In 2023, Sgt. Ethan Newberg of the Baltimore Police Department pled guilty to misconduct in office—a charge he was initially given four years before. Now, body camera footage of one of Newberg’s nine known illegal arrests has been recovered by Police Accountability Report. The video shows Newberg escalating a parking ticket given to a FedEx driver to the arrest of a bystander who attempted to attempted to intervene on his coworkers behalf. But Newberg didn’t stop there—he even contacted FedEx in an effort to get the man he was arresting fired. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis discuss the case and the lengthy investigation and trial process that followed, throwing light on just how difficult it really is to hold police accountable for abuses of power.

Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
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’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video of a police officer arresting a man for talking. I am not kidding. But it’s why this cop felt empowered to abuse him and how the justice system fought to protect the officer that we will be unpacking for you today. It’s a story that reveals a troubling truism that this video goes a long way towards revealing. When police break the law, it can be challenging to hold them accountable.

But before I 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 on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. Please like, share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests, and you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. We do have a Patreon called Accountability Reports, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t take corporate dollars or run ads, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as we often discuss on this show, holding police accountable is not just difficult, but an ongoing challenge. Part of the reason for this is simple. Even when cops are caught breaking the law, the justice system often seems reluctant to punish them. This just isn’t my opinion. Today we have undeniable proof. That’s because the video I’m showing you now reveals how that system actually works. It depicts a former Baltimore police officer named Ethan Newberg making an illegal arrest that nearly destroyed a man’s life. An abuse of police power that is just as shocking as it is matter of fact. But what makes this video even more troubling is how we had to fight to obtain the video and why our state’s law enforcement establishment wanted to keep it secret.

But first, we need to review the evidence in detail and for that, we have this, the body worn camera video of one of nine illegal arrests made by Baltimore Police Sergeant Ethan Newberg. Newberg pled guilty to misconduct in office in 2023. Those charges were brought by the office of former state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby in 2019, whose body-worn camera review office caught the illegal encounters and outlined charges that same year. The story of this illegal arrest actually begins in 2019 in a parking lot of a Baltimore city shopping center. There, police were writing a ticket to a FedEx driver who had stopped next to a curb to deliver a package. Obviously, ticketing a person delivering a package is questionable at best, but this video is not about a parking ticket. Not hardly.

That’s because another FedEx driver arrived on the scene and began to argue on his coworker’s behalf, a show of driver solidarity that police soon determined was unacceptable. Now, just a note, some of the audio from Officer Newberg’s camera is distorted, which we could not fix, but we still thought it was important enough for you to hear it regardless. Take a look and a listen.

Video:

All right. I see this man writing me a ticket. There’s a car behind me. I run out here, I tell him I’m ready to move my car. He tell me he can’t. He got to finish it. He started writing it. Man, you don’t have to finish that. I sat there and say, “Well, did you give the person behind me … There was a car right behind me. Did you give the person behind me a ticket and write that stuff up for them?” He’s like, “What car? “Man, you seen it.” He turned right there and said, “Oh, that car?” “Man, stop playing with me. I came out here to move my car. Stop it.”

Come on, now. I literally walked and saw him writing and I came right out here and said I’m going to move my car. He going to tell me, “Oh, I got to finish writing it.” You don’t got to finish writing that.

[inaudible 00:04:22]

I’ll tell you what, you got about three seconds to stop him. Pull him over, pull him over. Stop him. Stop him.

Taya Graham:

Now, I’m sure like me, you were confused by this video. What exactly was the crime that the driver committed? Since when did speaking to police constitute a crime? But that brief exercise of the constitutional rights of the driver was met with a resounding show of force, cuffs and detainment. Just watch.

Video:

Driver’s license and registration. No, no. Driver’s license and registration.

What’s up? What’s up?

Driver license?

Come take it. You a bitch, man. Like I said.

Take him.

For what? For what? For what? I ain’t do shit. For what?

[inaudible 00:05:10]. Call the FedEx company. Tell him his driver’s under arrest.

For what? For what? I see another FedEx driver getting in trouble.

You’re not going to curse at officers and create a disturbance out here. Your truck’s gone. Your job’s gone, I hope.

That’s cool.

You have no right to even have this job.

You have no right to assault me like that. For talking to another employee? Yeah, I ain’t do shit.

You’re not going to cuss at the police.

Taya Graham:

Now, even after the driver was pushed into the back of a patrol car, Sergeant Newberg was not done. What you’re about to see next is a point we make on this show that is often ignored or at best underestimated. That’s because even after Officer Newberg had clearly made an illegal arrest, the next step he took was even more disturbing. Just take a look.

Video:

Stop for another FedEx employee. Both of us works for FedEx, yo. Both of us work for FedEx. This man asked me for my ID.

Well, hopefully you won’t be working for them long.

I gave this man in my ID, right? He took my ID out my hand and grabbed my other hand and said I’m under arrest. For nothing. For nothing.

You’re under arrest.

For nothing.

Disorderly conduct.

For nothing.

Sir, step in the vehicle. Sir.

That’s crazy.

Have a good day.

That’s crazy. I’m going to work.

I need someone to pick up the phone. I need your boss’s number.

That’s what I’m asking them. I’m saying can I get my phone out of my car so I can get you all that information?

No.

I’ll walk with you and all that. I’m not even going to do none of that. You already got me cuffed up, man.

No, you’re going to jail and I’m calling your boss to come get your truck.

That’s okay.

What’s your boss’s number?

It’s in my phone in my truck. That’s what I’m saying to you.

What happens if I call the one 800 FedEx number?

It’s going to send you to a hotline and they going to send you through a runaround. That’s all they going to do. I can literally get out the truck … I mean, get out this car and go with you. Yes, sir.

No.

It’s right there inside the GPS thing.

No.

That’s what I’m saying. Man, I don’t have no problem with going to jail, sir. I have no issue with that. If you’re going to lock me up, lock me up. It’s okay. I understand you’re frustrated. I understand you’re mad.

No, I’m not frustrated, man. You’re not going to cuss at my officers. You’re not going to put their life at risk.

How did I put his life at risk?

You caused all these people to start coming out and cussing and carrying and … we have one guy now threatening us of that.

No, I didn’t cause any of this. I didn’t cause any of that.

Yeah, you did.

I stopped for another employee who I know is another employee and said, “Yo, stop moving your hands around, yo. You don’t want to get [inaudible 00:07:32] dumb ass.”

It’s all on body camera.

I know that.

Police are a bunch of bitches, you’re bitches.

All this crime going on and y’all stopping a man for a ticket?

Taya Graham:

That’s right. Sergeant Newberg told police to call FedEx with what we can only imagine is an attempt to cost the driver his job. I’m not kidding. Literally, for the crime of exercising his constitutional rights and talking. The officer decides that being put into a cage in the back of a patrol car and disrupting this young man’s life is simply not enough. That saddling him with a criminal record and court costs, legal fees, and perhaps bail was still insufficient. Just watch.

Video:

Oh, this was unbelievable with this guy.

Look, what I’m saying to him is like, yo, he right. He right. I’m not sitting here disputing saying, “Yo, you wrong.” I could have handled things differently. Same way this man could have handled things differently. We all could have handled things differently.

I’m done with him. I’m just calling the 1-800 number now?

What’s the number, boss?

I don’t know the number.

Don’t worry about. Don’t worry about it.

Crew. What does he … Do you guys … Eddie, what are you doing?

[inaudible 00:08:40].

But why is he over at this truck?

Because I work for these guys. FedEx.

Get him away from the truck.

What I’m doing [inaudible 00:08:48].

Yeah. This is Sergeant Newberg from the Baltimore City Police Department. Do you understand that? You understand what I’m saying? Your FedEx driver in one of your trucks is under arrest and his truck is just sitting out here. I need someone to come get it.

Taya Graham:

But that’s not where the misconduct, and I am not mischaracterizing this here, of the unrelenting overreach of Sergeant Newberg ended. That’s because when another resident exercised their first amendment rights, criticizing him for what was clearly an illegal arrest, again Newberg threatened to make the situation worse. Just look.

Video:

You get ready to go too.

Freedom of speech!

You get ready to go too, big, man.

[inaudible 00:09:27], officer. Make sure your camera on. Make sure your camera on.

Go away and take your balloons!

Taya Graham:

Now, there are two types of police behavior that I think are worth breaking down in this encounter. Two aspects of how police behave when confronted with wrongdoing of a fellow officer that need to be examined. First, the victim of this illegal arrest shows more dignity than the police who arrested him. I mean, he literally tries to be understanding and even show respect for the officer after he had not had the same done for him. But above and beyond that act of empathy is how many officers who witnessed and worked with Newberg and how they stood by and allowed this illegal act to unfold. Even worse, finding ways to justify it on camera and bolster Newberg’s flimsy case that this driver had committed a crime. Just watch.

Video:

Yo, you don’t got to treat us like this. You don’t have to treat people like this. We are human beings. That’s all it is. Y’all want to act … y’all all pulled up here deep. Literally. Literally. Literally. Yo, I didn’t-

What?

That’s your FedEx driver.

We weren’t doing anything to him. He was complaining. He just stopped the other dude.

It make no sense, dude.

Bro, you could have just said, “Hey, Kevin, what you do to [inaudible 00:10:43]”, and kept it moving, but you wanted to keep jabbing on him.

Oh, this was unbelievable with this guy.

Look, what I’m saying is like, yo, he right. He right. I’m not sitting here disputing saying, “Yo, you wrong.” I could have handled things differently. Same way this man could have handled things differently. We all could have handled things differently.

Taya Graham:

But even after sowing all the chaos that upended this young man’s life, Newberg is not done. At least not finished with exaggerating and portraying the driver to his employer as a reckless individual with contempt for the law. Just listen.

Video:

So you got locked up for him, but what’s he doing for you? He’s over there and ain’t saying a word.

You right, man. You right. Sir, sir. You right, because he obviously got more common sense than me. That’s literally what I-

You really just lost your job probably. Well, I can try to fill you in on what’s going on with your driver, if you’d like to know. A supervisor was called, which would be me, the supervisor, because an employee, I guess he’s on his lunch break, I don’t know what his deal was, was parked in a fire lane in his personal car. An officer was giving him a parking ticket. He was hooting and hollering out here. It turns out he’s a FedEx employee, which whatever, he’s carrying on, didn’t want his ticket. Whatever, that’s his prerogative. The problem became when your FedEx driver pulled up in a truck, I guess he is a fellow employee of this gentleman, stops in his FedEx truck and starts cussing at the police and making a heck of a scene. He’s told to knock it off, he continues, and now he’s cussing at the police and people are gathering. I don’t know what this guy’s deal was, but it got to the point where based for safety issues for the police involved, he was taken into custody. I don’t know what this guy’s deal was or what his problem was with the police, but now we have a FedEx truck running here sitting in the middle of the roadway in the shopping center, and we got him in handcuffs in the back of a car. That’s where we’re at.

Taya Graham:

Just to put an exclamation point on how troubling this entire encounter is, I want you to watch how this arrest actually unfolded and compare it to how Officer Newberg described it to his employer. Let’s watch the arrest and then play back Officer Berg’s description as we play the video of what actually happened.

Video:

A supervisor was called, which would be me, the supervisor, because an employee, I guess he’s on his lunch break, I don’t know what his deal was, was parked in a fire lane in his personal car. An officer was giving him a parking ticket. He was hooting and hollering out here. It turns out he’s a FedEx employee, which whatever, he’s carrying on, didn’t want his ticket. Whatever, that’s his prerogative. The problem became when your FedEx driver pulled up in a truck, I guess he is a fellow employee of this gentleman, stops in his FedEx truck and starts cussing at the police and making a heck of a scene. He’s told to knock it off, he continues, and now he’s cussing at the police and people are gathering.

I don’t know what this guy’s deal was, but it got to the point where based for safety issues for the police involved, he was taken into custody. I don’t know what this guy’s deal is or what his problem was with the police, but now we have a FedEx truck running here sitting in the middle of the roadway in the shopping center, and we got him in handcuffs in the back of a car. That’s where we’re at.

Taya Graham:

Even after all this, I think the most troubling moment of this entire ordeal occurs when Newberg, using the weapons of handcuffs, jail time, and the loss of a job to force, and I mean force, the driver to confess that he was wrong on body-worn camera. In this short ordeal of time, Newberg literally manages to violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments of the Constitution in a single conversation, shredding the civil rights of this young man and the Constitution simultaneously. Just look.

Video:

Well, what I should have done is just towed the thing and not wasted my time making any of these phone calls.

Sir, I understand. I understand. I understand.

I’m trying to help your company out. I don’t have to do all this stuff.

I understand that, man. I understand.

Now I’m just trying to figure out now that you’ve calmed down whether to still take you to jail or let you go on your merry way with this truck.

I wish you would let me go on my merry way with this truck.

But the issue I had-

[inaudible 00:14:52].

Hold on a minute. The issue I have with this whole situation is I honestly believe that you think you did nothing wrong, and that’s the problem I have with this.

No, I know what I did wrong.

What do you think you did wrong? I don’t even care if you pulled up and said to your compadre there, “Hey, let the punk police do what they got-“

See, that’s what I’m-

You’re not even letting me talk. I don’t even care. “Let the punk police write you your ticket. I’m surprised they have nothing better to do” and drove away. That’s not exactly what you did. What you did was you took it to the next level and your anger just came spewing out of you and the cussing and the carrying on and people … it’s all on camera, sir.

No, I said the fuss and the stuff.

It was ridiculous. Do you have children?

Yes.

You support them with your job?

Yes.

Why would anybody risk that to do what you did for him? What is he, your brother? Were we kicking his face in?

No. Y’all weren’t doing none of that, man.

Were we choking him?

It was [inaudible 00:15:57] happening with him.

You’re a grown man.

Right, sir.

You have a family. This isn’t the street corner down here where it’s like a bunch of knuckleheads jumping all over the police and you have nothing to lose. You have a job, a good job with probably a good company with benefits. What are you doing? Get your head on straight.

Taya Graham:

Now oddly in the end, Sergeant Newberg lets the driver go, only after he humiliated him, told his boss that he was a lawless instigator and made him confess to a crime he didn’t even commit. But this particular encounter is not the end of this story. There is much, much more to tell about the crimes of Newberg, a story that has to do with the system we often discuss that makes bad policing possible. For more on that, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who was in the courtroom with me when Newberg was sentenced, and he’s reviewed the other videos that were released by the Baltimore City Police Department. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, you were at the sentencing hearing for Sergeant Newberg. What did he say just before he was sentenced? Was he remorseful? Did he apologize?

Stephen Janis:

Taya, we watched his entire proceeding. He was anything but remorseful. He really blamed what he did on the culture of Baltimore policing. That is old school style policing where police were supposed to go into neighborhoods, sow disorder, sort of order people around and he said that was the problem. It wasn’t him. In fact, he said, “It’s amazing that my whole career has come down to a couple arrests on video.” He said, “If it wasn’t for the video, I wouldn’t be here.” It was not a remorseful or I think a man who really put the blame on himself.

Taya Graham:

What type of sentence did the prosecutors ask for? What did they think was fair for the crimes he committed against the public?

Stephen Janis:

Taya, the prosecutors were quite emphatic that he deserved 36 months in prison. They said that an officer like Ethan Newberg makes it more difficult for officers to go out and do their jobs because people see him, see what he does and think that’s the Baltimore Police Department, it erodes trust in the community. He asked the judge to actually reaffirm that faith in the justice system by giving him a sentence of three years, making him spend some time behind bars like some of the people that he arrested himself.

Taya Graham:

Now, Newberg’s attorney argued that in some sense Newberg was just doing what he was ordered to do. In other words, this was just Baltimore policing as it was designed to work. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Stephen Janis:

I mean, Ethan Newberg’s lawyer was very emphatic too, saying that, “Hey, this is the culture of Baltimore Police.” Police were supposed to do what I think former police commissioner Ed Norris said, go into a corner and disrupt. That is disrupt whatever’s going on in the community. At that point, I think it was supposed to be targeted at drug dealers, but of course, as we both know who have covered zero tolerance in Baltimore, it was much more widespread and pretty much was applied to any situation where people in the city congregated. Drinking a beer on a stoop, any sort of relatively innocent activity suddenly became criminalized. But his lawyer said that’s what they were told to do. Even Ethan Newberg said in his statement that now officers aren’t going out and being proactive like he was, and that’s why crime has gone up in the city. It really was an interesting argument in the sense that there was very little remorse or very little taking account for their own actions.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, as a reporter who has covered the city of Baltimore for 20 years, you saw some of that type of policing before, but it’s extraordinary that’s occurring now because wasn’t the police department under a consent decree when this happened?

Stephen Janis:

I mean, Taya, since 2016 the city has been under consent decree with the Department of Justice based upon an investigation that found the Baltimore Police Department engaged in unconstitutional and racist policing for years. This happened way after that. Let’s remember also the Gun Trace Task Force, seven officers, eight officers who robbed residents and stole overtime also occurred during the investigation by the Justice Department. Really it seems like the Justice Department doesn’t have a lot of effect on some individual officers, especially those officers who are used to what we call the old school style of policing in Baltimore.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, finally, what did the judge do? What was the sentence for Sergeant Newberg?

Stephen Janis:

Well, Taya, here’s what all the ideas put forward by the prosecutor that this is going to show some sort of accountability to the public, Ethan Newberg got just six months of home detention.

Taya Graham:

Wait, excuse me.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

No jail time for nine different illegal arrests caught on camera?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Six months of home detention, Taya. No jail time for Ethan Newberg. Not a second in jail. Nothing. Even when I think he was actually arraigned, he went to jail for one, maybe a couple hours and got out. Despite the fact that we’ve caught nine arrests like this on video and that the suffering of the people in the community because of his actions, Ethan Newberg will never see the inside of a jail cell. In fact, at the time his lawyer said that he could serve his time not in Baltimore City where the crimes occurred, but in Carroll County, a suburb of Baltimore, which he said would be much safer for Mr. Newberg. Really it was from the beginning, even though the judge seemed like he was going to sentence him to some time, the judge gave him six months home detention. That’s what the result of what you’ve seen. That’s why people are raising questions about this sentence because they’re saying, “How on earth can we hold officers accountable if someone who’s been caught on video breaking the law doesn’t serve any jail time?”

Taya Graham:

Thank you, Stephen. I want you to think about what Stephen just revealed regarding Sergeant Newberg’s punishment, or lack thereof, in the context of the idea I raised at the beginning of the show, how difficult it is to hold police accountable. I mean, the video we just watched was a perfect example of what happens when police powers are allowed to be abused, unchecked, and what it means when we allow our fear of crime to justify law enforcement that is neither lawful or effective. But there is a deeper problem here embedded in the crimes of this officer, an idea that informs why we are still dealing with these types of tactics amid efforts to reform policing across the country. To put it as plainly as possible, I have a very simple reason why police tactics like this proliferate and that despite the best efforts of activists and in some cases even elected representatives, they will continue to persist, a fight over something that may seem entirely unrelated to policing, but if we probe deeper, is actually one of the primary reasons this debate rages on. Asthma.

Oh, that’s right. You heard me. Your computer, your phone, it’s not malfunctioning. I actually said asthma, a terrible disease that afflicts people from all walks of life that requires them to use an inhaler to survive. It’s a byproduct of industrialization and poverty that consigns people who’ve been affected to dependence upon a medical product that has now been subject to a different sort of conflict, a fight that might seem peripheral, but in fact speaks to the core reason we accept, and in some ways bolster, bad policing in communities that already are under siege. That’s because Senator Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Senate’s Education and Welfare Committee, recently sent a letter to the CEOs of four major pharmaceutical companies. The letter, the contents of which he released publicly this week, asked one simple question; why? Why do four of the largest major drug companies in the US charge up to 10 times more for an inhaler here than they do in other countries?

Why, he wondered, do the sick people in the US often go without inhalers due to their steep price when a citizen of Germany, for example, pays just $9 for the same lifesaving care? It’s a critical question because according to that same letter, some 25 million Americans suffer from asthma and another 16 million Americans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and both require an inhaler to survive and both must pay multiple times, no exponential times, what their counterparts in European countries have to fork over for the exact same medication. But of course, at this part of my rant, you’re probably asking, “Taya, what the heck does this have to do with a crooked cop? What does the exorbitant price of an asthma inhaler have to do with one rogue officer who decided to make one man’s life utterly miserable?”

That is a fair question. Please allow me to answer. Both are related because ultimately both are acts of violence. One, of course, is economic violence and the other, a matter of criminal justice, violence against our liberties and civil rights, but both seek to degrade our agency, our quality of life, and erode the rights of the people who are subject to them. I mean, I think we make a fundamental mistake when we limit our conversations about rights to just as specific guarantees outlined in the Constitution, those rights are important, but they mean little to the people who can’t breathe or can’t afford the medicine to prevent them from suffocating. I think the point where both of these injustices intersect is often less tangible, but just as important to comprehend because the unchecked power of officers like Newberg stems from the same pathos of the ability of wealthy pharma companies to gouge the sick and the poor.

It’s the disease called inequality. While it starts with the big companies charging outrageous prices, it’s enforced by agents of the government like Newberg who uses power to erode our political efficacy and thus our ability to fight back. I mean, if we spend all our time defending our basic rights from one cop, how on earth can we fight the bigger battle for the right to affordable healthcare? If an officer of the law can break the law to break us, what chance do we have to advance or expand our rights not to be overcharged for life-saving healthcare? Seriously, when you think about it, the rights that Newberg assaulted should be the starting point, not the culmination, of our rights. I mean, guaranteeing that the government can’t rifle through our belongings, whatever they want, or that we don’t have to testify against ourselves are not exactly the key to a happy existence. It’s just a basic safeguard from tyranny.

Which is why I brought up the idea of the extractive expense of asthma inhalers in the context of over-policing. Because what community, what group of reasonable people would decide that the right to breathe should be prohibitively expensive? What type of society would overcharge people for a lifesaving medication while a person in another country with the same ailment pays a fraction of the cost? Is that the policy of the greatest and wealthiest nation on earth? Is that how we perpetuate freedom and democracy, by gouging desperately ill people? Of course, there is one place where our great nation doesn’t mind being generous. Yes, we might overcharge sick people, but there is a group we don’t mind showering with cash and thrusting them into the 1%, and that group are cops, or more specifically Sergeant Ethan Newberg himself.

That’s right, because the same officer whose crimes were captured on the video that we just showed you was actually notorious for one other rather intriguing distinction. The man who decided to cost another man his livelihood actually held a singular position in the city for which he worked that I think is entirely relevant to the topic of this show. Ethan Newberg, it turns out, was one of the highest paid employees in the entire city. In the year he made all those illegal arrests, he gained roughly $239,000 in pay in overtime, a salary that put him on par with the mayor and the police commissioner, money he made making illegal arrests and ruining people’s lives. He made over a quarter million dollars while violating the rights of Baltimore City residents just like me.

If I take the precepts of capitalism to its logical conclusion that are free and fair market puts obvious values on goods services and people, there are a few conclusions that I can draw from these facts. One, a crooked cop who makes a legal arrest is exceptionally valuable to society. His ability to conjure reasons to put innocent people in cages actually gives him a real chance of being part of the luminous 1%. Conversely, if you are sick with asthma, it is perfectly acceptable to gouge you for illicit gains. Your life-threatening condition, through no fault of your own, deserves not one cent of compassion from the richest nation on earth. Hardly. In fact, the powers that be have made it impossible for the government to regulate or protect your right to breathe. Instead, they have all but assured companies that they can charge you whatever they want, that they, the rich CEOs and greedy shareholders, can reach into your pockets and extract every single penny in exchange for lifesaving medicine you cannot live without.

As you can see, it’s easy to ascertain what this country values and what rights really amount to. A calculus I can outline for you before, if you’re keeping score at home. The crooked cop, he is enriched. The sick, they are impoverished. The innocent, jailed. The CEOs, showered with cash. The people, ignored. Our rights, diminished. Our health, monetized and our freedoms, limited. These are the inequities we have to fight. These are the values we must rethink. This is the justice that we deserve and we must demand because all of it is worth fighting for.

I have to thank Stephen Janis for his intrepid reporting, research and writing and standing with me in that courtroom and helping me fight to get those body camera videos. Stephen, thank you so much.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

I want to thank Mods and friends of the show, Noli D and Lacy R for their support. Hi, Noli D. A very special thanks to our Accountability Reports Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers John E.R, David K, Louis P, Lucita G, and super friends Shane B, Pineapple Gold, Chris R, and Matter of Rights. 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 @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. Please like and comment. I really do read your comments and appreciate them. We do have the Patreon link pinned below, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. 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.

Outro:

Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories and struggles that you care about most. We need your help to keep doing this work, so please tap your screen now, subscribe and donate to the Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

Bellingham, WA resident, Andrew S., was surprised to experience a traffic stop while parked in his own driveway. The encounter with local police only became more bizarre as the officers changed their rationale for stopping and questioning Andrew multiple times. From claims that there were problems with his taillights to accusations that he had been doing donuts down the street, Bellingham police attempted multiple approaches to catch Andrew in a bind. Police Accountability Report goes through the cell phone video of the encounter provided by Andrew, which provides insight into how police can violate our civil rights under the mask of a pleasant demeanor and “innocent” questions.

Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
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. This is Stephen Janice, and we are the Police Accountability Report, and we have breaking news for you today. Today we have an example of a police abuse of power that is so casual, such an everyday abuse of power we thought it was the perfect example to show you why police need to be held to their oath of protect and serve.

The video I’m showing you now shows a cop confronting Andrew S., a resident of Bellingham, Washington in his own driveway. The officer had pulled up behind him while he was on his way home. The officer then gets out of his car and begins to make accusations, but it’s what the police officer says on camera that is so alarming. Take a look.

Andrew S.:

I’ve no problem with… I don’t have no problem with ID myself. None of that. I just want to talk to a lieutenant or a sergeant. That’s it.

Speaker 3:

I’ve told you, you have to identify yourself as the driver.

Speaker 4:

That’s all he asks. All he asked was to-

Speaker 3:

Can I please talk to this gentleman?

Andrew S.:

Come on, come on. Calm down. Just calm down. Calm down. Just calm down. Oh my God, this is too much.

Speaker 3:

You have to identify yourself lawfully because you were driving this vehicle on public streets committing a traffic violation. The law says you have to identify yourself.

Andrew S.:

What is the traffic violation?

Speaker 3:

You’re failing to identify yourself, which is an additional violation. Is that something you want to subject yourself to?

Andrew S.:

What is the traffic violation?

Speaker 3:

You’re exhaust, it’s altered.

Andrew S.:

My exhaust. What did you pull me over for before that?

Speaker 3:

For reasonable suspicion of doing donuts and your exhaust. You went through the intersection and throttle and you hit your throttle a couple of times and the exhaust made a loud noise, which drew my attention to you.

Speaker 4:

Probably a lot of noise.

Andrew S.:

I’m going 20 miles per hour. This is crazy, bro.

Speaker 3:

Are you going to ID yourself?

Andrew S.:

Huh?

Speaker 3:

Are you going to ID yourself?

Andrew S.:

Yeah. Yeah. I’ll ID myself. I’m sitting here, bro, I’m just [inaudible 00:01:45]. Chill out. Now stay in the car. Stay in the car, bro.

Taya Graham:

Now, as the cop continues to press Andrew for his ID, he starts to make a series of allegations, alleging that a car like his was seen pulling donuts or that his exhaust pipe was altered. And I know, donuts, I promise I won’t make that joke. First, Stephen, as we replay the video, what’s your take on this possible abuse of police power? What do you see going on here?

Stephen Janis:

It’s interesting when charges evolve as an officer is engaging someone. I think it raises a lot of questions when they switch from one to the other, a modality of power there. And that raises a lot of concerns for me because I think an officer should be very definitive when he confronts someone with the possibility of criminal charges.

Taya Graham:

And I think that was one of Andrew’s concerns. As you’ll see later in the video, Andrew mentions that first it’s donuts, then it’s going to be my exhaust pipe. Then you’ll say it’s my taillight. And it’s obvious that Andrew has seen this kind of escalation before. Now, despite the fact that at the time that Andrew was approached, he was parked in his driveway, this encounter continues to escalate. Take a look.

Speaker 3:

You went through the intersection and you hit your throttle a couple of times, and the exhaust made a loud noise, which drew my attention to you.

Speaker 4:

Probably a lot of noise.

Andrew S.:

I’m going 20 miles per hour. This is crazy, bro.

Speaker 3:

Are you going to ID yourself?

Andrew S.:

Huh?

Speaker 3:

Are you going to ID yourself?

Andrew S.:

Yeah. Yeah. I’ll, ID myself. I’m sitting here like, bro, I’m just [inaudible 00:03:08]. Chill out. Now stay in the car. Stay in the car, bro.

Taya Graham:

Now, Stephen, I think it’s worth noting that Andrew denies doing any donuts and having an altered tailpipe. I mean, what do we even know about those rules and regulations around altering your exhaust pipe in Washington state?

Stephen Janis:

Well, Washington state has very explicit rules about tailpipe. You have to have a well-maintained tailpipe. I guess my reading of the statute would be that doesn’t make excessive noise. That if you have a car that really excessively makes noise when you read the engine, that would be considered not legal. But it doesn’t prescribe any sort of criminal punishment for that particular offense. I mean, it seems very sketchy to me. But there is a law that says you must maintain a good working tailpipe.

Taya Graham:

Now, at this point, Andrew does hand over his ID. Well, rather, shows that he is willing to. Take a look.

Andrew S.:

By law, I got to hand you this, right?

Speaker 3:

You sure do.

Andrew S.:

And what you’re pulling me over for, again?

Speaker 3:

For the altered exhaust.

Andrew S.:

Altered exhaust.

Speaker 3:

And reasonable suspicion.

Andrew S.:

What? Reasonable-

Speaker 3:

For the donuts. Reasonable sufficient for the donuts and the altered exhaust.

Andrew S.:

Reasonable suspicion for what donuts?

Speaker 3:

The donuts that were called into 911. I’m not arresting you on that. I’m [inaudible 00:04:16].

Andrew S.:

No, I’m just saying. No, I’m just trying to get it all on here for when I go.

Speaker 3:

That’s fair. That’s fair.

Andrew S.:

Okay. I can’t get no sergeant, no lieutenant.

Speaker 3:

No, not right now.

Speaker 4:

Why?

Andrew S.:

And why is that?

Speaker 3:

First you have to identify yourself.

Andrew S.:

Chill out. Chill out.

Speaker 3:

Can we do that before we deescalate?

Taya Graham:

You can also hear Andrew asking for a supervisor, which he is denied. Stephen, let us know. Do they have to provide a supervisor if they’re asked? Is that an obligation that the police have to fulfill?

Stephen Janis:

No, unfortunately. I mean, I think it’s a good thing to ask. I think it’s always good to ask. But no, there’s no law that I can see in any municipality or state that we’ve looked at that we research that says they have to provide an officer. It would be absurd to a certain extent. But I’ve seen cases that we covered where it has been quite helpful.

Taya Graham:

Just as a note, if it is a case of excessive force or if it’s a collision, most likely an ask for supervisor does have to be obeyed. And as Stephen said, we always think it is a good idea to ask for a supervisor, especially if you feel your rights are being violated. But remember, most police departments don’t have any statutes they have to obey that gives them the obligation to fulfill your request. Now as again, Andrew’s request for a supervisor is denied. One of his neighbors comes over to vouch for him. Just take a listen.

Andrew S.:

I’m chilling it down. I’m just trying to make sure I get everything.

Speaker 3:

Oh, sure.

Andrew S.:

I’m trying to make sure I get everything.

Speaker 3:

Do you mind just hanging out over there for us?

Speaker 6:

Yeah. He’s my neighbor. He’s a good guy.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, but [inaudible 00:05:39].

Andrew S.:

Yeah, man, they didn’t pull me over some bull. Now it’s a loud exhaust. Before that, they say 10 blocks away somebody’s doing donuts. My car was reported supposedly.

Speaker 6:

Yeah. I don’t think it was this guy.

Andrew S.:

Bro, it’s some bullshit. But I’m just trying to get him to call a sergeant or a lieutenant to talk to somebody head.

Speaker 6:

[inaudible 00:05:56].

Andrew S.:

Yeah, that’s it.

Speaker 6:

He’s a good guy.

Andrew S.:

And he’s saying, I can’t get no sergeant or lieutenant. That’s it. And I’m trying to make sure before I hand over my ID, you violated my rights. I want to make sure.

Speaker 6:

It’s all good. I’m just telling these guys-

Taya Graham:

Now, given the shifting set of charges, Andrew is understandably concerned about his rights being violated. Stephen, as we’re watching this, I mean, is it reminiscent to you of a fishing expedition? What do you think of the shifting of the goalpost here?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I mean, I think that’s very, very indicative of a cop looking for an excuse. When you change the charges around and you’re not very specific. And that’s what we talked about this at the beginning, being specific is a way of giving a person surety that these charges are actually legitimate. I think in this case, he’s just looking for a pretext to run his ID so he can look for something else, is what it seems to me just watching it from my perspective.

Taya Graham:

Here’s where the concerns about a fishing expedition are warranted because the officers suggests that Andrew might have warrants. Take a listen.

Speaker 6:

That sound easy for you, bro, because your rights not being violated.

Speaker 3:

I’m not violating your rights, man.

Speaker 4:

[inaudible 00:07:02] car.

Speaker 3:

I have no intention of violating your rights.

Speaker 4:

Assumed it’s this car. Assumed.

Andrew S.:

Bro, you just said you pulling me over for suspicion of doing donuts.

Speaker 4:

Assumed.

Speaker 3:

And the exhaust.

Andrew S.:

I ain’t… I mean I live right here, bro.

Speaker 3:

I’m going to get you.

Andrew S.:

I ain’t got no fucking-

Speaker 3:

I’m going to just jot your name down. I’m going to give you your ID back. I’m going to make sure you don’t have any warrants. Then I’m going to finish my [inaudible 00:07:18].

Andrew S.:

Just chill out, bro. Just chill.

Speaker 6:

Bro.

Andrew S.:

Just chill out.

Speaker 6:

You guys, seriously, have nothing better to do.

Andrew S.:

Chill out. Come on. Just chill out. Let me talk to him. We’re talking, bro. We come on.

Speaker 6:

Fuck.

Andrew S.:

Come on. Chill out. Just get a pen, bro, because I feel like y’all violating my rights, bro.

Speaker 4:

[inaudible 00:07:32].

Andrew S.:

That’s it. I’m talking calmly, bro.

Speaker 3:

You sure?

Andrew S.:

I’m trying to be calm.

Speaker 3:

Appreciate that.

Andrew S.:

I’m over here. I’m pissed. Believe me, I’m fucking pissed, bro.

Speaker 3:

You have to identify yourself. I could arrest you. I’m trying not to arrest you, man.

Andrew S.:

But, bro, I feel like…

Speaker 3:

I’m trying to not arrest you.

Speaker 4:

[inaudible 00:07:46].

Andrew S.:

But I feel like you’re supposed to call a sergeant or something though.

Speaker 3:

I don’t have to do that.

Andrew S.:

Or lieutenant when you ask.

Speaker 3:

I don’t have to do that, man.

Andrew S.:

That’s the thing. That’s it. Look, I’m not resisting.

Speaker 3:

You’re not. You’re not.

Andrew S.:

Look, look, this is my ID right here. My shit is right here. I’m just trying to make sure my rights, bro. It’s all about your rights.

Speaker 3:

I understand that.

Andrew S.:

If you don’t use them, you lose them.

Speaker 3:

I totally agree with that.

Taya Graham:

At this point, I think it becomes clear that the officer isn’t really concerned about Andrew’s tailpipe. But I also think Andrew makes an interesting point. If you don’t use your rights, you lose them. Stephen, what do you think?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I mean that’s very important because no matter what happens in a police encounter, make sure to invoke your rights. Your right to remain silent. You might not to answer any questions. Even right to your personal effects without a warrant. Use these rights. These are wonderful rights…

Taya Graham:

Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:

That we have been granted hundreds of years ago, but they still, they’re very relevant today. I think he’s very right about that. Make sure to implement and use your rights because that’s the only way we can preserve them.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. Now, understandably, Andrew starts really pushing back here because he is parked in his driveway. This has taken a great deal of time much longer than a traffic stop should. And understandably, he’s quite annoyed with this entire process. Just watch.

Andrew S.:

Yeah, bro.

Speaker 3:

I hear you, man.

Andrew S.:

I feel like it’s bullshit you picked my car out. I’m home.

Speaker 3:

Correct. You made it home.

Andrew S.:

I know. I am home. It probably say on my fucking ID right here.

Speaker 4:

Just fishing. How many other cars are out there?

Andrew S.:

Yes, it say it. I am home.

Speaker 3:

Correct. Can I please have your ID? You have to identify yourself.

Andrew S.:

Last time, you can’t call no sergeant?

Speaker 3:

I’m not going to do that.

Andrew S.:

No lieutenant.

Speaker 3:

No.

Andrew S.:

Nobody ahead of you.

Speaker 3:

No.

Andrew S.:

All right. Know you got his back, bro. I’m having a conversation with him. I ain’t going to talk to you no more, bro, because you whatever he do, bro.

Speaker 4:

They’re saying [inaudible 00:09:32].

Andrew S.:

But I didn’t got pulled over, bro, and I didn’t ask for a lieutenant or sergeant, bro, and they called. That’s all I’m saying.

Speaker 3:

Sure.

Andrew S.:

Okay. Look at my point of view.

Speaker 3:

I understand your point of view.

Andrew S.:

You’re saying you stopping me for donuts, supposedly. You ain’t seen me do no fucking donuts and now it’s exhaust. Let’s imagine, next it’s going to be a taillight.

Speaker 3:

No.

Andrew S.:

That’s how I feel. I’m just saying that’s how I feel.

Speaker 3:

I understand that you feel that way. Maybe it’s happened that way in the past. That’s not how it’s going to happen.

Andrew S.:

Definitely not. I’m saying.

Speaker 3:

I understand what you’re saying-

Taya Graham:

Now, since we’ve been watching this video, I just want to make sure that it is clear. If you are operating a motor vehicle, you do have to provide your ID. Of course that’s not the same for your passengers. However, Andrew was parked in his driveway, so you can understand why Andrew felt that this was somewhat unreasonable. Would you agree, Stephen?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, we just want to be clear because sometimes people say, “I don’t have to give my ID.” If you’re operating a motor vehicle, yeah, you got to give your ID. If you’re parked in your driveway and you’re not operating it, I think that’s questionable. But if the officer observes you driving it, then it becomes a gray area. But of course, you just don’t want to adjudicate these things on a driveway. You want to make sure you’re as cautious as possible so that officer has no reason to handcuff you. That’s our main thing. We don’t want anyone to have to deal with handcuffs or go to prison or anything over something that might be a misinterpretation of the law. Just err on the side of safety for you.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. I completely agree with Stephen. Err on the side of caution. We want you to go home not to jail. According to the court records, we found Andrew’s concerns weren’t unwarranted. As a matter of fact, he has gotten two charges. Stephen, what is he facing right now?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, he’s charged with reckless driving and he’s also charged with a failure to obey a lawful order. Which of course, at least a failure to obey a lawful order could be a criminal charge. And that can sometimes result in serious problems for someone. I mean the reckless driving should be a citation. But these two charges are in the record in court. We confirm them. Obviously this officer decided to resolve this situation with some sort of arrest or some sort of ticket. It’s very disturbing. But it shows that I think Andrew’s concerns were warranted from the beginning.

Taya Graham:

We will continue to investigate this case and others because as we always say, the point of the show is to hold the system accountable that makes bad policing possible. And certainly, I think today we have a questionable use of police powers. And although this police officer was measured and even tempered throughout this experience, it’s still an example of over-policing and the casual violation of rights that we see on a daily basis.

And as we all know from our extensive reporting, the price of this type of overreach is paid by us. When cops failed to be judicious with their power, innocent people suffer. That’s why we take the time to parse videos like this and explore not just the legal questions, but the broader inquiry about what kind of policing we want, what kind is effective, and what we can do to preserve our most precious possessions, our rights.

And as always, if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Reach out to us at par@therealnews.com and of course, you can always message me directly, @tayasbaltimore on Facebook or Twitter.

I’m Taya Graham. This is Stephen Janis. We are the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

The Bermudez family of Childress, TX, were spending the day enjoying music together at home when the sudden appearance of local police turned their day, and their lives, upside-down. Responding to a noise complaint, Childress police swiftly escalated the situation into a warrantless raid of the Bermudez household that ended with the arrest of the entire family. Texas cop watcher Manuel Mata joins Police Accountability Report for a breakdown on what occurred, the state of the Bermudez family after this harrowing experience, and how this all fits in with the behavior of police across the state.

Studio Production: Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Adam Coley

TRANSCRIPT

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

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable, and to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops, instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible, and today we will achieve that goal by showing you this video. It depicts an unwarranted and aggressive raid on a house over a noise complaint, but it is how police escalated the encounter and what they did when the occupants pushed back that we will be unpacking for you today, a clear example of how police power can be abused and the consequences when it is not put in check, 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 you can reach out to me at Facebook or Twitter on Taya’s Baltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos.

It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests, and of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there, and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and also to show off what a great community we have. 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, if there’s one trend we’ve reported on consistently on this show, it is the continued assault on our constitutional rights by the overreach of American police. In story after story and incident after incident, law enforcement constantly encroaches on the rights that are bestowed upon us for offenses both trivial and mundane, and in doing so, they have both diluted and in some cases eliminated many of the most important protections that were deemed essential 225 years ago, but not so much today.

And no encounter with police is more exemplary of this erosion of our rights than the video I am showing you right now. It depicts police entering a home based solely on a noise complaint and then using that pretext to assault the occupants. The troubling abuse of police power that we have learned was based upon shaky legal ground and has continued to have severe consequences for the people who experienced it. The story starts in Childress, Texas when a family was spending time in their home committing the horrifying crime of listening to music. Apparently though, Childress Police felt it was too loud, so they took time from more urgent crime fighting duties to take a visit. Just watch.

Speaker 2:

I just got here. What’s the problem? Go inside, now.

Somebody called and complained about loud music and I talked to…

It’s not 10 o’clock, so I mean…

It doesn’t matter, it’s disorderly conduct.

Yeah it does.

Oh, it does?

It does because…

You want to go to jail for it?

I can’t go to jail for that. I know the laws.

Yeah, you can. It’s disorderly conduct. You think I don’t know the law? 213, meet me over here. Turn around and put your hands behind your back.

You can’t arrest me on this[inaudible 00:02:59].

Yes, I can.

No, you can’t, sir.

Oh, yes I can.

You cannot…

Taya Graham:

And just a note, during the daytime, an officer would need to measure more than 65 decibels on an approved sound level meter at more than 50 feet away from the source. Did you hear any music? And you may have noticed that the resident actually knew the hours he was allowed to play the music and shared that with the officer and then simply chose to return indoors as he wasn’t under arrest and standing on private property. However, the officer took serious issue with his exercise of his rights. Take a look.

Speaker 2:

You cannot come in here.

Yes, I can.

No, you can’t.

We’ll turn it down.

No.

No.

You’re under arrest.

No, [inaudible 00:03:34] sir. You cannot step in my house.

No.

This is the first time…

Get in here.

You got to have a warrant to come in.

Hey, don’t push me.

You got to have a warrant to come in here.

