. You may find it enlightening. But I digress.
Now, Bradley’s obvious discomfort turns into a heated discussion about the law, which the officer declares he doesn’t have to explain. A curious assertion given his clear lack of understanding revealed by his haphazard and possibly illegal search. Just take a look.
Sargeant Sommer:
So then why were you so worried about it?
Bradley Connolly:
I’m not worried, man. This is my right.
Sargeant Sommer:
You’re making a complete issue out of it.
Bradley Connolly:
I’m trying not to.
Sargeant Sommer:
No, you absolutely are.
Bradley Connolly:
You should watch some of my videos, man. I highlight great officers all over the country.
Sargeant Sommer:
Right.
Bradley Connolly:
I do.
Sargeant Sommer:
Okay. And I appreciate that you-
Bradley Connolly:
Yeah, but you’re not. You’re acting like a tyrant right now.
Sargeant Sommer:
You know what? Here’s the situation. If your job is to drive around and try to all lure officers into doing something-
Bradley Connolly:
I don’t do that, bro.
Sargeant Sommer:
Because-
Bradley Connolly:
That’s not me.
Sargeant Sommer:
… Obviously you parked in a place that you shouldn’t have been.
Bradley Connolly:
No, it’s a golf course with a walk. I came back with my dog. The first thing you should have said is, “Oh, he just took his dog for a long walk.”
Sargeant Sommer:
Right.
Bradley Connolly:
Yeah.
Sargeant Sommer:
Right.
Bradley Connolly:
Do you think I’m going to take my dog to break into fricking houses? Come on.
Sargeant Sommer:
You know what, sir? All kinds of things happen, unfortunately.
Bradley Connolly:
Well-
Sargeant Sommer:
My job is to investigate those things. Again, like I said, last week, multiple cars were stolen… I’m sorry. Multiple vehicles were broken into-
Bradley Connolly:
That happens all over the country, man.
Sargeant Sommer:
… And a car was stolen.
Bradley Connolly:
I’m all over the country. I’ve seen it.
Sargeant Sommer:
And that’s fine. I’m glad that you’re all over the country and I’m glad that you’re doing your part to be a great citizen.
Bradley Connolly:
Can I have your name and badge number?
Sargeant Sommer:
Sergeant Summer. 92021.
Bradley Connolly:
S-O-M-M-E-R?
Sargeant Sommer:
That’s correct.
Bradley Connolly:
And you, sir?
Deputy Murphy:
Deputy Murphy.
Bradley Connolly:
Murphy? And your badge number?
Deputy Murphy:
[inaudible 00:09:58].
Bradley Connolly:
One more time?
Deputy Murphy:
92032.
Bradley Connolly:
Thank you.
Taya Graham:
You know, just watching the video and the officer’s justification that there have been car break-ins is intriguing. Is that why he had to then break into Bradley’s car? I mean, if, as officer says, he is investigating the crimes, how is going through someone’s car going to solve it? How is searching out parked cars for a supposed criminal who’s breaking into cars productive?
Finally, the officer decides that contrary to the evidence, he has to entangle Bradley in the legal system by issuing him a citation. But he also, without justification, confiscated Bradley’s wallet, which Bradley alleges had $2,000 in it. Money he has yet to get back. Just watch.
Sargeant Sommer:
All right. We’re going to get you a citation for the paraphernalia and the marijuana. If it comes back that it’s not marijuana, then most likely they’ll drop the charge. But I can’t field test it at this point right here. It smells like marijuana. It appears to be marijuana.
Bradley Connolly:
Same thing as CBD, you know?
Sargeant Sommer:
Okay. I don’t use marijuana, I don’t use CBD, so I can’t think of the difference.
Bradley Connolly:
Well maybe you should, because you’re a little high-strung.
Sargeant Sommer:
No.
Bradley Connolly:
Yes.
Sargeant Sommer:
Well unfortunately, that happens when people are uncooperative.
Bradley Connolly:
No.
Sargeant Sommer:
That’s what happens.
Bradley Connolly:
I’m not uncooperative.
Sargeant Sommer:
You were absolutely uncooperative.
Bradley Connolly:
You have no right to go through my vehicle. You have no-
Sargeant Sommer:
I’m not going to continue.
Bradley Connolly:
I don’t care if you want to continue or not.
Sargeant Sommer:
Why don’t you Google the constitution?
Bradley Connolly:
Why don’t you Google… Man-
Sargeant Sommer:
You’re good.
Bradley Connolly:
Tell me what the first amendment is in.
Deputy Murphy:
Right.
Sargeant Sommer:
I choose to-
Bradley Connolly:
Because you love to put people in cages.
Sargeant Sommer:
Sir, if you choose to be a criminal and be belligerent to officers-
Bradley Connolly:
I’m not a criminal.
Sargeant Sommer:
That’s your-
Bradley Connolly:
You’re a criminal.
Sargeant Sommer:
That’s your decision.
Bradley Connolly:
You went through my car while I was walking my dog.
Sargeant Sommer:
Legally check… If I leave-
Bradley Connolly:
He’s got my wallet. That’s the only money I have.
Sargeant Sommer:
Think that matters that he has your wallet?
Bradley Connolly:
Shut up.
Taya Graham:
But this encounter was just the beginning of the legal repercussions for Bradley, because the officer and department contacted his employer after he posted a video exposing the illegal search. And the consequences for Bradley were devastating.
And for more on that, we will be speaking to Bradley shortly. But before we do, I’m joined by my reporting partner Stephen Janis. Steven, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
So Steven, first I know you have some breaking news about the case we reported on last week involving a former Texas firefighter. Denton County sheriffs used a bogus DUI to destroy his career and run him out of the department. What’s your update?
Stephen Janis:
Well, what’s amazing to me is when I sent the case to prosecutors for comment, because I’m like, “Why did you prosecute this case?” They said they have no evidence of this case even existing. And I said, “Blood tests, whatever?” They’re like, “No, we have nothing. We never received this case.”
I think it’s really questionable. I mean this case was devastating for Thomas. He was basically run out of the fire department. It turned his life upside down, and yet this case ever made to prosecutors. Let’s remember, prosecutors are a check on police. They’re very, very, very important to make sure the police don’t file bogus charges. In this case prosecutors haven’t seen it, and I think it raises a lot of more questions about the Denton sheriff’s office.
Taya Graham:
Wow. Steven, that is really disturbing. Please continue to follow up on that and keep us updated.
Okay. So back to Bradley. You have been reaching out to the Nebraska Police Department. How are they explaining this case?
Stephen Janis:
Well, I reached out to the Plattsmouth prosecutor because I really wanted to see how this case was processed, and he sent me a very detailed email about what happened with the charges. First of all, the charges were dropped. He would not comment on the legality of the search, but he did say nothing was used against Mr. Connolly from that search, and he also said that he disputes, or at least was not able to reach a conclusion about the $2,000 that Bradley said was missing.
He says that he did an investigation, it’s still ongoing, but at this point he has no evidence either way. So that’s where this case stands. Certainly the prosecutor seemed to take it seriously and the prosecutor also said there were no charges brought against him. The case was dropped. So that’s pretty much where we are right now with this case.
Taya Graham:
So the officer seems to suggest that the smell of marijuana is probable cause, but using that as a pretext is facing some pushback. Can you talk about that?
Stephen Janis:
If there is one statement into probable cause that is really eroded our constitutional rights, it’s the smell of marijuana. It’s basically been used as a bogus pretext for decades and it’s wreaked a lot of havoc. In our own city, we had police officers chase two young men for the smell of marijuana at 100 miles per hour and cause a fatal accident that killed three innocent people.
So really, a lot of states and a lot of legal authorities are saying it is time to end this. This is not a statement of probable cause. It’s absolutely irrelevant in the particular case we’re talking about. Supposedly searching for cars that have been rifled through or stolen. What the hell does marijuana have to do with that? So it’s evidence not even pertaining. It is bogus and it really erodes our rights and a lot of states are saying, “Stop.”
Taya Graham:
And now to talk to the man who endured this invasive search and some of the lingering consequences for him. I’m joined by Bradley Connolly. Bradley, thank you so much for joining me.
Bradley Connolly:
Absolutely. Thank you. I’ve been watching you since the beginning. You and Steve, I love you guys.
Taya Graham:
So first, what are we seeing at the beginning of the video? I mean, at first I didn’t even realize it was a traffic stop.
Bradley Connolly:
If I may back up just a little bit. So for the past five years I’ve built Dollar Trees and Family Dollars around the country, and I built one in Plattsmouth, Nebraska, which is a small town. Her and I actually went through a tornado there during the build, but I had to come back to hang up a couple signs and do a couple things, and I’d rented a car. I drove 12 hours approximately with her. Of course we stopped along the way and stuff, but while I was up there building the store, we always went to this rural golf course and there was long paths and walks and it was not in golf season, so nobody golfed.
And we had got there maybe 20 minutes before dusk or so on this long drive and I said, like I always do for her, “Hey, do you want to go to the park or golf course? Do you want to go to the park?” And she gets really excited. So we pulled off there and I actually had pulled behind somebody, and like I say, there’s a few neighborhoods around, but cornfield surround the thing. I mean it’s out in the middle of nowhere. And we went on a walk and I came back and I got in my car and it was completely dark when we got back. And when I started the rental car, I noticed that some lights came on in the back of me. And me being an advocate, I was just like, “I hope that this isn’t a cop.” Of course I’m following all the speed limits and the laws and as I turn at the stop sign, I see the insignia. And he started the lights and I pulled over and he asked me for my license, and me being an advocate, I wanted to know what I did wrong.
Taya Graham:
So why were you initially pulled over by the officer?
Bradley Connolly:
When I asked him why he pulled me over, he said I was suspicious. And I asked him, of course, “A suspicion of misdemeanor or felony, and how am I being suspicious?” And then he went from that to, “It smells like marijuana in the car,” which it definitely didn’t. It was a rental car. And that’s when they pulled me out and went into the center console.
When he pulled me over, I rolled down the window. He wanted my ID and I said, “If I haven’t committed a crime, I’m not going to give you my ID.” And he called his back-up, and that was Deputy Murphy, came up and pulled the taser at my passenger side window and told me to get out. So I got out and I had no idea that they had went through my car. And I’m not the smartest person in the world, but I got out and the only thing I had in the car… It was a rental car. I don’t smoke marijuana in the car, CBD or anything, so I know that the car didn’t smell. It was in the center console, it was a pipe, and he went right to it and pulled it out. And like I say, I’m not the smartest person in the world, but I thought, “He’s been in my car.”
Taya Graham:
Were you surprised to discover through your conversation that the officer had admitted to searching your car before he pulled you over?
Bradley Connolly:
Honestly, I was mind baffled. I couldn’t believe that he had went into my car. I mean, if I would’ve broke into his car in his reasoning, which, again, mind baffled. It gives me chills. It makes me so upset. He said it was because I left the car door unlocked, and now that should tell everybody how rural the place is. My wallet was on the front seat with $2,000 on it. That’s how rural the place was.
I questioned him that way and sure enough, he said he had every right to go through my car and he’d been through my car. If you find a pipe in a car as an officer, you probably are going to want to search the trunk. He never looked in the trunk. You’re probably going to want to search under the seats. In my presence, he never looked under the seats. So anyway, from my point of view video, you can kind of see… And I stopped at one point and went live, and I think I’ve tried to air that, but it’s all bits and pieces. That’s kind of why I wanted the dash cam footage. And I’ve been trying head over heels. I’ve spoke with the prosecutor.
Taya Graham:
Do you think your knowledge of the law helped protect you from the situation becoming worse?
Bradley Connolly:
To answer your question, I think it could have went both ways and I’ll tell you why. Because if I wouldn’t have known my rights, I probably would’ve handed over my ID and I knew I had warrants for theft of my dog right here. Long story, but ex, easy. It’s nothing. But I knew they were non-extraditable. I could have just handed him my ID and been on the way, maybe. He probably would’ve escalated it, the way he is.
Now, the other aspect of that is I was really angry that he went into my car. All I wanted to do a after a 12-hour drive was get to the store, finish up what I had to do, get some rest, and go back. He stole my wallet that night. I ended up having to sleep in my car because I didn’t have any way to pay for anything. That being said, I don’t like bullies and the way I reacted isn’t typically how I talk to people. I try to treat everybody with kindness and respect, and I have so much mad love for people and things. I really do. And I try to portray that, but with auditing cops who seem to be untouchable and above the law, something in me just gets so mad because I see them treat people… And I’ve been in areas where I’ve seen what they do because they can. And just because you can doesn’t mean it’s right.
Taya Graham:
Why do you think the officer was so fixated on it being a rental car?
Bradley Connolly:
I have no idea. That’s a good question. I’ve never really thought of it before, so I don’t have an answer that I know to be the truth. All I can say is that all the police in Plattsmouth, they would stop by and see me building the store. I built it with one other guy, and I got to know them. They were okay. They watched my tools and my equipment. So it was really, really odd to me. I don’t know why.
Had he just been doing his job… And I have no problem with him running. He sees a car, they’re running the plates, see if it’s stolen or whatnot. But when he broke into it and then ran my license and all that good stuff, that really irritated me. There’s no burglary tools. There’s a dog and a leash and a guy coming back on a trail. I mean, use your common sense. If somebody didn’t call in that there was a burglary, why are you bothering me?
Taya Graham:
I have to admit, this does seem a bit like what some people call a fishing expedition.
Bradley Connolly:
I know exactly what you mean. Even in the video, if you watch the entire video, I told them that’s all the money I had on me. I had $2,000 in it. Well, when they released me, I took off, obviously, and then I realized that they never gave me my wallet or my money back. So it was two miles up the road and I called dispatch, the sheriff’s office, and I told them, “Hey, they never gave me my wallet back.”
And they told me… Mind you, two miles, two minutes. It’s 15 minutes to the police station. They told me it was in the property, I could get it tomorrow. And that’s when I went in live and they told me that the property officer wasn’t there. So a month later they sent me back my wallet without my money in it. So they stole my $2,000. And that’s all on video, too.
Taya Graham:
How has posting this encounter impacted you? I mean, it did cost you your job.
Bradley Connolly:
Well, it’s affected many nights of sleep. I have made countless calls to the prosecutor’s office, countless calls to the police department and he called my work, Southwestern Services, who gets the contracts from Dollar Tree. I don’t know what he said. It was never told to me what he said. I tried to FOIA request that phone call and apparently there wasn’t one, but they told me that I could no longer work for them because of the video.
And my response was, “I did nothing wrong.” I didn’t commit any kind of crime. I actually highlighted Dollar Tree and Family Dollar, and I put my blood, sweat, and tears into it for five years. I’ve built maybe 60 by myself, ground up. I hired a few people to help me along the way, but I know them backwards and forwards. I practically don’t even need the plans. So anyways, to answer your question, they told me that I could no longer work for him.
Taya Graham:
Okay, so the officer referred to a warrant. What was the warrant for?
Bradley Connolly:
So the warrants are… There’s two. I was building a store in Iowa and I had a passenger and he had four grams of marijuana on my center console. We actually worked so long that we slept all day. And I’m not saying that I’m a perfect person and I’m not saying that I smoke or don’t smoke marijuana, but I’ve never done another drug in my entire life. So it’s not like I’m out there committing crimes for drugs. Actually, I was in the parking lot that I was building, resting, taking a nap with one of my workers that I hired. And he came up on us and I’m not one to tell on anybody, and they were asking us, so they did a walkthrough, four grams, a walkthrough in jail, and I told them I’d never be back in Iowa. Forget it, right? What’s in Iowa? Beans?
So anyways, the other one is my dog that I’ve had since a baby, supposedly, allegedly was taken. And it’s a long story, but to make a long story short, my ex of three and a half years tried to take my dog from me and it’s the love of my life. So that didn’t happen. So I have two warrants, felony warrants with a $75,000 bond, but they’re unextraditable as of present, and as they were, out of Illinois, I’m not saying I was a perfect child, but I haven’t had a conviction on my record for… Oh, no, this is going to date me. Since 2000.
Taya Graham:
What would you like to see change about policing or how do you hope posting on your auditing channel will help?
Bradley Connolly:
That’s an amazing question. I just want police… Because we’re all human. We are all going to make mistakes. We do some pretty idiotic and dumb things at some certain times. A couple months training is not enough for an officer. I want them to treat everybody, whether they’re drug-induced, mental health. You see these videos where the police kill these mentally ill people. I mean, I could have got them out of the car with maybe a butter knife and they shoot them in the head. It just doesn’t make any sense.
And don’t get me wrong. I want to make it very clear, I do not hate police. I actually have a lot of police friends on my Facebook and officers. And not all officers are bad, but I think that being in a negative environment along with the… And I would almost… Man, I’ve just seen it too much to not say that to become an officer, you have a certain personality. And that personality needs to, or persona, it needs kindness, love, respect. There is going to be times when evil is there and you got to do what you got to do. I get that. But if you see somebody’s hurting, if you see somebody that is maybe able to talk down, negotiation skills, deescalation skills and realizing that that’s another human on this planet.
Taya Graham:
Now I want to address something that I’m sure police partisans are soon going to squawk about in the comment section after they watch the show. It’s the off-sighted, but nevertheless unchallenged assertion that the right to search a car is simply a legal question. And so long as police can conjure, and notice I’m using a very specific word here, a reasonable, articulable suspicion, they should be able to search when and wherever they please.
What usually companies that argument is this addendum.”Why should you have a problem with a search if you have nothing to hide? What’s the big issue with cops doing their job? I mean, aren’t you always calling them out for not solving cases? I mean, why are you making such a big deal about constitutional rights when you should be more concerned about crime?” Well, besides the fact that we’ve had several cops here in my hometown, Baltimore, caught on their own body camera planting drugs, I think we need to consider for a moment just how the system, so to speak, only amplifies bad policing. Not just by abusing search powers, but turning those illegal searches into the life-altering stigma of criminality that happens all too often. How the system created to ensure cops don’t overstep and the innocent aren’t unjustly charged has been warped by our culture of indiscriminate guilt. So what do I mean?
Well consider this recent ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court regarding the misuse and withholding of evidence by the state police over a faulty breathalyzer test, a case that could lead to the possible dismissal of over 27,000 convictions. That’s right. Convictions. The case focuses on the fact that a common breathalyzer machine, the Dräger Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer, which the state police crime lab determined could produce false positives when not calibrated correctly, was still used despite the evidence. In fact, in 2017, a representative of the company that made the machines said that of the 400 they tested in the state, none were correctly calibrated and thus capable of flagging false positives.
Fair enough, no machine is perfect and certainly if the lab quickly and appropriately revealed the problem, the state could have fixed the problem and perhaps procured a different device. But that’s not what happened. Not hardly. The state continued to use the machines despite the fact that the concerns had been raised publicly and were found to be factual. Instead, thousands of people had to live with convictions for a serious crime despite the real potential of tainted evidence. That is until the recent state Supreme Court decision giving everyone, every single person convicted, the right to ask for a new trial.
This is an unusually sweeping case, but it didn’t happen because the state who had imposed harsh sentences on innocent drivers asked for it. No, this all occurred because one of the victims of a false conviction sued, and that case was finally decided last month. In that decision, the court called the state’s actions egregious government misconduct, which is why the court made the sweeping decision to allow anyone, meaning 27,000 people, to ask for the new chance to prove their innocence.
Now I want you to think about that number in relation to Bradley’s case or to the case we just updated of Thomas the Texas firefighter falsely charged with a DUI. How sweeping and consequential the impact of a decision to ignore the flaws in the machines was for the people who were victimized by it. How many lives were turned upside down or thrown into chaos and otherwise destroyed by this inexplicable decision to ignore the facts? How many licenses were revoked, jobs lost, and opportunities cast aside because the state, the state, simply chose to ignore evidence?
It’s kind of an interestingly cavalier attitude towards the consequences of our massive law enforcement industrial complex, a defiance to the truth, which I think can only be countenanced by people who are simply immune to it, meaning only the elites cosseted from the law could simply stand by while thousands of people suffered. And that’s kind of what you have to conclude when you attempt to understand the cruel indifference of the people who made the decision to allow innocent people to go to jail.
That’s right, and it was not elected officials or anyone in power who felt compelled to act in defense of the innocent. It was not a governor or a state legislator, or anyone with the ability to intervene who defended people unjustly accused. It was solely up to a victim of their malfeasance to take up the defense of the people wrongly accused, someone who had to hire lawyers and battle the case all the way up to the state’s highest court.
That’s why I think it’s important to remember that when we see videos like Bradley’s to put them into the proper context, that we remember the larger and broader injustices when we analyze how these same forces bear down on smaller but no less insignificant cases like the one we reported on today. Because I think the same sense of entitlement and immunity that prompted that Nebraska cop to illegally search Bradley’s car and confiscate his wallet is similar to the callous indifference of the Massachusetts State Police. I think the sense of careless impunity exhibited by that individual cop is really part of a larger process that allows an entire state to put innocent people in handcuffs.
It’s all about that intangible but potent power of unconstitutional entitlement. The idea that I, meaning the cop, I am the law, not representing it. That I, the cop with the gun in a badge, I am the sole arbiter of your rights, and that the power conferred upon me is not a privilege to be exercised with prudence, but a legally prescribed intoxicants that allows me to confiscate your rights, put them in handcuffs, and then discard them on the roadside like an abandoned vehicle.
This impudence, both in one case and in thousands, is the result of the culture of our version of an untouchable elite. Those elites who don’t pay taxes, have amassed ill-gotten fortunes, and who simply aren’t worried about the law. It’s their power, conferred upon cops, that we witnessed on that video. And also what spurred Massachusetts police to act without conscience. It’s also why the institution of policing must be watched as ardently as they like to watch us. Their utter disregard for our rights must be matched with the vigilance of our cameras. Their casual and consequential indifference must be overwhelmed by our passion for the rights that we must refuse to relinquish. What they treat as unimportant, we must make paramount. What they think is just the cost of doing business, illegal searches, unjust DUI convictions, we must define as unambiguously wrong.
The plethora of fake charges and false criminal records that they cast upon us like a blanket unconstitutional conviction, we must throw back at them with the indignity of a people who know our lives and our rights should not, cannot, and will not be torn asunder. That’s what we do on this show and that’s why we will continue to grow our community of constitutional activists, of defenders of rights and believers in the proposition that all of us, and I do mean all of us, are entitled to the rights to often ignored, but I believe will endure if we are willing to fight for them.
I’d like to thank Bradley Connolly for joining us and for sharing his experience. Thank you, Bradley. 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 have to thank friends of the show, Nolie D. and Lacey R. or their support. You know I appreciate you. And I want to thank every single Patreon that supports us. In our next live stream, make sure to listen for your name. I want to thank you too.
And of course, 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 @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter and Facebook.
And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them, and even if I don’t get to answer every single one, you know I read them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Report, 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 am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.
The consequences of a questionable DUI charge against Thomas, a former firefighter, have been devastating.
“The fire department was my family. I didn’t want to lose them, and I definitely didn’t want it to end this way,” Thomas (who does not want to use his last name out of fear of retaliation) told TRNN, explaining how the since-dropped allegations that he was driving under the influence cost him his nearly 30-year career
Along with losing his job, Thomas spent thousands of dollars on attorney fees, and was spurned by friends. All over charges that, as a Police Accountability Report investigation revealed, were levied against Thomas even though police were caught on body camera admitting he was not drunk.
But now new developments in Thomas’ case are raising questions about the Denton County sheriff who charged him.
PAR has learned that the Denton County District Attorney which would be responsible for trying the case, has no record of it—no blood tests, statement of probable cause, or documents pertaining to the charges. In fact, a spokesperson for the agency that prosecutes cases in Denton County said that, for them, the case simply does not exist.
“We did not receive any documentation from the DCSO (Denton County Sheriff’s Office) regarding this case,” Kim Geuter, an administrator with the Denton prosecutor’s office, told PAR in an email.
“We would have no way of keeping track. The only reason I knew this was not submitted to us is because I looked it up specifically. Police agencies do not notify us when they have not submitted a report to us,” she added.
Along with losing his job, Thomas spent thousands of dollars on attorney fees, and was spurned by friends. All over charges that, as a Police Accountability Report investigation revealed, were levied against Thomas even though police were caught on body camera admitting he was not drunk.
The fact that the DCSO, which initiated these devastating charges against Thomas, did not turn said charges over to prosecutors raises troubling questions about how cases are adjudicated in Denton County.
Normally, charges filed by a sheriff or police officer are submitted to a prosecutor for review in the jurisdiction where the arrest was made—in this case, Denton County. Eventually, the charges go before a judge to determine whether or not the prosecutors have sufficient legal grounding to proceed. But Thomas says that, other than a preliminary bail hearing, he never had a day in court to contest the allegations against him.
“The only appearance I made was at the jail before they let me go. They brought a bunch of us into a courtroom and read the charges,” Thomas said.
The Denton County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls for comment.
PAR has since filed a public records request with the DCSO for the number of DUI cases initiated by the department; in order to determine the number of cases initiated by Denton sheriffs which have not been turned over to prosecutors.
Even though this two-year-old case never found its way to a courthouse, the impact it has had on Thomas’ life in that timespan has been devastating. The charges spurred an internal affairs case against Thomas inside the fire department where he had served for nearly three decades.
That probe led to Thomas’ departure from his job. But that was only one part of the ordeal he faced after he was charged.
He was hauled off to jail and forced to fork over $1,000 for bail. His dog was handed over to animal control. His movements were restricted by bail bondsmen while his father lay on his deathbed. He had to hire a lawyer—another $3,400. And then, the aforementioned internal investigation led to his separation from a fire department to which he had devoted a lifetime of service.
“It’s hard because they look at you differently. People think you must have done something wrong to get arrested,” Thomas said. ”But I haven’t had a drink in 30 years!”
Thomas’ arrest was caught on a body camera. Three Denton deputy sheriffs audibly admitted on the recorded video that he was not drunk or otherwise impaired by alcohol. Instead, they based their charges on his “slow talking,” his “heavy-footed” gait, and his lack of balance during a field sobriety test.
“I was stone sober and they turned my life upside down… It’s a good thing to catch drunk drivers, but it’s just not right to turn innocent people into criminals.”
Thomas, former texas firefighter arrested by Denton County sheriffs on false dui charges
However, Thomas had a tumor, a neuroma, only recently removed from his left ear, which affected his balance. Moreover, Thomas freely admitted to the sheriffs he had taken his legally prescribed medication, Adderall, to treat adult attention deficit disorder—a medication that was prescribed to almost 41 million people in 2021, according to NBC News.
He was shocked that being forthcoming with officers about his medical conditions, and in particular about his ADHD medication, was the beginning of the downward turn in the interaction.
“I explained my right eye was bloodshot from my detached retina, it was why I was on light duty at the [fire] department. They asked me if I took any prescription medications so I told them about my ADHD meds… the Adderall. I think from that point the questions became more intense.”
The charges against Thomas weren’t resolved, his lawyer simply told him they were dropped.
But even though the DUI was effectively dismissed, his life has been fundamentally changed.
“I think I should practice the field sobriety test every time I leave the house now,” Thomas said halfheartedly. “I was stone sober and they turned my life upside down… It’s a good thing to catch drunk drivers, but it’s just not right to turn innocent people into criminals.”
Thomas, a Texas firefighter, was driving in Denton County when he was suddenly pulled over by local sheriffs. Despite being completely sober, he quickly found himself railroaded into a DUI charge by police, who claimed he appeared “slow” and “heavy footed.” Body camera footage has since revealed that the arresting officers even commented during the arrest that they did not believe Thomas was drunk. So why was Thomas arrested, and what does this reveal about the capricious nature of police power? Police Accountability Report examines the evidence.
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. 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 yet another questionable DUI arrest, a video that catches officers in shocking unguarded moments, making admissions about the whole process of DUI arrests that raises troubling questions about what aspect of public safety they’re actually intended to address.
But before we get started, 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. 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. Of course, you can always message me directly @TayasBaltimore on Twitter and Facebook. Please share, like, and comment. It really can help our guests, and it helps us get the word out. And as you know, I really do read your comments and appreciate them. We have a Patreon to donate for Accountability Reports. So, if this type of work is important to you, please help us keep doing it.
Okay, now we’ve gotten all that out of the way. We all know that drunk driving or driving while impaired is a serious and consequential crime. In 2021, roughly 13,000 people died as a result of motorists operating under the influence. As a result of this tragic toll, authorities have passed laws that have profound consequences for people who are charged with it. They’ve also rolled out federal grants to incentivize catching DUIs that encourages officers to rack up arrests and thwart people who insist on driving under the influence. All of this is allocable, and certainly no one disagrees with the underlying goal, public safety. Just like any power conferred upon the government, it also requires vigilance to make sure it is not abused. The DUI arrest we will show you today reveals just how important that task is.
The story starts in Lakewood Village in Denton County, Texas in April 2021. There, a lifelong firefighter, Thomas, he does not want us to use his last name, was driving home from work. That’s when police started following him and eventually pulled him over. From the outset, even though he had not exhibited any conceivable type of erratic driving. The officer began questioning him about being impaired for reasons, that at that moment remained unclear. Let’s watch.
Male Officer:
How much you had to drink today? What have you taken today? You taken prescription, narcotics, or anything like that? No? Okay. Are you prescribed anything?
Thomas:
Actually, I’m prescribed Adderall with medication.
Male Officer:
Okay. What time you took that?
Thomas:
I think it was today earlier [inaudible 00:03:18].
Male Officer:
[inaudible 00:03:18] at work? What time did you work today?
Thomas:
From 7:00 to 3:00.
Male Officer:
Okay. 7:00 to 3:00? Where at?
Thomas:
Downtown Dallas. I work for the fire department. Right now, I’m on light duty.
Male Officer:
Okay. Okay.
Thomas:
For my eye, I had a detached retina a few years ago, and then I had five surgeries since then. It’s now starting to plow down [inaudible 00:03:47].
Male Officer:
Okay.
Thomas:
Anyway, they won’t let me work in the field.
Male Officer:
I gotcha.
That’s a better excuse for his eye. He’s still acting kind of odd. You think he’s normal, or do you think he’s just-
Female Officer:
He’s lethargic.
Male Officer:
Lethargic, mm-hmm.
Female Officer:
Slow-moving. Slow-talking.
Male Officer:
Very. Do you think he possibly could be intoxicated?
Female Officer:
Maybe.
Male Officer:
You want to run him through FSFTs?
Female Officer:
I can.
Male Officer:
Even if he has only good eye, we can in theory still do HGN on him.
Female Officer:
Tell him to cover up his bad eye?
Male Officer:
We’re going to let him run with it open-
Female Officer:
Okay.
Male Officer:
… because even to do HGN, you work the good eye out, you’re still going to see signs of that.
Female Officer:
Okay.
Male Officer:
He mentioned Adderall. Adderall’s a stimulant. So, we may not see HGN on a stimulant. We should see a lot of other stuff.
Female Officer:
He’s acting so lethargic. You think it’s…
Male Officer:
From the indications of a stimulant? He’s very rigid.
Female Officer:
Yeah.
Male Officer:
Like very weird. A lot of body movement, almost like he sort of moved everything out of his wallet and just kind of maneuver in general. Go ahead and pull him out. We’ll just talk to him outside of the car for a little bit. He told us he’s on light duty because of his eye. Everything else should be fine. We’ll see what comes of that.
Female Officer:
Okay.
Male Officer:
Go get him then.
Taya Graham:
Now, in the sworn affidavit, the officer said Thomas had been speeding, which Thomas denies. But he also made a somewhat curious claim about Thomas’s behavior, which is odd to say the least. He wrote that Thomas appeared “slow” when he handed over his ID. He also noted that he made exaggerated movements while he responded to the officer’s demand. It’s a somewhat puzzling take on Thomas’s behavior because the video tells a different story. Take a look and decide for yourself.
Thomas:
No, my right eye. It’s your left.
Female Officer:
Yeah, my left. Yeah, your right.
Male Officer:
What happened to your eye again? I only caught part of that.
Thomas:
I had a detached retina, and then the subsequent surgeries have led to… Its kind of got a blue haze around there. And so, it’s just hard to see through this eye. Sometimes it gets kind of irritated and it turns red. I don’t know if it is now, but-
Male Officer:
It looks a little tender right now.
Female Officer:
Yeah.
Thomas:
Is it really? This one is-
Male Officer:
It’s clear.
Thomas:
… clear, okay. Yeah, so.
Male Officer:
Well, when’s the last time you said you took your medication today?
Thomas:
Like 3:00, 2:00-
Male Officer:
About 3:00 today?
Thomas:
2:00 or something, 1:00.
Male Officer:
I just wanted to ensure you’re safe to operate a vehicle, just giving kind of the [inaudible 00:06:29] so far. I just want to make sure you’re safe to operate your truck. We’re run you through just a few standardized field tests, and we’ll kind of go from there.
Taya Graham:
This, at the very least, questionable rendering of Thomas’s actions led to what’s known as a field sobriety test. This test was to say the least a bit surreal, a series of instructions that seemed at once contradictory, and at the same time hard to understand what exactly they were intended to prove. Just a note before we watch, Texas has several tests as part of the field sobriety assessment that you will see during this video. They are as follows, a leg turn test where the person has to walk in a straight line, heel-to-toe, turn, and walk back. The one leg stand test, where you raise one foot and stand in place for 30 seconds. And, the modified Rhomberg balance test, which requires the subject to bend their neck, close their eyes, and count to 30. Finally, the finger-to-nose test, which is self-explanatory. Take a look.
Female Officer:
All right, look at the tip of the pen. Don’t move your head. You’re just going to look at the pen. The next test, stand over here in the grass real quick. Imagine there is an inch-long line right here in front of you. One foot on the line. You put your right foot right in front of your left foot, with her heels touching your toes. Your arms down by your side. You’re going to take nine heel-to-toe steps forward.
Thomas:
I did.
Female Officer:
All right, look down.
Thomas:
It’s sloppy isn’t it?
Female Officer:
You said your legs feel weak?
Thomas:
Yeah.
Female Officer:
Okay, we probably got one more test for you okay? Arms down by your side. You’re going to keep your arms just like that. In excess, you’re going to raise one foot, either one, approximately six inches above the ground with your foot parallel to the ground.
Thomas:
Okay. One thousand one. One thousand two. One thousand three. One thousand four. One thousand 15, 16.
Female Officer:
Okay, you’re good.
Male Officer:
I just have maybe one or two more I’d like you to run through real quick.
Thomas:
Are you going to tell me when 30 seconds are-
Male Officer:
No, you’re going to tell me when 30 seconds is up.
Thomas:
Okay.
Male Officer:
To the best of your knowledge. Do you understand that? Okay. How long was that?
Thomas:
30 seconds or so.
Male Officer:
36. Pretty close. When I tell you, I’m going to pick a hand. I’m going to say, “Right.” You’re going to bring your right finger up and touch the tip of your finger to the tip of your nose. Right. Left. Right. Left. Left. And right. Go on and have a seat for me right there on the bed of your truck for a second.
