A 70 year old man in Ada County, Idaho was arrested by police officers at a police station, after he dared to look into a police cruiser window. The charges were later dismissed. He filed a lawsuit, which just settled for $250,000, along with mandatory additional training for sheriff’s deputies in that county.
Here’s Sherriff Matt Clifford’s troubling statement, as discussed in the video:
Earlier this week, we settled a lawsuit with Mr. Heikkola, stemming from an incident in January 2023. It wasn’t our best day. It is the expectation that Ada County deputies perform to the best of their abilities every day — while keeping people’s constitutional rights in the forefront of their minds, while also keeping our community safe.
For anyone to claim we are trampling on someone’s constitutional rights simply isn’t true.The reality is, we have hundreds of contacts every day with people of all different backgrounds, religions, ethnicities and socioeconomic standings. While the vast majority of those interactions go well, occasionally we fumble and miss the mark.
Part of the settlement was to include additional constitutional policing training; fortunately, we had already implemented this training prior to the settlement. We will now also include a scenario similar to Mr. Heikkola’s in our scenario-based training. We are one of few law enforcement agencies across the country with routine built-in training time. Every patrol deputy receives 9.5 training hours per month. These blocks of training include topics such as firearms training, scenario-based training, legal updates, EVOC, de-escalation techniques, arrest and control techniques, CPR and first aid, and more.
Part of our culture at the Ada County Sheriff’s Office is to always strive to be better – and learning from this incident will help us to do just that.
Here’s brand-new body cam footage, never before seen on the internet or media, of two police officers in Preston County, West Virginia absolutely tearing the Fourth Amendment to shreds, while apparently completely oblivious to what they were doing. It all started with a property dispute between neighbors. One of the neighbors called the police to try and persuade them to abuse their authority and arrest his neighbor due to a car allegedly being parked on his property. At first they correctly told the man that they couldn’t do that, but then for some reason they related, and did exactly that. I’m representing the man and will be filing a lawsuit shortly….
Uncut Raw Violence Clips:
I can’t wait to ask the officers under oath where in that footage he committed two counts of battery on an officer:
Perhaps it was here?
Or here, where his feet are both off the ground, his face hurling towards his porch deck, as his rotator cuff is tearing?
Here’s the survey screenshot:
Here’s the tax map boundaries, which appear to line up with the survey plat, both of which show the location where the car is parked to be either a public right of way, or perhaps an alleyway owned by neither party:
I went viral on X/Twitter about the Revolutionary War log fort we discovered and renovated that was hidden inside a plantation house here in West Virginia. Here’s some of the video footage of the process, from beginning to end.
Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, Anthony Ciliberti, issued a formal press release today about me. This was in response to two recent Youtube videos I published about the police officer overdose hoax case that happened in Oak Hill, West Virginia. This was the case where two police officers claimed that a guy they were arresting threw drugs at them, causing them to OD, only to be saved by Narcan. As it turns out, there was no OD, so the attempted murder charges had to be dropped. I exposed the truth, as well as the video footage. And the prosecutor was not happy about people knowing the truth.
Here’s his press release:
Here’s just one of the original media reports from about a year earlier:
Here’s the allegations from the criminal charges:
Here’s the bystander video footage of the incident, showing what actually happened. Note that the female officer accidentally tases the male officer just before he starts to suffer whatever symptoms he is suffering:
Here’s my update video on the criminal charges being dropped:
Here’s my update video showing the officers’ bodycam footage:
The Loveland Police Department has released bodycam footage for an incident in which former 28-year-old officer Russell Maranto hit a suspect who was in protective custody in May of this year. The rookie cop was fired three days later. Does it violate an arrestee/detainee’s constitutional rights to be hit by a police officer while handcuffed? What about if the person spits on the officer?
Pasco County, Florida, once-again, where we now get to see the body cam footage from where the cops served an eviction at the wrong house. The body cam footage is hilarious:
Quite a few people sent me this video of Travis Heinze being told to leave Turtle Lake, Wisconsin, for “loitering.” I’m pretty sure I watched this play out in Rambo First Blood. Is this constitutional? Loitering ordinances have been misused by law enforcement for many years. The problem is, they create a criminal offense based on one’s mere presence in a public place, with the lack of any criminal intent. Therefore the police get total power to define who is a criminal, and who is acting lawfully. Of course, this can, and is, misused by police. Which is why the federal courts have addressed the constitutionality of these statutes.
I posted a video about a month ago titled, “WV Judge Pulls Gun . . . Then it Gets Weird.” This was about West Virginia Circuit Court Judge David Hummel. Here’s the first video:
That video involved recent allegations from a lawyer that a judge had pulled out a gun in the courtroom, while on the bench during a hearing, displaying it and setting it on the bench, pointed in the direction of a lawyer who ultimately complained, sparking investigations, media reports and threats of a lawsuit. There’s been a few updates in the reporting since the video. There was insinuation that video footage existed in this case. So now that’s been confirmed, and some footage has been released pursuant to a FOIA, and I have it. And I’ll show it to you. But there’s been a few other updates as well.
In their August 18 story, the Daily Beast reported that they obtained the video, which they previously hinted existed, and that it confirms via the Court’s surveillance footage, that Judge Hummel indeed displayed a pistol in his courtroom in Wetzel County, West Virginia during a hearing on March 12.
This was a hearing involving controversial litigation pertaining to gas and oil rights. The case pitted gas and oil companies – and their Texas lawyers – against local landowners.
In their original July 16 story, the Beast alleged that Judge Hummel “whipped out his handgun, waved it in the air, and left it on the bench with the barrel pointing directly at the corporate lawyers who had irritated him.” The allegations had been provided to them by Lauren Varnado, the Texas lawyer who had been standing at the podium when the incident occurred.
According to the Beast reporter, this is Judge Hummel’s initial phone response to these allegations:
“There is no incident… I absolutely, categorically deny I had a gun that day in the courtroom,” he said. “It was just me and the attorneys. I had no reason to have a firearm that day… I’ve never shown a gun in my courtroom to anybody. I don’t want them to know that I have it. I do not display my firearm at any time during trial.”
Then, the reporter wrote, minutes later, the judge called back and said he now recalled having a holstered gun on him beneath his robe during the trial the previous week. He maintained however, that it never ever came out of the holster during the trial.
Then the judge called back a third time, now acknowledging that he showed something to the attorneys that day in the courtroom, but that it wasn’t a gun. He claimed it was a “small, red first aid kit.”
The local prosecuting attorney, Timothy Haught, has already responded to the existence of the footage. He stated in a letter to the complaining attorney that he has reviewed the video and that he sees no criminal wrongdoing. “What I saw on the video tape was Judge Hummel displaying his firearm for a few seconds. It did not appear to me that he pointed his firearm at [the complaining lawyer] or threatened [the complaining lawyer] with the same….”
The prosecuting attorney, at the very least, has represented that he has concluded that a gun was displayed by the judge in the courtroom. This contradicts the judge’s statements to the reporter, assuming he made them.
The complaining attorney is Texas lawyer, Lauren Varnado, who represents the oil company. In a follow up letter to Varnado, the prosecutor further remarked that he found nothing that constitutes a violation of West Virginia’s Criminal Code” and that he didn’t see, or hear, a threat, nor did he observe the judge directly point the firearm at Varnado.
Let’s take a look at the actual surveillance footage released by the Daily Beast, and see for ourselves. In the video, which incorrectly displays the local time an hour ahead, Judge Hummel is seen starting the court session around 9 a.m. One minute into the hearing, he is seen briefly waving it in the air as he speaks to the lawyers.
Remember, Judge Hummel, according to the original story, repeatedly told the Daily Beast “it never happened.” They said that when reached by phone, “he initially professed shock at the allegations.”
The footage corroborates the complaining attorney’s initial allegations to some extent. It shows him pull out the gun and wave it around for a second, and then set it on the bench. Is it then pointed in the direction of the attorney? It’s hard to tell from the video. But it doesn’t look like it to me – at least not in this segment of video. To the extent that the judge has indeed denied displaying the gun, the footage appears to completely contradict his recollection of the events.
Whether or not a crime was committed by the judge, judicial ethics violations may have been committed, and an investigation by the judicial disciplinary authorities is ongoing. The Daily Beast quoted Rutgers law school professor Ronald Chen, who also criticized the local prosecutor for “trying to run interference for the judge.”
“Frankly, whether what he did would have satisfied the criminal definition of ‘brandishing’ or not seems to be besides the point… to make contact with a potential witness but one who has not complained—and essentially try to wave her off does not seem to be appropriate.” “
After the first story was published, Lauren Varnado received a letter from attorneys representing the judge that suggested he might be suing her personally for speaking out about what happened. They’ve issued a cease and desist letter, but to my knowledge, no lawsuit has been filed.
The West Virginia Record has reported on other issues surrounding Judge Hummel which have come to light, including him accusing children of lying in a neglect case, as well as allegations he might have violated state law in personally obtaining oil and gas interests.
In a recent State Supreme Court opinion, Hummel was chastised by the Court for improper behavior by conducting interviews of children, wherein he accused a 7 year old of lying, reducing the child to tears, and then appears to have coerced an even younger child to implicate the parent in a plot to fabricate allegations of abuse.
In another recent story, it was reported that Judge Hummel had obtained oil and gas interests while serving as a court official. State law expressly prohibits court officials from obtaining right to minerals from tax deeds. Moreover, he then presided over the oil and gas dispute case involving Varnado, in which he apparently failed to disclose the interests, and also failed to recuse himself.
The judicial disciplinary investigation is ongoing, and I have no doubt there will be another update to come. Legitimacy is the currency of the courts. Setting aside the issues of whether prosecutors are going to criminally charge their fellow elected officials, evidence that a sitting judge has lied about allegations of misconduct, call into questions thousands of pending and former court cases involving that judge. This needs to be resolved. We’ll just have to wait and see the results of the pending judicial disciplinary investigation.
A video went viral on Tik Tok showing Ring doorbell camera footage of a police officer removing a family’s “F” Joe Biden flag from its display on the front of the home. The homeowner explained in a subsequent video that he had been previously threatened with arrest for good ‘ole disorderly conduct if he continued to display the flag. Is this a violation of the First Amendment? What about the Fourth Amendment?
Back in February, I discussed the “F” the police T-shirt case out of Ohio, where the 6th Circuit issued an opinion denying qualified immunity to police officers sued for arresting a man for “disorderly conduct” for wearing a shirt containing protected First Amendment speech. In that case, the Court made very clear that police academies have to stop teaching young officers that any use of profanity is disorderly conduct. To the contrary, the law is clear that the First Amendment protects the use of profanity, so long as it’s unaccompanied by other conduct that could be construed as disorderly. Thus, the use of the “F word” in and of itself cannot be criminal conduct.
“It is well-established that ‘absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, a State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of a four-letter expletive a criminal offense.’”
Cohen v. california scotus 1971
Not only can the “F word” be used, but it can be used to verbally criticize the police. Or, in this case, Joe Biden. As the U.S. Supreme Court has held, “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state….”
Moreover, expressing criticism of a sitting U.S. President, via use of a flag, is pure First Amendment protected activity. The homeowner mentions in his follow up video that he had researched the town ordinances, and none were applicable, but rather that the mayor lived down the street and held an opposing political ideology. I’ll note that, even if there were a town ordinance, it would be unconstitutional, as a violation of the First Amendment. Now an HOA would be another matter, potentially. Why? Because that’s a private organization, and therefore cannot violate the First Amendment.
Also, what about the Fourth Amendment? As I’ve explained numerous times, the front porch of your home, which would include a flag sticking out of it, is considered part of your home – your castle – for Fourth Amendment purposes. If a police officer walks up and seizes a part of your home – something off of it – is that a seizure? You better believe it. Is it illegal? Illegal in this context means “unreasonable.” Unreasonable, when it comes to your home, is defined with a question: was there a warrant? No, then it’s illegal as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
A West Virginia Circuit Court Judge was publicly admonished by the Judicial Investigation Commission for ordering the arrest of two correctional officers, who were transporting an inmate appearing before the Court. The two COs were arrested by sheriff’s deputies, for supposedly failing to obey a verbal order to transport an inmate to a different jail. The COs were then strip searched and incarcerated in their correctional officer uniforms. The Commission found probable cause that the Judge violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.5(A) and 2.8(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. That includes, “compliance with the law,” ” confidence in the judiciary,” “avoiding abuse of the prestige of judicial office,” “impartiality and fairness,” “competence, diligence and cooperation,” and “decorum [and] demeanor….”
The inmate being transported by the officers had been involved in a physical altercation in jail prior to the transport. Upon seeing the inmates injuries, the judge ordered the two transporting officers to return the inmate to a different jail, rather than the one in which she was already incarcerated. One of the officers responded that he would have to call his supervisor first. The judge then “summarily ordered both of them taken into custody and incarcerated for civil contempt.” He then “ordered the prosecutor to ‘right quickly prepare an Order’ stating that the officers had ‘refused to abide by the court order.'” However, the officers never refused. One officer said nothing. The other never refused, but correctly responded that he would have to call his supervisor, according to state policy.
The officers were escorted from the courtroom, taken into custody and detained. They were required to surrender their weapons to deputies, permitted to call their supervisors and relay a situation report. They were then taken to the county holding facility. While there, the officers were subject to strip searches. Their badges, shoestrings, wallets and watches were confiscated. Following the strip searches, the officers were directed to put their uniforms back on and were told that they were going to be placed in uniform in a cell with six inmates. At some point during all of this, they were also handcuffed….
The Respondent Judge has 14 days after receipt of the public admonishment to file a written objection, in which case formal charges will be filed with the State Supreme Court.