Hey, you got to have a warrant.

She just had a fucking baby.

She just had a baby.

Taya Graham:

Now, it’s important to point out that yes, officers generally do need a warrant to enter a private residence. However, that requirement can be waived if someone is in immediate danger, evidence is being destroyed, or they’re chasing a suspect who has committed a crime, otherwise known as fresh pursuit. However, I think it’s questionable. You know what, scratch that, implausible that any of the actions by this family met that threshold, but I’ll let you decide as you watch, take another look.

Speaker 2:

She just had a baby.

I’m trying to give you…

… Up, but way.

You can’t come in.

… Get out of the way.

You can’t. That’s what…

He goes in custody.

You got to have a warrant to come in.

He goes in custody.

You got to have a warrant to come in.

No, you can’t arrest…

You have a camera. Fuck this shit.

You got to have a warrant.

Come here.

You got to have a warrant.

Hey, my baby’s right there.

Hey. [inaudible 00:04:36] The baby.

Taya Graham:

Now, what happens next is precisely what I highlighted in the beginning of this video. One of the occupants of the home did what any American has the right to do, that is petition the government, so to speak, to recognize his rights, and just because his particular representative has a badge and gun does not automatically diminish that, right, but unfortunately, this officer was having none of it. Just watch.

Speaker 2:

Look what you’re doing. You harming a baby.

Settle.

No, no.

Settle.

No. I know my laws, I’ve been to jail. I read the book and everything. You have nothing to go treat her… No, no.

Turn around.

I’m not going to turn around for what?

Because I’m putting you in custody.

For what?

Because I’m detaining you.

For what?

You hurt my baby.

I just told you.

For what? No, you don’t even got a search warrant to be in here. You need a search… Bring a search warrant. Until I see a search warrant.

209 Childress send us another unit.

Where’s the search warrant? You’re in the house. You’re in the house.

Taya Graham:

Finally, after literally failing to state probable cause for entering the home and pushing a recently pregnant mother of a newborn to the ground, the officer again escalates by deploying his taser. Take another look.

Speaker 2:

And you just went…

Get back.

I’ll get back. You’re in the house. You get back. Get back.

Send us another unit.

Get back. You’re over here. You’re making me scared. You’re taking a taser. You’re pointing a taser at me.

Because you were getting in my way of trying to detain…

You’re pointing a taser at me. You have to have a search warrant to be in the house.

Yes.

You have to have a search warrant to be in the house.

No, I don’t.

Yes you do. Where is the search warrant?

Get down.

Where is the search warrant? Why am I going to get down? You’re in the house. You came in…

Get down.

… Without no search warrant. Without no search warrant. You could go over there and taze me, but one thing, you’re being wrong. You’re being wrong right now. You’re in the house without a search warrant.

All I’m asking. All I’m asking.

I’m asking you to [inaudible 00:06:36].

Get down. Get down. Put your hands behind your back right now, or you’re going to get it again.

Taya Graham:

Now, the chaos you’ve just witnessed was just the beginning of the fallout for this family as police and prosecutors have continued to pursue them, a struggle we will be discussing with Texas cop watcher Manuel Mata shortly, but before we do, I want to go to my reporting partner, Steven Janis, who’s been reaching out to police for comment and looking into the case. Steven, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Now Steven, how are the Childress police justifying the raid? What are they saying?

Stephen Janis:

Well, Taya, we actually have some breaking news on that question because we found some more video that gives a different perspective on what went on inside the house, and we’re going to show it to you now. This shows what happens when police entered that room and started arresting the woman who had just recently given birth to a child. Take a look.

Speaker 2:

He didn’t do anything.

I’m in shit, because I’m playing my fucking music. Because I’m playing my music.

My baby is right there. Look.

You see my scars? I just had surgery for fucking [inaudible 00:07:33].

Hey, why did you push me like that?

Because you were getting in my way of trying to detain him.

So you pushed me?

Yes.

So you pushed me all the way to the ground?

You have to have a search warrant to be in the house.

Stephen Janis:

Now as you can see, the officers go beyond just arresting her for no reason, they then threatened to take her children away from her with child protective services. Take another look and watch it, and just, I want to look this sink in a little bit about what they were threatening her with.

Speaker 2:

Because you’re the police.

Turn around.

Best believe all this shit is going on fucking Facebook.

Turn around.

All we were doing was playing music.

Look, look, look, my baby’s right fucking here and this mother-fucker.

Hey, hey, calm down.

I’ve had surgery. I had surgery on my…

Get down. Put your hands behind your back right now or you’re going to get it again.

What the hell? Y’all can’t come in my house like this.

When I tried to arrest and detain him…

No, no.

… For disorderly conduct.

He didn’t do nothing. He didn’t do nothing. All they were doing was playing fucking music. He didn’t do nothing wrong.

Yes he did.

What did he do?

Disorderly conduct.

What did he do?

I told you.

What did he do? Explain it. Explain it. Hey, hey, hey.

Take them off me.

What?

Turn around.

My baby’s right there. I didn’t do nothing. What did I do?

No.

I did not.

Do you have anybody to call?

No, I don’t. I didn’t do anything. What did I do?

Notify CPS.

No, I’ll call my mom.

Stephen Janis:

So as you can see, the video does not lie. The video tells us that this arrest was just worse than you can even possibly imagine in the sense of being destructive for this poor family that had to deal with it. I am being a little biased here because I just don’t see how a noise complaint should lead to multiple arrests and separating someone from their children, regardless. So it’s very disturbing.

Taya Graham:

Steven, what does Texas law say and the Constitution say about entering someone’s home without a warrant? What does the law actually say?

Stephen Janis:

Taya, as you said in the opening of the show, there are very few reasons why you could actually storm into someone’s house. You have to have a warrant, generally speaking, unless someone has committed a violent crime or there’s a safety issue, I don’t think any of those laws apply to this situation. I mean, if it is exactly how it seems on the video that this was a noise complaint, I don’t see any reason that this is justified legally or constitutionally. It’s just not right.

Taya Graham:

So what do you think is problematic about this use of police force? What concerns does it raise for you because I know you’ve done a lot of reporting on tasers?

Stephen Janis:

Taya, what I see here is something I’ve seen in policing generally called rapid escalation, where police simply ratchet up the intensity of the situation when people don’t automatically comply. Remember, we have constitutional rights that allow us to push back, that give us certain rights when we’re in custody of police, and police here just rapidly escalate into use of force for no reason at all. There was no threat, no imminent public threat, nothing that would’ve justified this, so really to me, this is an absolute abuse of power and why we have to keep producing this show.

Taya Graham:

And now to discuss what has happened to this family since and how police are continuing to disrupt their lives and what the fallout has been because of this questionable raid. I’m joined by Texas Cop watcher Manuel Mata. Manuel, thank you so much for joining me.

Manuel Mata:

I’m glad to be here with you again, and glad this time it’s not really about something that happened to me that I’m able to bring something else that needs to be put out there. And also I’d like to thank you and appreciate the work that you and Steven do, and hopefully you let him inside more.

Taya Graham:

So you’ve spoken at length with Juan Bermudez, the gentleman in the shirt, in the video. Why did the police approach his home?

Manuel Mata:

They alleged that a neighbor had called a noise complaint. The officer responded to the noise complaint. If you notice, that’s really the officer’s frustrated because Lewis wasn’t like standing, he said, “Okay, fine, I’ll turn it down. Sorry.” So when Juan comes home, he doesn’t have time to talk to his brother and he has the time to get told him that, “Hey, the cops just came. They said to turn it down.” So he just puts his phone and turned it up like nothing happened. He just came back from the store and that’s when the cop wasn’t even that far. He said he was routed around the corner and pulls back up and it’s like going, now I’ve experienced one to a hundred, but this was like… I’ve never experienced to where they go snap like that quick.

Taya Graham:

I was also surprised by how quickly police escalated the situation.

Manuel Mata:

Well, whenever he walked, stepped back in, that’s when he was trying to explain to him what was the issue. The whole explanation was valid. There’s no, the actual noise complaint thing is after 10, and literally he had to use a decimal reader. So what this police officer does, he crosses their threshold and that’s when the girlfriend, the brother comes out and she doesn’t understand what’s happening. That’s why she says, “I’ll turn it down, okay, okay?”, like Tyna could snap the officer and try to deescalate, but the officer takes it as a form of aggression or interference, and it’s just like she’s trying to calm everyone down. And she doesn’t even get a chance to do that because as soon as she does that, he literally uses his arm to… First he’s trying to put distance and then she’s like, “Hey man, what are you doing?” So then you see him, what my problem was when his arm came back and that’s when it was like to get a grip and push her.