Taya Graham:
Now I want you to think about what you just witnessed. Not just how Thomas performed, but how bizarre and counterintuitive the test was. Even more important, the conclusions the officers reached based upon Thomas responded. I’ll read them as you watch what unfolds on the screen. “Thomas was heavy-footed as he walked,” the officer wrote. “During the walk-and-turn, Thomas’s actions were exaggerated and he forgot instructions. During the hand-to-nose, Thomas used the pad of his finger.” And so, as you can see, this process led to officers being able to charge Thomas with a DUI, but not before having a very revealing conversation captured on body camera that calls the entire series of events we’ve just witnessed into question, an admission that these officers probably never thought would see the light of day. But we are going to show you now. Just watch.
Female Officer:
Miscounting steps. Turned wrong. Stopped on walking. Used arms.
Male Officer:
He stepped out of position briefly during the [inaudible 00:10:07] phase. On the Rhomberg, I was to estimate 30 seconds to kind of see where the clock’s at. He came in at 36 seconds, which is right on the edge of the window of error. The error is 25 to 35. I told him to close his eyes, watching it. His eyes were flooding like crazy, and his body’s super rigid. He does have a messed up eye. He’s been on light duty. He has a detached retina. I asked him, I’m like, “What else besides your eye hurts? Anything else?” “No, just fine.” I gave him every opportunity to explain to me legs not working right, arms not working right. He came out of the truck looking good, walking pretty decent. A little heavy-footed, but he wasn’t stumbling out. Do you believe he’s intoxicated?
Female Officer:
I believe he’s unable to drive from whatever he has. I don’t know the alcohol-
Male Officer:
That a medical emergency? Or are we talking about intoxication?
Female Officer:
Intoxicated on something, but I don’t think alcohol.
Male Officer:
Do you think we have a medical emergency here?
Female Officer:
No.
Male Officer:
No, so this is not a medical emergency. Is he normal or do you believe he’s possibly intoxicated under something?
Female Officer:
Yeah, I think he’s intoxicated on something.
Male Officer:
Okay, we’ll try to get [inaudible 00:11:02]. I don’t think it’s alcohol. I don’t see any signs of alcohol. I see some signs of a narcotic that he admitted to. So, we’re going to go that route. There’s also the dog in the car. We’re going to have to [inaudible 00:11:12].
Female Officer:
[inaudible 00:11:12] or just go?
Male Officer:
We’ll cross that bridge [inaudible 00:11:17]. Let’s first get him taken care of, and then we’ll address everything else.
Taya Graham:
That’s right, even though the officers wrote a statement of probable cause that Thomas was guilty of driving under the influence, they admitted on camera, on camera no less, that he was not drunk. The only substance in his system they suspected was a legally prescribed non-narcotic adult deficit attention disorder medication known as Adderall. For that, without an apparently legally sufficient justification, Thomas was arrested.
Female Officer:
[inaudible 00:11:48].
Male Officer:
Our decision’s made.
Female Officer:
So go up and tell him, “More tests. Put your hands behind your back?”
Male Officer:
Go that route if you’d like to. Or you can tell him point-blank… I’ve done it both ways depending on whether they’re engaging. If they’re [inaudible 00:11:56] compliant, I’ll tell them “Hey, be advised that you’re placed under arrested [inaudible 00:11:59].” If I don’t believe that’s going to work, I’ll play the tricker. I’ll be “One more test. Turn around for me,” and that’s what I’ll do. I gave the guy that wanted to do that. I think we can go that direction with him.
Female Officer:
Sir, we are putting you under arrest for driving while intoxicated. We believe that you’re unsafe to drive. Stand up. Put your hands behind your back.
Male Officer:
Turn around.
Female Officer:
Turn around.
Male Officer:
Do you have anybody at home who could come up here and pick up your dog and possibly your truck?
Thomas:
No.
Male Officer:
No one at home?
Thomas:
Nope.
Male Officer:
Okay.
Female Officer:
Do you have a friend that could get your dog?
Thomas:
I don’t know.
Female Officer:
Can’t think of anybody?
Thomas:
No, I’d have to make some phone calls.
Male Officer:
All right, like I said, if you’re willing to give me somebody to call, a person I can call myself, if not, I’m going to have to call my Animal Control officer and they’re going to pick up your dog, and they’re going to put him in our shelter for the night. I’m trying to avoid that option.
Thomas:
I haven’t had a drink in over 30 years.
Male Officer:
I didn’t say you were drinking, sir.
Thomas:
I haven’t had a drug in over 30 years. Where’s the Animal Control?
Male Officer:
He works for my agency. I’ll have to call him to come over with me.
Thomas:
Where is he?
Male Officer:
It’s just in Denton. About five minutes from our jail.
Taya Graham:
But even this highly questionable arrest was not the end of Thomas’s ordeal. That’s because the police, after admitting he was not drunk, filed a complaint against him at his job, which I’m showing on the screen now. That complaint led to an Internal Affairs investigation which then prompted his employer, a local fire department, to let him go. That’s not all the problems with this arrest, because we have been investigating and digging deeper into both the department and the county where it occurred. What we have uncovered is that there was more behind-the-scenes driving police to make this arrest than is readily apparent. That evidence shows just how far astray American policing can be from it’s overarching goal to keep us safe.
So soon, we will be talking to Thomas about what he has endured since his arrest and how it has changed his life. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, whose been reaching out to police and as already mentioned, investigating the motive that may have been driving police to charge Thomas. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
Stephen, before we get into the behind-the-scenes maneuvering regarding this case, I want to do something kind of different. I want to administer a field sobriety test to you, just to make a point of how tricky these tests actually are, and show that even in less stressful circumstances they can be difficult to pass.
Stephen Janis:
What? No.
Taya Graham:
Okay, you have two choices. Do the test, or stay outside.
Stephen Janis:
You know what, Taya, I haven’t had anything to drink, but still, I don’t want to do a test.
Taya Graham:
All night.
Stephen Janis:
Fair enough.
Taya Graham:
But first, have you had anything to drink?
Stephen Janis:
No. No, I haven’t anything to drink. No. Taya, nope I have drank a freaking thing.
Taya Graham:
Now first, I want you to walk in a straight line by pacing one foot in front of the other, heel-to-toe, then turn around and walk back with your hands at your sides.
Okay, not too good. Let’s try balancing on one foot for 30 seconds and don’t use your hands.
Not too good, Stephen. Last chance. Touch your hand to your nose with your eyes close, left then right, then right then left.
All right, that’s not bad. One out of three. Unfortunately, despite your claims to the contrary, I’m going to have to refer you to the nearest law enforcement agency for reporting while intoxicated.
Stephen Janis:
You know what, I spend so much time outside, I don’t care. Refer me to anyone who will give me a place to sleep for the night. So, fine.
Taya Graham:
But we’ll put that on hold for a moment. So, you’ve been looking into the Denton Sheriff’s Department and their DUI program. What have you found?
Stephen Janis:
As you can see what I’m showing you on the screen now, Denton incentivizes DUI. They have this whole program. One of the major parts of it that we found was that they actually incentivize officers to make arrests. They have a small section where they say they want to give them awards. So clearly, Denton has some incentivization of DUI arrests that’s in black and white, and you can see it right there.
Taya Graham:
Did the Denton Sheriff have any comment about this arrest, and why Thomas was charged? What was it that you dug up in Denton County that might explain why police were so aggressive?
Stephen Janis:
I sent an email to the prosecutor, because that was my main concern, why did they even continue with this case when there was no sign of alcohol and the officers admitted on body camera they should have dropped it right away? What I did find is very interesting. Number one, Denton takes in about $2 million in fines from traffic arrests, traffic enforcement. One thing I found in their budget that’s really interesting, they said “Fines are a very important source of revenue.” So, just do the math. You have one thing in their sort of police procedure book that says, “Hey, we need to incentivize arrests.” You have something in the budget that says, “We need fines.” Put two and two together, you add it up, you get really crazy enforcement like I think we saw in this body camera footage. That perhaps explains why they did what they did.
Taya Graham:
And now, I’m joined by the man who was the subject of the unrelenting scrutiny of the Denton County Sheriffs to discuss how the arrest has impacted his life, and the status of the case going forward. Thomas, thank you so much for joining me.
Thomas:
Thank you, Taya. I love your program.
Taya Graham:
Thank you, Thomas. I really appreciate that. First, you mentioned something to me that could not be seen on the dash camera footage. How did the officers initially follow and approach you?
Thomas:
I’m coming up over a bridge and once I kind of reached the top and come over the top, I noticed there’s a car sticking in the lane. The front of this vehicle is sitting in the lane. When I work as a fireman, once you see that you assume it’s a wreck. We look for wrecks all the time. You get called out and you see cars all turned around, facing the wrong way on the freeway. That’s what it reminded me of. And so I just kind of tapped my brakes and slowed down, but I continued on and that’s when I noticed ah, it’s a police car. They just sat there. They didn’t move.
As soon as I passed them, I could see them real aggressively spin around, because they were facing me where I passed them. They do a U-turn and come right up on on me real close. And so I thought wow, they’re going to pull me over. Well, he didn’t pull me over. He was just following me. When he hits his lights, I pull over. I’m ready to be pulled over because they’re still behind me. Now he’s not right up on me like he was at the beginning, but it almost felt like he was trying to get me to do something, or scare me, or something.
Taya Graham:
When the officers pulled you over, what did they say was the reason?
Thomas:
All they said was, they asked me for my identification, driver’s license, and my insurance or whatever. While I’m getting that she said, “Do you know fast you were going?” Or she said, “Do you know the speed limit?” I said, “I think it’s 50. Is that right?” She goes, “Yeah, it’s 50.” I said, “Well how fast was I going?” She goes, “You were going a little faster than that.” I’m thinking okay, a little faster than that. I’m thinking, well are they going to give me a ticket for going a little faster than that? What is happening? Five miles an hour over the speed limit or something like that? Now, what I was thinking at the time was a little over the speed limit. That’s it. How this would turn into an arrest, I’m just thinking this is… Blew me away.
Taya Graham:
Okay, so the officers asked you to pull over to a second location, and you were polite and compliant while the officers asked you very personal questions. Did you have any idea of what was going to happen next?
Thomas:
When he said that I look really lethargic and sunked, and all that, just from when I handed him my driver’s license, that was only about 30 seconds, maybe a minute. That’s how it was started. Then when the second time they told me, he starts asking about medications and medical history, and all this stuff. I’m thinking, I know the HIPAA laws for privacy. At the same time, I’m thinking, well I understand they’re police officers. If someone’s a diabetic or something, they’re going into a coma, and I’ve seen this happen where they’re on the freeway and literally one time a car turned around on the freeway going the opposite way. I get it.
This was a diabetic who was going through that, and had lost their consciousness more or less, but was able to still drive the car. Ended up crashing and we got her out of the car or whatever. But, I get it. I just went ahead and answered those personal medical questions, but before that even happened I was offering to them, because of my eye, I had this issue where it’s blue now. I don’t know if you can see it, but there’s a blue haze over it. If you ever looked at my mugshot, you can see that that is significant enough that you can’t even see my pupil very well. You would have to look real hard. You’d at least have to a pen light and shine it in there to see my pupil. If you were looking for a reaction.
Well, they never did check my pupils. They checked my gaze. They’re looking for the horizontal gaze. That’s not checking pupils. Pupils, you’re going to check for a reaction. Kind of why I said more than I should have, because looking back now I shouldn’t even have opened my mouth. I should have just told them “I don’t talk to police.”
Taya Graham:
Now, I apologize for having to bring this up, but you have two health conditions that could affect your responses on the DUI test. You’re hard of hearing in one ear, and you have a detached retina in one eye. How do you think that impacted your reactions to the field sobriety tests? And how do you think this impacted the officers’ response to you?
Thomas:
He brings it up that I talk extremely slow. He said it quite a few times in the body cam footage. I’m thinking, I can’t even understand this guy. I checked just one small clip, he said seven words in one second. They were all like [inaudible 00:23:37]. As I was watching on the replay, I’m thinking yeah, I don’t talk that fast, but I’m not sure I talk that slowly either. But he kept bringing that up. The thing is about me hearing them, that affected it too.
It also, because it’s a neuroma, it’s a tumor actually, so it affects your balance as well. I haven’t had really issues with it, but watching the replay on the video… That’s why I was so surprised. I can’t do this because I was flopping around trying to balance on one leg. Now, I did it, but I was having to balance like I’m on a high wire or something. Anyway, the point is, is that yes, my hearing affected me understanding him, and he’s picking up every little detail. He’s looking for anything. If I asked him or repeat something, he turned that into kind of like “There’s something wrong with him.” Be that as it may, it’s clear to me. They wanted a DWI from the word go.
Taya Graham:
So you complied with the field sobriety test. Were you surprised to discover how stringently they were judging you? Were you surprised by their comments?
Thomas:
I wasn’t surprised what she said because she’s doing this for the first time. But if she saw a drunk person doing these tests, she might have a different viewpoint of the whole thing. I am stone-cold sober, and I’m actually very agile. So, I don’t know if my hearing or my ear was better… I had that tumor treated, and I don’t think it’s gotten worse, but my balance was off. Yeah, I can pick out stuff, but he had her looking every little thing. It was just sudden. I was not prepared for it. In your mind, you think this easy, but when you’re doing it, it’s a little different. I probably should practice my DWI field sobriety tests every time I leave the house because if that’s what determines if I’m intoxicated or not, if they send my blood to Austin, Texas and it takes over 10 years to get back the results, then they’re going to charge me and convict me if they want. The fact that he keeps calling this… The medication he keeps calling it, a prescription narcotic, it is not a narcotic.
Taya Graham:
How long were you in jail, and what was your experience like? What were the exact charges?
Thomas:
I was charged with DWI. I got to the jail probably… I think the video started about 6:00 PM. I got to the jail about 7:00 PM. I was there until 3:30 in the afternoon the next day. I had to go to an arraignment and make my plea. I had no access to a lawyer. I had no access to a phone. I couldn’t call anyone. Which surprised me. Not only that, but I was on my way home to get something to eat when this started, and so I was already hungry. Then we get this little sandwich thing, two pieces of white bread and a piece of bologna at about 11:00. So, I hadn’t eaten since 7:00 in the morning or something. And then we got another one at about 4:00 in the morning, the same thing, two pieces of white bread and a piece of bologna. They’re already punishing you for nothing. They made up their mind before they pull you over, or the initial stop that they’re going to take you in. Don’t you need more evidence than just somebody looks lethargic?
Taya Graham:
Despite the difficulty in being arrested, separated from your pet, and having them taken to Animal Control, there were other consequences. You almost missed your father’s funeral because of this. And it cost you your job, and impacted your finances, right?
Thomas:
I had already been on light duty because of my eye. I would need a cornea transplant to get my eye fixed. The fire department only gives you so long to be on light duty before they turn you loose and no more pay. If they have another job, I believe they’re obligated to you offer you another job. So, they sent me to go work in Communications as a dispatcher. I was in training to become a dispatcher at the time. Because of the DWI, I was no longer allowed on the floor of the dispatch center. Because I was no longer allowed on the floor of the dispatch center, they ended up giving me a letter “You can retire now or go work in another department in the city,” or by then I already knew that once I’d been charged, I go to tell someone, “You wouldn’t believe what happened. I got charged with a DWI. I don’t even drink. I haven’t in 33 years.” I never heard of someone getting a DWI that doesn’t even drink.
Taya Graham:
You mentioned something to me that stood out, because it’s an impact that isn’t measured. That is, people often aren’t believed when they say that they are innocent, and that being charged and arrested can be very isolating. Can you talk about that?
Thomas:
People start distancing themselves from you a little bit. I’ve got friends that didn’t care, but at the same time, that was my family. The whole fire department, it’s a big department and it’s a good department. We’ve got some incredible people working there, and I had some really close friends that were like family. So, leaving was, although I had 30 years already, leaving was going to be difficult. I knew it. But leaving like that was kind of… It wasn’t really what I had hoped for.
Taya Graham:
Because of the legal entanglement, you almost missed saying goodbye to your father before he died.
Thomas:
The issue with my father was, when he passed away, just before he passed away, I had to call my bail bonds people. If you leave the county you’re supposed to call them. I called them and they seemed kind of resistant to me leaving. I had to just tell them, “I’m going anyway.” You could hear them on the phone, kind of in the background going “Whoa.” You know, they could have theoretically arrested me for doing that without their permission. This is happening before he died. My sister called me up and said, “Dad’s passing away. He might not make it until tomorrow.” So I’m trying to throw everything together and go, and I had to call the bail bonds people, and they’re going to resist? Come on. I hadn’t done anything, but I haven’t been convicted either. So it’s like you’re already convicting me. You’re treating me like I’m a criminal already.
Taya Graham:
You told me you were worried about your dog. In the video, you can even hear the dog whimpering as police take you away. How much did this ordeal cost you? It cost you your job, but there were out-of-pocket costs, right?
Thomas:
First of all, the bail. Check this out, they say “Well, we need to get to your credit card to pay the bail.” There’s a phone on the wall and there’s a list of bail bond agencies, and the phone only goes to them. You couldn’t call anyone else except collect. Sign a release, and they take my credit. Well, they took the cash out of my wallet. I had $80.00 in my wallet. They gave me a debit card. Come to find out, there’s no money on it at all. Instead of giving me the $80.00 cash back, they gave me the debit card. There’s no money on it. It has no value. I had no access to a phone.
The next morning, I wanted to call my employer. The employer at their jail should have access to right there through a main line of some kind called a dispatch center in Dallas and tell them, “Hey Tom’s up in jail in Denton,” just to let them know. Because I’m supposed to be at work now. I pay bail for $1,000.00. They took it off my credit card. That was the first one. Then I went to get a lawyer. I asked random, “What do you do when this happens?” And the lawyer cost me $3,300.00. Then to get my truck back the next day, to get my truck it cost $470.00. For one night overnight. Then I had to get my dog, which cost me… He had to stay in the pound for two nights because I couldn’t get him out in time. I had heard horror stories in the past, so I’m thinking they’re going to see him, he looks ferocious, and they’re going to strangle him with one of those ropes or something.
The way that deputy was acting, there’s no telling… To me, I’m thinking there’s no telling this guy has no conscious, because he’s just deliberately ruining my life. For nothing.
Taya Graham:
I have quite a bit to say about the arrest of Thomas, little of it having to do with the usual complaints about law enforcement that seem to, in my opinion, limit the debate over the broader structural issues that prompts the type of arrests we have witnessed in this story. As I’ve said before, our fixation on the particulars of law enforcement, i.e. bad cops and bad arrests, often limits our ability to critique the justifications that empower them. What do I mean? Well, let’s drill down into the details. Not of the arrest itself, but the actual paperwork used to facilitate it. What I mean is, let’s take a look at some of the details of how cops are enabled to make these kinds of arrests that at least on the surface seem hard to justify.
As we do, I want you to hold a question in your head that hopefully when I’m done you’ll be able to answer. That question is simply, why are cops empowered with making arrests by just using adjectives? In other words, since when did we bestow the right to put us in a cage solely based on their subjective interpretation of our behavior? I mean, how many times have we had police apologists say, when confronted with police brutality that, “Cops aren’t social workers, and police aren’t worried about your feelings. They enforce the law.” It said simple, “You either broke it or you didn’t.” Well, apparently based on the form used to turn Thomas into a criminal, cops are actually very perceptive clinical psychologists. I wish I were kidding, but I am not. Just take a look at the form given to Denton Police to assess a DUI that I am showing you on the screen now. It lists, and I’m not kidding, a series of adjectival descriptions to justify charging a motorist with a DUI.
I just want you to ponder this for a second. The flexibility this list provides cops who want to make an arrest and contrast it with the harsh consequences is apparently literary description can impose. Let’s start with clothing. Is it torn, stained, or disorderly? You’re drunk. Or how about your attitude? Yes, your attitude. Are you cocky, indifferent, or apologetic? You clearly shouldn’t be driving. Or is your speech thick-tongued? I’m not even going to touch that one. Or slow? Again, are charges justified? Just remember, never drive with droopy or watery eyes because that’s apparently a crime too. My point is these descriptors are not meant to evaluate a person’s condition. They are so utterly subjective. They’re more like a tool to justify an officer’s desire to make an arrest. I mean, if you look at the document it looks more like a fictive or ChatGPT writing prompt than an objective assessment of someone’s ability to drive. It’s a random list of enforcement adjectives, for lack of a better phrase, intended to give cops the illusory pretext for racking up arrests and earning those rewards Stephen was talking about earlier.
Now, this criteria is even more suspect given the technical tools police have at their disposal to determine if someone is drunk. I mean, don’t we have blood tests and breathalyzers to figure out if someone is drunk? Can’t we find a way to utilize this same technology to more objectively assess a person’s ability to drive, especially considering the consequences if they’re charged? Well, I think what we have here is a manifestation of the cultural power conferred to policing that in some ways is much more insidious than the already-consequential ability to arrest and imprison us. An excessive amount of social capital bestowed upon cops makes a questionable form we showed you before not only possible, but in some ways inevitable.
So, what do I mean? Well there’s actually a cultural theory that explains this phenomena. It generally applies to advantages of being rich and powerful. I think it merits application to this question as well. It’s called the “Hierarchy of Credibility”. It was a concept proffered by sociologist, Howard Becker, in an attempt to explain a thorny question, who gets to set the narrative or define the truth about the present conditions in which we live? Whose interpretation of current events is used to set the agenda for policy decisions that affect millions of lives? Becker said that the richer and more powerful person, the more likely their interpretation of current events would be believed and accepted. This process, he argued, led to the perpetuation of the injustice and inequality we see today, where a working class person can toil their entire lives, pay taxes, follow the law, and still end up broke, bankrupt, and homeless just because they got sick.
I think it also applies to policing because how can you justify destroying a man’s life over a baseless allegation, other than by acknowledging that the Hierarchy of Credibility applies to police as well? How can you use such scant evidence to force a man into a cage, out of a job, and into a world where he cannot be hired and will forever be branded a criminal, unless you’ve been bestowed the immeasurable power of cops to brand us unworthy of fairness and justice? I can prove to you just how potent the police version of the Hierarchy of Credibility is. I have the receipts, so to speak, to show you just how this works. To do so, I want to share with you a piece about a very sketchy fundraising scheme that was the subject of a New York Times investigation. You might even be familiar with it because it’s primarily facilitated by robocalls.
These calls are made to millions of people every day. During the call, a person whose actually a pre-recorded voice solicits funds from groups with names like The American Police Officers Alliance. The voice asks a person who answered to consider donating to support law enforcement. The pitch is, support cops because they deserve it. Now, the New York Times investigation found that these robocalls raised roughly $89 million over a seven-year period. They also found that the organizations that ran them spent almost nothing on funding the politicians who support policing over the years the fundraisers were the most active. In fact, almost all the money raised was spent on, you guessed it, more fundraising. Oh, and by the way, the Times investigation also found that the organizations that purported to support cops paid hefty fees to political consultants, totalling millions of dollars.
So, we have a fictitious charity making questionable claims able to raise tens or millions of dollars, all while doing nothing to support it’s purported cause, a scheme that led thousands of people to donate multiple times without a single iota of proof that the organization had done anything to work on behalf of law enforcement itself. Which brings us back to the concept of this so-called Hierarchy of Credibility, because let’s remember, the ruse used to extract money from the unsuspecting donors was simply to invoke the name “police”. All they had to do was say the word “cop”, and people parted with their money apparently no questions asked, which shows how police fit into the pyramid of credibility because there are few institutions that can prompt you or I to simply turn over cash without explanation. There are even fewer professions so to speak that can literally open your wallet without having to provide anything tangible in exchange.
I think what this example points out is the crucial role police play in reinforcing the Hierarchy of Credibility for the powers that be, and why disseminating copaganda in our media and culture is a vital part of that process, and that by making arrests like what we just witnessed, the police become enforcers who impose essentially a sociology of silence on the working class. That is, through fake arrests, false charges, extortion-level fees and fines, and other impediments police make our stories theirs. They construct a narrative so to speak where our police for justice for equity are sullied by false charges and bogus arrests. It’s really an insidious calculus, a method to the madness that enables our system of growing income and wealth inequality to flourish unchecked. It’s essentially the scaffolding of our structural divide between the ultra-rich and the rest of us buttress by bad policing.
In a way, police in this capacity amplify the voices of the most powerful, and they do so by telling a tale of us, the people who act indifferent, whose clothes are stained, and whose eyes are watery. If that is the basis to convict us and take our freedom, and sully our future, then we must battle the system that makes it possible. Certainly, on this show, we will continue the fight to do so. I’d like to thank my guest Thomas for joining us, and for sharing his experience with us. Thank you, Thomas. 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 friend of the show, Nole Dee and Modley CR for their support. Thank you both so much. A very special thanks to our Patreons. We appreciate you. I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon Associate Producers John ER, David K, Louie P, and super friends, Shane Bushtup, Pineapple Girl, Chris R Matter Writes, and Angela True. 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 @EyesonPolice on Twitter. Of course, you can always message me directly at @TayasBaltimore on Twitter and Facebook. Please like and comment. You know I read your comments, and that I appreciate them. We do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports, 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.
When West Virginia resident Caleb Dial found himself in handcuffs in the back of a police car in August 2021, his mind focused on a single question: “What had I done wrong?”
“If I could use one word that did an inkling of justice as to how it made me feel, I would choose the word ‘surreal,’” Dial told The Real News. Just minutes before his arrest, Dial had actually called police himself after a dispute with his father became heated. But when an officer from the small town of Milton arrived, the first thing he did was ask Dial to turn around so he could place him in handcuffs.
Dial calmly complied. However, the longer he sat in the back of the squad car, the more his initial complacency turned to quiet panic. The officer had explained the cuffs were only for his safety. If that were true, why was he now sitting in the car like a suspect? What crime had he committed? Again, what had he done wrong?
“The string of events that had occurred on that one ‘fateful’ evening left me so bewildered [and] wondering how I went from calling them for non-emergency assistance to sitting in jail with a battered face, looking at upwards of nine years in prison,” he said. That query was soon answered in a series of charges that stunned him.
Milton police officer Daniel Higgenbotham drove Dial to the station. There he was told he had assaulted Higgenbotham, been disorderly, and tried to escape. The officer wrote in the statement of probable cause that Dial was aggressive and protesting loudly. He had allegedly cursed at the officer and acted “agitated” while Higgenbotham struggled to force him into the car.
It was a narrative Dial knew to be false. That arrest was the start of a cascading series of events that would turn into a three-year ordeal for the 29-year-old occasional musician, propelling him into a fight to clear his name, and—more importantly—a struggle to heal from the wounds inflicted by what his lawsuit alleges was a false arrest. “That evening led to a downward spiral so fast that not even F5-rated tornadoes could spiral that fast,” he said.
Dial’s story is also a story of perseverance. Three years later, in early May 2023, the MIlton police department settled a federal civil rights lawsuit with Dial. He describes the agreement, which includes compensation for injuries he suffered during the arrest, as fair, even though Higgenbotham remains on the force and the town did not admit to any wrongdoing. For Dial, the settlement has afforded a sense of closure and a deeply personal victory against the overwhelming power of local law enforcement. “I had lost employment, I lost a few friends,” he recounted. “The worst part was I wasn’t able to talk about the case.”
But it’s also a cautionary tale of how a single arrest can wreak havoc on a person’s life even if they’re innocent, and in Dial’s case, an ordeal that could have been worse if not for the presence of a Ring camera.
First there were the rumors, then a ring camera
Shortly after his arrest, the Milton police department shared Dial’s mugshot on the department’s Facebook page. The post included the questionable allegations contained in the statement of probable cause. Unfortunately, the sloppily composed statement (which has since been taken down) alluded to an alleged domestic assault. Since the Facebook page is shared widely among Milton residents, friends and neighbors began to accost Dial and his family with the accusation he had beaten a woman.
“I still had many occurrences where I was being questioned about ‘hitting some woman,’ etc.” he told The Real News. “Even some of my family members were harassed about it because the way the post was worded made it sound like they were showing up for domestic violence, which was not the case.” Worse yet, Dial found himself sitting in the Western Regional Jail for several days, where he suffered a seizure. When he finally made bail, he realized that the mainstream media had already branded him a criminal, before an iota of evidence could be offered in his defense.
Local television station WCHS posted a story accusing Dial of all the charges outlined in the statement of probable cause, accompanied by the unflattering mugshot. “There’s a saying that at times social conviction can be just as bad as criminal conviction,” Dial said in response to the post.
The combination of these accusations made for a turbulent few years for Dial. The whispering about his domestic violence charges continued. Due to court appearances and the local television report he lost his job at an inpatient rehab house. Even more disturbing, the demons that had haunted him throughout his previous struggle with addiction reappeared, sending him into a spiral of heavy drinking that nearly cost him his life. “I ended up attending treatment for alcoholism which was tremendously exacerbated by the peripheral effects that were either directly or indirectly related to everything from that evening,” he said. “On the outside it doesn’t sound like much, but this only scratches the surface.”
Fortunately for Dial, not all the forces of fate were aligned against him: his parents’ house had a Ring camera, and the video of his arrest depicted an entirely different version of events than the statement of charges, signed under oath, by Higginbotham.
The doorbell camera shows Dial calmly complying with Higginbotham as the officer places him in handcuffs. However, Higginbotham wrote in his statement of probable cause: “[Dial] became very agitated and kept on raising his voice at me. I asked him several times to calm down and then decided to detain him for officer safety.”
Furthermore, Higginbotham wrote, “Dial became very irate and pushed me with his shoulder and tried to pull away from me. I asked him to calm down, quit yelling, and get into the cruiser. He got very aggressive once again and was trying to pull away. I asked one more time and then assisted him into my cruiser.”
Again, doorbell camera footage appears to contradict the officer’s sworn statement. At the beginning of the interaction, the camera audio reveals that Dial calls Higginbotham “sir,” and when asked to turn around to be cuffed, Dial does so without conflict. The footage then shows Dial calmly walking towards the cruiser and Higginbotham putting him in the back seat without incident.
After Dial’s lawyer submitted the Ring video as evidence, prosecutors quietly dropped the charges. But the story about his alleged crimes remained, and even though Dial called WCHS to have the story updated or retracted, they, too, refused to delete the post describing now disproven crimes until well after the damage had been done. By Dial’s estimate, the post remained up on the WCHS website for two years before it was ultimately removed. Their refusal to issue any timely correction or retraction led Dial to make the decision to fight back against the false and damaging narrative that had been spread throughout his community. That meant reaching out to independent journalists.
Fighting back against a local political economy forged by law enforcement
After The Real News produced a story on Dial’s arrest, he found a lawyer: a legal advocate that he says was not influenced by the insular politics and interconnected relationships that make it difficult to find representation in rural West Virginia. “It took many months for me to be able to obtain an attorney who is seriously a true individual to his soul. Not only did he obtain some form of recourse, but he also stood up for me quite a bit,” Dial said. That attorney, Tyler Haslam, told The Real News the settlement had been reached and that the case had been closed. A lawyer representing the police department did not return a phone call or email seeking comment.
The lawsuit accused the Milton police department of false imprisonment, unlawful arrest, and intentional infliction of harm, and outlined allegations that the department failed to properly train officers to practice constitutionally sound policing. That problem was highlighted in a Police Accountability Report investigation, which found that the town had written hundreds of tickets and assessed hundreds of thousands of dollars in court fines for a town of roughly 2,500 people—all while nearly doubling police spending since 2014. It’s a trend that continues today.
The latest budget estimates posted by the town show the city billed $500,000 in court costs and fines in the fiscal year 2023, a slight decrease from the previous fiscal year. Despite the recent decrease, the amount of fines has almost doubled in the past decade; the town assessed $275,000 in court fees and tickets in 2014. This uptick in policing has coincided with a substantial increase in the police budget. Since 2014 the police budget has more than doubled, from roughly $528,000 in 2014 to a planned expenditure of $1,333,807 in 2023.
For Dial, his primary focus now is not Milton PD, but healing, and the hope that his battle to clear his name will allow him to rebuild a life that was thrown into turmoil by a pair of handcuffs. For now, the struggle is about righting the wrongs, both for him and the town itself.
“The weight of the world has been lifted off of my shoulders. All I want to do is live a quiet life with my daughter, and for the department to restructure their training,” Dial said.
Days before Todd Nock would become the first Black mayor of Pocomoke City, a small town on Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore, he paused as he tried to express what the historic achievement meant—not just to him, but to the community he was preparing to serve.
“I started sitting in the back of council meetings, then moving to the front, becoming first vice president, and now here we are,” Nock said.
“I had no idea [I could be Mayor.] At the time,” in 2015, “I was an unemployed college dropout. I had just lost my jobs a couple weeks prior to that, I couldn’t afford to go back to school.”
pocomoke city Mayor todd nock
The former activist-turned-councilman, who was on the verge of assuming an office that had been held exclusively by white residents since the town’s inception, found it difficult to express the emotions prompted by the historic occasion.
“I had no idea [I could be Mayor.] At the time,” in 2015, “I was an unemployed college dropout. I had just lost my jobs a couple weeks prior to that, I couldn’t afford to go back to school.”
For many people in the community, especially low-income and Black residents, prospects aren’t much better than they were for the young would-be mayor Nock years ago. Which is why Nock said he was committed to one priority after he is sworn in on April 11: moving the town forward as quickly as possible.
“I said eight years ago, ‘We go along to get along,’ and, unfortunately, there were so many things we went along with. So there are things here that are going to take years to fix, years to repair,” he said.
Nock’s path to the mayor’s office was both winding and contentious.
It started in 2015, when the town fired its first Black police chief, Kelvin Sewell.
At the time, despite the evenly split racial demographics, the town’s governing body was predominantly white. Even the city’s majority-Black 4th District was represented by a white police officer, who had run uncontested after a Black councilperson resigned and the city failed to post a public notice of the impending vacancy as required by the city charter.
The years-long battle for political parity was documented in The Real News film The Friendliest Town. The film recounts in detail how The Citizens for a Better Pocomoke organized shortly after Sewell’s firing, and continued to push for change in a town resistant to it.
The group attended council meetings and even endorsed candidates for office. They also confronted the council—not just about the secrecy of Sewell’s dismissal, but about the Black community’s lack of voice in the city’s main governing body,
The officer, Frank Savage, was subject to texts involving use of the N-word, a faux President Barack Obama-issued food stamp placed on his desk, and a bloody deer tail placed on his car. Sewell’s suit led to a $650,000 settlement with the city, and to a consent decree between the city and the Department of Justice to ensure the city implements a policy to address racism in the workplace.
“Todd Nock’s historic election as Pocomoke City’s first Black mayor is a triumph—for the community, for Mayor Nock personally, and for the bold Black trailblazers of yesterday who forged the path leading to this moment.”
Debbie Jeon, maryland aclu legal director
The ACLU of Maryland, which led the lawsuit filed on behalf of Sewell, hailed Nock’s historic achievement as a step forward, both for the town and for the broader coalition of civil rights activists who have fought for equity on the Eastern Shore.
“Todd Nock’s historic election as Pocomoke City’s first Black mayor is a triumph—for the community, for Mayor Nock personally, and for the bold Black trailblazers of yesterday who forged the path leading to this moment,” said Debbie Jeon, legal director for the ACLU of Maryland.
“This includes Chief Sewell,” Jeon continued, “who inspired so many Black residents of this community to activism, but it also dates back decades, to courageous individuals like Carl Snowden, Honiss Cane, and James Purnell, who fought for equal rights for Black voters and toppled all-white governments in Pocomoke City and Worcester County in the 1980s and 1990s.”
Sewell was also subject to an extensive investigation by the Office of the Maryland State Prosecutor, which resulted in a conviction for his failure to charge a Black resident of Pocomoke for damaging two parked cars. The probe focused on the 2014 accident and commenced after Sewell was fired, leading to two separate trials after the Maryland Court of Special Appeals vacated his initial conviction.
“I am happy to see Pocomoke City moving forward,” Sewell said. “I am so proud of Todd Nock becoming the first African-American mayor of Pocomoke.”
Nock has faced challenges on his path to the mayor’s office. In 2021, then-Mayor Susan Marshall-Harrison refused to swear him in after he won a second term on the council. Marshall-Harrison used false accusations that Nock had only lived in his district since 2017. He was eventually sworn in by a fellow councilmember. Nock successfully ran for the mayoral seat unopposed this year and will be sworn in by a county clerk next week.
As for the future, Nock told TRNN that among his top priorities are affordable housing, public safety, and the city’s faltering water system.
But he also called for healing for a town that has struggled to overcome a past that still looms over the politics of the present.
“Always be mindful and ready for reconciliation,” Nock said.
“Be more of a listener than a talker. Be true to yourself, be true to the people you represent.”
In a special episode of Police Accountability Report, TRNN reporters Taya Graham and Stephen Janis report from the ground in Atlanta, where for weeks forest defenders have been fighting and risking their lives to stop the construction of “Cop City”—a massive planned police training center that would be used to instruct officers from around the country in deadly repression tactics. Speaking directly with activists on the frontlines, Graham and Janis explore the truth behind the police killing of Manuel “Tortuguita” Tehran, and the dark money sources funding the creation of the Atlanta Public Safety Center. This episode features special guests including cop watcher and auditor Lackluster, and Chris Reiter from the For Public Safety YouTube channel.
Studio: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino Footage: Stephen Janis and Taya Graham
Transcript
The transcript of this story is in progress and will be made available as soon as possible.
Across the US, people who attempt to resist the seemingly limitless power of the police often find themselves ensnared in a legal system that ostensibly exists for their protection. When a local police officer approached Paul Brophy of Weymouth, Massachusetts, and demanded to see his identification, Brophy attempted to invoke his constitutional rights. The officer then escalated the situation to an arrest, claiming Brophy attempted to reach for his weapon. Police Accountability Report examines the facts of the case, speaking to Paul Brophy himself about the incident.
Studio: Stephen Janis Studio/Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
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, to achieve that goal, we’ll be showing you this video of an arrest by a Massachusetts cop of a man who refused to show identification. But it’s what the officer did after the man who took the video fought for his rights, and how his charges contradicted what we will see on camera that will be the subject of the show today, an example of how law enforcement can turn mundane situations into life altering trauma.
But before we get started, 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 @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And if you can, please leave a like or comment to help share our work with other people who care about justice and accountability. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.
Now, one aspect of American policing we have covered extensively on our show is a topic that seems simple but isn’t. Namely, the seemingly limitless ability for police to ask for or even demand identification. It’s a question that usually focuses on the legal ramifications. In other words, when can a cop demand your ID? And what rights do you have if you refuse?
But there is more to this question than just criminal code or legal procedures, because the fact that there are so many scenarios when police can make the ultimatum, produce your ID or else, that it’s worth unpacking the broad implications of this power on both our lives and our rights. And no video is a better example of what I’m talking about than the fraught encounter with Weymouth Massachusetts Police I am showing you now. It happened when resident Paul Brophy and a friend were sitting in the parking lot of a convenience store in Weymouth in October in 2019. His passenger had just purchased some snacks and cigarettes when an officer approached their car. Watch.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Police Officer: So let’s talk about what I’m asking you for. You cooperate, give me your ID, we see who you are. We can send you on your way in short time. But because now you’re prolonging this situation because you’re being defiant.
Paul Brophy: No, I’m not being defiant.
Police Officer: I asked you for an ID, a simple request, and you can’t give it to me.
Paul Brophy: I said, respectfully, officer –
Police Officer: That’s not respectfully, that’s actually defiant.
Paul Brophy: Well, you’re escalating now.
Police Officer: What’s that?
Paul Brophy: You’re escalating.
Police Officer: I’m not escalating.
Paul Brophy: I mean, it’s about de-escalation.
Police Officer: Okay.
Paul Brophy: Now, can we talk to each other? You’re a public servant. I’m a public servant.
Police Officer: Then why are you being defiant? Why would you not cooperate?
Paul Brophy: I’m not being defiant.
Police Officer: Ask for an ID, offer an ID.
Paul Brophy: I’m not being defiant. I’m defending my rights that you swore to protect.
Police Officer: Asked for an ID, you offer the ID. You’ll be sent on your way shortly after.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: Now as you can see, it’s clear the officer is completely unable to share what’s known as reasonable articulable suspicion that Paul committed a crime. That is generally the standard for making what’s known as a custodial stop, or where you’re not free to leave until the officer says so. In fact, he seems pretty much at a loss to even articulate why he’s talking to the two men at all. And I see this ironically because it appears the officer thinks that the routine act of parking and purchasing a snack is actually nefarious. Take a look.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Police Officer: Why can’t you produce an ID?
Paul Brophy: Well, it’s about the Constitution [officer laughs]. I’m surprised you laughed at that.
Police Officer: Okay, which part of the Constitution?
Paul Brophy: The First Amendment.
Police Officer: The First Amendment?
Paul Brophy: It’s probably not the First. That’s what, the assembly and all that?
Passenger: The Fifth, it’s the Fifth.
Paul Brophy: It’s the Fifth? I’m not pleading the Fifth.
Police Officer: See, clearly, you don’t even know the Constitution.
Paul Brophy: Off my heart, no, I don’t.
Police Officer: Or your Constitutional rights, because what you’re saying is that…
Paul Brophy: You should advise me of my rights, now.
Passenger: Paul, yo.
Paul Brophy: You should be helping me.
Police Officer: I’m asking you to help me.
Paul Brophy: What is your name?
Police Officer: I’m asking you to help me.
Paul Brophy: Can I ask you, what’s your name?
Police Officer: My name’s Steven. What’s your name?
Paul Brophy: Well, can I see, are you a detective?
Police Officer: No.
Paul Brophy: Well, can I see your name tag?
Police Officer: We don’t have name tags.
Paul Brophy: Okay.
Police Officer: Are you going to operate this motor vehicle?
Paul Brophy: I had planned to leave when he said we were loitering. Yeah.
Passenger: We were just told to leave, officer.
Police Officer: If you’re going to operate this motor vehicle, I need to know if you have a valid license.
Passenger: Got a license. Yeah. Give him your ID. Get it out.
Police Officer: Let me see your ID.
Paul Brophy: That’s not my problem.
Police Officer: Then we can go right from there.
Paul Brophy: That’s not my issue. Come on now.
Police Officer: Well, clearly if you’re going to drive this motor vehicle away, I need to know if you are a valid licensed operator. That way I can find that out. How am I going to find that out? By you producing me an ID?
Paul Brophy: No, I’m sorry. I’m not going to, no.
Police Officer: You don’t produce me an ID. You don’t drive this vehicle away.
Paul Brophy: Okay. Whatever you say, officer.
Police Officer: That’s what I say.
Paul Brophy: You’re in charge.
Police Officer: That’s correct.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: Now it’s worth noting that Paul, at his own risk, refuses to relinquish his rights. In fact, even as the officer escalates the encounter, Paul attempts to de-escalate, all the while simply trying to protect the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Just watch.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Police Officer: So if you’re not going to produce ID.
Paul Brophy: Power and control, it’s all about power and control.
Police Officer: No, it’s not power and control.
Paul Brophy: Yes, it is. Everyone’s a criminal.
Police Officer: It’s me doing my job.
Paul Brophy: Everyone’s a criminal.
Police Officer: It’s me doing my job.
Paul Brophy: Why do you look at people like they’re criminals? Do I look like a criminal to you?
Police Officer: Have I looked at you like a criminal? I asked you for an ID.
Paul Brophy: Yeah. No, you’ve talked to me like I’m a criminal.
Police Officer: No, believe me, trust me when I tell you, I’ve talked to people like they’re criminals. I’m not talking to you like a criminal. So rest assured, I’m asking you for your ID. You want to operate this motor vehicle?
Paul Brophy: I’m respectfully refusing.
Police Officer: Okay, then I’m going to respectfully tell you that you’re going to be getting out of this motor vehicle because you’re not going to drive the motor vehicle without a license that I know that you’re a valid licensed operator.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: Of course, at this point, you’re probably saying, why doesn’t he just hand over his license? Why not just give the cop what he wants? Why be what the mainstream media likes to call a troublemaker? Well, let me briefly address that before I show you what happened next, because the sequence of events you’re about to see will certainly answer that question full stop.
First, what are the point of our rights if they are strictly conditional? How are the First Amendment, which guarantees our ability to move about without government intervention, and our Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unwarranted search, is meaningful at all If we need permission from a person with a gun and a badge to invoke them? Seriously, and if you don’t think how and when we can invoke rights are important, take a look at what happens next.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Paul Brophy: So you’re escalating now again, and you’re getting louder.
Police Officer: Whether I’m getting louder or not has nothing to do with it. Apparently you don’t understand that right now you not producing an ID [crosstalk] means you’re not going to be able to drive this motor vehicle.
Paul Brophy: Is standing up for my rights and I’d stand up for yours too. I’d stand up for yours too. And I did.
Police Officer: Although, be that as it may –
Paul Brophy: He was very aggressive, that guy, when he came to the window.
Police Officer: You’re ignorant. If this situation…
Paul Brophy: You trying to provoke me.
Police Officer: – When the clerk has called us.
Paul Brophy: Yes. What did the clerk say? Can I ask?
Police Officer: I have not spoken to the clerk. But what we got transmission wise over the radio.
Passenger: Yes. What was that?
Police Officer: That he was suspicious about the activity that was going on. Which means there’s a potential for a crime.
Passenger: Okay. Yes. I understand that.
Police Officer: If there’s a potential for a crime, have, are or about to commit a crime, I have every right to ask for your ID.
Passenger: If you believe or under suspicion.
Police Officer: Bingo.
Paul Brophy: Well, suspicion doesn’t give you rights.
Police Officer: It’s called reasonable suspicion. And at that point we have the right to ask for an ID.
Paul Brophy: No, you don’t.
Police Officer: And because you are under suspicion for that potential crime that may or may not be going on –
Paul Brophy: It’s a touchy area.
Police Officer: – It’s for us to investigate.
Passenger: I understand. I understand. It’s a touchy area though. It’s a gray area.
Paul Brophy: I can see the difference clearly.
Passenger: No, it’s a gray area. I know.
Police Officer: But now that we got to the point where he wants to drive this motor vehicle away, he needs to produce an ID, valid license.
Paul Brophy: You don’t if that guy down the street has a valid driver’s license.
Passenger: I have a question. Stop. Stop. Calm down.
Police Officer: That guy going up the street isn’t part of a criminal investigation.
Paul Brophy: A criminal investigation?
Passenger: No, no, no. It’s not a criminal.
Police Officer: There’s a potential criminal investigation here.
Paul Brophy: [Crosstalk] If I assert my rights, I’m not being uncooperative, officer.
Police Officer: You haven’t told me why.
Paul Brophy: You haven’t told me your name.
Police Officer: I did tell you my name.
Paul Brophy: No, I asked you for your name tag and you said…
Police Officer: We don’t have name tags. No name tag.
Paul Brophy: Badge numbers, what’s your badge number? 117?
Police Officer: There’s no number on my badge. There’s no number on this badge.
Paul Brophy: Well, you don’t have a badge number. So how do I know you’re a cop?
Police Officer: Do you see a number on the badge? Because I have a badge, and it says police right on here, and I drive a police car.
Paul Brophy: I can get one of them online.
Police Officer: I have a police car right there. Want to see it? Want to see the police? It says it right on the side of it.
Paul Brophy: Well, in this day and age, you know.
Police Officer: Do you want to see the police? It says it right in the side of the car. Come on out. I’ll show you.
Passenger: Go check it out, man.
Paul Brophy: I can see it.
Police Officer: Come on out.
Passenger: Go check, inspect the car.
Police Officer: Step out. I’ll show you it.
Paul Brophy: Okay.
Passenger: Inspect it. You convince me.
Police Officer: Come out, I’ll show you.
Paul Brophy: I’m not giving anyone permission to go into my car.
Passenger: No. You don’t have permission for that.
Paul Brophy: [Shuffling sounds] Why do you want me to step out of the car? I’m not stepping out of the car. Not a chance. Hold on. Can I close my door?
Police Officer: So you can see the police car.
Paul Brophy: Let me close my door. I don’t want to see it.
Police Officer: I’ll tell you right now, you just put your hands on me. That’s why I’m grabbing you. All right. You just put your hands on me. That’s why I’m grabbing you. Now what we have here is a different scenario. You’re being aggressive. And now I’m going to ask you out of this vehicle.
Passenger: Give him your license.
Police Officer: I’m going to ask you out of this vehicle.
Passenger: Going to let you go.
Paul Brophy: I’m not getting out of here.
Passenger: Give him your ID and we can go.
Paul Brophy: Can I get a supervisor please? Can I get a supervisor?
Police Officer: You can get 10 supervisors.
Paul Brophy: Now? Can I get a supervisor now?
Police Officer: Listen to your buddy.
Passenger: Listen, Paul. Just give him your ID. Can you let go of his arm, officer?
Police Officer: No.
Paul Brophy: Why?
Police Officer: Because I don’t feel safe right now with you reaching out.
Paul Brophy: I don’t feel safe getting out of the car.
Passenger: Oh my God.
Police Officer: I have a taser and I have a gun. You’ve reached out to me, and I feel unsafe with you doing that.
Passenger: Calm down, please. Listen to me. Look at me.
Police Officer: What I’m going to do now is I’m going to take you out of this car.
Passenger: [Crosstalk] Paul, look at me. Look at me. Listen please, guys, don’t be harsh. Be harsh with him, man.
Police Officer: If you do not step out on your own.
Paul Brophy: Okay? I’ll step out on my own.
Passenger: Please.
Paul Brophy: Is that a lawful order?
Passenger: Be easy. Be easy.
Police Officer: It is a lawful order. A lawful order.
Paul Brophy: Why do you want me out of the car?
Passenger: Because they want to talk to you and show you something. All right.
Police Officer: Now you’re going to turn around. Put your hands.
Paul Brophy: No. Let me go. I’m not resisting.
Passenger: Oh man. I don’t know. I don’t know what he did, but you’re just detaining him for a minute? What are you doing?
Police Officer: Just for a minute until we get an ID out of him.
Passenger: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Police Officer: We can get the supervisor for you in a minute.
Paul Brophy: That’s all I’m asking for, a supervisor.
Police Officer: Yeah, you get one of the supers.
Paul Brophy: Oh, you’re bringing me in?
Passenger: No, they’re not bringing you in, dude. They’re just detaining you for a minute.
Paul Brophy: No, he said I’m going to see their supervisor in the station.
Passenger: No, you can call him here.
Police Officer: Actually, you know what? I’m going to charge you. ABPO. You can see him. That’s assault and battery on a police officer.
Passenger: Oh my God.
Police Officer: Assault and battery is any unwanted touching of somebody.
Paul Brophy: I did not touch you. I reached out my door.
Police Officer: I watched you reach out. You reached for me. I have a taser right here. You reached for my taser.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: That’s right. The officer accused Paul of assaulting him and reaching for his weapons. I’m not kidding. After asking him to get out of the vehicle, he actually summons serious charges against him: assault and battery of a cop. all because he was parked in a car outside of a convenience store at the ungodly hour of 2:00 AM.
Now, we are going to talk to Paul Brophy about what happened, why you fought for his rights and how this entire ordeal affected him. But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been looking into the case, researching the law, and seeking comments from the police. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis: Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham: So first, what does the law in Massachusetts say about providing an ID to police when they ask?
Stephen Janis: According to the AC of Massachusetts, it’s really clear. The only time a police officer in Massachusetts can request your ID is when you’re operating a motor vehicle, which clearly was not happening at this time. But really, I think this is a Constitutional case. I think federal law governs here, and he was doing what anyone is allowed to do in this country, which is pretty much peaceably assembled without a cop going in and saying, who are you? So I think this is clearly a Constitutional case, and I think that’s the overriding concern here.
Taya Graham: You’ve reached out to both police and prosecutors. How are they justifying the charges?
Stephen Janis: Well, Taya, I reached out to Weymouth Police. I sent them a video of the arrest. They sent me back the police report, and it is extraordinary and telling. Now the entire probable cause in this case was a man going in and out of a convenience store and getting in and out of a motor vehicle. That was the whole basis for a crime investigation. But even more important, there are no notes about the police officer talking to the clerk in the store and trying to understand or discern why this was so disturbing. But really, there was no basis for a crime. There was no basis for a criminal investigation. If going in and out of a store is a crime, well, I’m a criminal. You’re a criminal. We’re all criminals. It’s pretty scary what the officer used to construe this encounter and this custodial stop.
And then the officer, I think, really embellished – Actually embellished is not even really adequate to describe it. He said that Paul went out and grabbed him by the waist. I think you see on the video, that’s not what happened. So this whole statement of probable cause, this whole police report raises a lot of questions about this entire arrest.
Taya Graham: Now, a judge did rule about the officer demanding the ID. What was the ruling? And more importantly, what are your concerns about what happened during this seemingly illegal arrest?
Stephen Janis: Well, Taya, what’s interesting to hear is the judge actually agreed. The judge ruled that the officer did not have the right to ID Paul at this point, and really said that was not a reasonable or even legal request for an ID. The only problem is the judge did not rule that actually vacated the entire charge of harming a police officer or assault and battery of a police officer. So really it didn’t amount to much. But the truth is, no matter what, Paul’s First Amendment rights were violated.
And also I think the entire charges of assault and battery are insane. Look at the video, read the police report. There is no evidence of it. For example, in the police report, the officer did not sustain any injuries. So how is that assault and battery? So anyway, I think it’s good that the judge affirmed his Constitutional rights. It’s unfortunate for Paul that the legal system didn’t work in his favor.
Taya Graham: And now I’m joined by Paul Brophy, the man who endured this police overreach, and whose life has been profoundly impacted by these charges. Paul, thank you so much for joining me.
Paul Brophy: Really appreciate the work you do. Honest to God, it’s fantastic.
Taya Graham: So this encounter happened in a parked car. How did the police approach you?
Paul Brophy: Well, it’s very simple really. I pulled in, it was a 24-hour store. I was doing two things. It was late in the morning, it was like 2:30, 3:00 from what I recall. And I pulled into the store and my passenger got out and went in, and I was sitting there texting or something, or looking at my phone. He came back out, got into my vehicle, and I reached to start it up. Obviously we were getting going, and next thing I realized that there’s two police cars. One pulled in behind me, preventing me from leaving. And the other, first of all, it was just one car. And he pulled in behind me and immediately came to the window and started asking questions. Said they got a call and can I get your ID? This and that. And my passenger gave up his ID right away.
And I’m thinking to myself, well, wait a minute. Why do I have to give my ID in this position? Because first, I hadn’t done anything wrong. I had no idea why they were there. And secondly, I wasn’t pulled over or anything. And it was then that his backup came and he kind of took over. And as you can see from the video, I think it took him about 15 seconds just to focus in on ID. So it became from then on, ID, ID, ID as opposed to, we’re investigating, we’re asking you to stay here for a few minutes and we’re going to talk to the clerk and do a proper investigation. But it turned out to be none of that. And he told me that they got a call that two people were running in and out of the store. There was nothing happening out of the ordinary, actually. So as you can see from the video then, he just started demanding ID.
Taya Graham: What do you think the suspicion of you and your passenger was? And did he ever really articulate his suspicion?
Paul Brophy: He articulated a suspicion because he said they got a call of two people walking in and out, running in and out of the store. So I told him I had no problem going into the store to talk to the clerk. I hadn’t even been in the store. My passenger went in and came back out. He did spend about five minutes in there. I recall thinking, is he coming or what’s going on? But he did just come out and then we were going to leave. So I guess his articulate suspicion was a suspicion that the store was going to be robbed, I guess. But he did say that the suspicion he had was… I can’t recall his exact words on the suspicion, but he said, we got a call, two guys coming in and out of the store in a truck outside. And that gave him enough suspicion to investigate, which meant that I was compelled to hand over my ID, and I disagreed.
Taya Graham: Now, you chose to stand on your rights. Why did you do that?
Paul Brophy: I think one of the reasons, one of the big reasons was because I had educated myself through shows like yours and First Amendment auditors, and over the past year that I just really got into it. And I could not believe the fact that how the police police here is totally contrary to the rights of the people. I think because most people just follow their demands or their requests that they continue to do it this way with disregard for people’s rights. In particular, where you live, what your social security number is, what your background is. And I figured all you had to do was run my plates anyways. It was my car, it was registered under me, it was insured, I had stickers, everything was okay on the car.
And so that was what prompted me. I’d watched a lot of the videos, and I’d seen so many policemen and government officials just walk over people’s rights. I decided to push back and just to push it and see, get an explanation from him. And really, he came up with this same old tried and trusted methods of, where did you go to law school and this type of thing. So I just answered and tried to stay calm, and I could see he was getting madder and madder. And I actually had to ask him to deescalate a little bit because I could feel his energy. He wanted to drag me out of that car. He wasn’t used to people say, challenging him, and I didn’t want to do it aggressively. I just wanted to be on my way and this not to be an issue. So it turned into a big issue, and it turned into a person losing their freedom and being put in a cell because they’re stopped at a 24-hour store on their way over to drop some money off for my daughter, is where I was going.
And I was giving the passenger a ride to that town. It’s kind of metro Boston. So I was giving my passenger a ride as far as that town, and he was on his own from there. It was very late. I couldn’t drop him to where he needed to go, and he had a bicycle. So I was helping him out, and on my way to do that – Granted it was late in the morning, but that’s nothing new for me. I mean, I’m out and about at all times. It’s not suspicious to be out and about.
Taya Graham: So the officer started to escalate the situation. From my vantage point of watching, it seemed like you were reaching to close the car door. The officer said you were reaching for him. What happened in that moment?
Paul Brophy: Exactly. That’s the crucial moment, if you will, and it’s not clear on the video what happened. But what happened was, for some reason I said, okay, I’m going to get out of the car. But he opened the door. I didn’t open the door. I went to unlatch my seatbelt. He opened the door and came around, whereas he was now between the door and me. So I said to him, well, why do you want me to get out of the car? And I reached out slowly. I know a lot of cops, and I know that you don’t make sudden movements, you don’t do anything silly. And I reached out for my door, but I reached out from my door with the arm. But as I did, he grabbed me like that and we both looked at each other and you can hear it on the video, and he goes, okay, so now everything’s changed.
You reached out for me, and I have a taser and I have a gun, and you grabbed my belt, my duty belt. And I was just stunned. I’m like, oh no, come on now. You know that’s not true, or something I said like that. Pulled me out of the car as you could see, and put me up against the side of my car and immediately cuffed me. And the other officer then said, I’m just going to charge him with assault battery of a police officer. And they ended up doing that and charging me with failure to ID.
Taya Graham: Were you surprised that the police officer escalated this to an arrest and the charges that came out?
Paul Brophy: Well, surprised is an interesting word. I think in one sense, absolutely, I was very surprised. But having educated myself and seen the level of abuse, if you will, towards members of the public, from videos and from your channel and the work you guys do, some of it is just horrendous. And to think that the very fact that you stand on your rights, which is in a perfect world, should be completely accepted, if it’s grounded in fact and law, that they would violate that. Now, call me naive. But I was thinking right from, there’s no way that they will ever get up on the stand or anything and just lie. And when I’d say that to people, they’d be like, really? So I went with the proper course of the way to do things. And sure enough, when I heard that and saw that and the reaction, the nonchalantness in a court of law, I was saddened.
I was really sad about that, and sad for the system and sad for… It’s kind of sad for myself as well. It’s like, my God, they’re not going to go this route, are they? I could go to jail potentially here. So we set a trial. I was offered a trial, and so my lawyer said I had a really good case and blah, blah, blah. And all of a sudden then I got this phone call from her and she said you need to come out to court immediately. After talking to the DA, talking to the judge, and they’re offering you a great deal. And I think you should take it right away. So, I know, I’ve been disappointed with myself ever since. But I felt a little bit, I was pushed into it. I was on my own. I didn’t have an advisor. I didn’t have somebody to go over it with.
But I went down to the court and they were there and she was in the courtroom and the judge, and they had offered me three months probation with no restrictions whatsoever. So this was at the very top and it said, abide by state and local laws and the law, abide by the law and in three months time, this will be dismissed. So I signed it, and that didn’t sit well in me at all. I let it process without talking to my lawyer. And I did say to her, well, I thought we were going to go to trial on this. You seemed very confident and you were, and she was in the text she sent me, but they want to clear cases, I guess.
Taya Graham: Just out of curiosity, did you actually have a license on you?
Paul Brophy: Yeah, I did. Yeah. I had my license on me. And I know, the first lawyer I got, I ended up having a part company with him, but the first, I was so upset, but the first appearance in court where they assigned me a lawyer, the first thing he said to me, and he was actually mad. He’s like, why didn’t he just give him your ID? And I’m like, oh God, is this who’s going to defend me? I don’t know if that’s going to work. And he walked away. He came back with paperwork and he said, there, and walked away. So anyway, it didn’t work out with him. After a while I said, I need a different lawyer. This is not, your attitude is your way of working is fine, but it’s not for me, and I prefer… So I went to the court and they said, okay. They gave me a different lawyer.
Taya Graham: So what were you charged with and how long were you in jail?
Paul Brophy: I was charged with refusing to provide ID to a police officer on demand and assault and battery on a police officer. Those were the two charges.
Taya Graham: Now you told me they didn’t want to take you to trial, which is interesting, because I think you would’ve done great on the stand. You had the truth on your side, no criminal history, well-spoken. I think you would’ve been great. So maybe they didn’t want you to face a jury. Can you update me on the case?
Paul Brophy: Yeah, sure. And thank you for saying that. I appreciate it, in regards to looking good on the stand and everything and believable. And I felt the same way, to be honest with you, because when you’re telling the truth, you don’t have to stammer or you don’t have to make up more stuff. For me just to sit there and talk from my heart and tell the truth about what happened. So what happened from when she was appointed with me, we met a few times, kind of made me feel in a way that she threw me a big favor at times because I said to her, well, at one point I said, well, whose side are you on here? Because she was leaning towards, well, why did you do this and that? And that’s fine. But she said to me, look, I do private cases, and I just take cases from the courts to be helpful in the community and stuff.
And I don’t know about that after what it went through because she needs cases, she wants charges, she needs, it’s all pretty good money for them, and it’s kind of free clients, if you will. Because of COVID, the courts were shut down here in Massachusetts for quite a while. It opened up under Zoom, so most of it was being done on video, and I’m thinking, this is 4 years later here, and what happened to my… I think my Sixth Amendment right here for a speedy trial? Then she called me to the court one day and she said, look, you need to come down here. The judge wants to hear, wants to go over this, and I’ve gotten a great deal for you. I really think you should take it. It’s totally non-restrictive probation for three months and it’ll be all dismissed and it’ll be all gone.
But as you know well, it’s never gone. It’s there. It’s prevented me from getting jobs. This is a disaster, to be charged with this. And then now I suppose I’ve in a way accepted it because I took a punishment. It’s disastrous for my life.
Taya Graham: So how has this arrest affected you? Did you lose time for work or have to pay attorney’s fees or a bond?
Paul Brophy: Oh my god, yeah. Yeah, you’re not going to find out, nobody’s going to email you back and say, well, we can’t hire you because you’ve been accused of assaulting a police officer. But I started testing the water. Here I am. I’ve got a graduate degree and I’m applying for entry level positions to see if I’m going to get any. Now, I took the graduate degree off. I just said I had a bachelor’s degree and I applied for dozens and dozens and dozens of jobs, and 90% I didn’t even hear back from them, because I think the norm now is for… You know how easy it is to look up somebody’s record. And once a person has your name and your address or whatever, which you have on your resume and all. So all I have is gig work right now. In fact, I was out of work for quite a while, long time. I know with COVID it was obvious we were out of work, but I haven’t had a steady job since this happened. And it’s unfortunate, because I did spend 20 years serving the public myself, and I always knew who I worked for, and I treated them with respect no matter what.
Taya Graham: Okay. Now, there are times when I talk about a specific law or right or even policy that directly relates to the misuses of police power. In other words, I try to drill down on one aspect of policing and the law and provide context and comprehension of the way bad policing affects our lives in ways that are often unacknowledged. But today, I’m going to speak in broader terms about what happened to Mr. Brophy and why I think an overlooked consequence of police power needs more attention. There are plenty of people who would look at the video, we just parsed and characterized it as unremarkable. I imagine there are certainly a lot of people watching the show who would just shrug their shoulders and say, yes, these charges have made life difficult for Mr. Brophy, but the cop was just doing his job. What’s the point of delving into this arrest any further?
Well, let me take this question from a different perspective. Let me explore the idea of how police power affects the way we think, act and even perceive ourselves and the freedoms we purport to cherish. Now, first of all, let’s remember that for all of those who think the cop was “just doing his job”, consider for a moment what that actually means. Imagine if the officer’s assertion that he has the right to demand an ID without probable cause is correct. If that’s true, I want you to ponder what kind of power he actually has and what it implies about our rights.
If a representative of the government can ask you to identify yourself anytime, anywhere, for any reason, we might as well just cross out the First Amendment of the Constitution that guarantees the right to peaceably assemble – And while you’re at it, cross out the Fourth because apparently you don’t have the right to secure your personal effects from unwarranted searches and seizures. This means the government can arrest someone for protesting. This means if the government doesn’t like your perspective, it can seize your property and simply do with it as it pleases.
But there is an idea that transcends the law that I think warrants discussion in this case. The psychology, so to speak, of government power that is just as potent as the aforementioned incursion on our rights, but rarely gets the attention it deserves. That’s because what the officer did to Mr. Brophy is not just about an arrest, contemptive cop or simply a grumpy officer taking out his frustrations on an innocent man. It’s not just a story of police overreach, misuse of the law or another glaring example of the overarching power of a single cop. No, I think what we’re seeing is symbolic of the broader contempt the government in general has for the people. I think it’s meant to be a performative sort of power: indiscriminate, excessive, and most of all indifferent, and that so-called performance has a message, to quote our documentary Tax Broke: we are not worthy.
What do I mean? Well, consider this recent series of stories regarding the inability of pharmacies to provide crucial drugs to people who need them. The report recounts how critical drugs to treat conditions like ADHD, anxiety, and opioid addiction are in short supply, prompting pharmacies to reject legal prescriptions. Now, this shortage is not related to the pandemic, the often shaky supply chain, or any other common manufacturing issue. It’s not even a consequence of a lack of raw materials or some sort of effort by drug companies to raise prices. No, the problem is a shining example of how the performative power of policing and economic inequality are not just linked, but actually work in tandem.
That’s because the force behind this life-threatening shortage of crucial pharmaceuticals is no less than the government itself. I am not kidding. It is a result of a DEA settlement with opioid manufacturers who flooded the country with billions of pain pills, raking in billions of profits while hundreds of thousands of people died from overdosing. The settlement with the attorney generals of 48 states and the DEA led to huge fines but no jail time for the greedy executives. It also included a provision to monitor pharmacies for the sale of drugs that aren’t even opioids – On the surface, at least – To ensure the pills don’t flood the market again.
The expansive list includes not just the aforementioned laundry list of critical drugs, but even a medication known as Suboxone, which is used, ironically, to treat opioid addiction through a process called replacement therapy. This system, put in place with little thought for who it would actually punish, is now causing pharmacies to be flagged for legally prescribed drugs, and as a result, cutting off crucial supplies needed by innocent patients.
So let’s unpack this little public policy jujitsu while I explain how it relates to the previously mentioned performative aspect of police power.
So first, greedy drug executives flood the markets like big time drug lords with opioid pills, causing overdose deaths to skyrocket and profits to balloon. The federal government ignores the crisis until it becomes too big to hide under the proverbial protect the rich rock. But then while crafting a settlement, the feds devise a plan that actually punishes average Americans, even while maybe one or two executives ended up behind bars. Included in that stupendously thoughtless plan was to limit the availability of critical drugs that are used to treat the victims of the feckless greedy drug company lords who caused the problem in the first place. I am serious. This is what our own government, which is supposed to serve the people, conjured from its how to screw things up manual – Which, incidentally, is available online for a small fee.
But back to my point at the beginning of this segment, the connection between police power and the ridiculously bungled response to the corporate sponsored addiction epidemic is part of a larger theme. Police in this case serve as a barometer, so to speak, a gauge of how the government actually views our rights and what they truly mean. The job of cops in this particular case is to perform for us the liturgy of the elites, a ritual that demonstrates to us clearly that we don’t matter. But it is more than that because this performative power with of course real consequences also convinces us that unjust policies like the ridiculous drug clampdown are, in essence, our fault. That is, we who are the ones who caused opioid pills to flood the market while companies made billions off of human misery. From the ability to arrest us anywhere at any time flows the entire psychology that the reason your local drugstore can’t obtain crucial medication to fulfill your prescription is actually you.
What that cop told us with his indiscriminate and reckless use of government power is the same message that the elites were sending when they made a mess of a healthcare system already frayed at the edges. Keep your mouth shut, comply or face the consequences of our massive indifference. And if you do push back, we will find the means through a minor arrest, conjured crime, or a straightforward retaliatory sanction to make you take the blame.
That’s why the misuse of police power is not just about bad tickets, false charges, or unwarranted harassment. That’s why a cop being able to demand your ID whenever and wherever they want is not limited to the indignity of the act itself. What it means is what it’s designed to tell us about ourselves, that even though the Constitution says differently, our rights are subject to change. What it tells us is that no matter how many times Wall Street or big banks or big pharma screw us, we only have ourselves to blame.
Which is why Paul’s decision to assert his rights is a more consequential act than it appears at first glance. That is, his insistence that he has the right to not comply with police is even more consequential than simply pushing back on an overbearing cop. It is instead an act of defiance that refutes the neoliberal blame game to punish the many to ensure profits for the few. It’s the most consequential and imperative act there is: saying no to indiscriminate power, no to more policing, and no to the invasive and never ending push to take our rights and sell them to the highest bidder.
That’s why we will continue to report on stories like these, and that’s why we will always unpack and expose the system that makes what you witness on this show possible. Hopefully, by continuing our work, we can make it impossible for cops to act this way, but it is unlikely. But even a small step towards justice is worth taking in the longer journey of making our world a better place.
I want to thank my guest, Paul, for joining us and for sharing his experience. Thank you, Paul. 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, Thank you for having me.
Taya Graham: And of course, I want to thank friends and mods of the show, Noli Dee and Lacie R for their support. Thank you. And a very special thanks to our 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 R and David K, and super friends, Shane Bushta, Pineapple Girl 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 @tayasbaltimore on Twitter and Facebook. And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and that I appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below if you feel inspired to donate accountability reports. And please consider doing so. 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.
Maximillian Alvarez: 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.
On Sept. 30, 2020, a SWAT team burst into the Henderson County, Indiana home of Chris Reiter under a falsely obtained warrant. Reiter’s girlfriend, Tiffany Napier, was severely injured as police ransacked the house, ultimately finding nothing before departing without acknowledging any wrongdoing on their part. Reiter has since filed a lawsuit alleging violations of his constitutional rights, and dedicated himself to helping others hold police accountable. Reiter’s efforts recently led to another arrest when he attempted to help the father of a victim of abuse by Clarksville police. Chris Reiter and Tiffany join Police Accountability Report to discuss their efforts to seek justice.
Studio: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The transcript of this episode will be made available as soon as possible.
Texas cop watcher Manuel Mata has been jailed again after he confronted a Ft. Worth officer on sidewalk while he was making arrest. The charges of interfering with public duties Mata is facing raise serious questions about the right to film police, and if law enforcement is ratcheting up the pressure on 1st amendment activists.
Studio: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The transcript of this story is in progress and will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham and Stephen Janis mark four years of holding police accountable with a lively discussion on how law enforcement has evolved in the past four years, and the challenges of reporting on and investigating police misconduct. Stephen and Taya are joined by legendary cop watchers James Freeman, Lackluster, and Otto the watchdog.
Studio: Stephen Janis, Dwayne Gladden
Transcript
The transcript of this video will be made available as soon as possible.
A Bullock County, Georgia, resident attempted to file a complaint against local police after being denied medical care and placed in an “uninhabited” cell at the local jail. Instead of receiving a case, the man ended up in handcuffs. Police Accountability Report investigates the claims of retaliation.
Studio: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a rush transcription and may contain errors. An updated version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham: Hello, my name is Tara 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 breaking down this arrest by Bulloch, Georgia, police of a man who was visiting a county building to file a complaint about his treatment during a previous arrest.
But it’s not just about how the man who took this video was treated during the ordeal that we will focus on today, rather, it’s also a story about the courage it takes to preserve our rights and to hold power accountable, even when it’s aligned against you.
But first, I want you watching to know, that if you have 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 tips privately at PAR@therealnews.com. Ensure your evidence of police misconduct.
And please don’t forget to comment and share our videos. I may not be able to respond to every comment, but I promise you, I read all of them and I appreciate them.
We do have a Patreon called “Accountability Reports,” so if you feel inspired to donate, please do help support our work. We’ve got a link pinned in the comments below.
All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.
Now, as we have often noted on this show, holding law enforcement accountable comes with a specific set of challenges, to say the least. Risks that come with law enforcement’s unique ability to retaliate against critics with arrests and charges.
And it’s because of this overwhelming power and its implications, I’m showing you this video we will be focusing on today.
It depicts a confrontation between Bulloch, Georgia resident, Maurice Minas and Bulloch County officers outside a county building. An encounter that began with the simple, yet apparently questionable, act of filing a complaint against law enforcement, an act which would lead to troubling behavior by police. We will show you later.
That’s because, after Maurice entered this building to file a complaint against the corrections officers who he said had been abusive after a previous arrest, a confrontation ensued, which led to a group of deputy sheriffs confronting him outside this government building. Let’s watch.
Maurice Minas: Your name?
Captain Casey: That’s not a complaint form.
Maurice Minas: What is your name?
Captain Casey: Captain Casey. C-A-S-E-Y.
Maurice Minas: Captain Casey. Badge number? You, what’s your name and badge number?
Chief Deputy Bi…: Chief Deputy Bill Black. Badge number 2.
Maurice Minas: You?
Deputy Gabe: Deputy Gabe. Badge number 59.
Lieutenant Greg…: Lieutenant Greg Collins. Badge number 6.
Maurice Minas: And this guy, one more time?
Captain Casey: Captain Casey. C-A-S-E-Y.
Maurice Minas: Okay. So what’s-
Captain Casey: Badge number-
Maurice Minas: … your point-
Captain Casey: … 3.
Maurice Minas: … of coming out here, four deep and hostile like this?
Captain Casey: Nobody’s hostile.
Maurice Minas: Yeah, you came out here, big guy. Now the camera’s on you, you calmed down a little bit. So I’m trying to see what’s going on. I’m not out here harassing nobody. Who came and told you-
Captain Casey: I will give you the complaint form.
Taya Graham: Now, it’s worth noting that Maurice encountered no issues when he first entered this building. In fact, no one even noticed him when he requested a complaint form. But as soon as he did, the cops inside decided he warranted their attention. Take a look.
Maurice Minas: … Nobody. Who came and told you-
Captain Casey: … complaint form.
Maurice Minas: … And I might fill these out-
Captain Casey: Fill it out.
Maurice Minas: … right here.
Captain Casey: [Inaudible 00:03:11] back.
Maurice Minas: Now, who told us-
Captain Casey: Now, after you’re done-
Maurice Minas: … Who told you that I was harassing him?
Captain Casey: … Listen to me. After you’re done, you’re to leave.
Maurice Minas: Okay.
Captain Casey: I’m serving you criminal trespass here. If you come back, you’ll be arrested.
Maurice Minas: Am I trespassing?
Captain Casey: Do you understand?
Maurice Minas: Where’s the criminal-
Taya Graham: Of course, you’re probably saying now, “Taya, he’s obviously been in trouble before. Why focus on him? Why worry about some guy who had been arrested before?”
Well, let me answer that first. As well as hearing from Maurice later, his crime was a run of the mill FTA, or failure to appear for a court date. But for that arguably very human error, Maurice was thrown in jail, later put in solitary, and abused by several corrections officers, according to him.
But on top of that seemingly disproportionate punishment, Maurice’s dilemma also raises a fundamental question. Should our right to petition the government be conditional? Are those same rights contingent on who is exercising them?
Well, I want you to think about those questions, as you watch Maurice deal with officers who followed him. Take a look.
Captain Casey: If you come back, he’ll be arrested.
Maurice Minas: Am I trespassing?
Captain Casey: Do you understand?
Maurice Minas: Where’s the criminal trespassing?
Captain Casey: Do you understand me? I’m verbally serving you, criminal trespass.
Maurice Minas: You’re going to trespass me from a public place? From a public?
Captain Casey: Do you hear me?
Maurice Minas: Where’s the criminal tres-
Captain Casey: Do you hear me?
Maurice Minas: Where’s the trespass, sir?
Captain Casey: I’m verbally serving you, criminal trespass. Do not come back once you fill this paperwork out.
Maurice Minas: Lower your tone, dude.
Captain Casey: If you do-
Maurice Minas: De-escalate, dude.
Captain Casey: … you will be arrested.
Maurice Minas: Okay.
Captain Casey: Do you understand me?
Maurice Minas: Tomorrow, if I come back here, I’m going to be arrested?
Captain Casey: Yes.
Maurice Minas: What? You might as go and arrest me now.
Captain Casey: Still have the paperwork.
Maurice Minas: You might want to arrest me now.
Captain Casey: You need to leave.
Maurice Minas: Ma’am, please? Can I borrow a pen from one of you fellas, please? Oh, y’all supposed to give me a pen. No, I can’t come up here. I’m up here, filling out forms.
Chief Deputy Bi…: You can bring it back and drop it off.
Maurice Minas: I got a pen in my car. Since y’all want to be like that. I’ll be right back for these. Got all y’all back. Y’all think y’all finna do me like that? What law am I breaking?
Captain Casey: Fill it out.
Maurice Minas: What law am I breaking?
Captain Casey: You’ll be criminally trespassing.
Maurice Minas: For what law am I breaking? What? You haven’t said anything. You just said-
Chief Deputy Bi…: Criminal trespass law.
Maurice Minas: … For what?
Captain Casey: Criminal trespass.
Maurice Minas: For criminal trespassing.
Captain Casey: You’ve been served.
Taya Graham: Now, after Maurice asked the officers for their respective badge numbers, the officers decided to give notice, so to speak.
At this point they tell him, in no uncertain terms, he is facing arrest. Just listen.
Maurice Minas: For what?
Captain Casey: Criminal trespass.
Chief Deputy Bi…: Criminal trespassing.
Captain Casey: You’ve been served.
Maurice Minas: Why have I been served?
Chief Deputy Bi…: If you don’t leave here [inaudible 00:05:25].
Captain Casey: Fill out this paperwork.
Maurice Minas: That’s my official business.
Captain Casey: You’ve been told to leave, after you fill out this paperwork.
Maurice Minas: So I can’t come back tomorrow?
Captain Casey: Yep.
Maurice Minas: To even talk to the sheriff?
Chief Deputy Bi…: Yep. You call up here and make an appointment.
Captain Casey: Yep.
Maurice Minas: Where’s my criminal trespass? I need it in written.
Captain Casey: You’ve been served.
Maurice Minas: I need it in writing.
Captain Casey: You don’t get it in writing. [Inaudible 00:05:39].
Maurice Minas: No, I need it in writing. I need it in writing. I’m pretty sure you got to [inaudible 00:05:43].
Captain Casey: I’m not going to argue with you anymore.
Maurice Minas: You guys are going to beat me up, though.
Captain Casey: If you’re going to be tricky and take this paperwork-
Maurice Minas: I know how y’all work.
Captain Casey: … you’re just going to go to jail.
Maurice Minas: That’s why y’all came out here like that.
Captain Casey: Do you understand?
Maurice Minas: I’m going to get my pen to fill this out to appease you.
Captain Casey: Hurry up.
Maurice Minas: And I’m only going to leave and not come back tomorrow under threat and arrest.
Captain Casey: There’s no threats.
Maurice Minas: Yeah, you threatened me.
Taya Graham: And so while Maurice tries to comply with their threat to leave the premises, he still insists on filing a complaint, an attempt to defend his right to file a grievance that leads to further chaos. Just look.
Captain Casey: There’s no threats.
Maurice Minas: Yeah, you threatened me.
Captain Casey: I told you [inaudible 00:06:11].
Maurice Minas: You just said you’re not.
Captain Casey: That’s not the right [inaudible 00:06:13].
Maurice Minas: For what law? What law have I broken?
Captain Casey: That’s not a threat.
Maurice Minas: What law have I broken?
Captain Casey: That’s not a threat.
Maurice Minas: What law have I broken? What statute?
Captain Casey: Get your pen and come fill this paperwork.
Maurice Minas: I’m about to. It’s going to take me all day to fill out all these complaints I got to fill out on all y’all.
Chief Deputy Bi…: Yeah, we [inaudible 00:06:27].
Maurice Minas: No, I don’t need y’all following me to my car.
Taya Graham: Now, after the video ends, Maurice was arrested and I will be talking to him later about what happened and how it affected him.
But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been looking into the case. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis: Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham: So first, you’ve reached out to the sheriff’s office. What are they saying?
Stephen Janis: Well, I did better than that. I got a hold of the documents that actually led to the charges against him, against Maurice.
And it is astounding. They literally state in the documents, which I will show you on the screen now, that the reason that they harassed him is because he was filing a complaint.
And really the transom here was when they tried to get him to identify who he is complaining against, then they got testy with him. And that’s literally what’s in the documents. I mean, I can’t even believe what I’m reading.
Seriously, you’re going to charge a guy for filing a complaint? And then he comes back to file some more complaints and you get agitated and you’re like, “I’m going to arrest him.”
Well, that’s what it says in these documents in the United States of America. Constitutional or not, I don’t know. It’s bizarre. But that’s what they’re trying to do.
Taya Graham: Is this arrest going to move forward? Are prosecutors actually moving forward with the case?
Stephen Janis: Well, I put a call into them. I don’t see how they can. I don’t see how this is constitutional. I don’t see how this holds up in court. I don’t see what law he’s broken.
So really, if this prosecution goes forward, it’s just a sham. I mean, no, I don’t think it will. I’m going to keep calling them until I get an answer. But, no.
Taya Graham: The inflection point in the video seems to be when Maurice asked for the officer’s badge number and name. What is the law on that in Georgia and anywhere else, for that matter?
Stephen Janis: Well, let me say this. And states do pass different laws, but I’m not going to speak to the law because there can be no law. This is a First Amendment right, to petition the government. There’s no law that any government, any local municipal government, any state government, any government should make against the right of us to ask a police officer to identify themselves. That is clearly the Constitution. And I just don’t believe there is any law that should be able to actually abrogate the Constitution. That’s my opinion.
Taya Graham: And now to get more details on the events that led up to his arrest and what happened after he was put into cuffs, I’m joined by Maurice. Maurice, thank you for speaking with us.
Maurice Minas: Thank you for having me.
Taya Graham: So first, why were you at the Bulloch Sheriff’s Office?
Maurice Minas: To file a medical request practice form. Well, I was actually trying to get a practice form first.
I called ahead and asked him could I come and get a practice letter. And a clerk, I believe it was, told me yes, that I could come get a practice letter.
So I came and got a practice letter. Everything went smooth with that. They were being more than cordial about that.
But as soon as I asked about complaint forms, the whole demeanor just changed up.
Taya Graham: So when did the deputies become aggressive? What were they doing that made you feel like you had to record the encounter?
Maurice Minas: When I asked, “Can I get some complaint forms now?”
And she’s like, “Oh, complaint forms?” Literally, she goes, “Oh, complaint forms? You can’t be out here harassing people.”
I’m like, “Harassing people? I’m not harassing anybody.”
Her whole demeanor, she was being nice and cordial, even though she didn’t want to let us sit down or whatever, she still was being polite, I guess.
But after that, I could just see the snarky attitude.
So she’s like, “Okay, I’ll go get some complaint forms.”
Let me back it up a little bit. Before she gets the complaint forms, I asked to speak to the captain of the jail. It’s Captain Thompson. I asked to speak to him and she’s like, “Okay, I’ll go get him. Wait right here. I’ll be back.”
So I’m waiting. And that take probably like 20, 20 minutes, maybe.
I’m waiting. And she comes back, she goes, “Well, Captain Thompson isn’t here. He went out for lunch. We waiting on him to come back.”
So I’m like, “Okay, can I speak with the sheriff?”
She goes, “Okay, let me see if the sheriff is in.”
She leaves, maybe 20 more minutes. Then she comes back, “Well, the sheriff gone for today. He won’t be back here.”
So that’s when I asked for complaint forms, after that, because I’m like, I see what she’s doing. Even if they were here, I wouldn’t know it.
So I asked for the complaint forms and that’s when she goes, “Oh, well. You can’t be out here harassing people.”
And I literally look around like, “Miss, there’s been nobody here but me the whole time. Who am I harassing?”
Nope, I got to rewind it again. I guess this is what made her say it.
While she was going to get the sheriff or whatever, the nurse who I asked, that’s the main person who I wanted to complain on, she came to the front. She had her name tag turned around.
And she goes, “Hey, I remember you.” Like as soon as she seen me, as soon as she opened the door. I never went inside. I’m still outside.
She goes, “I remember you.”
I’m like, “You do?”
I’m smiling, trying to be cordial, because I know they tactics.
And I go, “You remember me? What you remember about me?”
She goes, “I know you don’t like me.” Literally just like that. “I know you don’t like me.”
So I’m like, “Miss, what’s your name?”
She’s like, “I don’t have to tell you my name. I don’t have to tell you anything.” She literally turned around and walked off.
She said, “Okay, I’ll go get your complaint forms,” with an attitude. Leaves, comes back with the four officers, and I seen them walking down the hallway.
So I got my camera and I started recording. That’s where the video started.
Taya Graham: So after you walk to the car to get a pen, what happened? I mean, it seems like the officers are following you to the car. What happens next? What don’t we see on camera?
Maurice Minas: I’m the type of person, if you do something out of the way, even though I’m behind these walls, I still got rights. And if you do something, it’s only one way to know who this person is doing what. And that’s to identify them.
So much stuff going on in there and I’m standing up for myself and I guess they go, “Well, we got to show him that it don’t matter what you say. You’re here now. We can do this, so we’re going to do this.”
Investigate what? There was nothing to investigate on me, except maybe the incident where they beat me up and did all that. Maybe investigate that. But nobody wanted to do that. I guess it was the CYA, as they would say.
Taya Graham: How long were you held? And what did they tell you?
Maurice Minas: It’s people that came in there, actual criminals. These two guys came in there, caught with a gun and drugs, like pills and powder and stuff.
And me, all I want to do is file complaint forms, got to sit for two days.
But these guys within hours, because they got an attorney, I guess or whatever, they can bond out.
Taya Graham: That really is a serious problem with the criminal justice system, that money can buy your freedom, while innocent people can remain incarcerated due to lack of funds.
So tell me, what charges are you facing? And what is the possible outcome for you?
Maurice Minas: It’s been a little over two years since this happened. I obviously pled not guilty and I’ve had maybe three or four court appearances for this, where I go and they ask me if I want to change my plea or whatever.
And I tell them the same thing, because the first time when I went, I had a little counsel with me.
It’s this pastor called Pastor Eli Porter. Good man. Great man. He’s a head of an organization called the Poor Minority Justice Association, where he takes cases like this, for the community.
And he went with me and he seen the bargain, I guess or whatever they give me, the plea. It was, I think, a year of probation, 40 hours of community service and maybe almost a $2,000 fine, I think, maybe $1,800.
And it kind of bothered him. He’s like, “Hold on. Who came up with this? Did you not watch the video?” He was talking to the prosecutor like this. He’s like, “Ma’am, did you not see the video? The young man didn’t do anything and this what you want him to plead to?”
It goes deep. They’re all friends. They all sit down together and have lunch and talk about everything that goes on in a small town. And you can’t trust none of them, it feels like.
Taya Graham: So how has this affected your life?
Maurice Minas: It literally dampened like everything I had. I ain’t going to say dampen. It bounced out everything I had going on, because I hadn’t been having the best of jobs. I wasn’t staying at jobs, but I found the job that I thought that I could do, as long as I wanted to. Uber and Instacart, I started doing that. So I’m driving. Yeah, easy money making at least $20 an hour, if not $10 an hour. That’s something better than nothing.
It makes you not want to go out. And it’s the anxiety of seeing the police and then be like, ‘Is that one of them? I didn’t get his name. It’s been a while ago. He kind of looked like that guy, but I don’t know.”
It’s that paranoia of not knowing who did what to you, and they could make up anything, basically. So I’ve just been going through my life, stressing about it, but not stressing about it, because it is what it is, I guess. But I have noticed that I got a couple more gray hairs in my beard. I’ve lost plenty of nights of sleep and every day I obsess over it.
Taya Graham: Okay, the arrest of Maurice is not just about the ability of police to retaliate. I also think it reveals something significant about a problem with law enforcement that gets less attention than it deserves. Namely, there are just too many cops dedicated to problems that have little to do with public safety.
Just take a headcount for Maurice’s encounter and you will see what I mean, as he takes a spontaneous sidewalk roll call, in the beginning of his video, you see at least four different officers reluctantly giving their names and badge number. That’s four cops with full police powers. They have so much time on their hands, they can follow Maurice into the parking lot and effectuate what can best be described as a questionable arrest.
But the reason I make this point is not just because the number of cops involved in his arrest seems excessive. It’s more important, I think, as an example of how we have misallocated resources towards policing and how those misplaced priorities are at least partly responsible for the lack of trust in law enforcement.
So let me use the failed war on drugs as an example. And before you say it, I know. It’s an easy target that a lot of people have criticized and rightly so. But I have something specific that might shed new light on how the so-called war has distorted the very fabric of our country’s social compact.
First, as we all know, the war on drugs was a pretense to use law enforcement to diminish the rights and political agency of the working class and minorities. The idea to criminalize addiction was simply a way to monetize the poor and bolster the power of agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration, that have wreaked havoc on poor and minority communities for decades.
It’s worth noting that even as billions and billions of dollars have been spent on this war, the US continues to notch a tragic 100,000 deaths a year from overdoses, an overwhelming tally of suffering and malaise that has not diminished in the least, in spite of millions of arrests, raids, cops, and prison time. The key ingredients, I might add, of America’s punitive recipe for extracting whatever they can from the people who can least afford it.
But what really caught my eye this week was this article in the Washington Post. A piece that, for me, reveals what happens when you use the process of law enforcement to monetize a problem and how it distorts every subsequent effort to solve it.
The article recounts the lack of availability of a critical drug called naloxone. For those that aren’t familiar with it, naloxone, otherwise known by one of its trade names, Narcan, is what’s known as an opioid antagonist, a drug delivered in the form of a nasal spray that can literally revive a person in the midst of an overdose. It has, quite frankly, saved thousands of lives.
But it could do more, because at the moment, oddly enough, you need a prescription to obtain it. I guess the idea is that when someone you know is overdosing, you’ll hop right on the phone, call a doctor, get a diagnosis, get the prescription from a pharmacy, pick it up and then administer it. You get my point? It’s absurd.
Which is why the Washington Post editorial explores the reason that this lifesaving drug and the aforementioned overdose crisis has not been made available over the counter, like aspirin and cough medicine. The piece asks very vexing and serious questions. With so many people dying, why on Earth wouldn’t we do everything we can to get this drug to everyone who needs it and eliminate the need to jump through hoops to get it?
The conclusion of the piece was another key ingredient of the aforementioned American recipe for communal despair. Corporate greed. Put simply, pharmaceutical companies were worried that the margins for the prescribed product would be greatly diminished if it could be bought without the prescription.
Now, it’s worth noting that the FDA had asked several companies to make Narcan available years ago. In 2017, the article asserts these same companies did nothing to respond, namely Evzio and Adapt Pharma. Neither would explain fully to the post why they hadn’t taken up the mantle and worked to get lifesaving medicine into more hands.
But it raises a fundamental question about how this country works and often does not, and who it prioritizes and why. Because over the period of time the FDA sought to make this drug more available, hundreds of thousands of people died, a toll that perhaps might not have been fully prevented by making naloxone an over-the-counter drug, but certainly could have prevented thousands of deaths.
It really makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Because spending tens of billions of dollars on the war on drugs didn’t require any hand-wringing. Investing in punishment, expanding prison capacity, and putting more officers on the streets, isn’t that hard to approve. In fact, as our sister show, “Rattling the Bars,” aptly reported, the effort to close a prison in California met with stiff resistance even though the state simply didn’t have enough inmates to fill it.
My point here is why is it so easy to make four cops available to arrest a man for filing a complaint, but not to provide a life-saving drug to fight a national health crisis? Why was it so easy to ratchet up the war on drugs by building prisons and funding an extensive investigative agency, but really hard to make a life-saving treatment, easy and inexpensive to buy? Why? And I ask this question, with all the compassion and concern for humanity I can muster, is it easier to slap handcuffs on a person than to administer a drug that literally brings them back from the dead?
These are questions we have to answer, if we want to live in a just and compassionate world, not a country of cops, courts, and prisons, but a community that values health, wellness, and our lives first. Nothing less is acceptable. It shouldn’t be acceptable. We all deserve better.
I want to thank my guest, Maurice, for joining me and sharing his story in his fight for accountability. Thank you, Maurice.
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 appreciate it.
Taya Graham: And I want to thank friends of the show, Noli D. and Lacey R., for their support. Thank you.
And a very special thanks to our 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 R. and David K. and super friends, Shane Busta, Pineapple Girl, 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 @eyesonpolice 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 do have our 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.
In this special edition of the Police Accountability Report, Taya Graham and Stephen Janis discuss what this extrajudicial killing says about the continued emphasis on militarized policing and how its ongoing evolution is both anti-democratic and fundamentally destructive.
Production/Post-Production: Stephen Janis
Transcript
The transcript of this story is in progress and will be made available as soon as possible.
The trial of Ft. Worth police officer Aaron Dean for the killing of Atatiana Jefferson ended in a conviction for manslaughter and 12-year sentence. But in this episode, PAR investigates how the judge retaliated against supporters of Jefferson’s family who attended the trial, throwing one cop watcher in jail for refusing to be sworn in as a witness.
Studio: Stephen Janis Studio/Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a preliminary transcript and may contain errors. An updated transcript 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 man who was arrested while observing the sentence of a cop involved in a high profile killing of an innocent civilian. It is a stunning set of actions by a judge and a defense attorney that threw a well-known cop watcher into jail. But it’s also a stark reminder of how the judicial system can enforce power indiscriminately with little justification and how the consequences of this overreach can be devastating for the people affected by it.
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, and please like, share and comment on our videos. You know I read your comments and appreciate them even if I don’t always get a chance to comment on each one. And we do have a Patreon link for Accountability Reports pinned 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. Okay, we’ve gotten it out of the way.
Now, as you know on this show, we cover the excesses and abuses of American policing, but the point of this process is not just to highlight or call out bad policing. We also try to make the connection between the broader system of inequality that drives it and how both work in tandem to diminish the rights of people in ways both unseen and unacknowledged.
And no case embodies this idea more than the video I am showing you right now. It’s not a depiction of a bad arrest by an out of control cop. No. Instead, it shows the actions of a judge in concert with the defense attorney to send a man to jail who was simply observing a process that is the right of every American, the sentencing of a corrupt cop.
That’s right. A man sitting quietly in a courtroom watching the proceeding was suddenly hauled away into a cell without committing a crime. And it wasn’t just any case, mind you. It was the sentencing of a cop who killed someone. The story starts in a courtroom in Fort Worth, Texas last month. There, Officer Aaron Dean was facing sentencing for gunning down a Tatiana Jefferson. Jefferson was shot while looking out her window after a neighbor called police for a wellness check for an open door. Dean, spotting her, fired almost immediately without provocation. The shooting led to charges of manslaughter. Dean was convicted by a jury in 2021. And so this past December he was sentenced and that’s when the events that led to the controversial arrest we are reporting on today started. That’s because cop watcher Manuel Mata, decided to attend the sentencing as you can see here. During the proceedings, the judge abruptly stops and calls him to be sworn in. Let’s watch.
Judge: Mr. Burset.
Mr. Burset: Your Honor, I believe Mr. Mata has graced us with his presence. We ask that he be sworn in and put under the rules.
Judge: Is there a Mr. Mata in the courtroom?
Speaker 4: Can you stand right there at the rail for me, please, sir and raise your right hand for me? Do you solemnly swear or affirm testimony given in this cause be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
Mr. Mata: I don’t know what this is about.
Speaker 6: Hey, judge, may we approach?
Mr. Mata: I don’t understand what’s going on.
Speaker 4: I’m swearing you in as a witness so-
Mr. Mata: On What argument, sir?
Speaker 4: All right, jury, go to the jury.
Taya Graham : Now. Why the judge decided that Mr. Mata should be sworn in remains unanswered. According to people we have spoken to, the reason was frankly bizarre. The defense attorney asked him to swear at least four other activists in the courtroom as witnesses. Seriously? That’s right. After the verdict and the sentencing, the judge allowed the defense attorney to, it seems, retaliate against the people who attended the trial that the defendant didn’t like. Now, Stephen has reached out to authorities in Fort Worth and will report back what he learned shortly. But this startling request was just the beginning of a long series of inexplicable actions. Take a look.
Judge: All right, jury, go to the jury. The one may be seated Mr. Mata?
Mr. Mata: Yes.
Judge: Is your name Manuel Mata?
Mr. Mata: Yes, sir.
Judge: Your date of birth is 7/8 of 1980?
Mr. Mata: Yes, sir.
Judge: All right. I have issued you an oath to tell to testify truthfully. Are you going to take that oath?
Mr. Mata: I have a question, sir.
Judge: No. Are you going to take that oath?
Mr. Mata: No.
Judge: All right.
Taya Graham : Now, just a little background on Mr. Mata. He is a cop watcher who has been involved in some controversial cases. Still, on this particular day, he was not cop watching or protesting or saying anything for that matter. All he was doing was observing an officer who was facing charges of an extra judicial killing. But apparently his presence was enough to prompt the country’s powerful judiciary system to react inexplicably. Let’s watch again so you can see how surreal this action really was.
Judge: … truthfully, are you going to take that oath?
Mr. Mata: I have a question, sir.
Judge: No. Are you going to take that oath?
Mr. Mata: No. All right.
Judge: You are on bond on some cases, is that correct?
Mr. Mata: Yes, sir.
Judge: Those bonds are being declared insufficient. Sheriff.
Mr. Mata: What? What’s going on? What did I do? I need my lawyer present, sir.
Judge: We will get your lawyer.
Mr. Mata: You questioned me without a lawyer present, and I don’t know what y’all doing. I don’t know what’s going on.
Mr. Burset: [inaudible 00:05:53].
Mr. Mata: For what? For what? I asked him a question. I don’t have no knowledge of this case, and I just wanted to know who’s asking for me to be sworn in. The defense? The DA or the defense, the judge? Who’s asking it? Those are questions I need answered if you’re going to revoke me, you ain’t [inaudible 00:06:19].
Taya Graham : Now, at the time, the judge randomly withdrew his bail. Mr. Mata was in a precarious spot. That’s because he was in the process of defending his right to film cops. This means that when the judge revoked it, Mr. Mata was carted off immediately. Not as I said before for misbehaving in the courtroom, just simply sitting there. And for more on why this happened and the consequences, we’ll be talking to both Mr. Mata and hbomatt. But before we do that, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis. Stephen, thank you for joining me.
Stephen Janis: Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham : So first, you’ve been looking into the circumstances surrounding this odd courtroom drama. What have you learned?
Stephen Janis: Well, like many things, it’s pure weird on the surface. There is an underlying reason, and I think this has to do with the defense fighting back against the community’s disapproval of this officer. There was a controversy about moving the case earlier in the trial, moving it out of Fort Worth because of the idea that the community was somehow predisposed to judge’s officer without evidence. And I think that’s where this is rooted in because it seems like the defense attorney in this case is driving the entire ordeal and driving the fact that these witnesses were sworn in at such a late date in the court process.
Taya Graham : Do the rules of procedure even allow this? I mean, can you call witnesses at a sentencing?
Stephen Janis: Well, that’s the thing. The reason the defense attorney gave for calling a witness at this point was that they wanted to use this for a so-called appeal. However, I think the real reason was is because once you’re a witness in the case, you cannot sit in the courtroom. I think the idea was to get rid of all the activists in the courtroom and to use procedure to do that, which on the surface seems okay, but it’s not because the intention is just to remove people from the courtroom who wish to observe the legal process.
Taya Graham : Finally, did the mainstream media cover this and what was their take on what happened?
Stephen Janis: Well, their take was kind of disturbing and illustrative at the same time. The mainstream media accused Mr. Mata of making terrorist threats. This accusation didn’t come from charges, but came from the same defense attorney that tried to remove him from the courtroom. So I think it raises a lot of questions. I think this is rooted in the community’s sort of passion about this case and the judge trying to control it because early on in the case, they actually swore in the mayor and a city councilperson as witnesses too about moving the trial. And then when they criticize the verdict as being too lenient, the judge hauled them into court for a contempt of court hearing. So I think what you’re seeing here is a very troubling way of covering. Also, good to note that they accuse Mr. Mata of terrorist threats, but they did not ask him for comment, nor is his comment anywhere in, and that’s just bad journalism 101. Always seek comment no matter what.
Taya Graham : And now before we’re joined by Mr. Mata, I want to go to an important Texas cop watcher, known as hbomatt. As you might recall, he’s facing charges of organized crime from Levinson, Texas Police for cop watching, which are still pending, and which he will update us on shortly. But I also want to get his perspective on how Mr. Mata’s ordeal fits in with the broader assault on cop watchers by Texas law enforcement. Hbomatt, thank you for joining me.
Hbomatt: Glad to be here, Taya.
Taya Graham : So first, who is Manuel Mata? He’s a police accountability activist, right? Why is he cop watching and risking arrest?
Hbomatt: Very simple of Manuel. He’s been arrested for a felony and convicted before. So he’s got a meat to pick, but he only goes after the cops that are doing the crazy stuff. He still doesn’t usually just go after the random cop for doing nothing. But yeah, he started because he spent time in jail and he’s come across a lot of bad cops, and now they keep coming after him, so he wants that accountability.
Taya Graham : We see him taken out the courtroom for the trial of Aaron Dean, the officer who shot a Tatiana Jefferson through a window in Fort Worth, Texas during this wellness check. Can you describe what happened to Manuel? Why was he there and what happened?
Hbomatt: He was purely there to cover the case, to watch it, to be an observer. The night before, there was a protest against the Dean family for people who weren’t happy with only a manslaughter conviction and not murder. So at the beginning of the trial that day, we’re in sentencing now, not actual trial. The defense attorney calls him up by name to swear him in as a witness. Now, the game we’re pretty sure the defense attorney is playing is to just kick people out of the courtroom he doesn’t like. There is absolutely no legit reason for him to call Manuel up. And if he wanted the video from the recording the night before at the protest, he can just subpoena it for whatever appeal he is going to do later on. And Manuel’s not there yet. So he looks around the courtroom and recognizes a second person who was thereat the protest that night says, Hey, who are you? He doesn’t even know who the guy is. Makes him give his name, come up, kind of brown skin too, maybe just a coincidence. That guy just goes along with it. The judge swears him in as a witness, kicks him out of the courtroom.
At some point in there, the defense attorney and the judge and some other people we’re not sure who yet conspired, started trading info on who’s Manuel Mata and what’s he done and what can we do with him? And so about three o’clock at the end of the trial day, Manuel is there as a witness. Defense attorney calls him up. Manuel’s like, “What the heck’s going on?” Judge says, “I’m going to swear you in.” He’s like, “What? How?” Judge kicks the jury out and goes through this predetermined plan they came up with to judicially kidnap him, doesn’t hold him in contempt. Doesn’t say, leave the courtroom. Doesn’t say, you’re a security threat. This is going to be important later. Just says, Hey, Mr. Manuel Mata date of birth, such and such. You’re out on bonds, aren’t you? Well, I’m holding those bonds insufficient. Take him away. And they just take him to jail. And he sits there for about four days in jail before the judge reinstates his bond.
Taya Graham : What do you think it is about Manuel’s work that has caused him to be targeted like this? What is he exposing that authorities are willing to misuse the law to deter him?
Hbomatt: The cop watching has just been pure retaliation from the cops. It’s been pure revenge. He’s recording, he’s very mouthy. Manuel does not like bad cops. So he’s one of those guys like Eric Grant was that’ll cuss up a storm in front of these cops and just cut their ego off at the knees. So as a group, the entire Fort Worth area police just want to do everything they can to arrest him because they don’t like him.
Taya Graham : And now, to speak with the man himself about what happened and the consequences for him, I’m joined by Manuel Mata. Mr. Mata, thank you for joining me.
Manuel Mata: You’re welcome. It’s a pleasure.
Taya Graham : So first, let me ask you, why were you in the courtroom to watch the trial of Officer Aaron Dean? Why were you there, and why does this case matter to you?
Manuel Mata: Well, I actually been following that case for about, I think, two plus years because this case happened right down the street from where I live. So it’s not like it’s something that I heard about or it’s something that affects my whole neighborhood because she was my neighbor. The same thing could have happened to my sister or anybody. And this is the type of thing that we’re trying to expose because this is a division that’s built on basic corruption and not telling the truth, and that’s all we’re asking for. That’s all any of us have ever asked for this whole time. Accountability, honesty, transparency, and it seems like they go out of their way and waste taxpayer monies to avoid those things instead of just being what they designed for, to protect the community and serve us.
Taya Graham : So you’re in the courtroom watching the outcome of this murder trial when you’re called up to be sworn in as a witness. Is that correct?
Manuel Mata: Yes. When Judge Gallagher called me and it was like, I didn’t know why, because in this trial, I expected to be out of a trial setting when I was in court, so that’s why it was all weird to me that he was calling me up. And then when I went up there, to me, truthfully, honestly, saying yes and agreeing to something in courts during my experiences haven’t turned out well for me. That’s the whole reason why I’m trying to ask for transparency and accountability because of what happened to me. So for me just to go into a courtroom blindly when I have nothing to do with it and agreed to it, I wasn’t going to. That’s why I wanted to ask what was the reason? Why am I being sworn in? And I never got one. And that’s why I couldn’t do it, because I didn’t know what the ulterior motive was, because that’s the cases I’ve dealt with because there’s always an ulterior motive.
Taya Graham : Now, you were taken out of the courtroom in cuffs. What happened next?
Manuel Mata: The whole thing was weird to the [inaudible 00:15:16]. And honestly, if they would’ve just told me, Hey, walk back here, I would’ve walked. I wouldn’t have ran. I wouldn’t… For what? I didn’t do nothing wrong, so why would I? And it was just weird. It’s like they wanted me to see their show of force. They wanted me to say, we are running the show here. You do what we say or else. The judges, whatever. And when they took me to the back, it was like there was two guards and the white one was somewhat chill. It was the other one that was getting aggressive. And that’s when I told him, “You don’t have to get aggressive with me. I’m complying. I ain’t tripping. It’s not your fault. I understand y’all just following orders. It’s that effort that is making y’all do this.”
Taya Graham : You were able to be removed from the courtroom because your bonds were revoked. What were these bonds for?
Manuel Mata: They’re for filming cops in traffic stops. That’s all I’ve been arrested for. I’ve been arrested for interfering with public duties. And the resisting arrest comes after I either refuse to identify myself because it’s not a lawful arrest, or they seem to think that… I’m already in handcuffs, but they seem to think by me telling them, Hey, stop doing me like that, or that’s not how you’re supposed to handle me. And telling them you better write the use of force, I end up with these other charges.
Taya Graham : What about the personal costs? Surely the legal fees, court costs, time incarcerated. I’ll take their toll. Why do you keep doing it?
Manuel Mata: And I had a back and forth with this, so I’m glad you asked me that. I think the way I was raised and what I went through prepared me for this situation. Because everybody I’ve met along my two three year journey doing this, they were able to silence them. They were able to stop them by either criminalizing them. If they were parents, they took their kids and threatened them with their kids. And if they were outstanding citizens, they turned them into criminals. So I grew up in those environments and these upstanding citizens that’ve been asking for this simple thing for years, the one thing they’re able to do is those three things to each individual person in that situation to make them be quiet. I don’t have kids. I can’t have them. The good job that I had, they already took it from me. This is my job to expose all of them.
Taya Graham : Now, I think it’s worth breaking down not just what happened to Manuel Mata, but the message it’s intended to send. Because as we’ve tried to point out over and over again on this show, the pushback against policing isn’t just about bad cops or law enforcement overreach. In fact, what Mr. Mata and hbomatt experiences reveal is that holding cops accountable also means fighting back against our inherent bias for law enforcement that gets overlooked. Oh wait, I guess you’re probably saying now, bias Taya? What do you mean by bias for law enforcement? Is that your opinion or is that a fact? Aren’t we getting a little bit ahead of yourself and saying, we have some sort of bias towards law enforcement in this country? How can you prove it?
Fair question. Now let me explain. First, I want to talk about a study in an academic journal that has been largely overlooked, but illustrates exactly what I mean. It was a piece published by the National Library of Medicine that looked at how the largest cities prioritize services. In other words, where do our biggest municipalities put their money and what does it say about their priorities for serving the residents who live there? Well, interestingly, the paper focused on one specific aspect of municipal spending. How does cities balance health and wellness outlays with policing? What do cities emphasize when it comes to the wellbeing of residents? Do they allocate more dollars to cops or do they invest more in public health? And what that paper found clearly affirms my point about bias for police. Researchers found that of these top cities, only seven spent more on and emphasized social services over law enforcement. And because of that imbalance, a majority of the 50 largest metropolitan areas studied were designated carceral cities, communities were cops predominate and wellbeing suffers.
Honestly, I understand this imbalance pretty well when I was just a city hall reporter here in Baltimore years ago, our health department was almost exclusively funded by grants with very little spending coming directly from our city budget. Meanwhile, police spending went up and up and up and up. And what happened? Well, it’s complicated, but I can tell you this: crime didn’t go down. That is for sure. We are not considered a safe city. In fact, we regularly sit at top the list of the country’s most dangerous places to live. My point is that in a country where people can’t afford to pay medical bills, where social services go unfunded and where tens of thousands of people remain homeless and on the streets, why is law enforcement the number one priority? Why do political leaders spend so much on cups and tasers and guns when the work to simply improve people’s lives gets tossed aside?
As we have made clear on other shows, it’s not just because of the main excuse city leaders give: crime. Because quite frankly, the police can’t really prevent crime. And if they could, the spending by all these cities collectively would make this country the safest place on earth. Instead, I think what we see in this study is the same affliction that prompted a judge to toss a man in jail over nothing. A system that is self-perpetuating and insular despite the evidence that it truly doesn’t work. What we are witnessing in courtroom dramas like Mata’s, the prosecution of hbomatt and the lack of resources for health are all part of the same lineage of an irrational fixation on law enforcement as a cure for all that ails us.
I mean, I think it’s truly embarrassing that our greatest cities are also labeled as carceral. I think it’s shameful that we’ve pretty much created a system that tries to solve complex social problems with arrests and imprisonment. It’s even more disturbing when you consider that the cities which don’t qualify as carceral, namely New York, Washington DC, San Francisco, Seattle and Philadelphia are some of the safest. All cities say Philly, that have much lower crime rates than the communities which emphasize policing.
Now, I understand that this could also be viewed as a chicken and the egg problem. What came first? Crime or spending on police? What’s the causation here? Does the lack of spending on social services create the need to ramp up law enforcement by exacerbating poverty and neglect? To answer that question, I’m going to take a broader view and throw it back at you. I’m going to try to answer it from an entirely different perspective. See if you can answer what came first, policing or inequality? What birthed this whole law enforcement industrial complex we are dealing with now, poverty or the need for safety? I ask this question because I think it gets to the crux of the problem. Police are not the answer to a system that cannot provide for the people in need. And it is definitely not the answer to a world built upon a foundation of unequal treatment and enforcement for people who struggle to survive and have access to healthcare.
I mean, maybe it’s not carceral cities we need to worry about. Maybe we need to consider the possibility we all live in a carceral country. Maybe that is what we should be debating, not whether we are pro-police or anti-cop, but if we are truly pro humanity. That’s the question that really needs to be answered.
I want to thank my guests, hbomatt and Manuel Mata for their work to hold police accountable and for taking the time to speak with us. Thank you both. 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 really appreciate it.
Taya Graham : And I want to thank friends of the show, Nolee D and Lacey R, for their support. Thank you and a very special thanks to our Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every single one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, John R and David K, and Super friends, Shane Busta, Pineapple Girl, and Chris R. Thank you. I appreciate you.
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 @EyesonPolice 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 even if I don’t answer every single one, I assure you I read it. And we do have a Patreon link for Accountability Reports pinned in the comments below. So if you do feel inspired to donate, please do. 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.
Daniel Alvarez first appeared on the Police Accountability Report in June, 2021 after an LA sheriff put him in handcuffs for stopping at a stop sign. Since then, Alvarez has documented numerous instances of LASD officers continuing to target and harass him. Alvarez has been arrested eight times since his first encounter with LASD—always on charges that have later been dismissed due to lack of evidence. Officers have used everything from broken taillights to false DUI allegations as a pretext for continuing their harassment campaign against Alvarez. Daniel Alvarez returns to the Police Accountability Report to share how LASD officers have tormented him in the past years.
Studio: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The transcript of this video will be made available as soon as possible.
Former Maryland state medical examiner Dr. David Fowler testified at the trial of police officer Derek Chauvin in 2021 that the cause of George Floyd’s death ought to be ruled “undetermined.” Hundreds of doctors across the country repudiated Fowler’s testimony and called for his previous rulings to be investigated. After an independent review of Fowler’s handling of 1300 cases of deaths in police custody, the State of Maryland is now reinvestigating 100 of these deaths. The 2018 death of Anton Black, a 19-year-old African American man, is included in the cases to be reviewed. Fowler ruled Black’s death an accident in spite of video footage showing three white police officers and one vigilante chasing the teen, tasering him, and pinning him to the ground for six minutes until he stopped breathing. In the latest episode of Land of the Unsolved, journalists Taya Graham, Stephen Janis, and Jayne Miller dig deeper into Dr. Fowler’s disturbing record, and the patterns it reflects in police killings across the nation.
Post-Production: Stephen Janis
Transcript
Stephen Janis: Anyone who watches crime dramas could reasonably conclude that when someone is murdered, barring bizarre and extenuating circumstances, the case is solved. That is through high-tech forensics, moral resolve, or simply the near mythic competence of American law enforcement, killers are ultimately sent to jail. But as an investigative reporter, who has worked in one of the most violent cities in the country for nearly 15 years, I can tell you this is not true.
Taya Graham: And that is the point of this podcast, because unsolved killings represent more than just statistics. It’s a psychic toll of stories untold that infects an entire community, the final violent moments of a victim’s life that remain shrouded in mystery.
Stephen Janis: I’m Stephen Janis.
Taya Graham: I’m Taya Graham.
Stephen Janis: And we are investigative reporters who live in Baltimore City.
Taya Graham: Welcome to the Land of the Unsolved.
Taya Graham: Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Land of the Unsolved, the podcast that explores both the consequences and politics of unsolved murders. Today, we’re going to be examining, not a specific case, but a person who works behind the scenes at a critical role, a juncture between the body on the street, and a murder investigation. It’s an often overlooked back office position that, actually, in Maryland, has become the center of controversy, which we will recap today along with my co-host, Stephen Janis and Jayne Miller, we’ll talk about the person who occupied this position here for roughly two decades. We’ll examine why how he ruled on cases is under intense scrutiny now. We will also explore some of his odd practices in the past that may have foreshadowed the future concerns that are now front and center, all that coming up on Land of the Unsolved. So Jayne, let’s start with you. What is a medical examiner and what role do they play in death? Investigations?
Jayne Miller: Well, they’re a critical element of a death investigation. A medical examiner performs an autopsy, and an autopsy is used to determine both cause of death and manner of death. So when you have a suspicious or questionable death, it’s up to the autopsy determine what were the factors that contributed to the death of an individual, and then was it suicide? Was it an accident? Was it homicide? And oftentimes, we see a finding of undetermined, which means there’s not enough information that the medical examiner could see or find to lead to a specific conclusion. But there is no question that an autopsy will guide an investigation. It will be the force as to whether it is a homicide investigation or if it is kind of close the book because the finding is suicide.
Taya Graham: So Jayne, I’m glad you brought up the manner of death. Because Stephen, I want to know, is there a difference between the cause of death versus the manner of death? And why is that so important?
Stephen Janis: Well, yes, there is. For example, just a good example. The medical examiner can cite something as a cause of death being a gunshot, but is that gunshot a suicide, self-inflicted, or is it a homicide? And so critical to these cases is the manner, because the manner, as Jayne said, will determine. So there are five manners of death, as Jayne said, undetermined, suicide, accident, natural and homicide. If a medical examiner, as Jayne points out, decides to rule something undetermined, for example, where they say, “Hey, we can’t determine what happened.” It pretty much can kill a case for a homicide detective or anyone investigating it, and there are many cases that we’ll get to that have had that sort of problem. But it gives the medical examiner the manner of death, gives him medical examiner tremendous power because that ruling, that final determination can really make, in the case of a lot of police involved, killings, make it impossible for prosecutors to move forward, so those five manners of death are critically important and that’s really where the rubber meets the road with the medical examiner.
Taya Graham: So Stephen, despite the fact that the Office of the Medical Examiner is normally not highlighted in our political conversations, our former medical examiner here in Maryland has been in the spotlight. Can you talk about why and who it was?
Stephen Janis: So his name is Dr. David Fowler, and he, I think, became Medical Examiner of Maryland. Now just a brief overview. There are two types of coroner medical examiner people that perform autopsies. One is elected, which is a coroner, which doesn’t really have to be a doctor. And then, in our state of Maryland has a medical examiner system, which is a person who’s appointed to supervise all autopsies for cases that require autopsies. So Dr. David Fowler was the head of that here for about 17 or 18 years in Maryland, and he really was worked behind the scenes. I don’t think he really… I mean, Jayne, would you say he became controversial in a broad sense, I think, it was more just for people like us who would push back on him.
Jayne Miller: Yeah, exactly. Reporters had more dealings with that office than the average person. But certainly, his testimony that would come in the George Floyd case is really what put him on the map in terms of his rulings.
Taya Graham: So Jayne, why don’t you tell me about some of the cases where Dr. Fowler’s rulings were found suspect, a great deal of those involved police in custody deaths?
Jayne Miller: There are questions about some of the rulings in Maryland. There’s a particular finding of, what’s called excited delirium. I did some stories related to this particular finding and the controversy around that finding and those cases in particular, which involve individuals who died in police custody, and these are not cases that involve a gunshot or something like that. Generally, we’re talking about people who died as a result of or during restraint. I’ll tell you about a case in particular that I actually uncovered in just a couple of years, like a year ago was a case that actually occurred in 2001 of an individual who was restrained by five or six police officers who essentially sat on him and according to their own reports, and he died. The ruling from the medical examiner’s office in Maryland was that it was a cocaine induced excited delirium, oftentimes excited delirium has that attachment of some kind of drug use at the same time, and the manner of death was left undetermined. So in that case, that means the case just kind of sits there.
I went back to that case in 2021 to really take a look at it and had Dr. Zerweck, who’s a pretty well known pathologist, take a look at it. Based on the autopsy, he said, this is positional asphyxia, and that is oftentimes, in these cases that are controversial with medical examiner rulings, what is overlooked? Is that a good way to put it or not written down or not found? Well that, and that I think becomes the question and why we are at this situation, at this juncture in Maryland where we have rulings from the medical examiner’s office during the tenure of David Fowler that are now under question.
Taya Graham: So I really appreciate that you mentioned excited delirium. Stephen, can you talk a little bit about what excited delirium is? I think it’s known as a state of mental and physical agitation where supposedly, a person is insensitive to cold, to pain or to even instruction. Can you describe what excited delirium is and what the science is behind this?
Stephen Janis: First of all, not to jump to the conclusion, but there is really no science. But to explain that. Let me paint a little picture about how my encounters with excited delirium.
During the OTS, there were a lot of taser related deaths for people who don’t know what tasers are, they’re sort of stunt guns, I guess, would be the best description, where they put a tremendous amount of voltage through your nervous system and kind of shut it down. During that time, I would head down to the medical examiner’s office. At that point, around University of Baltimore, it was kind of this black sort of building with blacked out where it was kind of eerie, actually. But the weird thing about it was that Dr. Fowler was kind of accessible. I don’t know, Jayne, if you ever had experience, but I could just walk in and knock on the door and I would get into, let’s call them debates, but with arguments with Dr. Fowler. Now, one thing people should know about him is he’s an interesting guy because he’s kind of got this Afrikaner accent. He’s from South Africa.
So he would come out and kind of give you these lofty statements, and I found it confusing. So one of my first debates with him was about this idea of excited delirium because he was ruling in these taser cases, the underlying cause. As we said before, the cause was cardiac arrhythmia. But then he would say, “But that’s only secondary to excited delirium.” And the point to me was that, I think, and Jayne, you can talk about this if you want, but I think the point was to kind of say that it wasn’t the taser that was responsible, and that’s why I got into fights with him about cardiac arrhythmia. So one day, I come in and I’m arguing with him about it and he says, “Here, Stephen. Here’s a book, and it was a book called Excited Delirium.”
I’m like, “Okay, I’m going to read this book because this will be interesting. This will give me all I need to know about excited delirium.” I open it up, and it says, “The basic science was rooted in this condition that would happen to people in the 19th century at sanatoriums, where they would inexplicably become excited over a period of several weeks and then eventually die.” And that was in the book that he gave me, and I came back to Dr. Fowler and I said, this can’t be true. You can’t be using this as your basis. And he just refused to back down. And he especially refused back down.
Now, later, when I looked into the whole taser issue, what was very interesting was that I talked to American Association of Medical Examiners, and he told me the taser would sue medical examiners who ruled that the primary cause of death was a taser and so there was fear in the community. So that kind of showed you that people in Fowler’s position are being buffeted by a lot of different forces that we don’t see. So that was my experience with Excited Delirium. Is there any signs? I don’t think so. From my research and what I’ve read about it’s totally BS. It has nothing to do with anything. But it has become a very convenient way to put a buffer between things like tasers or police behavior and the actual cause of death, in my opinion.
Jayne Miller: I can add a little bit to that, but based on a statement I used from the National Library of Medicine when I did this story in 2021, on the death of an individual, “Excited or agitated delirium is characterized by agitation, aggression, acute distress, and sudden death. But it is not a currently recognized medical or psychiatric diagnosis.” And this gets to this debate about, as Stephen has said, its use in really important cases, obviously involving police custody deaths. Now, in Maryland, there were, at the time, as of last year, there were about two dozen cases that had been ruled excited delirium involving police and custody deaths.
Taya Graham: So I just wanted to add something here to emphasize how subjective the diagnosis of excited delirium really is. This isn’t a problem just in the state of Maryland, in Colorado, since 2018 to about mid 2020, medics in Colorado dosed 902 people with ketamine for suffering from excited delirium. And later, investigation showed that these EMTs were administering ketamine at the behest of police who were trying to control a suspect. So this case was highlighted by the death of Elijah McClain in Colorado in 2019. So excited delirium is very often cited in cases where police officers are forcibly restraining someone, and it’s not just a problem in Maryland. It’s also a problem throughout the United States, this diagnosis.
Stephen Janis: It’s amazing to think about how something, as Jayne pointed out, is not a scientific diagnosis or even psychiatric diagnoses, ends up in tons and dozens of autopsies as a primary cause of death. It’s not just there to add a little flavor, it’s the primary cause of death in many cases.
Jayne Miller: And like I said, the thing that an autopsy does is it really guides an investigation. It steers it, probably a better term, it steers it. We can look at these cases that… The reason we’re talking about this is because these cases are now under review is to what really went on in them, what else does the evidence show, and how did that finding come to be? And there were used not just on this particular finding, this is just one of the findings that has raised questions under the tenure of David Fowler.
Taya Graham: Okay, so let’s recap. We have a controversial but very influential medical examiner, a person who thrusts themselves into the spotlight by testifying at the George Floyd trial, and now someone who is facing even more scrutiny from a panel, which is reviewing critical cases. But of course, this is the Land of the Unsolved. And there is another reason we want to talk about Dr. Fowler and the Medical Examiner’s Office, specifically some of the history Stephen, you, and Jayne had with Dr. Fowler long before it hit the spotlight. So Stephen, let me start with you. Can you talk about some of your encounters with Dr. Fowler and why you had, let’s say, some run-ins with him over time?
Stephen Janis: Working as a reporter, I think Jayne can attest to this. Well, actually, I’ve seen this in Jayne more than me and I’ve never seen it so intense in a person, but when you see something anomalous, you start to question it. You know you ask questions, you’re like, why is this? So Maryland, and specifically, Baltimore has a high homicide rate, but also we had these huge number of deaths that were put in that classification that Jayne just talked about, undetermined. I just kind of found it troubling.
When I checked other cities, we had a higher proportion of undetermined death than any other city of the similar size, like in Pittsburgh, and it’s a category, as Jayne said, we’re the medical examiner kind of throws up their hands and says, “We just don’t know.” And then when I probe deeper into it, there were a lot of cases. Some were gunshots, some were strangulations. It was all sorts of stuff that really raised questions, and here’s this big haystack of cases where there’s no determination by the medical examiner. So basically these cases are in sort of a limbo, which is not a good thing, and when that came really to focus for me was when a young woman named Tyra McClary was found with her legs tied in underneath some trash and some leaves.
Taya Graham: She was underneath trash and leaves found in an alley, partially disrobed with a trash bag tied around her ankles. This was a case that Dr. Fowler ruled was undetermined, as well as there was some evidence of possible strangulation.
Stephen Janis: That’s what really caught my attention, because in the autopsy, the medical examiner working for Dr. Fowler, who’d written, “Well, we can’t rule it out because there was a hemorrhage of the thyroid gland, there was a hemorrhage of one other gland…” Parietal, right. So they said, “You can’t rule out asphyxiation.” And I just thought to myself, how many cases are there like this? So I started probing into it, but of course, I ran into a lot of resistance because the Medical Examiner’s Office wouldn’t share with me, for example, the location of autopsies. So I couldn’t really track deaths. It was very hard to get an autopsy. I had to pay for it. My employer didn’t want to pay for a lot of autopsies. It was funny because at the time, I didn’t know Jayne, but the only other reporter who had reported on undetermined deaths that I could find in Baltimore was Jayne.
So he would come out with his Afrikaner accent and he would say, “These are mostly just drug addicts. It would be intellectually dishonest to say I knew exactly what happened because I don’t know how the drugs got into a person’s system.” Someone could have given them what’s known as a hotshot. So I’m not going to rule, I’m going to leave it open, even though the tradition was, throughout the country, was to actually say, “Hey, these are accidents because no one wants to die from doing drugs, and we’ll figure it out.”
Taya Graham: It seems like there was an unusually high number of undetermined deaths being found in Dr. Fowler’s office. Is it unusual to have so many, and what would be the motive behind finding these deaths as undetermined?
Stephen Janis: Yeah, I did a comparison with other cities across the country and it, Maryland and particularly Baltimore was huge. Baltimore would have 300 to 400 undetermined deaths a year during the year as reporting. So I developed a little bit of a theory, which I feel I can discuss here, which was that, the homicide rate in Baltimore is highly political, as Jayne can attest to many politicians, including the mayor then, Martin O’Malley, had based their reputation on reducing the homicide rate.
To me, looking at the case of Tyra McClary, in other cases, it was like Fowler had created this haystack into which to throw a couple needles. If you could shave a couple homicides off here and there, it was worth creating this big gray area of undetermined land, in which certain cases that were on the borderline could be shoved into undetermined. One famous one that both Jayne and I worked on was Ray Rivera, who was the subject of a Netflix series, the Unsolved Mysteries Season one. A man who supposedly jumped off the building at the Belvedere. But again, Fowler ruled it undetermined, leading to a lot of speculation.
Jayne Miller: And it sits there.
Stephen Janis: It sits there. And you know, Jayne, and you can talk about this, it not only sits there, but because it’s undetermined, it’s kind of open.
Jayne Miller: Undetermined open, right. You mean, the public information request is going to get denied. So yeah, there’s no ability to really go after the paper trail in the case, et cetera. That’s what it does. It just puts the case in limbo.
Stephen Janis: One thing people don’t understand behind the scenes in the Baltimore homicide unit, they’re working very hard to massage the stats, and these become, it’s not questionable, it’s pending. So any undetermined case where they found a body and their explanation goes into a pending file. If Fowler rules it undetermined, it stays in the pending file. Unless he rules it a homicide, it stays there and it doesn’t get added into the stats, even if they find a bullet written body, which I’m not saying has happened, but it creates a nice little buffer, I think.
Jayne Miller: Well, and these… We can get back to the issue that at hand here, which are specifically the police in custody deaths. When you rule them undetermined, the case that I covered just a year ago, et cetera, they just kind of go away. Nothing happens.
Taya Graham: I wanted to ask, because you’re mentioning the undetermined deaths, and I just have to go back to the Derek Chauvin trial for the death of George Floyd. Because Dr. Fowler asserted that George Floyd deaths should be ruled undetermined rather than a homicide and that prompted 431 doctors across the country to sign a letter questioning Fowler’s credibility and disputing his analysis. So fortunately, there’s going to be an audit to review at least a hundred of his autopsies. But Stephen, you were there with me as we watch Dr. Fowler speak to the nation and testify in this trial. Why don’t you share what we were both shocked by?
Stephen Janis: Well, it was a surreal moment because, for my whole life, I had been writing about the problems in the Medical Examiner’s Office and had gotten a lot of heat for it, to be honest with you, and kind of like you’re a crazy reporter. We had gone through the situation with Anton Black, the medical examiner’s office spokesperson tried to get us fired from a free gig because he didn’t like our reporting.
Taya Graham: It’s true. They called up our editors and tried to get us fired.
Stephen Janis: A friend of mine at the ACU said, “You know, Fowler’s testifying in the Chauvin case.” And I’m like the George Floyd case? I’m like, no, that can’t be true. I don’t believe it. But I never thought that he would go on national television in a case like this, and literally, to me, tell on himself in terms of…
Taya Graham: He’s the star witness for the defense.
Stephen Janis: I know.
Taya Graham: Now show his defense.
Stephen Janis: Come on. When you saw that, you must have been like, oh my God.
Taya Graham: Sure. Right. But I’m saying he was the star witness.
Stephen Janis: I know. As I was sitting there and he starts leading towards this undetermined conclusion, my jaw just dropped 10 floors.
Taya Graham: And part of that undetermined conclusion, if I remember correctly, was he was saying that it wasn’t the knee to the neck and the two other officers kneeling on George Floyd that contributed to his death, but it was actually the exhaust coming from the police car along with an underlying heart condition that perhaps caused the death. But because he could not say for sure, it had to be ruled undetermined. Jayne, what was your reaction?
Jayne Miller:
Well, first of all, everybody who was seeing the testimony of Fowler in the Chauvin trial, and to hear his explanation was like, “What?” And then this comes during defense testimony. So there’s already been extensive testimony on the State’s direct case from the coroner who did the autopsy, et cetera, and his cause of death and all of those factors. I can tell you that from the minute that the video of George Floyd being restrained on the pavement by those police officers became public, a very good police buddy of mine called me and said, “That is positional asphyxia. You never put somebody on their stomach like that.” And for a veteran forensic examiner coroner to testify under oath about his interpretation in the Chauvin case, I don’t think we should be surprised at what happened is that hundreds of medical examiners wrote a letter saying his work needs to be reviewed.
Stephen Janis: But I think the question is, Jayne, why? You and I reported about it, but he never really, even with cases that were controversial, for example, a young man named Tyrone West who died in police custody in 2013 and had become… Tawanda Jones had protesting for years. But there had been controversial cases, but Fowler never really rose to become a topic politically related.
Taya Graham: No, and not even in a reporting topic. There are only a few of us that were reporting on…
Stephen Janis: Absolutely.
Taya Graham: Cases that involved some of these rulings. Hey, look, he ruled in the Freddie Gray case. That was a homicide.
Stephen Janis: But he never really rose to the…
Jayne Miller: He did not testify in that case, but it was his office that ruled it a homicide.
Stephen Janis: But it never seemed like… It seemed like pretty much… What’s interesting about that position while we’re talking about today and talking about Fowler in particular, is that it’s an office that didn’t really come under scrutiny, no matter how controversial the rulings were, and particularly, we were talking about the Anton Black case, who was a young 19-year-old African-American male on the eastern shore, who was accosted by police, ran home, and then they laid on top of him during arrest, and again, Fowler was…
Taya Graham: And also, I’m sorry to interrupt, but I believe they also put him in a chokehold as well.
Stephen Janis: Yes.
Taya Graham: While laying on top of him.
Stephen Janis: So it looked like a classic case of situation, but when Fowler ruled it an accident and all the media picked it up uncritically and said, this is an accident. I think the reason we’re talking about this is because it really took a national spotlight to have anybody question Fowler, which is where we are today, which is, we have a hundred cases basically at this point, roughly a hundred cases changed.
Jayne Miller: Right, and we don’t know what they are.
Stephen Janis: After this letter was written, the state came up with a list, actually, the medical examiner’s office of 1300 cases in police involved deaths, and that was sent to this panel. And now they’ve whittled it down to about a hundred cases, all of which include, or at least some include excited delirium, correct?
Jayne Miller: One would assume.
Stephen Janis: One would assume.
Jayne Miller: That would be exactly right. One would assume.
Stephen Janis: As Jayne points out, we don’t know which specific cases they have not released the lists. But yes, that would be it. But just to say, I think what’s extraordinary to me as a reporter is that Fowler didn’t receive any real attention until he went on national television.
Jayne Miller: And testified in that case. That is correct, and that now is causing this reflection on the work that he did over two decades. It’s an interesting kind of where we are. So now we have a hundred cases that are going to get extra scrutiny, then what? Are we going to reverse rulings? What are we going to do? I may have a whole bevy of investigations that have to start, because I can tell you the case that I did worked on. Nothing’s happened on the case.`
Taya Graham: Well, Jayne, like you said, we don’t know what’s going to happen and in the case of Anton Black’s family, they filed a lawsuit against several of the police officers and Eastern shore municipalities, and that was settled for 5 million. But what stands out to me is that a portion of the lawsuit alleges misconduct and conspiracy in the Office of the Medical Examiner. They mentioned that 57 autopsies of the people who died in police custody. In this lawsuit, it says, “They determined the death was not a homicide in 88% of the cases, despite the person having either been tasered, pepper sprayed, struck with a baton or placed in prone restraint.” So the allegations of misconduct and conspiracy to commit misconduct is incredibly troubling.
Jayne Miller: Well, the medical examiners in this country and the pathologists in the country who have been so critical of these kinds of rulings. That’s their concern is that it has cover up as a… That’s a very harsh term, but that’s exactly what they allege, is that they’re using some of these rulings that then divert from the attention on the police officer and the action of the police officer, and they stop our thorough investigation in its tracks, and that’s what I’m saying. We now have a hundred cases with the potential to cause full fledged investigations, some of them five, 10, 12 years old.
Stephen Janis: I mean, if you Google Anton Black cause of Death, you’ll see hundreds, dozens of headlines that it was an accident and that really changes the whole tenor of the case. I mean, people just accept it uncritically that it’s a medical examiner who ruled this, so it becomes part of the fabric of the narrative. Also, as James pointed out, just because it’s ruled a homicide, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a crime, right?
Jayne Miller: That’s correct. It can be…
Stephen Janis: Homicide’s just death at the hands of another.
Jayne Miller: Could be justified. That’s correct, and we certainly have had those, obviously. Police officers shoot someone fatally, it’s a homicide. But it’s a justified homicide and I mean, that’s generally the ruling, right?
Stephen Janis: Yes. What’s troubling about that is that these cases, if it was ruled in accident, in Anton’s case, the investigation, if it’s a homicide, at least maybe we had hoped they would do more due diligence of investigating the case if they’re dealing with a homicide, because they have to justify it. Whereas if it’s an accident, or as Jayne has pointed out, the police don’t have to justify their actions in this case. So I don’t think coverup is too harsh a term, but I’m willing to use it. That’s what it seemed to me, that Fowler took his playbook at George Floyd and exposed it to the world and said, here’s how I do this. This is what I do, and it goes back to my early theory. I just saw enough doubt so that we can squeak through on these things.
Jayne Miller: It excuses behavior, that conduct. That’s what happens.
Taya Graham: I just want to emphasize, this issue of excited delirium is not localized just to Baltimore, Maryland, cases of excited delirium, Natasha McKenna died in Virginia in police custody. Daniel Prude died in Rochester in police custody. Elijah McClain died in Colorado in police custody and these were all cases, allegedly, of excited delirium. So this particular pseudoscience is being used to cover up police instances where force was used, and they don’t want to rule it a homicide.
Stephen Janis: I think we have to think about this for a second because, and this is a Land of the Unsolved, and our main primary focus is unsolved murders, because that is a real horrible stain and source of pain and trauma for a community when a case is not closed. But you should think about that you’re talking about bogus science that ends up being determinative in many cases of people who have died primarily through homicide at the hands of another.
How that gets into the system, just like when we talked about ketamine, how ketamine was being used extensively in Colorado, but with no real medical basis. How do you have a system that incorporates junk science as a way to justify a ruling on a death in police custody? Which in some sense is a much more serious case because it’s the government that killed the person, not some crazy criminal. So think about how a system incorporates that, and almost uncritically is able to use it, except for people like, Jayne, who report on it. But really, you were on your own on that too, and how does that happen? That gives you some sense of what kind of system we’re dealing with and some of the problems in terms of reform.
Taya Graham: So I want to thank my guests, Jayne Miller and Stephen Janis. My name is Taya Graham, and thank you for joining me for this episode of The Land of the Unsolved.
Editor’s note: This video was recorded prior to Ray Liotta’s passing.
Police Accountability Report show hosts Taya Graham and Stephen Janis kick off the holidays with a spoilers-free review of the exceptional film Cop Land. Taya and Stephen take a tour behind the scenes of police culture and explore how difficult it really is for individual officers to hold other police accountable for their crimes. Decades later, Cop Land remains one of the most revealing and honest movies about the current state of policing in America. As copaganda only becomes more pervasive, this blast from the past is a breath of fresh air that offers a more realistic look at the commonplace corruption and impunity rife in police departments around the country.
Studio: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis Post-Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
Transcript
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’re going to do so by striking back at one of the key enablers of bad policing: Copaganda. That’s right. The movies and popular culture that tout police as underpaid heroes who dutifully enforce the law, which is sometimes true, but sometimes is not.
Well we’re going to do so by using a piece of popular culture that has long been forgotten but actually might be the best antidote to copaganda we have ever seen. It’s a movie called Cop Land, and we’re going to break down how this story of police corruption and mayhem is actually the most accurate and telling depiction of law enforcement in the history of Hollywood.
But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com, and please like, share, and comment on our videos. You know I read your comments and that I appreciate them. And of course you can always reach out to me directly @tayasbaltimore on Facebook or Twitter. And of course there’s a Patreon donate link pinned in the comments below, and we do have some extras for our PAR family. Okay. We’ve gotten that all out of the way.
Now, as we’ve discussed before on this show, American culture is awash in what we call copaganda. Movies and TV series that paint police not just as a savior of our democracy, but literally the human dividing line between good and evil. And that type of mythos has become more extreme as policing has expanded its grip on our country. Let’s remember American taxpayers fund police to the tune of $120 billion per year, a number that continues to grow. Meanwhile, even as the funding for police has increased in 2020, homicides have shot up by 30%.
My point is that if police were really the solution to crime and violence, then all the spending we devote to it should produce better results. And that’s where copaganda comes in. Because if you can’t deliver the basic underlying premise on which the entire institution is based, then you have to use other means to keep the dollars flowing. I mean, let’s remember that many of the stories we cover on this show are illustrative of the fact that police spend far more time writing bogus tickets and making unnecessary car stops than they do investigating serious crimes. And let’s not forget that we have reported time and time again how police abuse their powers even when there are clearly enumerated laws that are supposed to limit what they can do, but often don’t.
So as the godfather of modern propaganda and advertising Edward Bernays explained, the best way to convince people to accept bad policy is to use clever techniques to appeal to their emotions and make the worst appear the better cause. And no industry has done a better job at this task for American law enforcement than our prodigious American culture industry. I mean, it’s not just how these shows portray cops; Always honest, hardworking upholders of civilization. It’s also how many darn cop shows there are. I mean, it’s almost like no story can be told about us unless it’s through the eyes of a cop. Take, for example, a show produced in our hometown in Baltimore called The Wire. The Wire is often touted as an auteur’s honest take on the intersection of poverty, politics, and policing. A riveting deep dive into the realities of a crumbling urban core.
But don’t you think it’s odd that the entire narrative of the series is told through the eyes of the police? I mean, isn’t it strange that the primary characters of the show who explore urban decay have a badge and a gun? I mean, it seems a little strange that police have become the primary narrator of our lives. But of course that’s why in this show we’re going to review a movie that actually gets policing right. A film that has been relegated to the dustbin of history, but actually depicts the true imperative of contemporary policing better than any piece of popular culture we know of. It’s called Cop Land. A movie starring Sylvester Stallone who plays a small town New Jersey sheriff in a town that is quite literally owned by the cops with a stellar cast, including Robert De Niro, Ray Liotta, Harvey Keitel, Michael Rapaport, and Robert Patrick. It was released in 1996 and it opened to mixed reviews and meager box office success. But like many pieces of great art it has gotten better with age and become more relevant now than ever when it first hit theaters more than 25 years ago.
That’s because the film does something many films do not, which is to reveal through expert storytelling the underlying forces that drive the problematic law enforcement-industrial complex we live with today. And the film accomplishes this goal not by proselytizing, but instead reveals these truisms through complex characters, expert acting, and a riveting narrative. And to show you exactly how this film accomplishes this and also contradicts the aforementioned copaganda, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me. Stephen? Hold on. I think we’re having a technical problem, but you know, Stephen does spend an awful lot of time outside and some people are even concerned that we just leave him out there. So to be nice for the holiday season, just this once, I’m going to go get him.
Stephen Janis: Taya, thank you for… Taya? Taya? Can you hear me?
Taya Graham: Hey, Stephen.
Stephen Janis: Huh?
Taya Graham: Surprise.
Stephen Janis: What?
Taya Graham: Just this once –
Stephen Janis: What are you doing here?
Taya Graham: You can come inside.
Stephen Janis: You’re going to let me… I really feel much more comfortable being outside.
Taya Graham: Look, there have been some requests from our kind viewers who are a little bit worried about you, and they said you should come inside, just this once for the holidays.
Stephen Janis: All right. Great. I guess I’ll do it. Sure. Why not? I’ll see you guys later.
Taya Graham: Come on in.
Stephen Janis: Okay. Oh, we’re going –
Taya Graham: Come on over.
Stephen Janis: Okay. You want me to sit here?
Taya Graham: Right here.
Stephen Janis: All right. This is just weird. I’m sorry. I’m just not used to being inside.
Taya Graham: I know.
Stephen Janis: I know it seems a little strange, but I spent the past year outside.
Taya Graham: That’s true.
Stephen Janis: So being inside is a little weird.
Taya Graham: I don’t want him to get used to it. This is a one time deal.
Stephen Janis: Okay.
Taya Graham: So let’s set the scene for Cop Land. Sylvester Stallone is the sheriff of the small town in Garrison, New Jersey, just over the George Washington Bridge. And let’s listen to Robert De Niro, who plays Moe Tilden, talk a little bit about what Cop Land is.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Robert De Niro: Back in the seventies, every cop wanted out of the city, but the only cops allowed to live outside New York were transit cops because the Transit Authority was also run by Jersey and Connecticut. So these guys I knew at the 3-7, they started pulling overtime at subway stations and got the city to declare them auxiliary transit cops. They bought some land in Jersey, got some cheap loans from people they knew. They made themselves a place where the shit couldn’t touch them.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: So there’s this arrangement that’s alluded to but is not fully discussed. It gives us the idea that perhaps there’s something more sinister behind Cop Land, right?
Stephen Janis: Right. Because what basically Moe Tilden tells us, or what we learn later on, is that this town was sort of bought and paid for by the mob, so that those cops that got out of New York would allow them to run drugs through that neighborhood, which I assume is in the Bronx. But nevertheless, the point is that there’s a separation between the police and the community. And not only do the police leave the community but they also use the community to finance their little suburban paradise in utopia. So it sets up a very interesting premise. We don’t know this at first, but it’s kind of alluded to that they got themselves out, they were working as transit cops. They kind of game the system but also separate themselves from the community that they were supposed to serve which is, I think, a big, big theme in American policing right now.
Taya Graham: Absolutely. Now, one of the things that is so extraordinary about this movie is how many times police officers actually commit crimes during this movie. So we have our sheriff, our hero, Freddy Heflin, who, one of the first acts we see him do is, he’s in a bar playing pinball. He runs out of quarters, so he breaks into a parking meter to help himself, right?
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Sylvester Stallone:[Sound of coins falling] Shit. Dammit. [Coins clinking together]
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Stephen Janis: Yeah, no, it’s an extraordinary sort of casual event. Ray Liotta, who’s one of his friends, is watching him and kind of chuckling, when really he’s committing misconduct in office clearly. Clearly you can’t, as a cop, just help yourself to a parking meter, but it kind of sets the tone for the movie because he says, you know what? There’s different rules for us. If I need quarters for my pinball machine, I’ll just go into a parking meter. I think it’s a really important, it’s subtle, it’s small. But at the same time, it speaks volumes about how Cop Land is run and how laws are one for cops and one for everybody else.
Taya Graham: Okay. So a big scene that moves the movie forward is when Michael Rapaport, who plays the character Super Boy, is driving along – And he may have actually been intoxicated during this drive, but we don’t know for certain – But he is driving along and he ends up in a hit and run situation with two other gentlemen in a car. He ends up shooting those two unarmed young men. Let’s take a quick look at what happens.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Michael Rapaport: [Music playing on radio][car crashing, tires screeching] Oh fuck.
Radio Announcer: …Angels today. Chili Davis had two run homers from either side…
Michael Rapaport: Hey! Pull over. NYPD, pull over. Hey, you hear me? Pull over. [tires screeching, car crashing] Fuck, shit. [gunshots] Fuck, cocksucker. [tires screeching, car crashing]
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: All right. So Stephen, what’s happening here and why is it so important?
Stephen Janis: Well, this is really the conflict that sets up everything that cascades from it. And when Super Boy’s car is hit, he thinks that these young men are shooting at him, but all they have is a tire iron. So then the scene that evolves on the bridge is really, really illustrative, because after he shoots and kills these guys it’s like the sort of mechanisms of policing all jump into action. And you have the union rep, both union reps are on the bridge, including Harvey Keitel. Who immediately says, oh, I’ve got a gun in the trunk and we’ll plant the gun. One of the cop friends of Super Boy plants the gun and then all chaos breaks out.
So what’s interesting is you see how police protect themselves. First of all, you can’t just shoot someone running away from you. Even if they hit your car, get their license plate. But he shoots them. After he kills them, then they go into another coverup. Rather than investigating this properly they literally start a cascade coverup where, as you know, Super Boy jumps off the bridge.
Taya Graham: Now, what I thought was really interesting is that when Super Boy finds out that he has killed two young men, the first thing he says is, they’re going to take my shield.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Michael Rapaport: [crosstalk] Take my fucking shield away from me.
Speaker 1: Hey, put it down, chico.
Speaker 2: Chico this, motherfucker. What?
Speaker 1: Frankie, don’t be starting anything.
Speaker 2: What the fuck you going to do? [crosstalk].
Speaker 1: [crosstalk] Oh my God. Oh my God, Leo. Jesus. He jumped, oh my God. Jumped. He jumped. Shine a light down there.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: Why do you think that is so important? I think this says so much that his first thought was not for the young men, but for his badge, his gun, and his authority.
Stephen Janis: Well, it’s like the shield is like a barrier, right? It’s literally a shield. It’s like a social shield. It says, I’m not going to be… I can’t be part of the regular population where I have to follow the rules of everybody else. I can’t just be a normal citizen of this city. I’ve got my shield. And I think that’s really great that you brought that up, because it’s a very interesting word. He didn’t say, I’m going to lose my job, or I’m going to go to jail. I’m going to lose my shield. And I think that’s a metaphor, an effective metaphor, for what it means to be a cop in Cop Land and in New York in this movie.
Taya Graham: So one of the things that we promised at the beginning of this is that we were going to talk about how copaganda works and the strange way that crime, or what our idea of crime is, is normalized and set by law enforcement officers. Stephen, maybe you can talk a little bit about this effect.
Stephen Janis: Well, one of the things really interesting is that when you start getting into the movie, and you see Super Boy jump, and you see Sylvester Stallone break into the parking meter, and you see the gun pulled out and planted, and you see crime after crime, after crime. And you start realizing that in this world of policing that’s just the way things are. They’re not cognizant. It’s not like someone says, oh, don’t plant that gun. That’s a crime. Or someone says, hey, Freddy, Heflin, stop taking the quarters. And of course, Sylvester Stallone’s character gets into an accident just shortly after that. And he’s trying to come up with excuses. He said, what did you tell the people down at the station what happened? And let’s just watch that for a second, because it’s very revealing.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Sylvester Stallone: What’d you tell Lenny about the accident?
Speaker 3: Chasing the speeder.
Sylvester Stallone: What?
Speaker 3: Sheriff was chasing the speeder.
Sylvester Stallone: [scoffs]
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Stephen Janis: So of course even this sort of everyday sheriff is in on this… Freddy Heflin or Sylvester Stallone’s character is not immune to this sort of feeling of… He didn’t say, you know what, that’s not true. I wasn’t chasing a speeder. I was a little intoxicated and hit a deer. He’s like, oh, okay. And I think it’s really interesting because when we talk about policing this country and the scene we talk about being one set of laws for police and one set of laws for the rest of us. I think this sort of tells you, or shows, gives you a sense of how that culture develops and how it becomes sort of calcified in policing. Yeah.
Taya Graham: Now one thing that I thought was also interesting, and this is when the plan is that Super Boy allegedly jumps off this bridge. When you mentioned how one of the officers ran to immediately plant a gun in order to make Super Boy’s assailants look dangerous and as if they deserved to be shot. There was an EMT there, and the EMT stood up to the police officers and said, you’re planting that gun. You can’t do this. And the EMT does something amazing. Let’s watch.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Speaker 3: We got it.
Speaker 4: Yo, yo, yo, yo. What the fuck are you doing, man?
Speaker 3: I found their piece.
Speaker 4: Found their piece?
Speaker 5: Oh Jesus.
Speaker 4: That wasn’t in there.
Speaker 3: What do you mean it wasn’t in there? It was underneath the floor mat.
Speaker 4: Bullshit, man. You can’t do that.
Speaker 1: – Come on. Shut the fuck up.
Speaker 3: Do what? It was underneath the fucking floor mat. [crosstalk].
Michael Rapaport: Take my fucking shield away from me.
Speaker 1: Hey, put it down. Put it down, chico.
Speaker 2: Chico this, motherfucker.
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 3: Frankie, don’t be starting anything.
Speaker 2: What the fuck you going to do?
Speaker ?: Kiss my ass.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: Now, when I saw this scene, I couldn’t help but think about all the times that I read about EMTs being pressured. For example, in Colorado, EMTs have been pressured to administer ketamine to suspects, perhaps against their own better medical judgment. They’ve been influenced by the police to do so. And there have been other instances where I know EMTs have been asked to turn their heads and not see what’s going on. What did that scene say to you?
Stephen Janis: Well, that scene said to me that that’s not a normal EMT because I mean it was… But it also, I think, demonstrated that there was a tension, existing tension. You had two African American young men, you had an African American EMT. He was very conscious of what was going on and he wasn’t going to stand for it. And I think he was very frustrated by what he saw as a corrupt police force sticking up for itself. And I think that frustration boiled over pretty early. And I think it was a very interesting scene to say that this type of corruption affects the community. Right away, we see the community represented there saying, hey, what are you doing? And I think that’s a very important scene because you’re so in this insular Cop Land world, like I said, everything’s upside down. But in this case, we saw the community pushing back.
Taya Graham: So now we know for certain that Super Boy did not jump off the bridge, and it is part of an elaborate coverup being created by these cops. And this is where the crimes that these officers commit really begins to accelerate. And there’s a scene with one of my favorite actors, Robert De Niro, and he’s playing an internal affairs officer, an officer who is tasked with investigating the wrongdoings of other cops. There’s an interesting scene where he approaches Freddy Heflin, the Sylvester Stallone character, and explains to him why they have to investigate.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Robert De Niro: My jurisdiction ends, in a sense, at the George Washington Bridge. About half the men I watch live beyond that bridge where no one’s watching.
Sylvester Stallone: I’m watching.
Robert De Niro: I can see that. You got a crime right here of about what?
Sylvester Stallone: Lowest in northern New Jersey.
Speaker 5: Yeah. You got Hoboken and Jersey City over here. Newark.
Sylvester Stallone: Well, we try to do a good job with what we have.
Robert De Niro: With a staff of three? No, sheriff. What you got here is a town that scares the shit out of certain people.
Sylvester Stallone: Lieutenant, I told you, I’m watching. I mean, if you look around you see none of these people are wearing silk shirts. Their pools are above ground. You know? You know, you raise your family somewhere decent, I guess that’s a crime now.
Robert De Niro: We buried a suit today. That doesn’t bother you?
Sylvester Stallone: He jumped off the GWB.
Robert De Niro: Yeah, but his body never hit the water. That doesn’t bother you? What does? That I investigate cops? Being a man who always pined to be a cop?
Sylvester Stallone: I am a cop.
Robert De Niro: Pined to be NYPD. Three, four saps in 10 years. Appeals of hearing tests. Right? You may be law enforcement, and so am I, but you are not a cop. Now I may watch cops, but tell me if I’m wrong. Every day, out these windows so do you. You watch cops too. And since we are both law enforcement, we share a duty. Do we not? If there is a stink, we must investigate. We must gather evidence because evidence makes us see the truth. Is this a stink of a criminal act or is it a turd in a bag? Babitch isn’t dead. You know that and I know that. Ray got him off that bridge alive before he could talk. But he wasn’t so lucky the last time when the shit hit the fan with Tunny. That boy he took care of later.
Robert De Niro: But now what? What does Ray do now? That’s the $64,000 question. And that’s why I’m here. That’s why I’m here, sheriff. Because you’re on the inside. And besides the church traffic and the cats in the trees and all that other bullshit, okay. There isn’t much here for you to do to keep your mind busy. But I look at you, sheriff and I see a man who’s waiting for something to do. And here I am. Here I am saying, sheriff, I got something for you to do.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Stephen Janis: Taya, I love this scene because, I think, it’s where the rubber meets the road, where Sylvester Stallone has to make this weird decision. To actually enforce the law, he has to betray law enforcement in some ways is what Robert De Niro… And then Robert De Niro kind of says, you got nothing going on in your life. You might as well do something exceptional with it. Here I am. I think no other actor could pull that off. But I think what’s extremely important about this is the fact that Sylvester Stallone’s choice is A, do I stick with my law enforcement friends, or B, do I betray them by actually investigating a crime which has become a citywide thing. Yeah. And so how do you feel about Robert De Niro’s performance there?
Taya Graham: Okay. First off Robert De Niro’s performance was, as usual, exceptional. But I think what was really interesting is the way that it was set up as if it was going to be a betrayal. If Freddy Heflin helps him investigate these cops, who are committing a crime, it’s somehow a betrayal. It’s somehow a betrayal of their oath, it’s somehow a betrayal of the blue brotherhood. And that’s what I found really interesting, because I thought the task of a law enforcement officer is to enforce laws wherever they’re broken and wherever that is found. So I thought that had a… It was a really interesting conundrum.
Stephen Janis: That’s a really great point. He says their pools are all above ground. They don’t wear silk shirts. I guess it’s a crime to raise your family someplace nice. That is so manipulative. That’s perfect copaganda.
Taya Graham: So I think the way that the police officers in this movie perceive internal affairs is really interesting. There’s a moment where the character played by Harvey Keitel, Ray Donlan, says this.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Harvey Keitel: Hey, Moe.
Robert De Niro: Hey, Ray. Sorry to hear about your nephew.
Harvey Keitel: Yeah, he was a good kid. We were up all night with him. I know you need to talk to me. I’ll come in next week sometime. How’s that? Jackie here is coming in early for you tomorrow.
Robert De Niro: Right, Jackie. Moe Tilden.
Speaker 6: Hey.
Robert De Niro: Moe Tilden.
Harvey Keitel: [inaudible] Moe here was my classmate at the academy back in the day. Before he fell in love with this redhead at IA and transferred.
Robert De Niro: Is that how it went, Ray?
Harvey Keitel: So what brings you to our fair city? Checking up on us?
Robert De Niro: I heard it was a way of life out here. Thought I’d check it out for myself.
Harvey Keitel: What are we, like the Amish now?
Robert De Niro: See you tomorrow.
Harvey Keitel: Fucking rat.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: So I think the scene says a lot about how police do not like to have anyone looking over their shoulder.
Stephen Janis: And how difficult it is to look over their shoulders. Because you’ve got veteran cops with a long history calling him a rat. I mean, he’s just doing his job, but no one likes to be investigated, but all the inner relationships to the police are made clear in this movie. Moe Tilden knows Harvey Keitel’s character from way back. It shows you sort of how entangled they are, how difficult it is to have an agency investigate itself. I think it’s pretty clear.
Taya Graham: So one thing I think the movie got really on target here was the way the police were able to feed a narrative to the media, and the media swallowed it whole and gave it out to the public. Let’s take a listen, and keep in mind, we know that Super Boy is alive. We know these other officers are committing crimes, but listen to what the public is being fed.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Speaker 7: It was the system that drove Murray “Super Boy” Babitch off that bridge. Murray Babitch was a hero cop. He deserved a fair hearing, but he knew this would not happen. Not in this city.
Speaker 8: Activists Johns met the parents of the slain teens calling for a human blockade on the bridge tomorrow.
Speaker 9: A drunk cop jumps off a bridge but does not embrace the murder of two Black children.
Speaker 8: Attending the Yankee game, Mayor Ferelli responded to reports of cops attempting to plant evidence on the bridge.
Speaker 10: We are looking into it. There may have been some irregularity on the bridge, but as I say, [crosstalk] we are looking into it. No more comments, please. I’m here to enjoy the ball game with my wife. Thank you very much.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Stephen Janis: Yeah, Taya, I love the way that they’re all kind of sitting in the bar kind of chuckling, right? I mean, they’ve got this kid who supposedly jumped off a bridge, an entire investigation of the city and they’re all sitting in the bar, it’s kind of like, whoa, look what we did?
Taya Graham: Right? They’re in the bar.
Stephen Janis: Hugging, they’re kind of on top of each other.
Taya Graham: They’re literally celebrating while they’ve essentially fooled the entire city.
Stephen Janis: You make a really good point. We don’t notice any reporters driving out to Garrison, New Jersey, looking around for Super Boy. Everyone kind of, the mainstream media kind of swallows the narrative. And that is a really important point. Because if one reporter kind of drives out to Garrison and said, is he really dead?
Taya Graham: If one reporter had shown up to that bar to interview any of the officers about him, they might have actually seen Super Boy was alive.
Stephen Janis: But instead, as you point out, the narrative is a hero cop takes his life because he thinks the justice system is unfair to cops. That’s an extraordinary narrative.
Taya Graham: And it’s an amazing twist that the public was swallowing whole except for a few community leaders that we see in the movie.
Stephen Janis: Yep. Great point.
Taya Graham: So I think there’s a really important moment where the character Ray, played by Harvey Keitel who’s a union rep, essentially gets the entire investigation shut down with a single phone call. And Ray Liotta tries to explain to Sheriff Freddy why this is happening, why it was so easy for him to do it, and why it’s going to be so difficult for him to do an investigation. And I think this is one of your favorite scenes.
Stephen Janis: Yeah. Well it’s one of my favorite lines from the scene. Because I think it sort of embodies many, many types of things. You want to watch? Let’s watch it.
Taya Graham: Yeah. Let’s watch.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Speaker 8: The New York Times is quoting one friend [knocking on door] of Royster as saying that the guy had an IQ of 160.
Michael Rapaport: I need your help. They’re trying to kill me.
Ray Liotta: Who?
Michael Rapaport: Who? My friends tried to kill me. Ray Donlan tried to kill me.
Ray Liotta: Shit. Holy shit. [footsteps] Speak of the devil. [running footsteps].
Speaker ?: Ray. Forget it.
Speaker 11: I don’t get this. This doesn’t make any sense. Why did you get Super Boy off the bridge and bring him back here to kill him?
Speaker ?: Ray had a plan. It got very fucked up.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Stephen Janis: I just like the way he says it.
Taya Graham: I know, Ray Liotta’s such a great actor.
Stephen Janis: He says, things got really fucked… Ray had a plan and it got –
Taya Graham: Really F’d up.
Stephen Janis: Well and the way he said it, kind of pauses. it got really –
Taya Graham: And that little chuckle that comes out when he’s saying it, it was just perfect.
Stephen Janis:Yeah. And I think it shows the absurdity of this kind of thing that Ray had conjured this plan. Did he ever think about how, what are you going to do –
Taya Graham: What are you going to do if he supposedly jumped off the bridge and committed suicide, what are you going to do when he’s alive?
Stephen Janis: Right. And which brings us a scene where not only have they committed the murder of two young men, not only have they covered up the murder, but then they try to murder Super Boy.
Taya Graham: Right.
Stephen Janis: Let’s watch.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Michael Rapaport: I always said to my mom, Uncle Ray doesn’t like me, but…
Harvey Keitel: I always liked you, Murray. You just sweat too much.
Speaker 12: Hey, let’s do it. Hey, Super Boy.
Michael Rapaport: So what are we going to do now? I’m going to go meet some people. How does this work? I got all my bags packed and everything, Ray. I’m just, I’m a little buzzed. You know, maybe we could do this tomorrow or something. I’m really tired, Ray. Where’s Joey?
Harvey Keitel: He’s working tonight, kid.
Michael Rapaport: Yeah?
Harvey Keitel: Yeah.
Speaker 12: Sorry it came out this way, Murray.
Michael Rapaport: It’s not that bad, Jack.
Speaker 12: Yeah, it is, Murray. [crosstalk][sounds of drowning][motor revs][gunshots][shouting].
Speaker 13: What is this? What are you doing? What are you doing? What the fuck is this. Ray, you said PDA was going to set him up with a new life.
Harvey Keitel: You think I’m all that, Joey?
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Stephen Janis: I mean, come on. You’re talking about multiple counts –
Taya Graham: How many counts of murder? So there’s a murder. There’s a conspiracy to commit murder. There is planting evidence. Then we have an attempted murder, an assault. I mean, it’s just mayhem. And I think actually, I’ve actually caused mayhem actually, that might be a crime too.
Stephen Janis: Well, yeah. I mean, it’s extraordinary when you think about it. If these guys had lawyers, they would be spending the rest of their life. I mean, the series of crimes that are committed by the time they try to kill Super Boy, and then they’re going to just dump him in the river so that someone can find him. I mean, that’s pretty ruthless.
Taya Graham: So this brings me to one of my favorite scenes with Ray Liotta. He is having an issue with the cops in the bar. He feels like they’re not keeping him in the loop, that they’re making these plans, and that they’re going to try to push him out. And they essentially say to Ray Liotta’s character, well, you do drugs, you steal evidence. And this is how Ray Liotta’s character responds.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Ray Liotta: What is this, [inaudible 00:31:19]? Huh? Listen, if IA’s going to fucking hang me by the balls, it ain’t going to be over some fucking missing evidence.
Speaker 14: Figgsy. You’ve been a cop 12 years. Six grams missing. It’s not a white size violation, babe.
Ray Liotta: Come on.
Speaker 15: You bought that big old house. Maybe you’re trying to get out from under.
Speaker 16: Hey Jack.
Ray Liotta: What the fuck’s up your ass? You can tell me you’re getting by without gravy, any of you?
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: So I thought that was really interesting because he says, Hey, isn’t there any, there’s nobody here that’s not getting by without some gravy. So think about it –
Stephen Janis: He didn’t mean gravy.
Taya Graham: No, he meant being on the tape, getting money.
Stephen Janis: Because they were talking about six ounces is not a white, six ounces of cocaine. That’s pretty expensive.
Taya Graham: Right. And he’s saying that all of you are getting some form of cash. All of you are somehow on the tape.
Stephen Janis: Taking it off of suspects, selling drugs, whatever. I mean…
Taya Graham: Right. It’s amazing. And the thing is that these officers, when they say it’s gravy, that’s a euphemism that I think helps keep some distance between the impact of their crime and the crime itself. They don’t have to admit to committing crimes because they’re the good guys that chase criminals. Instead they’re like, we just get some gravy. We just take a little money off the top. We just take a little money from the bad guys. We’re not actually doing anything wrong. And I think that euphemistic way of talking and thinking is really a point of psychology that’s very, very specific and very, very, it has a strong imperative behind it.
Stephen Janis: Well, he didn’t say, is anyone getting by without stealing. And the gravy sort of sounds like a tip or something. Something that is a –
Taya Graham: Just a little on the top.
Stephen Janis: We saw this in Baltimore and the police, when they would regularly take all this overtime. It was kind of like, we just deserve it. We don’t have to work it. There were lots of people, we had the gun trace task force, where they literally would say easy money. They would joke about getting overtime while they’re on vacation. But it was more, I think, entitlement. And I think that’s what you see with –
Taya Graham: That’s the word, that’s the imperative behind it.
Stephen Janis: What Ray Liotta is talking about. We’re entitled to this because we’re going into that horrible city. And when we go over there, we’re entitled to take whatever we want and it doesn’t matter. So I think that’s a great point, Taya.
Taya Graham: Okay. So there is another great scene where Ray Liotta and Sheriff Freddy Heflin, Sylvester Stallone’s character, are talking, and Stallone’s character is trying, is basically saying, well, I think I’m going to have to do this. I think I’m going to have to investigate these crimes. And Ray’s character gives him some advice.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Ray Liotta: All right, brother’s in deep shit. He’s down, he’s bleeding and you’ve got to get there, but there’s lights, right? All over the city, red lights.
Sylvester Stallone: You go through the red lights.
Ray Liotta: Sure. You fire up the roof. You wail, you go through the red lights. But that’s slow, Freddy, fighting your way through traffic. The goal is perpetual motion. You turn the wheel when you hit a red light, right? You don’t drive down Broadway to get to Broadway.
Sylvester Stallone: But how does this apply to what you were saying?
Ray Liotta: It applies, Freddy. It’s just as easy to tail a man walking in front of him. Now you butt heads with these friends of ours, you’re going to come at them head on. They got lives, Freddy. Families. No, you move diagonal. You jag.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: So Stephen, you love this diagonal rule. Why don’t you talk a little bit about what you think this means?
Stephen Janis: Well, I think first of all, I think it means that Ray Liotta does a lot of coke during the movie.
Taya Graham: Oh my goodness. Whether it was Goodfellas or this movie, he plays someone on cocaine the best I’ve ever seen.
Stephen Janis: Makes one wonder. But I think what’s interesting about this is that Ray Liotta is saying you can’t confront this power. This power is so immense and it kind of gives you a sense of how powerful cops can be when they’re corrupt. Because there’s no way to confront them head on. You would think you could say, okay, they broke the law. We’re going to go and arrest them. And he’s like, no, Freddy, if you confront these people head on, these are cops. These aren’t, these are like the worst mob or the worst gangsters you’re ever going to confront. And in our own town, we saw that with the gun trace task force, who was robbing residents and a group –
Taya Graham: Dealing drugs and stealing overtime.
Stephen Janis: While the Department of Justice was in town investigating the department. So I think what’s important about it, when you have a force like this, like policing or people with guns and badges, who are going to say we’re going to do what we want to do. What Ray Liotta is saying in his coke-infused haze is, hey, you can’t come at these people. You’re going to have to find a way around this to be kind of sneaky and make this happen. And that is very illustrative of the power of a badge when it’s corrupted. It’s almost omnipotent, it almost has all power.
Taya Graham: Okay. So I hate to do this, but we are going to end the review here so that we don’t spoil the rest of the movie for you. And I hope everyone who’s watching this is inspired to go rent my favorite movie, and I’m sure it’s Stephen’s, Cop Land.
Stephen Janis: Yeah. And one thing I want to make sure is clear and sort of takeaway, we talk about how this movie is a metaphor for American policing as a whole. And I think what’s important is that there is an underlying premise of the movie, which is that these guys got cop land, they’re in Garrison, because the mob gave them loans, low interest loans to buy houses so that they’d let them run drugs. But what that really is to talk about is a relationship between elites, economic elites, sort of profligate capitalism, and policing, and how police sort of have this special relationship with the powerful, the rich, who they really police and who they… Not really police, but really protect. And it gives them, affords them a certain social status and a certain amount of economic security that the people they police don’t have.
Taya Graham: Right. Pensions, lifetime health benefits.
Stephen Janis: Overtime. Yeah, it’s amazing. I mean, we have so many cops in Baltimore making $100,000 a year that only have a high school education. You couldn’t get a job like that anywhere else. And so I think that’s what makes this movie a different kind of cop movie, because it’s really exposing the relationship. It’s not hitting you over the head with it. It’s saying, think about this. So these cops escape to a suburb, they all get houses. They’re really given a land of economic opportunity and utopia that cannot be afforded to the people they left behind in the Bronx. And because they have a special relationship with mob, which I think really is the economic elite to this country, and because of that –
Taya Graham: You could definitely call some of our uber capitalists members of a mob.
Stephen Janis: Right. In a sense, also an original sin, right? Because from that sin of not really being a part of the community, of being economically separate, they then commit a myriad of sins. They feel empowered to set the rules for themselves and break any law they want.
Taya Graham: And I just want you to know that if you have a favorite cop movie, please be sure to leave it in the comments for us, for us to discuss. And I might even post the list, I went through the movie and wrote down every single crime that I could find. I might post that as a little list. And if you see any crimes I missed, please let me know because I kind of love geeking out over this movie. So please feel free to do so.
So I wanted to thank you for joining us for our special end of the year PAR. We wanted to do something a little bit lighter for the holidays. And we also wanted to just say thank you to everyone that is in our PAR audience. We read your comments. We appreciate that you watch us because we know that it means that you really care about fairness in your community. We know that because we’ve read your comments, we’ve read your thoughts. And we know that the reason why police accountability matters so much to you is because you care.
Stephen Janis: And you want to make a better community.
Taya Graham: Absolutely.
Stephen Janis: And that’s why we do it. We want to do it because better policing means a better community, and you can’t give power to someone without holding them accountable. And that’s why we do what we do. And we appreciate the fact that you watch our show because it gives us the ability to report on this. So it’s very important. Now, Taya, do I have to go outside?
Taya Graham: You will.
Stephen Janis: Okay.
Taya Graham: You will have to go outside, but before we do, I just wanted to say, if you have any evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please feel free to email it to us privately ar par@therealnews.com. Of course, you can always reach out to us on Facebook or on Twitter at Police Accountability Report. On Twitter, it’s @eyesonpolice. On Instagram, it’s @PoliceAccountabilityReport. And of course you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Facebook and Twitter. And please do like and comment on this video. You know I read your comments and appreciate them, and I’ll try to answer your questions if I can. I’m Taya Graham.
Stephen Janis: I’m Stephen Janis.
Taya Graham: And we are the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there and have a great holiday.
An unnamed motorist was stopped by Baltimore County police, held at gunpoint, and manhandled by multiple officers before being arrested. Body cam footage reveals the motorist, who has requested anonymity, requesting multiple times to speak with a supervisor and know the crime he was being arrested for to no avail. Police claim the 60-year-old motorist was doing donuts in his car in a local parking lot. TRNN reporter Stephen Janis was unable to find any sign of skid marks at the scene, and further deduced that the area was likely too narrow for such activity. The police statement further reveals that the motorist was known to local police as a citizen watchdog, raising the question of whether this arrest was a form of political retaliation. Police Accountability Report reviews the available footage and the details of the case, as well as what this man’s ordeal can tell us about the police war against our civil rights.
Studio: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The transcript of this video will be made available as soon as possible.
A recent HBO documentary entitled The Slow Hustle has brought renewed attention to the mysterious death of Baltimore homicide detective Sean Suiter in 2017. Police initially claimed Suiter was the victim of a lone assailant after his body was found in a West Baltimore alley with a gunshot wound to the head. But as details began to emerge regarding Suiter’s involvement with some of Baltimore’s most corrupt cops, the case took a turn that raised serious questions about what actually happened and if his death was part of a broader cover-up.
Shortly after Suiter died, Police Accountability Report hosts Taya Graham and Stephen Janis produced a podcast series that looked behind the scenes and examined how Suiter’s death told a more complex story about police corruption in Baltimore. In Part IV of this podcast series, Graham and Janis return to the case five years after Suiter’s death with Baltimore veteran reporter Jayne Miller to review a previously unreleased investigation conducted by the Maryland State Police.
Jayne Miller was a reporter with local Baltimore tv station WBAL-TV for over 40 years.
Studio/Post-Production: Stephen Janis
Transcript:
The transcript of this story is in progress and will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report host a live discussion on the rapid growth of police budgets and aggressive tactics around the country. Are cops the ones preventing crimes, or actually causing them?
Pre-Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham, Kayla Rivara
Studio: Dwayne Gladden, Kayla Rivara
TRANSCRIPT
The transcript of this video will be made available as soon as possible.
Steven Headrick and his wife had spent two weeks cleaning up trash at Coconino National Forest near Flagstaff, Arizona, when park police approached them and asked them to leave. National parks have a 14-day limit to visitor stays, but this regulation does not apply to official volunteers. Headrick explained to the park ranger that he was still awaiting his volunteer paperwork to be finalized, but that his nonprofit had already communicated that volunteers would be present in the park. The officer said he would call the nonprofit to confirm and left. As the co-founder of the nonprofit, Headrick expected to receive a call from the rangers, but never got one. The same officer returned and attempted to forcibly remove Headrick and his wife. He told Headrick he was under arrest for “noncompliance” and ordered him to the ground. When Headrick refused, the park ranger tased and then tackled him. Headrick reports that his wife’s arms were also severely bruised by the officer. Headrick joins Police Accountability Report to talk about his ordeal, which fits into a common pattern of law enforcement resorting to violence for frivolous “compliance”-related matters.
Studio: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The transcript of this video will be made available as soon as possible.
In May 2006, Rey Rivera disappeared from his North Baltimore home. Roughly a week later, his body was found in the second floor concourse of Baltimore’s historic Belvedere hotel. The 2020 Netflix reboot of Unsolved Mysteries brought international attention to Rivera’s mysterious death. The Real News journalists Taya Graham and Stephen Janis have previouslycoveredRivera’s death, asking why his injuries were more consistent with being stuck by a car instead of falling from a rooftop, as the discovery of his body suggested, Taya and Stephen return with Jayne Miller to break down the latest evidence in Rey Rivera’s death.
Post-Production: Stephen Janis
Transcript
Stephen Janis: Anyone who watches crime dramas could reasonably conclude that when someone is murdered, barring bizarre and extenuating circumstances, the case is solved. That is, through high tech forensics, moral resolve, or simply the near mythic competence of American law enforcement, killers are ultimately sent to jail. But as an investigative reporter who has worked in one of the most violent cities in the country for nearly 15 years, I can tell you this is not true.
Taya Graham: And that is the point of this podcast, because unsolved killings represent more than just statistics; It’s a psychic toll of stories untold that infects an entire community, the final violent moments of a victim’s life that remain shrouded in mystery.
Stephen Janis: I’m Stephen Janis.
Taya Graham: I’m Taya Graham.
Stephen Janis: And we are investigative reporters who live in Baltimore City.
Taya Graham: Welcome to the Land of the Unsolved.
[music interlude]
Welcome back to the Land of the Unsolved. My name is Taya Graham. And today we are going to be discussing a case that made national headlines several years ago after it became the subject of Netflix’s reboot of Unsolved Mysteries. The show jumped to number one in the US partly because of the story we will be exploring today: the death of Rey Rivera. And with the release of a new season of Unsolved Mysteries, we thought it would be timely to revisit the latest evidence and where the case stands.
In 2006, Rey Rivera, a 32-year-old filmmaker, left his North Baltimore home in a rush. He took only keys, a cell phone, $20 and a credit card, and then disappeared. For days family and friends searched frantically for him, but to no avail.
But then, one of Rey’s former colleagues from the financial publishing firm, Agora, spotted a hole in the second floor conference center attached to the historic Belvedere Hotel. And inside, police discovered a grizzly scene: the decomposing body of Rivera sitting below the hole, apparently dead from a fall.
But the day the body was found was not the end of the uncertainty surrounding Rey’s death. Instead it marked the beginning of a story of a young man whose death still remains shrouded in mystery. The police concluded Rey killed himself and shut down the investigation, but his family said it was simply impossible that Rey killed himself. They pointed to his decision to start a production company just before he died, his plans to move back to Los Angeles and shop a screenplay he had just finished, and his recent marriage to the love of his life, Allison. And the evidence of suicide was murky at best. Yes, there was a hole in the roof where Rey’s body was found, but there was not a single witness who placed him in the hotel the night of his death. In fact, security cameras that surveilled the staircase that led to the roof had been erased on the night he died.
All this has led to speculation about what really happened to Rey Rivera, a question we will try to answer today, because luckily I’m joined by my co-host Stephen Janis and Jayne Miller, who reported on the case when it occurred and also appeared in the Netflix episode, which examined the evidence and brought national attention to it.
So first, just for those who aren’t familiar with Rey Rivera’s case, could you please just give me a little bit of background on Rey, who he was, and what his life was like?
Stephen Janis: He was, many say, a larger than life person literally because he was tall, he was six-foot-five, I think, handsome young man. Ambitious, from everyone I spoke to, who had moved to Baltimore based on the request of a friend who ran a financial publishing firm here in Baltimore. And, really, I think, wanted to be a filmmaker director, an active blogger, and a very curious mind, I think I would describe him.
Jayne Miller: Yeah, I would agree. He wasn’t in Baltimore all that long before he met his demise here. But yeah, I think that would be accurate. He’s not a native Baltimorean by any stretch, but he and his wife moved to a house in Northwood in the Northern part of Baltimore City and settled in.
Stephen Janis: And before he moved here, he was a water polo star. When he came here, he actually coached at Johns Hopkins. So he is someone who was involved in a lot of things, a well-rounded person, certainly not someone who sounds like they’re about to go on, you know –
Jayne Miller: No, and I think it’s also interesting that, for the short amount of time he was here, he really developed some close relationships with folks. And when he went missing, there were a lot of people that turned out to try to find him, including members of the water polo theme at Hopkins and others in the community outside of his connections to Agora, the publishing company where he had worked and others who knew him in other ways. But definitely he had ties in the community.
Taya Graham: I think that’s really important, how you mentioned that in such a short time he had already made such an impact on our community, made so many friends and coworkers who really cared about him. So I wanted to know, in this investigation, there are a lot of details that just don’t seem to add up. I think there’s two competing theories on what happened to Rey. Maybe you could flesh those out for me.
Stephen Janis: So the first thing to know is that there’s two schools of thought – And Jayne’s going to talk about, actually, because we’ve looked at the investigative files – But just to lay out so there’s a framework for people. There’s a school of thought who think he did jump from the building or jump from a window and are obsessed with the angles and the speed because it seems like it would be very difficult for him to end up where he did based on jumping. But since the Unsolved Mysteries case and since the Unsolved Mystery series, Jayne and I have been flooded with people of all sorts of ideas, and some of them have been quite interesting and intriguing. One being that Rey Rivera didn’t fall from anywhere but instead was placed or beaten or killed there in the actual conference room or somewhere near the conference room, placed in there, and then a hole was made to make it look like he killed himself. So those are the two frameworks which we’ve been looking at with the case.
Jayne Miller: I think we got to also set the scene here. So the Belvedere Hotel is an old building and it had this room that had been added on much later and it was an abandoned meeting room or ballroom or whatever. But what’s significant about it is it was accessible from the street because of the way the hotel’s entrances are. And it’s a place of public accommodation because it was, actually it had been converted to a condominium by the time this incident occurred. But it was originally a hotel and it had retail spaces on its ground floor and on its first floor. So it was an open building in that regard and people would come and go.
And the room that was where his body was found was accessible to the outside. You could come in from off of Charles Street, which we’ve done, and it is relatively accessible. It’s also accessible from the parking garage, which is attached to the building, and that’s also significant.
And then the third location – And we’re really talking here, just everything within the same block – Is the parking lot next to the hotel, open parking lot, surface lot, where his car was found. And the car was parked in a way that looked like he had arrived in a hurry and didn’t straighten it out, just parked it and left. I think it’s true that the significance of the questions about this have to do with, we’ve heard from no one who could put him in the building that night, that evening that he went missing, or at any time, until his body was found in the room.
Stephen Janis: And let me just contrast, let me just add, because you’ve done such a good job of describing, anyone who’s seen the Belvedere hotel. If you go through the front entrance, there’s usually somebody sitting there because it is an apartment building, a condominium, there’s usually a security person, and there’s a bar. So there’s a lot of traffic of people coming in and out.
Jayne Miller: In and out. Correct.
Stephen Janis: Which contrasts very much with what you mentioned, the parking garage. There’s not as much traffic there. There’s not as many people just standing around. So the idea that Rey could suddenly just walk in the front and no one sees him is hard to believe compared to someone going down into that basement.
Jayne Miller: Well, he apparently, we also had information at the time that he was known to frequent what was called the Al Bar, which is on the ground floor, the first floor of the building.
Stephen Janis: So people knew him.
Jayne Miller: Sure. So if he had been there that night, if he had been inside the building that night, somebody probably would’ve noticed it.
Taya Graham: So there are some questions about the way Rey was found, and one of the strange details is that in the hole where he allegedly jumped or fell through, that it just had his cell phone and a pair of flip flops looking like they were placed at the edge of that hole. You’re an investigative reporter. Is there anything at that scene that stands out to you as being unusual?
Jayne Miller: Well, it’s always struck me as unusual that the cell phone was intact. So if, in fact, he came off the 13th floor of the building, which is the roof, and this is technically the second floor, that’s a steep… It’s quite a distance. The cell phone was not broken, it wasn’t damaged. It just seemed odd at the time that… And there are pictures in the investigative file of, I think it was a flip flop, the cell phone, and where they were on the roof of that meeting room. And then the hole is… I have to tell you, this is strictly an observation, but I’ve always thought the hole looked like the kind of hole that someone was walking across a roof and hit a soft spot and punched through it with their leg.
Stephen Janis: I would totally agree with that. It did not look like a hole made from an impact of 260 pounds from 13 floors up, which is 400 feet.
Jayne Miller: And it just always struck me as it just didn’t seem to add up to… And then they have the injuries that are described in the autopsy, which have been noted significantly because there’s a leg injury that just doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of… I think we’ve had a forensic person look at that.
Stephen Janis: Yeah, we had a forensic person who said it more resembled being run over by a car because of the nature of the fracture –
Jayne Miller: Hit by a car.
Stephen Janis: …Hit by a car rather than falling from a distance. And this is a person who analyzed accident scenes and just said she thought it was much more like he got hit by a car. So that’s another notch on the wall in terms of thinking about this case not being a matter of a fall or someone being in the hotel, but someone getting into that room some other way.
Jayne Miller: And I think the other thing that’s important is to frame the coroner’s finding in this case in terms of manner of death. Obviously the cause of death were these severe injuries that he suffered, but the manner of death was left to be undetermined. So the police wanted to close this as suicide literally as soon as his body was found. And I thought it was interesting when we went through the investigative file that we received through public information request, is that the missing person investigation seemed to be pretty thorough. There was a lot of tracking down of his last steps and talking to people and family. Notably the detectives did not find that Rey suffered mental problems, he didn’t seem distraught. They could find no one that told them that in the time leading up to his disappearance. I thought what really struck me about the investigation is how quickly it stopped. It just seemed to stop, or at least the file that we have seemed to stop after his –
Taya Graham: That’s interesting.
Jayne Miller: …Body was found, it was just like… And there’s something that is, I have asked about this and I have yet to receive an answer, and that is that the parking garage adjacent to the Belvedere apparently had video surveillance, and the detectives inquired about it. And in the investigative file there are notes where the parking garage manager, whatever, said that the video from their cameras would be available on June 7th of that year. This is now about a week or two after his body was found. There is not one note, piece of paper in the file that says it was ever followed up.
Taya Graham: Jayne, could you describe a little bit about how the parking garage connects to the concourse where Rey was found?
Jayne Miller: Well, the parking garage is literally attached to the building, the Belvedere building. So it overlooks, if you get to the third or fourth level of the parking garage, it is open on the sides and you can look down onto the roof, which has the hole and where the cell phone was, et cetera, of that meeting room in which his body was found. So it’s significant that the parking garage is attached to the building.
Stephen Janis: And when we walked through there, we found that you could get into the building from the parking garage –
Jayne Miller: Correct.
Stephen Janis: …There was a direct entrance –
Jayne Miller: Correct.
Stephen Janis: …That’s on the second or third floor.
Jayne Miller: Not locked. You walk through.
Stephen Janis: You could just walk in there. And also, similarly, you could walk up from the back of the basement. So there’s a basement, and on the first floor that Jayne talked about with retail, you could actually get into that concourse from there as well.
Jayne Miller: Correct.
Stephen Janis: It was locked and you couldn’t get up there, but there was a staircase that went up there. It’s pretty eerie.
Taya Graham: I have to ask the question, and there might be some people who are listening who are wondering the same thing. Why would a police department want to close that investigation so quickly? What would be a possible motive for wanting to rule this as suicide, closing out the case so fast?
Jayne Miller: Well, I can answer that from a media perspective. Okay. So from a media perspective, the minute that there is the specter of suicide over a case, media coverage stops, media doesn’t cover suicides.
Taya Graham: That’s interesting.
Jayne Miller: So if you want to end interest in something as an investigator or whatever, then if you start to put the specter of suicide on something, you’re going to lose media attention, and you’ll lose the public attention, too. And look, this had all the markings to be what they call a red ball case. This isn’t a gunshot victim, which obviously Baltimore has more than its share of gunshot victims. This wasn’t something that seemed to be a corner dispute about something. This was a very different kind of case. And it’s also the kind of case that could be difficult to solve because he had perhaps a lot of connections in his life and his business associations, his associations personally, et cetera, in something like this that you really have to run out. And this isn’t your everyday investigation, no question about it.
Stephen Janis: And as you point out, he was an employee of Agora, which is one of the largest employers in Mount Vernon with 2000 employees, I think –
Jayne Miller: …400, something like that.
Stephen Janis: Is it 400 in Mount Vernon by itself?
Jayne Miller: Yeah.
Stephen Janis: Yeah. So it’s a complicated case. Because –
Jayne Miller: And Agora was very, very insistent, in my reporting with discussions I had with their lawyer, was that they saw no connection to his death and Agora and the company.
Stephen Janis: And… Go ahead, I’m sorry.
Jayne Miller: And they were very insistent, and that very hard line was drawn, and were very… They commented on a few things, but they were very reluctant to comment on much of anything.
Stephen Janis: Yeah. The only way I got anything about Agora, just because it was of interest, because that’s where he worked when he came to Baltimore, was just to talk to people off the record who would pick up the phone and talk to me. But really no one at Agora would ever give me a comment on the record or anything official.
Jayne Miller: The other thing I think that’s interesting is, here we are now in 2022, the Netflix episode, which got global attention, no question, July of 2020, probably because it was also the pandemic, a lot of people were watching streaming at that time. So it definitely got a lot of eyeballs. And it’s the kind of story that generates everybody’s own theory of what happened.
But the other thing that happened, which happened as a result of that episode, was I received some information that I thought was real information, not speculation, not somebody from afar saying, oh, this is what probably happened. But these were people that were familiar with Rey, they were familiar with Rey’s business associates, and they were filling in a few blanks.
Rey’s wife, Allison, who obviously has devoted a lot of the time and attention to her pursuit of what really happened to Rey over all these years, it’s always been her theory that this is the kind of case that somewhere, someone’s going to pry open a lid to something. And once that happens, the whole story will be there. And I think that all these years have passed and we’ve gotten some hints of it, but we haven’t yet been able to throw open that lid and really answer this one way or the other. The problem is that this is a case that doesn’t have a clear answer to what really happened.
Taya Graham: So Jayne, I know you’ve been reviewing the notes that you made on the case. Is there anything you found in there that suggests to you that Rey didn’t jump?
Jayne Miller: Well, if he jumped, then they would suggest that he was trying to take his own life. So what’s in the notes from the detectives that they found nobody that would say he was suicidal, was mentally distraught. There was no note left. There was a note taped to the back of his computer, but it was just a weird note and we’re not positive he wrote it. There were some references to things, but it clearly wasn’t a clear suicide note. In fact, the FBI ruled at the time, their opinion at the time was that it was not a suicide note. So I think that stuck out to me when I went through the file, is that they interviewed a lot of people and they went through financial records, et cetera, and they didn’t find anything, no one told them anything that would suggest that he was distraught.
I have notes from when he disappeared, I have notes from when he was found, I have notes from a year later when we did the story, and then I have notes from when the episode aired in 2020 which filled in some of the blanks.
I think that, for example, there was somebody that worked in the building that told me that Rey went missing, I think, on the 16th of May. And they started to notice an odor in the building on the 19th. But it’s another five or six days until his body is found, because the room was never used. And then she described the inside of the room as what would indicate to me is that it doesn’t indicate a fall, but it indicates that something may have happened in the room.
Now there’s no witness to any of this, there’s no witness to him coming off the roof, there’s no witness to him going in that room, there’s no witness to him coming in off the street. We know a big missing piece of this whole thing is that security cameras were inadvertently deleted. The footage from that day. So that obviously would be a critical piece, would provide, perhaps, some critical information.
So the problem is that you have bits and pieces of information from people who were in the building that day, in the building a lot because they worked in the building, knew this or knew that. But to try to put it together into a puzzle that makes sense has really been the biggest challenge.
Stephen Janis: Well Jayne, let me raise something, because you and I both got a ton of tips and people contacting us. And one theme that came from a bunch of people who said they were familiar with it but wouldn’t identify themselves was they really were pushing me – And I don’t know if you got this – But to look at ways that Rey’s body could have been brought in there were or killed there. But they all felt pretty confident from what they’d heard that Rey did not fall off the building in any way, shape, or form. One time we actually went looking, because they said there were tunnels underneath Mount Vernon that they could have brought Rey in, and we found that wasn’t true, we checked that out and it wasn’t true.
But I was in constant contact with people who were urging me to look at the way the body could have been brought in there or that the hole in the roof and that suicide was a red herring of a really major variety. And it could be an amazing red herring. That hole has definitely taken any attention off other ways that this could have happened in other –
Jayne Miller: Absolutely.
Stephen Janis: Correct?
Jayne Miller: Well, because what the hole does is that it provides an answer, or a possible answer. Oh, well he came off the roof. Oh, he came off the side of the building, because he went through the roof. And you’re right, that is exactly what that could be, because there’s nothing to refute it specifically. There is a possibility of what may have happened in the parking garage. Did something happen in the parking garage? Was he in the parking garage? And again, the investigative file shows that the parking garage was ready to provide security footage for review by investigators, but it doesn’t appear –
Stephen Janis: But they never picked it up.
Jayne Miller: …We don’t know. We don’t know.
Stephen Janis: That’s true. We don’t know.
Jayne Miller: We can’t find any record that they actually went and looked at the video.
Stephen Janis: From everything we can tell, just so people understand, homicide has this Lotus Notes program from the ’90s, but they put in daily reports of what they do. They’re called progress reports. And the progress reports stop around June.
Jayne Miller: And really, really abruptly. Correct.
Stephen Janis: And because you’ll see, Jayne and I have both reviewed homicide files, and you’ll see there can be points where nothing happens, but then three weeks later you say, we received a call or something.
Jayne Miller: Correct.
Stephen Janis: But this is total stone silence, cut off. Just like somebody said that’s enough. We dealt with this. We’re not… Because there’s not even anything from getting a random phone call or anything.
Jayne Miller: No. And they were… In fact, I think the last thing that I found notes on in the file was at the end of June of 2006 when they interviewed Rey’s former friend and person he came here to work with, and met with that person and a lawyer. And that seemed to be the last thing that was noted in the file.
Stephen Janis: Now I want to talk about something that frustrates me about that file, because there’s certain things that the police could’ve done. And I made a call to a homicide detective who was in the DEA, because over those seven days, there are a lot of things in that file that are missing. But one of them is that one way police can use to figure out what happened is just ping their cell phone. It’s a common thing to do, and it could have been done in the aughts. And yet there’s nothing in the file about pinging his cell phone. If they pinged his cell phone, they would’ve known where he went that day. Why on earth would they not do that, Jayne?
Jayne Miller: Well, I’ve seen Rey’s telephone records, but I’ve seen them because Allison has them, his wife. I don’t find anything in the file where I think they took his phone, but I don’t see any reference to what was on the phone.
Stephen Janis: No, they never got a warrant or anything to look through his phone, or to look through the numbers, or to figure out who –
Jayne Miller: That’s what it appears. There’s no reference to it.
Stephen Janis: That’s what it appears. You make a good point. We don’t know for sure. But there’s nothing that I see in there. But to me the big mystery is where did Rey go? If he went to Fells Point or he went somewhere that would give you some clues, if he went straight to the Belvedere, that would give you clues. All those things are discernible with the technology that existed that time. And I think –
Jayne Miller: Well, the biggest question is why did he go there? We know he went –
Taya Graham: That’s a great question.
Jayne Miller: …Went to. We know he went there because –
Stephen Janis: Do we know?
Jayne Miller: Well, we know his car went there.
Stephen Janis: We know his car went there, we know his body ended up there.
Jayne Miller: And we know his body was there.
Stephen Janis: We don’t know where he went between leaving that… And I think from the notes you have, you can surmise he died pretty quickly. He wasn’t wandering around Baltimore.
Jayne Miller: Yes. If there’s an employee of the building that says we started… Yeah, correct.
Stephen Janis: Three days.
Jayne Miller: Exactly. Three days later you’re starting to smell an odor in the building. Correct.
Stephen Janis: Someone said, his brother Angel had told me he’s six-foot-five, he’s not going to be inconspicuous. And so I think we know that he didn’t drive around Baltimore for three or four days, but of course we don’t know exactly where he went when he ran out of the house. He didn’t tell –
Jayne Miller: We do know, however, that his car was in that parking lot the next morning.
Stephen Janis: Yes.
Jayne Miller: Because there was a ticket on it. So we know that it was there. So we don’t know when it arrived, but we know it was there at least by the next morning.
Stephen Janis: Now the other thing missing from the files that I find quite annoying, that is generally in homicide files, because we review them, are statements, like statements from the people who found the hole in the roof. I think that would be of great interest. I’m not saying there’s anything untoward, but where are the statements? Wouldn’t the homicide detectives have asked them, what made you decide to go look at the hole in the… I think that’s a reasonable question.
Jayne Miller: You’re right. These are normally things that are included. There are statements from people, well there’s interviews, I should say there are interview summaries.
Stephen Janis: Summaries, synopsis, but not –
Jayne Miller: Correct. That the detectives have written based on their interviews with people relevant to the investigation.
Stephen Janis: The reason I bring this up is because every detective I let look at this says, well, the first thing I would’ve done with the people that found the hole was take them down to homicide. And that doesn’t mean they’re suspects, but get a written statement from them and put it in the damn file. And that, to me, just shows absolutely either negligence on the behalf of the police or something worse, because that’s just basic detective work. I think that speaks to your… Not your theory, but your thought about how incomplete the file is that someone just said, whatever we found the body, that’s the main thing. And after that, we’re not really going to be curious about any other aspect of the case.
Jayne Miller: Well, they have a body, they have a hole in the roof.
Stephen Janis: What else do they need?
Jayne Miller: What else do they need?
Stephen Janis: And as you pointed out many times – And you can talk about this – Is that this is the point and shoot city, where you point a gun and you shoot. And that’s what people expect in homicide.
Jayne Miller: Well, the vast majority of our cases that involve both suspicious death and homicide involve gunshots. This is a very different kind of case. This involves an extraordinary amount of trauma and some injury that has been questioned about whether it really would be indicative of a fall. But to the point, yes, they have a body underneath a hole in the roof, and that roof is below the top roof of a 13-story building. So it’s like, okay, well that’s what happened.
Taya Graham: So looking in from the outside to this case, we see the hole in the roof. We see that with his flip flop, cell phone, sunglasses case, it could almost appear to be staged, you know that Rey was living his best life. He had friends that were looking out for him. He had just gotten married, he was working, he had just finished a screenplay. This doesn’t sound like a man who was suicidal, but it doesn’t necessarily sound like a man who has enemies. Is there any theory as to why he might have been killed if this wasn’t a suicide?
Jayne Miller: Yeah, there you go. That’s the even bigger question is it would seem that he was not the victim of a random crime because of the circumstances that we know of, his location, where his body was found, et cetera. So that’s a good question. There doesn’t appear to be anything in the information that was gathered in the week he was missing by detectives that were working a missing person’s case. There doesn’t seem to be any indication that he had a threat against him, someone who was trying to do him harm. There’s nothing in the file that indicates that.
Stephen Janis: And to Taya’s point, which is a great point and a great question, if someone did kill him this way, they are good at what they do. These are not some random person who got into a fight with Rey and just decided to kill him. They staged a killing and staged a suicide and made it convincing enough to fool the Baltimore Police Department.
I’m not going to comment on how easy or hard it is to fool the Baltimore Police Department. But you’re looking at people who were smart, and if they killed Rey someplace else and then came up with the idea to put him in the hotel, you need to think about that.
And, Taya, I think that’s a great question, because that takes some planning and some thinking, it’s not just a random thing like, let’s dump his body in the… You could easily have dumped his body in the harbor somewhere. But it would’ve raised suspicion, but you came up with the one way to make it ambiguous enough so that police could take that out and say, you know what? We can call this a suicide because there’s a hole in the roof and his body was right below it and –
Jayne Miller: And we don’t have any witnesses.
Stephen Janis: And we don’t have any witnesses. And that is something of what I would say would be a professional hit kind of thing. And that, Taya, raises the question, who would want to kill Rey Rivera, for what?
Jayne Miller: Well, and we get back to the circumstance of how he left… According to the woman that was staying in the house, the friend who was staying in the house at the time, Rey was working on something, got a phone call, and was like, oh, got to go. Like oh, forgot, got to go. So he left the house in what she described in somewhat of a hurry. And the way he parked his car in the parking lot where his car was found suggests that he parked in a hurry. So does that mean he was called to meet somebody? Does that mean, what? What does that mean? And we don’t know. We don’t know what that… Because we don’t have anybody that is filling in that blank. Who called him? What was the point of the call? Why was he in a hurry to get there?
Stephen Janis: But the one thing we do have, or don’t, is not a single person who said that he was contemplating suicide, angry, or distraught. The last person that spoke to him was a person who worked at Apple, at an Apple store and had rented him editing equipment so he could edit a project that he had been working on. So what we don’t have is anybody who said, oh yeah, Rey was suicidal. There’s just nobody that… Did you ever talk to anybody?
Jayne Miller: No. And that’s what I mean, the detectives didn’t find anybody that would tell them anything like that either.
Stephen Janis: Well, let’s think about it this way. People kill for two reasons, love or money. I don’t want to sound… But that’s basically most of the cases I’ve covered. So it’s one or the other. And –
Jayne Miller: Well, sometimes people kill people to keep them quiet, too.
Stephen Janis: Right, and that usually has to do with love or money.
Jayne Miller: At the beginning of the story.
Stephen Janis: But you’re right, you’re right that those two very simple ideas evolve and branch off into very complex reasons. But Rey didn’t have any business entanglements to speak of. He –
Jayne Miller: That we know of. That’s correct.
Stephen Janis: …That we know off. He wasn’t running some offshore company. So it really, I think that, I guess that’s why people are so obsessed with this case, because the mystery is so confounding.
Jayne Miller: Sure. And it doesn’t have clear cut answers. That’s exactly right. It has –
Stephen Janis: Not even close.
Jayne Miller: …And it has elements of it that cause questions to be asked and raise suspicion about things that we don’t have firm answers to. So this is the kind of case where it’s easy for people to fill in the blank.
Taya Graham: Well, I want to thank you, Stephen Janis, and you, Jayne Miller, for joining me for this episode of Land of the Unsolved. Wherever you’re listening to Land of the Unsolved, whether it’s on Anchor or Apple with iTunes, please make sure to leave a comment below to let us know what you think happened to Rey Rivera. I’m your host, Taya Graham, This is Land of the Unsolved. Thank you for joining me.
Chase Hasegawa had been sitting on the side of an empty rural road for six hours next to his broken-down car when he was approached by two San Diego County sheriffs. Instead of asking if he needed help or offering him assistance, police demanded identification. Knowing his rights, Hasegawa refused, and began asking questions. Cell phone footage shows the police not only threatening to arrest him, but also saying they could charge him with ‘burglary’ or ‘stalking.’
Hasegawa’s ordeal reflects a dangerous trend of officers demanding identification from people in public spaces, in violation of our First Amendment rights to assembly and Fourth Amendment protections from unlawful search and seizure. He still has not been able to recover his car from the police impound lot. Police Accountability Report speaks to California resident Chase Hasagawa about the charges, arrest, and the impact the experience is having on his life.
Studio: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
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 this arrest by the San Diego County Sheriffs – Now wait for it – For refusing to provide an ID while standing on a public road. But it’s not just a questionable action of these cops we will be exploring on the show today. We will also be examining the fraught history and legal implications of empowering police to demand identification, regardless of circumstance. Not just the perils of this practice, but what it means in the broader context of America’s expanding law enforcement-industrial complex.
But first, I want you watching to know that if you have 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 @EyesonPolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always reach out to me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment. I do read your comments and I appreciate them, even if I don’t get to respond to each and every one, I really do read them. And we also have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below, so if you do feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.
Now, one of the troubling aspects of police power is a simple act that might, on the surface, appear harmless. I’m talking about the endless variety of circumstances when police in this country can request your ID. It’s become a tool of law enforcement that, in many ways, represents just how much police power has expanded. But it’s also a concept that has not been adequately parsed to understand the far reaching implications of how its growing use has even broader implications for the state of our rights throughout the country.
Let’s remember the Fourth Amendment is pretty specific about the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. Add that to the right to free assembly outlined in the First Amendment, and it’s pretty clear that empowering the government to ask for ID on demand wasn’t very popular. I mean, let’s face it. Empowering armed agents of the government with nearly unchecked power to demand your ID or face legal consequences sounds pretty dystopian to me. One can only imagine what would happen if this power is allowed to grow unabated, and how it could be subsequently abused.
That seems to be the direction we’re headed based on the reporting on police that we’ve done for many years. Which brings me to the case and the video I will show you today. It is the perfect example of how problematic this power can be. An example of how and why police can easily abuse the ability to demand identification and what can happen when it is abused without consequence. The story starts in rural San Diego County, where Chase Hasegawa was dealing with a common problem: His car had broken down. And because he was far from a gas station or repair shop or even a residence, he had been stuck for several hours when police arrived. But instead of asking Chase if he wanted help, the officer demanded that he produce an ID. Let’s watch.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Chase Hasegawa: If I’m not suspected of a crime, I don’t need to produce my ID.
Police Officer: Actually you do. Because we got a radio.
Chase Hasegawa: Actually.
Police Officer: So we have a legal –
Chase Hasegawa: That’s not the law.
Police Officer: Okay –
Chase Hasegawa: I’m recording, just so you know.
Police Officer: Okay, That’s totally fine.
Chase Hasegawa: Okay.
Police Officer: I’m explaining to you, okay, we have a lot of facts out here.
Chase Hasegawa: Do you see anything around here to be stolen?
Police Officer: Okay. Yes –
Chase Hasegawa: I’m parked on a public road –
Police Officer: – Okay.
Chase Hasegawa: Public roadway.
Police Officer: I’m explaining to you –
Chase Hasegawa: Parked on a public roadway.
Police Officer: We have a legal, lawful right to contact you and obtain your information –
Chase Hasegawa: [crosstalk] If I’m suspected of a crime, and you have to reasonably articulate it to me, too.
Police Officer: [inaudible] You’re not…
Chase Hasegawa: So what crime do you suspect me of committing?
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: Now, it’s interesting to note that all Chase was doing when police arrived was standing on the side of the road. That’s right. He was simply waiting by a car that wasn’t moving. He wasn’t driving or even sitting in the car itself. He was simply stranded. But still, the officer escalated the situation. Take a look.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Chase Hasegawa: So what crime do you suspect me of committing?
Police Officer: I can have you stalking, I can have you –
Chase Hasegawa: No, not the things that you can make up. Not “I can have you.” What do you suspect me of?
Police Officer: So I’m –
Chase Hasegawa: You just said you were, “I can have you this”. That’s making stuff up. Come on, man.
Police Officer: Do you want me to explain, or what?
Chase Hasegawa: Hey, I know my rights. I’m not going to let them just get trampled all over.
Police Officer: [crosstalk] I’m just trying to explain it to you, though.
Chase Hasegawa: You heard it too, right?
Police Officer 2: Are you going to let him explain? Okay.
Chase Hasegawa: By all means.
Police Officer: Here’s what’s up. I have a legal, lawful right to contact you and obtain your information. We received a radio call regarding you for suspicious activity, okay?
Chase Hasegawa: And what crime is that? Is that a felony or a misdemeanor? Being suspicious?
Police Officer: Okay. It is activity that is intended to discover if you are in the process of committing a felony or a misdemeanor –
Chase Hasegawa: No, no, no.
Police Officer: I’ll tell you what –
Chase Hasegawa: If I’m suspected of a felony or a misdemeanor –
Police Officer: Let me explain something to you real quick. So you have a choice right now. You can go with the program, you can give us your ID. If you choose not to do that, that’s considered obstructing us from performing our job.
Chase Hasegawa: Actually, obstruction is a physical act.
Police Officer: No, it is not.
Chase Hasegawa: It actually is.
Police Officer: So if you continue down this road, we’re going to place you in handcuffs here in just a second. And you’re going to be under arrest. Under arrest for obstructing a police officer.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: Now, what happens next embodies all the problems with the power to identify that are discussed at the beginning of the show. That’s because Chase does something surprising. Under the threat of a cop, in the middle of nowhere, he simply refuses to produce an ID. And what the cop does shows why this power can be so treacherous. Take another look.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Police Officer: Is that clear?
Chase Hasegawa: Okay, that’s just litigation for you guys.
Police Officer: That’s fine. Is that the direction we want to go with?
Chase Hasegawa: I don’t want to go that route at all.
Police Officer: Okay.
Chase Hasegawa: I said I don’t need any assistance.
Police Officer: Okay. I’m explaining to you –
Chase Hasegawa: You guys got a call.
Police Officer: Yes.
Chase Hasegawa: Right?
Police Officer: So I’m explaining to you right now, you have a choice. You can either provide your identification, we can conduct our investigation, or we can place you in handcuffs. And then –
Chase Hasegawa: But see, the thing is [crosstalk] –
Police Officer: – We arrest you –
Chase Hasegawa: Go on.
Police Officer: For resisting, obstructing a police officer and delaying our investigation.
Chase Hasegawa: Resisting? That’s a secondary offense.
Police Officer: Okay.
Chase Hasegawa: That’s why I’m being placed under arrest.
Police Officer: It is all part of 148.
Chase Hasegawa: Am I being detained right now?
Police Officer: Yes.
Chase Hasegawa: I am. What am I being detained for?
Police Officer: You are being detained while we conduct our investigation of a suspicious activity.
Chase Hasegawa: Okay, what –
Police Officer: – And person in the area.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: I mean, I think it’s very revealing what the officer did when he was confronted by a person willing to push back. It is revealing what tools he used to get Chase to comply. Namely – And I can’t really think of any other word to describe it – False charges. Let’s watch again. And while we do, I want you to think about what you’re seeing.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Chase Hasegawa: What crime do you suspect me of committing that you’re detaining me for?
Police Officer: Okay. Burglary, how’s that? You’re in an area where you don’t live.
Chase Hasegawa: [crosstalk] Is that what the call was for, burglary?
Police Officer: Nope. No. It was for a suspicious person.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: And so, as often occurs during police encounters we cover on the show, the cop resorted to the go-to law enforcement tool: imprisonment.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Police Officer: You know what? We’re all done. Put him in handcuffs. I’m done.
Police Officer 2: Put your hands behind your back. Hey, excuse me.
Chase Hasegawa: Don’t… Please don’t touch me.
Police Officer 2: Put your hands –
Chase Hasegawa: Please don’t touch me.
Police Officer 2: Put your hands behind your back.
Chase Hasegawa: This is an arbitrary arrest.
Police Officer 2: We’re not going to use force, okay?
Chase Hasegawa: This is an arbitrary arrest.
Police Officer 2: And if that’s the case…
Chase Hasegawa: I am sitting handcuffed in a Vista Sheriff’s truck because a neighbor called the cops for a suspicious vehicle. When I asked what I was being detained for, he said I was being detained for his investigation. And the call was for a suspicious vehicle. And I asked him, is that a felony or a misdemeanor? And he said, you’re not hearing me. You’re being detained.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: That’s right. Even though Chase had not been accused or even committed a crime, even though he was exercising what is, arguably, one of our most fundamental Constitutional rights in our country, the officer ignored the law and put him in a cage. But this harrowing encounter with the rural cop was just the beginning of Chase’s ordeal. That’s because the officer involved and the criminal justice system they represent were not done with Chase. Not at all. In fact, the law enforcement-industrial complex was just beginning to inflict pain on the man who simply wanted to get his car repaired.
Which is why we soon will be joined by Chase to hear about what happened after the arrest and how the consequences of this encounter are far from over. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner Stephen Janis, who’s been looking into the case and reaching out to the police for comment. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis: Taya, thanks for having me, I appreciate it.
Taya Graham: So Stephen, you have been reaching out to the police. What have they said?
Stephen Janis: Well, I asked them, number one, why was Chase arrested? It didn’t make any sense to me. They said that it was because of narcotics, which they wouldn’t tell me what kind of narcotics. And I asked them, and they would not specify. And then I said, well, why was the car impounded? And they said, due to the fact… First they cited a California statute about speeding. And I said, are you sure? And then they said, oops, we made a mistake. It was because the car was an obstacle or an impediment to traffic, which seems so absurd to me, because he was out in the middle of nowhere. And even when you watch the video, you could see there are no cars driving by. It was absolutely, patently absurd. And my next question was, well, any car that’s stuck on the side of the road can be impounded? I mean, come on. So I really didn’t like their answers and I think it’s really problematic.
Taya Graham: You’ve also been looking into the department behind this arrest. What have you learned?
Stephen Janis: Well, it’s amazing. The San Diego County budget is a $7 billion budget. What’s the biggest ticket spending? The sheriff’s department. Over a billion dollars. This is a huge agency, I think, that has to generate a lot of revenue.
But I want people to look at something for a second. I want you to look at these sheriffs out in this rural county and what they’re wearing on their body. I mean, this is a military style gear that they have on, and imposing and intimidating, and I’m not really sure why a sheriff who works in a rural county would be armed to the teeth like this and look like he’s about to go out on reconnaissance for three months. But even so, I think part of the problem is there’s too much money. If you look at other line items and the county budget like health and recreation, it doesn’t even come close. The sheriff’s department is the biggest expenditure. They got a billion dollars, and I think they act like it.
Taya Graham: So you’ve done quite a bit of reporting on impound lots and how police have a habit of impounding vehicles. What have you learned about this lucrative process?
Stephen Janis: Well, in a lot of jurisdictions, impound lots are cash machines, ATM machines for the police department. They seize vehicles, they make it very expensive to retrieve them, and then they auction it off. And that’s been the case in our town and many other places we’ve looked into. So they’re basically a way to make money. Take your vehicle, impose lots of fines and fees, storage fees, whatever, can’t get the vehicle out. Next thing you know, it’s up for auction. I’ve been looking into San Diego County, I haven’t found that yet, but I’m going to keep looking into it and we will update you on it. But that’s usually what happens.
Taya Graham: And now, to learn what happened after the arrest and how the ordeal itself has impacted his life, I’m joined by Chase. Chase, thank you so much for joining us.
Chase Hasegawa: Thank you for having me. I appreciate the opportunity to share the video with people.
Taya Graham: So first tell me why were you stopped in the road?
Chase Hasegawa: Well, I was giving my friend a ride home, and my vehicle broke down. It just shut down completely. Wouldn’t… The lights shut off, everything. And this was at like 6:00 in the morning. And I’d been broken down there for about seven hours when the cops showed up.
Taya Graham: How would you describe how the officers approached you?
Chase Hasegawa: Aggressively. By the time I became aware that they were behind me, they were surrounding me already. And asking me what’s going on. And I had the same question for them, what is going on?
Taya Graham: So what happened when you refused to give the officer your ID?
Chase Hasegawa: Well, I could say he didn’t like that very much. He immediately started threatening me, essentially. Saying that he was going to charge me with stalking and burglary, just making stuff up, wild accusations. And I was just getting my car ready to get towed. There was going to be a tow truck there within a half hour.
Taya Graham: Did it surprise you to hear the officer essentially offer to create probable cause or a reasonable suspicion when he didn’t actually have one? I mean, did it surprise you to hear him say, well I’m just going to say you’re here stalking? I mean, he essentially fabricated probable cause.
Chase Hasegawa: Sadly, it didn’t surprise me. I kind of come to expect something like that from police officers these days. They seem to just do whatever they want, say whatever they want, and not have to face any consequences for just making up outright lies.
Taya Graham: So was this a rural area?
Chase Hasegawa: I was in a rural area, absolutely. I was about an hour from my home. And I was not by anything, there weren’t any businesses around there. No gas station to walk to. I was in the middle of nowhere. As a matter of fact, you couldn’t even see any houses where I was at. There was nothing out there. It was an empty road.
Taya Graham: So you’re in a rural area, basically stranded, with no one around to help. Why did you refuse to give the officer your ID?
Chase Hasegawa: Because I hadn’t committed any crime. He was demanding my ID for whatever reason. He said that he got a call about a suspicious vehicle, and a suspicious vehicle isn’t a crime. When he came and asked me what was going on and I said I was waiting for a tow truck, that should have been the end of it. I told them I didn’t need any assistance.
Taya Graham: So what were you charged with?
Chase Hasegawa: Well, they ended up charging me with obstruction of traffic, which is a moving violation, and I wasn’t even in my car at all. It was actually locked all the way up until they had it hooked up to the tow truck. And it was broken down.
And then he ended up charging me with paraphernalia from inside my vehicle that he opened up after the fact. And I mean, frankly, I wasn’t found in possession of. But pretty much just charged me with things that weren’t going to even stand up or anything and arrested me for no reason, just to take me to the station, write me a ticket, and then just released me. Just to displace me from the area and tow my car. And I still haven’t been able to get it out of impound. Now, because they didn’t even tell me where it was at. They towed it two cities away, when there was a yard in the same city right down the street. They went ahead and made it so it was extremely expensive just to take it out initially. And it’s just getting more and more expensive. I’m about to lose my vehicle because of it, essentially.
Taya Graham: So how did this impact you financially? I mean, I know there’s the cost of your car being towed, there’s impound fees, there’s loss of time from work, there’s court costs, there’s lawyer costs, there’s tickets. I mean, how has this impacted you?
Chase Hasegawa: Pretty much everything you named. I’m not so sure that retaining counsel for the ticket will even be necessary, cause I doubt that that’s going to go anywhere. However, I’m probably going to have to cover costs for an attorney for the civil suit. I’m a good hour away from work, and not having a vehicle… And I mean, I’m at least 45 minutes away from anything, where I live. I live up in the mountains. So I’ve been out of work for the last… A little over a week now, week and a half. Like I said, I can’t even afford to get my car out of impound, can’t make it to work. It’s a struggle just to get to the grocery store, just to survive, really.
Taya Graham: Why do you think the officer was so aggressive with you? How do you think the officer could have better handled this situation?
Chase Hasegawa: Frankly, I think the officer was aggressive. I mean, it seemed that that’s just how he conducts himself. The guy who was doing most of the speaking was a sergeant. He was kind of the gang leader among them. And I mean, it was right off the bat. Right off the bat, he started making stuff up and threatening me right out of the gate. I mean, I started recording just seconds before the interaction started. They had just walked up behind me, asked me what’s going on, and I said, I’m waiting for a tow truck. And I started recording because he started asking me for my ID right away, and I can kind of see where that’s going. And I’m not a criminal, I wasn’t doing anything. I was broken down on the side of the road, and as far as I’m… I know it’s not against the law. My car was parked on the side of the road. Him saying he was going to tow it because it was there since 6:00 AM. I mean, this just sounded ridiculous to me. There was no good reason.
He was just doing it. He was literally doing it just to inconvenience me. Along with taking me to the station. Arresting me, putting me in a holding cell just to write me a ticket. The last time I checked, when an officer’s going to write you a ticket, they’re not allowed to hold you any longer than it takes to write the ticket. So as far as I’m concerned, that entire interaction where he cuffed me up just because I wouldn’t identify myself, and then taking me all the way back to the station and put me in a holding cell just to give me a ticket that he could have written where we were at. But he didn’t have any reason to write me a ticket. Everything that he put on there was completely fabricated.
Taya Graham: If you could speak to that officer or their police department, what would you want to say to them?
Chase Hasegawa: Well, frankly, I would exercise my right to remain silent if I was face to face with them again. Because yeah, I don’t trust them. I don’t feel like they’re public servants. They were treating me like I was the enemy when I was a citizen in need of help. Not a criminal to just throw in a jail cell.
Taya Graham: Okay. At this point in the show, I usually recount an example of police misconduct or corruption to make a broader point about American law enforcement. In other words, I use the particular to better understand the general. But today I want to focus on something that has been irking me for several months now that I feel I must address directly. A trend that I’ve noticed in my interactions with police departments that I have to talk about, because it is literally driving me crazy.
As anyone who has watched the show knows, we spend a lot of time trying to get comments from the police departments we cover. Almost every case we report on, Stephen and I send an email or call the department with a detailed set of questions about the incident which we hope will shed light on the officer’s actions. We do this for several reasons:
First because it’s our duty as journalists to make every effort we can, to get the other side of the story. Even though the mainstream media goes out of its way to bolster the police narrative, we still believe in the basic tenets of journalism, and the idea that reporting just one side of a story is not just unfair, but honestly it’s lazy.
But there is another reason we go through extensive efforts to contact the police. We do this because it’s important for you, our viewer, and the public at large, to know police are listening. What I mean is that even acknowledging us with a “no comment” is better than simply ignoring us completely. Because being responsive to the independent media when their actions are in question is one of the best ways to show that law enforcement takes allegations of misbehavior or misconduct seriously.
I mean, it’s a basic tenet of accountability to have to communicate with the people you purport to serve. Nothing is more intrinsic to maintaining a free society than embracing the duty and the obligation to be responsive to the people. Acting like you don’t have to or simply ignoring questions from independent media sends a very clear message: We don’t have to explain what we do or why to anyone.
But what really bothers me about the silence of police is what it implies. Meaning that the fact that police feel they have – And I’m saying this without irony – The right to remain silent reveals an aspect of law enforcement that has much to do with the encounters we report on week after week than any other intransigence I can think of. As we have seen across the country, police do not have a problem posting mugshots and unflattering posts about arrestees on social media when they want to sully somebody’s reputation. They seem to be pretty adept at labeling a person a suspect or criminal.Just look at the Milton Police Department Facebook page, where they post photos of people suspected of crimes and then allow anyone at all to share and comment on the significance of the presumption of innocence.
So the police can communicate when they want to, but the fact they can’t answer simple questions about disturbing incidents and troubling use of force is really just indicative of the whole problem with law enforcement in the first place. Being able to simply ignore independent journalists is just a symptom of a broader issue of how insular law enforcement is, and how they feel no obligation to the people who pay their salaries.
And it’s not like we don’t try. As many of you know who watch the show, Stephen and I traveled to Trenton, New Jersey, to get comment after we caught cops lying on body camera video. Even though the department promised to grant us an interview, when we arrived, the spokesperson for the troubled agency simply disappeared into thin air.
I mean seriously, a person whose job it is to answer questions from the media and the public about police misconduct ghosted us like a bad Tinder date. The point I’m trying to make here is one that bears repeating. This lack of responsiveness isn’t about just blowing off independent journalists or not wanting to answer uncomfortable questions. This isn’t about the fact that we’re just YouTube based reporters who don’t warrant the attention they afford journalists who work for broadcast TV or newspapers. Which in itself begs the question, do they only speak to journalists who they know will paint them in a good light? Will they only speak to reporters who they know will take their side of the story without question? No. It’s not just that.
What I think we see in this refusal to acknowledge independent media is something far more troubling about American law enforcement, an imperative that drives it and sustains it, which is not always obvious but needs to be explored. I think the fact that police feel empowered to not have to answer reasonable questions about unreasonable actions reveals an anti-democratic impulse that runs throughout policing. That is, their right to outright ignore a simple query is emblematic of how law enforcement is often incompatible with the basic tenets of a free society.
Let’s remember, as we have often discussed on the show, the process of policing has been the biggest impetus to the erosion of our Constitutional rights in contemporary history. Time and time again, the court has expanded the power of cops to ignore or otherwise override the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. And that same system has pretty much given officers the discretion – Provided it’s so-called “reasonable” – To take our lives.
All of this, however, means nothing unless we as journalists do something about it. There is no point in complaining about police intransigence if we don’t also hold ourselves accountable to do more to ensure cops answer when we ask. And so I want to state here, publicly, on this show, that our visit to Trenton, New Jersey, is just the beginning. That, when it is both feasible and affordable, we will travel to the city we are reporting on and demand answers in person from the cops in question.
Now, I can’t say we will do this every single time or in every single case, but when we can, we will make the extra effort to be heard. If and when we can raise the money, we will make sure of our voice, and by extension, your voices are not ignored. We will, when we can, travel to ensure that police malfeasance and misconduct does not occur in darkness. This is not a pledge I make lightly. It’s not something I say just to create drama. And it’s not even a process I have, honestly, entirely thought through, to be perfectly frank.
But what I do know is I simply cannot allow a powerful institution to simply ignore my questions or your questions. I can’t allow this country’s massive law enforcement-industrial complex to remain unscrutinized by independent media like TRNN. Now, I know there are critics out there who are saying, Taya, you don’t need to do this. Let the local media handle that, or, just wait until the story becomes national news, and then the police won’t have a choice but to respond. We could just wait and see if they ever deemed a story worthy of their coverage.
Well, that’s okay if you want to entrust the truth to organizations that are funded with corporate dollars and owned by the top 1%, that’s fine. If you think national TV anchors, who make millions in salary, really understand what it’s like to be entrapped in our criminal justice system, which literally functions as an ad hoc debtor’s prison. That’s totally copacetic. If you think that the current system, which houses more prisoners than any country on earth and yet suffers from constant unending violence, should only be accountable to the people who helped create it?
Well, I might be biased, but I think I’m going to make a bet on The Real News Network and the Police Accountability Report and the journalism that we do. It might not always be pretty or perfect, but I can guarantee we do it because we care. Because we care about this country, we care about our community, and we care about you, and hopefully making the world a better place for both of us.
I’d like to thank my guest Chase Hasegawa for being so open with us and sharing his experience with the Valley Center San Diego Sheriffs. Thank you, Chase. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, his research, and his 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 friend of the show Noli Dee and mod Lacey R for their support. Thank you so much. And a very special thanks to our Patreons, especially super friends Shane Bushta, Pineapple Girl, and Code, and my new Patron associate producers Louis and John Roe. We appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream.
And I want you watching to know that if you have 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 @EyesonPolice 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 I appreciate them, and I try to answer your questions when I can. And we do 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 greatly appreciated.
My name is Taya Graham, and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.
Michael Q. Banks was in his car one evening when a specialized crime unit of Trenton police suddenly pulled him from his vehicle and slammed him on the pavement, breaking his nose. Police proceeded to tear apart Banks’ car without his consent. Banks invoked his Fourth Amendment rights, but to no avail. Police later justified their search by claiming Banks had displayed “aggressive behavior” and given police a “startled look” upon being accosted. The crime rate of the neighborhood Banks was parked in was also used to justify police actions. One of the officers, Michael Gelton, was later responsible for shooting and paralyzing Jajuan Henderson.
Banks’s ordeal exemplifies how police departments treat poor communities and communities of color across the country, as well as the dangerous implications such tactics have on the erosion of Fourth Amendment rights. Police have used the high crime rates that often occur in poor neighborhoods to justify violent tactics that frequently result in civil rights violations. Yet police aggression has failed to have a measurable impact on local crime or its underlying causes of poverty and systemic neglect. Banks spoke with Police Accountability Report about his ordeal. A Trenton police spokesperson failed to appear for a previously scheduled interview with PAR.
Studio: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
This transcript will be made available as soon as possible.
Married couple Wesley and Eshanae Chumbler were traveling with their 3-year-old child across the Illinois border into Kentucky when they were stopped at a police checkpoint by Kentucky law enforcement. For reasons that were hard to discern, police asked law enforcement to park their car on the side of the road. After asking Eshanae, who was driving the vehicle, to show her insurance information and driver’s license, police asked her to step out the car, and would not provide a reason when asked for one. When the couple refused, police violently forced them from their vehicle. Wesley was thrown to the ground in the process, and lost three teeth as a result. Officers proceeded to conduct a search on the vehicle, finding a small amount of marijuana. Cannabis is legal in Illinois, but not in Kentucky. The Chumblers say they were not aware that the marijuana was even in their vehicle. Kentucky police proceeded to arrest the couple for possession, and slapped additional charges on husband Wesley for obstruction.
The Chumblers’ case exemplifies how law enforcement is conducting itself across the country. Police departments emphasize the collection of fines and fees needed to continue feeding their ever-expanding budgets, rather than activities that promote the safety and health of communities. As cannabis laws change at an uneven pace throughout the country, states that still criminalize marijuana are increasingly targeting interstate travelers for legally questionable “fishing operations” that often trap unwitting drivers into legal nightmares far from home.
Studio: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The transcript of this interview will be made available as soon as possible.
Dramatic video shows a Texas police officer brutally beating a man who refused to turn over his phone to police. The victim was not suspected of a crime and was voluntarily cooperating with police. Nevertheless, the police turned on him. The attack raises even more questions about the tactics of rural law enforcement and the failure of the police to police themselves.
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
Taya Graham: Hello. My name is Taya Graham, and welcome back to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. But 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 this video of a man who was attacked during an interview with police. The attack occurred as the victim voluntarily sat down with cops to discuss a crime for which he was not even a suspect. But it’s not just the attack itself, it’s the circumstances that led up to this moment and what happened after that we will unpack for you today.
But before I get started, I want you watching to know that if you have evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com. And please like, share, and comment on our videos. You know I read your comments and that I appreciate them. And of course, you can always reach out to me directly @tayasbaltimore on Facebook or Twitter. And, if you can, please hit the Patreon donate link pinned in the comments below, because we do have some extras there for our PAR family. Okay, now we’ve gotten all of that out of the way.
Now, if there is one area of the country that we have encountered a disproportionate share of police overreach, it has to be Texas. The Lone Star State seems to have a penchant for aggressive policing and protracted prosecution that has been the ongoing subject of our efforts to expose police malfeasance.
I mean, I could run off a laundry list of cases that we have covered in the state, including the arrest of Otto the Watchdog for holding a sign, cop watcher David Boren for filming a car stop, the arrest and the assault of the Holguin family in El Paso, Texas, and this disturbing video that you’re seeing right now of Travis Bateman enduring a beating from a Paducah, Texas, sheriff during an arrest that can be best described as the result of questionable circumstances. But nothing in our past coverage prepared us for this video which we are showing you now.
It was sent to us by a viewer who was not even accused of a crime. Instead, he was voluntarily cooperating with the police in an investigation, and for his efforts he had to endure a seemingly brutal beat down. His story starts in Nacogdoches, Texas. There, Corey Roland agreed to speak to the Nacogdoches sheriff’s deputies about a series of thefts near his home involving a person who is living with him. However, during the interview, police asked to access his cell phone, a query that Roland said made him uncomfortable.
For one thing, Roland was not a suspect, but police also failed to give him any possible justification for taking his property. Roland was willing to show the officers his screen, but unwilling to hand over his phone. For that reason, Roland refused – As is his right – To allow police to rummage through his private data and personal interactions. Still, police apparently found his assertion of his Constitutional rights to be offensive, because when he declined the seizure of his property, they began to escalate. Let’s watch.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Sheriff: [inaudible] Anything, there’s anything like that on there. We’re just wanting to see the conversation about our cases here.
Corey Roland: Look, it’s just pressure. I’m in the compressor. No, you can’t have my phone. You can look, but cannot have my phone.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: Now, it should be noted that it has been well established that a cell phone is protected by the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures. That means police simply have no right to browse your phone without your consent or a warrant. And there have been a series of rulings which have reaffirmed that access to the contents of our phones is expressly protected by the same amendment.
But clearly, as we have seen in many cases we have covered involving Texas police and sheriffs, they either find the Constitutional rights inconvenient, or simply chose to ignore some of the pesky guidelines designed to protect us enumerated in our Constitution. Instead, when Roland flatly refused to turn over his phone, the Nacogdoches Sheriff’s department decided to respond with violence. Take a look.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Corey Roland: [inaudible] Pressure. I’m in the compressor. No, you can’t have my phone. You can look, but cannot have my phone.
Sheriff: [inaudible]. Hey, hey. You get back. Move. Get back.
Corey Roland: What the hell?
Sheriff: What’s wrong with you?
Corey Roland: What the hell?
Sheriff: We’re going to take it as evidence right now. What’s wrong with you?
Corey Roland: I didn’t do shit.
Sheriff: Yeah. You did.
Corey Roland: You took my phone. That’s my personal property.
Sheriff: Because I see.
Corey Roland: That’s my personal property.
Sheriff: Well, that’s the evidence.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: Now, let’s remember, as we watch this brutal assault again, Roland was not, had not, and did not threaten violence, or even have the means to initiate a violent act. He hasn’t reached for something in his pocket or made a furtive movement, actions police often use to initiate force. He had not even been in the least disrespectful or uttered a single word that justified this response. Yet still, the sheriff attacked. Take a look.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS].
Corey Roland: [inaudible] In the compressor. No, you can’t have my phone. You can look, but cannot have my phone.
Sheriff: [inaudible] Hey, hey. You get back. Move. Get back.
Corey Roland: What the hell?
Sheriff: What’s wrong with you?
Corey Roland: What the hell?
Sheriff: We’re going to take it as evidence right now. What is wrong with you?
Corey Roland: I didn’t do shit.
Sheriff: Yeah. You did.
Corey Roland: You took my phone. That’s my personal property.
Sheriff: Because I see.
Corey Roland: That’s my personal property.
Sheriff: Well, that’s the evidence.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: In fact, this aggressive assault is so outside the boundaries of use of force protocols, that it would not be unreasonable to characterize it as nothing less than a crime itself. But what’s even more disturbing about this video is how the officers responded after the attack. Because as you can see, the assorted members of law enforcement just sat around like nothing happened. That’s right. After what was an obvious violation of both Roland’s rights and his persons, the fellow deputies simply said nothing.
[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]
Sheriff: I see.
Corey Roland: That’s my personal property.
Sheriff: Well, that’s the evidence.
Corey Roland: Oh. [inaudible]
Sheriff: No. We’re not done here. You’re trying to scroll real fast from that.
Corey Roland: I’m not trying to scroll fast. I was just scrolling. Shit.
Sheriff: Is there something on the phone that you don’t…
Corey Roland: There’s nothing on my phone. It’s just mine.
Deputy: And we understand that. That’s why we at least want to see the conversation, but you [inaudible].
Corey Roland: I was trying to show him the conversation. I was trying to show him the conversation.
Deputy: I mean, when there’s suspected stolen property on the phone and we asked for the phone, you can’t sit there and try to remove possible…
Corey Roland: I wasn’t trying to remove anything.
Deputy: …Evidence from the phone. Okay?
Corey Roland: I wasn’t trying to remove anything. There’s nothing. I mean, the phone is the phone.
Sheriff: Why was it a big deal for me to look at it?
Corey Roland: Because I don’t trust Nacogdoches County.
Sheriff: Okay.
Corey Roland: Period.
[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]
Taya Graham: And, as you will learn later, he was not offered medical attention or even the option of seeking care. So, soon we will be talking to Corey Roland about how this ordeal has affected him, the consequences, and what he is doing to fight back. But first, to learn more about what happened and how police are justifying this use of force, I’m joined by my reporting partner Stephen Janis, who has been reaching out to the police for an explanation. Stephen, thank you so much for joining us.
Stephen Janis: Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham: So, Stephen, you have reached out to the Nacogdoches Texas Sheriff’s office. What did they say?
Stephen Janis: Well, I sent them a very detailed question about the issues raised in the lawsuit and about what we saw in the video, and their big answer to me was, no comment at this time. So, at this time, they are not commenting, and I don’t think we’ll get a comment from them, honestly, given the way they responded.
Taya Graham: So, based on your extensive reporting on use of force, what stands out to you in the video we’ve just seen?
Stephen Janis: Well, you can’t use force to obtain evidence. That’s a number one rule. You can’t literally punch a person to give your phone or punch a person. The only time you really can use force as a police officer, mostly, is when you feel like someone’s life is in danger. And I don’t see that here. I don’t see anybody’s life in danger. I think they just saw… Now, if you could do a no-knock warrant, if you say there’s obviously a problem if evidence would be destroyed, but that’s not the case here. The guy was sitting there with his phone. He’s not going to throw his phone in the toilet while he’s sitting there facing the cops. So, there was absolutely no justification for this.
Taya Graham: So, I have to ask. You’ve reported on at least half a dozen cases involving a variety of Texas law enforcement departments. Are there any trends that stand out to you?
Stephen Janis: Well, just anecdotally, looking at what I report on, there seems to be this idea with the Texas police that we make the law up as we go along. In other words, a lot of the judicial restraint – If that’s even a thing – That you might see in other jurisdictions or other states, maybe don’t apply to any of the cases we’ve seen in Texas. Kind of like, hey, I make up the law. I’m not worried about judicial oversight or some lawyer coming in. I’m just going to do what the hell I want. And if you push back against me, I’ll make you disappear into a system where you’ll never see the light of day forever. So, I think what scares me about Texas police is how little regard they have for the law, and seemingly how little training they have. So, it’s a little scary.
Taya Graham: And now, to get more on the sequence of events that led to this disturbing video and how it has impacted his life, I’m joined by Corey Roland. Corey, thank you so much for joining me. So, first, can you explain why you were at the station with the Nacogdoches Sheriffs? What were they looking for? What were they investigating?
Corey Roland: They were investigating a guy that was staying with me, him stealing stuff. And I went up there to clear my name, and then they did what they did.
Taya Graham: Were you there voluntarily? And what kind of questions were they asking you?
Corey Roland: I was not under arrest, nor was I being detained. First question asked [inaudible] message with me and Seth. And I started showing them messages between me and Seth. It is what it is.
Taya Graham: Why did the sheriff suddenly grab your phone?
Corey Roland: He said he saw a picture of something stolen in the messages, but in the messages there wasn’t anything stolen, but he thought there was.
Taya Graham: What were you thinking when the officer started punching you? What was going on in your mind?
Corey Roland: Really didn’t know what was going on. It happened so fast. And I only remember him hitting me one time, but when he hit me, my head hit the wall. So, I blacked… It knocked me out for a few seconds.
Taya Graham: When he started punching you, it looked extremely painful. Did they offer you any medical attention?
Corey Roland: No, they did not.
Taya Graham: Do you plan on filing a complaint against the officers involved?
Corey Roland: I already have him under federal lawsuit.
Taya Graham: What is your federal lawsuit contending? What’s the basis of the case?
Corey Roland: Official [inaudible] and assault. And they did an internal investigation, and then they straight up lied on their paperwork on that. In their internal investigation, it says I was non-compliant and he hit me in the right arm and right shoulder to get me to comply. I wasn’t supposed to get the body camera, but I did. So, the guy that’s sitting on the right in the video, he’s a constable for Shelby County, his lawyer kept trying to get him out of the lawsuit said, well, if you watch the video, you can tell he didn’t do anything. My lawyer said, what video? And he said, you don’t have a copy of the video? And he said, no. So, he sent it to me. My lawyer requested it 43 times from Nacogdoches County and they never would give it to him.
Taya Graham: Has this officer actually faced any disciplinary action?
Corey Roland: He has not missed a day of work yet.
Taya Graham: So, what happened after he took your phone? Did you receive your property back?
Corey Roland: They kept my phone. They said they were going to get a warrant for it. I said, well, until you get a warrant on it I want my phone back. They said no.
Taya Graham: Did they ever get a warrant to go through your phone? I know they forced you to give your pin code.
Corey Roland: That happened on March 5. They got the warrant. The judge signed the warrant on the 17th of March, but it wasn’t filed with the district clerk’s until the 24th of March. But it wasn’t actually filed with the district clerk’s office until the 24th [inaudible]. It was 12 days after they hit me that they got a judge to give a warrant and, was another then seven days after that before it was filed with the district clerk’s office.
Taya Graham: So, they had already gone through your phone…
Corey Roland: They sat there and went through my entire phone. [inaudible] Whole hour and a half video of the body camera footage now.
Taya Graham: Are you aware of other people having problems with the Nacogdoches Police Department or Sheriff’s Department? I mean, are they known for being aggressive with the public?
Corey Roland: They have six different… My lawyer has six different known complaints filed against them right now for them jailers beating up people in jail, protocols, and one custodial death.
Taya Graham: Has this interaction changed how you feel about law enforcement? You were there to help the police voluntarily. So, has this incident changed the way you think of police?
Corey Roland: I’ve always been skeptical of Nacogdoches County, but I showed up. I don’t trust none of them now.
Taya Graham: Now, usually when I report on cases like the abuse of Corey Roland, I often receive pushback that has less to do with the circumstances and more to do with the severity of the police overreach we just witnessed. So, what I mean is that because there are so many examples of even worse police behavior in this country, sometimes people will simply say, why should I care about his case when he went home alive? Well, I think that’s a fair question, and one that I will try to answer.
First, I think it’s important to understand that when it comes to systemically bad policing behavior, there are often clues and cues that hint at broader, more intractable problems that might not be readily apparent at first glance. In other words, an act that seems otherwise compartmentalized to a specific case such as Mr. Roland’s is often just a symptom of a more serious disease.
So, what do I mean? Well, consider the shocking and alarming case of false murder convictions unfolding in Chicago right now. There, prosecutors just asked a judge to vacate the sentences of eight – Let me repeat this, eight – People convicted of murder. You heard me right. Law enforcement there has concluded that no less than eight people serving out decades-long sentences are more than likely innocent. It is, in fact, one of the broadest mass exonerations in the history of the US justice system, a sweeping indictment of our criminal justice system, and its capacity to protect the innocent while in the pursuit of the guilty.
So, how does this story of widespread injustice relate to the story I just shared with you? Well, simply because all the tossed convictions and apparently innocent people who were previously deemed to be murderers were all put behind bars by a single cop.
That’s right. All the unjust convictions and personal mayhem wreaked upon a group of innocents stemmed from bad behavior of one rogue officer. His name is Reynaldo Guevara, and he was a former Chicago police detective and officer who was involved in roughly 36 cases which have now been overturned. A former cop who, since he retired, has not been punished, despite pleading the Fifth each and every time he has been asked about his work which led to the illegal and unconscionable imprisonment of dozens of innocent people.
And might I add, a man who Chicago authorities have set aside $75 million to defend, and perhaps for payout settlements in response to lawsuits filed by his victims. A cop whose reputation was questioned by those same victims decades prior, but who were ignored by the same city that is now prepared to use taxpayer money to pay for their past negligence.
So, as you can see, this example gives us a really good reason to highlight bad behavior by cops as much as possible. Why? Because if there is one lesson Detective Guevara’s case teaches us, it’s that our country has given enormously spectacular powers to individual cops. And I’m not talking about the power to stop you unlawfully and ask you to hand over your ID or the power to hand out speeding tickets. No, I’m talking about the power to put someone in a cage for decades who didn’t do a damn thing wrong.
The type of power I am referencing here is the type of broad overreach once afforded to kings, the absolute right to simply annul the freedom of an individual, falsely accuse them of a crime, destroy their lives in the process – Oh, and, incidentally, let the actually guilty party roam free. And then, on top of it, make these same people immune from any accountability, and make taxpayers who had to suffer through their destructive behavior pay off the people they abused.
I mean, it is truly amazing to think about the breathtaking power one city bestowed upon a single person. It’s just startling how quickly a police officer can be transformed into a monster of oppression. A single man with a single badge, empowered to falsely imprison, arrest, disparage, and disgrace dozens of people. And that same person, when exposed, is still protected from the consequences of the law that he’s so brazenly imposed on others. And that is why it is important to report on any and all instances of police misconduct we encounter, not just to nitpick or hound a specific officer or department, and not just to create dramatic journalism that will hold your attention. No, the reason we follow up on these types of stories is simply because ignoring them can lead to the same type of overreach we see in the case of Guevara. Deciding that a single questionable arrest and a violation of a person’s rights is just not worth reporting only expands the sense of impunity which has informed the state of policing across this country for decades.
I mean, you heard the mantra over and over again, that we are a nation of laws. It is a philosophy touted by the powers that be as the bedrock of our republic. But I think cases like Guevara’s and the assault we witnessed on video challenges that assertion. If that were indeed the case, why would the people who enforce the law not be subject to it? Why would cops who violently violate people’s rights do so without a sliver of real accountability? And that’s why we will continue to report on cases like Mr. Roland’s, and why we remain committed to holding police accountable, however and wherever it’s needed, so that the idea of a so-called “just society” is a reality for all of us.
I’d like to thank my guest Corey Roland for coming forward and sharing his experience. Thank you, Corey. 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 of the show Noli Dee and Lacey R for their support. Thank you. And a very special thanks to our Patreons. We appreciate you. And I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next livestream. I’ve missed you guys. And I want you watching to know that if you have 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 @eyesonpolice on Twitter, and of course, you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment. I do read the comments and appreciate them. Even if I don’t always get a chance to respond, I promise you I read them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below. So, if you feel inspired to donate, please do, because 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.