Category Archives: First Amendment

Cop Training Seminar EXPOSED on VIDEO | 1000’s of Cops Nationwide Involved!

Posted on by

The New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller recently published a scandalous report detailing private for-profit police training of 1000’s of police officers from around the country that, among other things: promoted the use of unconstitutional policing tactics for motor vehicle stops; glorified violence and an excessively militaristic or “warrior” approach to policing; spoke disparagingly of the internal affairs process; promoted an “us vs. them” approach; and espoused views and tactics that would undermine almost a decade of police reform efforts in New Jersey, including those aimed at de-escalating civilian-police encounters; and
which included over 100 discriminatory and harassing remarks by speakers and instructors, with repeated references to speakers’ genitalia, lewd gestures, and demeaning quips about women and minorities.

Specifically, the report details a 2021 seminar held in Atlantic City, NJ, attended by approximately 1,000 police officers from across the country. Along with the report, the Acting Comptroller released video footage…

Here’s the full report: https://nj.gov/comptroller/reports/2023/approved/20231206.shtml

Here’s a media report about one of the instructors subsequently being charged with criminal violations for the video he bragged about, showing him shooting at a fleeing vehicle.

Here’s another media report about the founder of the training company retiring from police-work shortly after being sued for misconduct.

Here’s the list of states that sent police officers to the 2021 seminar featured in the report and video footage:

Texas Cop CAUGHT Using Every SCAM in the Book!

Posted on by

Video from Texas shows a guy being pulled over based on the allegation that his mud flaps were too short. But then, the officer opens the passenger side door on his own, while holding his pistol. He orders the driver out of his truck, making the new allegation that he smells marijuana. Then he frisks the man and searches his vehicle. During this entire ordeal, the driver is filming with his phone and questioning/accusing the officer. He actually did a really good job of completely destroying the alleged justification for the officer’s conduct.

Cop Gives $300 in Tickets Over Flipping The Bird!

Posted on by

This footage was sent to me by Jeff Gray, of Honor Your Oath Civil Rights Investigations. It comes to us from Daytona Beach, Florida. It shows multiple police officers harassing a guy on a bicycle who had flipped them “the bird.” As I’ve discussed numerous times, flipping “the bird” to police officers is protected First Amendment speech. In retaliation for that speech, they wrote this guy a ticket for what hopefully is the non-existent crime of riding a bicycle on a sidewalk.

DJ Plays “Bad Boys” Song | Ends Up ARRESTED!

Posted on by

This footage was submitted by Rhet. It involves the Manistee Police. Rhet is a DJ. Earlier in the evening, he played the song “Bad Boys” when this officer walked into the club. Well, later in the evening, the same officer pulls him over for what was seemingly not an actual traffic offense. One thing leads to another, and Rhet ends up arrested.

Rhet’s original video is here.

Cop Caught LYING By His Own Camera | Charge DISMISSED

Posted on by

This happened in Texas. Brittany Trevino was driving down the road, when she saw a police officer whom she really disliked, so she gave him the middle finger. In obvious retaliation, the officer jumped in his police cruiser, sped down the road, and stopped her – allegedly for failure to signal a lane change. The only problem was, however, the officer was lying, as indicated by not one, but two, of his own cameras.

The protections of the First Amendment are not limited to spoken words, but rather include gestures and other expressive conduct, even if vulgar or offensive to some. For example, in Cohen v. California (1971), the Supreme Court held that an individual wearing a jacket bearing the words “F**k the Draft” in a courthouse corridor could not be prosecuted for disturbing the peace. 

Consistent with this precedent, although “the gesture generally known as ‘giving the finger’ … is widely regarded as an offensive insult,” Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth. , (2d Cir. 1998), it is a gesture that is generally protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g. , Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard (6th Cir. 2019) (“Any reasonable [police] officer would know that a citizen who raises her middle finger engages in speech protected by the First Amendment.”); Garcia v. City of New Hope (8th Cir. 2021) (“[Plaintiff’s] raising his middle finger at [a police officer] is a rude and offensive gesture but nonetheless, under current precedent, is a constitutionally protected speech activity.”); Batyukova v. Doege(5th Cir. 2021) (same); accord Swartz v. Insogna (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that giving the middle finger could not support arrest for disorderly conduct); see generally Ira P. Robbins, Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law , 41 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1403, 1407–08, 1434 (2008) (observing that the middle finger can express a variety of emotions—such as anger, frustration, defiance, protest, excitement—or even “possess[ ] political or artistic value”).

Brittany Trevino’s original videos, including her update, are posted here.

Arrested For Knocking on Cop’s Window | OUTRAGEOUS Bodycam

Posted on by
1

I literally received hundreds of requests for my take on this outrageous bodycam footage that was originally uploaded by Lackluster, showing a lady being arrested in Kentucky, after she attempted to criticize a police officer for his poor driving skills. Well, you were right that I would be interested in this incident. Here’s my take on it.

Here’s Lackluster’s original video. It’s fantastic, by the way.

Here’s the police report narrative:

Here are the relevant Kentucky statutes (I mistakenly used disorderly conduct in the first degree in the video, but the operative portions are identical):

Here’s her GoFundMe link.