If there was a camera behind him, that’s what it would’ve showed, how he pulled his arm back, and when he went forward, he took it, I’m pretty sure he put his foot behind him to take that stance to push forward, and that’s when the sofa was right there and she was knocked off balance. There wasn’t no way she could have caught herself and he didn’t even, it’s like, here, push her out of the way, and then you see him focus on Luis. I had to watch this a couple times because it turns from he wants to arrest Juan, which is now inside of the room where the other officers are already trying to arrest him on the bed. So he’s focused on Luis in front of him, telling him he’s interfering. Why don’t he just turn around. Turn to the right and go in the room and arrest the brother like you’re saying.

Taya Graham:

So I heard Juan say in the video that he went into the other room to get something to record the encounter. Do you know what happened in that room?

Manuel Mata:

That’s when the other officer, I don’t remember his name off the top. That’s when the other officer that’s in there with him literally rushes him and completely pushes him through the door. And that’s when you see him try to turn around and explain, “Hey, my baby”, and he doesn’t get a chance to say baby, because that’s when he literally throws him on the bed and the officer didn’t even look to see if there was an actual baby, which it was, there was a sleeping baby on the bed, and his whole reason for resisting them isn’t because he is trying to get away from them, he’s trying to explain to him there’s a child right next to him. And all it was is he was going to get something to film. The good thinking of the girl. She grabbed her phone and started filming that interaction because I didn’t even know they made a video on Facebook that got a little bit of attention to, I didn’t even know that because what I found was the actual body camera footage.

Taya Graham:

So there was another young man, Juan’s brother, Luis, who was understandably upset by the way, the new mother, the mother of a newborn baby was pushed and he correctly said that the officer should not be in the house without a warrant or permission from the owner. Now, he was obviously upset, but he obeyed when the officer asked him to step back, what happened to him?

Manuel Mata:

The officer continued to… He never deescalated. If anything, he escalated even worse because exactly when you see him addressing him, he’s explained to him, “Hey, well there you go, turn your”, he’s even making sure he understands is it recording? That’s why he’s trying to get him to turn around and go in there if that’s his issue, but he’s focused on him, and then you hear him give him these unlawful and illegal orders of get down, comply. And it’s like his brain was functioning on this guy’s a threat, and to me, if someone’s standing with their hands behind their back, how is that a threat? And you’re the one that has your, and the whole time you’re shaking. That’s what got me nervous watching this because imagine if it wasn’t a taser and he had this in his hands like this and his hands like this, and he literally had to put his other hand over it to steady his aim.

That in itself is a problem because he was complying, he was trying to get you to deescalate and you chose not to. He was asking you, “Please get out of my house, show me a warrant”, which anybody which is inside of their home has the right to tell anybody that they do not want their out to get out. Right? And people are offended that this young man asserted his rights against tyrannical police officers. He’s literally telling them, his hand’s not even coming at him in a threatening manner. He’s saying, “I just need you to show me the effing…”, and then boom, he gets hit.

Taya Graham:

So what was Juan charged with?

Manuel Mata:

That day he was charged with interfering, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Taya Graham:

And how is Juan fighting these charges?

Manuel Mata:

Well, he explained was that he literally had to come up with money to bond out, but he was working at the time, so he was able to. The only thing he had to raise money to get Lewis out, it was kind of crazy because he stated that they didn’t see a magistrate. They weren’t told how much a bond was, just somebody gave him a piece of paper and said, “This is how much you’re going to have to pay to get out.” And they paid that, and he hired an attorney. I’m not a hundred percent sure if he’s on probation right now or it’s already over. That’s how he explained to me, it was either a little bit of time, probation, community service and something else he agreed to, but he said he didn’t know.

And while he was telling me his story, the only frustrating part was, “I didn’t know how to fight back. I was young and I was scared what they were going to do to me and my brother. And it was just this whole thing and it was just like I didn’t know how to fight back and I didn’t know how to fight back for my brother.” And that was the whole thing. They took advantage of two brothers that didn’t understand the law or the criminal system.

Taya Graham:

So the young man, Luis, who was tasered, what was he charged with? I believe he was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. I think you said these charges were dropped, but he’s still in prison now?

Manuel Mata:

They were dismissed. They weren’t even on the paperwork that I’ve seen on the appeal. It was stated that those charges were dismissed. I tried to figure out how this could be possible and talking to Juan and I wanted to go talk to the actual person that they’re saying that he’s allegedly on the probation floor because he dropped it. I know there was no case between them, but looking on the paperwork, it clearly states a law enforcement officer claimed that Lewis aggravated assaulted him by cutting him, but they filed that a month after he was in jail. The lawyer that Lewis had, he sent him up the river thinking it was a good thing to sign this piece of paper without reading it. It was basically he got 18 years because he admitted to using drugs and drinking underage. That’s the extent of the evidence that they have to give this young man 18 years for violating that four year probation.

It all stems from this arrest. He would’ve never got in court. He would’ve never had to bond out if them officers would’ve never did what they did to him that day. They knew they were in the wrong with this disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and interfering in all this. So instead of admitting wrong, they convinced a young man to plead guilty to him using drugs and drinking. And in the little fine print it says, by the way, we’re charging you with this, this, this, this. And he didn’t pay attention to the little fine print. It was just the taking advantage of two kids that were in a small neighborhood because they don’t have their parents. They don’t, sad to say certain situation created where they don’t have both of their parents and them brothers, that’s all they had, each other.

Taya Graham:

Have you heard of other incidents of excessive force with this police department?

Manuel Mata:

There was a couple other cases too where Nancy, this is the thing because we’ve tried to screen record a lot of these hearings and I think when we started posting about Childress, Texas and all that, now the guy that does the YouTube, he’s taking all the videos off of YouTube and they won’t give the body cam footage to the people that are requesting it, and this is a confusing little town because that’s what I went to go do. And it was like, you can’t even find the police station. It’s literally attached to the back of city hall on the side, and if you don’t know exactly where it is, I literally passed it walking twice.

Taya Graham:

So how do you think they should have handled this alleged noise complaint?

Manuel Mata:

The officer first and foremost should have recognized that he was talking to two different people. Then he would’ve addressed it a different way because he would’ve known that, “Hey, I didn’t tell him, so let me go in and tell him too.” “Hey, by the way, hey, I just came here. I noticed you’re not the same person I talked to, but if you wouldn’t mind just turning the music down and everything will be fine.” And if the response would’ve been, “Hey, I don’t have to until 10 o’clock”, and then the officer could’ve been, “Yeah, you’re right”, or it would’ve been room for an open discussion to come to an understanding and there was not. He literally shut that door to where there was only… Well, look what happened. He wanted the young man to match his aggression because he didn’t like his response, and when the young man tried to retreat, he still didn’t like that. The thing that was frustrating the most is when he’s sitting here arguing and grabbing it. The music was off the whole time.

Taya Graham:

I know in your work as a cop watcher that one of your goals is to help protect people’s civil rights and help educate them on their rights. What do you hope will be the result of helping Juan and his family get their story out to the public?

Manuel Mata:

I hope it does two things. It gives the reunification of this, his family, because I think that that young man shouldn’t be in prison. If he did violate it, I think it should be accordingly, which is the four years that he agreed to be on probation for, not 18. And secondly, I hope this brings sort of a protection to people that are considered not part of people they should respect their rights. Well, you never know that, them cop watchers might come back. Now they know that they’re somewhere close. They’re somewhere around because they hide behind the fact that no one knows. So if they’re able to intimidate two brothers, because I understand the, “Hey man, this, this, this”, but when you’re sitting in a building in a cell in a room and there’s two people telling you this is what they’re going to do to you for the next 18 years of your life, it’s like you break down from the tough guy image and you’re like, “How did I get here?”

And I could never, I know what he’s feeling, sitting there thinking, “They just gave me 18 years, man. Wow.” And it’s like the whole time you’re screaming to the top of your lungs, “It’s wrong. It’s wrong.” And no one listens, no one’s hearing you. And it just makes me feel like doing this. “We hear you. I heard you.” Even if he got silenced and he’s in prison, I heard it. I saw it, and I want to give that hope to everybody, man, that not everything is always going to stay in the dark.

Taya Graham:

And finally, can you update us on any of the cases that you’re currently facing?

Manuel Mata:

Well, all of them are dismissed. All my cases got dismissed. I was facing seven. Those got dismissed. I pled guilty to a trespass because technically by the law, the only argument I would have is if I approved something in civil court and that’s irrelevant in criminal court. And when I understood that I had to be real with myself. So they gave me one day credit time served, and then the two cases that I have on appeal now is my lawyer. He’s a good dude. I actually talked to him. He’s pretty all right, my appeal lawyer, he says that he don’t understand how they were able to do that. So I’m pretty sure we’re going to win with these two other ones in the appeal. Then it starts suing them, man. And a lot of people have tried to criticize me about that, about that I did all this for the money, but they don’t understand, I’m only going to take money for a few of them.

The rest of them is going to be to force them to change their policies, the way they investigate crimes. What happens when you get arrested, when you go to jail? I want to change that way. That way everything’s fair across the board because the only ones that get special treatments are cops that break the law, and I don’t think that’s right. I think they should hold everybody to the same form of accountability treatment and the same degree of the law. I don’t think nobody should be above or under it. I think everybody should be at the same line and it’s all to leave something behind to show that even though that I started wrong, that I ended in the right way.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Normally at this part of the show, I do a little rant about a troubling facet of American policing. In other words, I drilled down into a flawed part of our law enforcement process to facilitate a broader discussion about what needs to be changed and what needs to be entirely overhauled with the system, so to speak, that makes bad policing possible, but today, instead of focusing on one specific example, I want to ask perhaps a broader question by instead focusing on a state, namely Texas, and specifically why do we keep finding ourselves reporting on it? I mean, just over the past year, we have covered roughly half a dozen troubling stories from the Lone Star state. Briefly, we have recounted how Manuel Mata was arrested in Fort Worth in a courtroom for attending the trial of a cop convicted for murdering Tatiana Jefferson. We covered the ongoing legal fight of HBO Matt and Corner’s News who happened charged, again, with organized crime for simply videoing police in public.

We told you the story of Texas resident Rigoberto Barrientos whose leg was severed during a domestic dispute, which left him in a wheelchair even though he was neither violent nor uncooperative. We also investigated in detail the questionable DUI arrest of veteran first responder Thomas C, whose life altering encounter with three Denton Texas Sheriffs led to his firing from his job as a Dallas firefighter even though charges were dropped and prosecutors told us, “They have no evidence of the case.” Of course, I can’t leave out one of the recent reports that showed how Brittany Trevino was arrested by a New Braunfels police officer for, and I’m not kidding, for giving him the finger. Of course, we can’t forget Julie Clark and her husband Robert, who pulled over for failing to signal soon enough, 100 feet before a turn, and for that heinous crime, Robert was violently arrested and pulled out of his car.

All of these cases point to a very specific problem in a very specific state, a state that often professes its allegiance to law enforcement but doesn’t seem to hold the same affection for the citizens they have chosen to protect and serve. Well consider a special program in Texas that recently came to light in a small town that I think certainly explains in part why the state produces so many seemingly questionable arrests. It’s called the Step Program or Selective Active Enforcement Program to be specific, and thank you for the tip, Hamlin, Texas, you know who you are. It’s a grant-based funding plan that is based on a simple premise. The more cops pull people over, the safer we will be and to incentivize that it offers overtime to officers who do just that, pull people over mostly for minor traffic infractions. Now it’s interesting, if not perhaps coincidental, that almost all the questionable arrests we have reported on, involved, you guessed it, traffic stops except of course, for the horrible case of causing permanent injury to Mr. Barrientos, the rest of all the front encounters start with a traffic stop.

The consequences of this incentive to intervene came to a head, as I mentioned before, in a small town called Hamlin, Texas. So according to the coverage of the conflict over the policy there to meet the grant requirements and obtain funding for overtime, Hamlin officers had to stop roughly two cars per hour. That’s regardless if the motorist had broken the law or done anything wrong, cops had to pull someone over. The program led to a steep rise in traffic stops in the town. That increased prompted a local businessman to confront the city council. His complaint, officers kept pulling his employees over even if they hadn’t committed traffic offenses, disrupting his business. So the program has caused a deep division in the town, where residents have called for the town to withdraw from it.

But I think this type of incentivized policing is part of a broader problem. I think it’s indicative of a culture of law enforcement that is in part responsible for the Texas brand of chaotic policing we have witnessed on this show. I mean, think about it. Think about what it means when you tell a cop he or she can make money as long as they catch enough fish. Consider what happens when cops can use their extraordinary power to line their own pockets. Well, the first thing that happened is that the integrity of the entire system became not just questionable but laughable. If you turn policing into an opportunist and capitalist driven enterprise, then you might as well resign yourself to the dystopian world depicted in the 1987 movie, Robocop, where police work for corporations and the law is for sale.

But secondly, I think you turn all the justification that has been hammered into us by police partisans on its head. I mean, aren’t we always told that car stops are the most dangerous form of policing? Aren’t we constantly being browbeaten that cops can’t be held accountable because they’re constantly risking their lives on our behalf? Well, if that’s true, then why on earth would you pay them to pull more people over? Why would you give them an incentive to engage in deadly behavior? Why would you fatten their paychecks to take death-defying risks and the benefits seem at least negligible and the consequences potentially fatal.

And if you’re a cop on the other side of the equation, the officer who now indeed sees motorists as dollar signs, exactly how does this change your perspective on your profession? Your job ostensibly is to enforce the law, but now you’re trolling for minor infractions. You’re literally fishing for suspects. Your job has suddenly been transformed from an agent of the law to proactive enforcer of arbitrary rules in service of a dollar sign. It’s literally paying for play and it’s policing at its worst, but even with all those aforementioned pitfalls, it’s clear that driving for dollars has even more serious consequences. Consequences we can prove by recounting our previously mentioned reporting because while we don’t know for sure if step incentives cause these incidents, it’s certainly possible the mentality it engendered among Texas law enforcement could explain the veritable litany of overreach we have reported on regarding the state.

So let’s do a little inventory and accounting of the actual consequences for the people who serve as the means to fatten the paychecks of Texas police officers. In the case of Thomas C, the lifelong first responder was forced to retire, shunned by his fellow firefighters and abandoned by his union. Oh, and he almost missed his father’s funeral because bail restrictions imposed on him. And then there’s Robert Clark, who allegedly forgot to signal a hundred feet in advance of a turn. He was forced to pay $500 bail, missed two days of work, was denied medical treatment and all of this while living in his camper after struggling after a life altering eviction. And let’s not forget, Brittany Trevino, whose horrible crime of allegedly failing to signal a lane change led to a near arrest. All of this harassment was proceeded by another arrest two years prior for having a CBD pipe in her car, an encounter that caused her legal fees, bail, missed time at work, and also injuries that continue to cause her pain.

And finally, we cannot forget Rigoberto Barrientos whose arrest can’t be tied to overaggressive traffic enforcement, but certainly overaggressive policing in general. Police took him to the ground during a domestic dispute and literally severed his leg. The former construction worker is now permanently disabled. He has been forced to sue the police department simply to cover his medical expenses and his life has been irreparably altered for the worst. And the examples I’ve recounted are just the tip of the iceberg. I mean, I think for every case that finds its way into our inbox, there are hundreds if not thousands more that are just as bad, that we never see. And if that’s true, I want you to think about what that means for people who are subjected to it. The point is that there are undercurrents that drive policing that have nothing to do with safety, law, order or any of the other ubiquitous platitudes that define the debate over it. Imperatives that don’t get enough attention but need to be exposed so we can understand why the mayhem we witness is happening in the first place.

And to that point, it’s revealing that the step program, however it is constructed, has a basic idea underlying all of it. A driving conceptualization that shows, not tells us, how policing can sometimes go truly awry in America. Put simply the program is based on money, namely overtime, more importantly, making cops richer, and this is where bad policing and bad policy intersect. This is why a country addicted to punishment finds itself at odds with its own people because as my accounting of the previous consequences show, the idea to turn cops into cash cows ignores the other side of the ledger that turns people’s lives upside down in order to fatten their paychecks. What I mean is just like other types of government intervention, the other side of the coin is often ignored at the expense of the people. I mean, think about the personal devastation and lifelong disruption, those minor arrests will cause.

Think about the direct costs and the court imposed financial extractions that result from the law enforcement overreach we just recounted to you. It’s all just another down payment on the theme that we often return to on this show, that over-policing and aggressive law enforcement is an instrumental part of our country’s historic economic inequality equation. A major facet, so to speak, of the concerted effort to create a 1% so wealthy and so powerful that the rest of us simply become non-player characters in a game which is rigged to make sure we lose no matter how many times we play. This is why we have to keep delving into simple car stops, even if they seem inconsequential on the surface. That’s why we have to unpack ostensibly routine police encounters that as we have demonstrated, are not so routine for the people who experience them.

And I assure you, we will not stop doing so until every single innocent person in this country has been heard and that the elites responsible for this injustice, have listened. I want to thank my guest, Manuel Mata for coming forward and sharing the Bermuda as his family story as well as for his cop watching that he does for his community. Thank you, Manuel. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Steven Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you Steven.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me, I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I have to thank friend of the show, Noli D and Mod Lacey for their support. Thank you both. I appreciate you and for my patreons, I’m going to thank every single one of you personally in our next live stream, and thank you for staying to the end of this video. I want you to know that I appreciate you and 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. You can email us tips privately at PAR@therealnews.com, ensure your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly at Taya’s Baltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment, 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 greatly appreciated. And if you can’t, that’s okay. Subscribe and leave a like and a comment because that helps too. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Speaker 5:

Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories and struggles that you care about most and we need your help to keep doing this work. So please tap your screen now, subscribe and donate to the Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.