Sensitive Trooper Retaliates | LAWSUIT Filed

Posted on by

Gregory Bombard was driving through his hometown of St. Albans, Vermont, enjoying a coffee and a cigarette. He committed no crime — not even a minor traffic violation. Twenty minutes later, he was sitting in a jail cell. Bombard’s alleged crime? Cursing at a cop and giving him the finger during a traffic stop — conduct that is squarely protected by the First Amendment. A federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed, and the dash cam footage has been released.

Door Dasher CAUGHT in Fishing Expedition

Posted on by

Cops in Wisconsin successfully nabbed some teenagers engaged in Door-Dashing. Originally a speeding stop, the officer quickly pivoted to a drug investigation, and basically went on a fishing expedition in an effort to find any reason at all to arrest them.

Original video here.

WV Town With NO First Amendment! | LAWSUIT Filed

Posted on by
1

Edgar Orea brought me this footage. He’s a street preacher who was arrested in Bluefield, West Virginia for the content of his protected First Amendment speech. Edgar and his wife moved to Bluefield in order to serve the people of nearby McDowell County, West Virginia, which is the poorest county in the entire nation. But from the very beginning, they were harassed by the Bluefield Police Department, as you’ll see in the video. The police objected to the content of their message. In this particular incident, they actually arrested Mr. Orea and took him to jail based on the content of his anti-abortion sign, which showed an aborted fetus.

There was a similar case litigated in Kentucky: World Wide Street Preachers’ v. City of Owensboro, 342 F.Supp.2d 634 (W.D. Ky. 2004). In that case, another street preacher was arrested in a public park for showing a large sign with a similar photograph of an aborted fetus. The police claimed that this was causing public alarm and was likely to cause a confrontation. So they cited the individual, but otherwise didn’t arrest him or interfere with his other activities. The Court held:

A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949)….

In light of Supreme Court precedent, the Court cannot find that the Plaintiffs’ sign, no matter how gruesome or how objectionable it may be, constitutes “fighting words.” The Plaintiffs’ speech, whether one agrees with it or not, was certainly not of “slight social value.” Rather, their speech was a powerful, albeit graphic commentary on a societal debate that divides many Americans. Furthermore, their speech was not directed at any particular person. Their speech commented on a highly significant social issue and was calculated to challenge people, to unsettle them, and even to anger them, but not to insult them. Such social commentary is not only protected under Supreme Court precedent but also is highly valued in the marketplace of ideas in our free society. 

Here, the Bluefield Police Department did much more than issue a citation, but rather placed Mr. Orea in handcuffs and carted him off for incarceration. Then they refused to return his signs, except for one. They charged him with two criminal misdemeanors: disorderly conduct and obstruction, two favorites of law enforcement officers for arresting people who have committed no crime. Fortunately, the charges were dismissed by the Court following a motion to dismiss based on the First Amendment.

Here’s the federal lawsuit, filed last week:

Cops Keep Getting This Wrong | When Can Cops Force You to ID?

Posted on by

Police officers around the nation continue to misunderstand the Fourth Amendment and the concept of reasonable suspicion. This footage was submitted by Nick Failla, showing his arrest in Cocoa, Florida several years back. He just recently obtained the bodycam footage.

Many cops believe that they get to forcibly ID anyone they encounter as a part of their job. They are taught that its policy to do this for officer safety reasons. We see it over and over again. In this particular video, the female officer, who is a supervisor, explains repeatedly to Nick that, because she’s a police officer conducting an investigation, Florida law allows her to obtain the ID of anyone she encounters – whether or not a crime is even alleged. Nick disagrees with her and asks repeatedly for an explanation of what crime he was alleged to have committed. Let me see if I can clear this up.

Here’s Nick’s original video, along with his explanations.

This is a common issue and is the subject of one of my most popular Youtube videos – a case currently being litigated in federal court, involving the arrest of my client in a West Virginia Walmart. When police officers encounter pedestrians, they could trigger an investigatory detention, which requires reasonable suspicion, or they could just be engaged in a consensual encounter, which requires nothing. It’s just a conversation. 

Consensual encounters, i.e., a conversation, does not trigger the Fourth Amendment, and can be easily identified if the subject asks whether or not he’s free to leave. If the question isn’t asked, courts will look to the circumstances. Would a reasonable, regular person believe that he was NOT free to leave? Were emergency lights activated? Multiple police officers? Guns drawn? Put in handcuffs? Accused of criminal conduct? Told to show your hands? Told to get on the ground? Or was it just a conversation. 

The question is whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter. If the person was involuntarily detained by the officer, that constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, no matter how brief the detention or how limited its purpose. 

If a detention occurs, the courts require the detaining officer to be able to articulate why a particular behavior is suspicious or logically demonstrate that the person’s behavior is indicative of some sinister criminal activity. It must be based on suspicion of illegal conduct. In other words, it cannot be based on suspicion of legal conduct, such as walking down a public sidewalk, or hanging out on top of your van with two women in a parking lot in front of a lake.

Here, there was clearly a detention. Therefore reasonable suspicion is required. Even in Florida, a police officer must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 880 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc).