Cops Pretend Like Nothing Happened | Leave Scene of Accident

What would happen if a police officer initiates a pursuit with a fleeing vehicle, then that vehicle crashes, and the officer says, oh well, and drops the pursuit, leaving the scene? He just leaves; doesn’t stop to help; doesn’t call an ambulance; just turns the other direction and heads to Dunkin Donuts? Is that a civil rights violation? You might be surprised. 

It was May of this year in Dallas, Texas. Dallas Police Officer Leonard Anderson and his trainee, Officer Darrien Robertson observed a vehicle leaving a gas station with his lights off. They began to pursue and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. But the vehicle fled – lights still off. The police car gets left in the dust, basically. Apparently, the Dallas Police Department has a pursuit policy that provides for officers not to pursue vehicles, unless they’re pursuing a subject believed to have committed a violent felony offense. That appears to have been the case here. As far as I can tell, they began to chase the guy because he left the gas station with his lights off. 

Dash cam footage actually captures the officers witness the car wreck, off in the distance, as well as their reactions. Through audio from the officers’ dash camera video, Anderson and Robertson can be heard talking to each other about the crash. Anderson was driving at the time. “Did you see that?” Robertson asked. “That’s his fault,” Anderson replied. A nearby surveillance camera captured a better view of the vehicle, which narrowly missed hitting a pedestrian, jumping the curb and wrecking. Nineteen seconds later, the same camera captured officers Anderson and Robertson pull up to the crash site and promptly make a right hand turn, driving away.

Here’s the raw footage, courtesy of WFAA:

Bystanders at the scene witnessed the police car drive away. Instead, they attempted to help the driver, who was now trapped, his car on fire. Eventually, the two officers returned the scene, after other officers and first responders arrived. The crowd wasn’t happy. They had seen what had happened and were telling everyone who would listen. The officers tried to tell them at one point that they didn’t see what they saw. But they weren’t having it. 

Afterwards, the chief of the Dallas Police said he was appalled by the officers’ actions and commended the civilians who helped the crash victim. “I’m embarrassed for the men and women of this department,” Garcia said. “This is not what we stand for.” “Those citizens did an admirable job — and did a job that our officers should have done,” the chief added.

Here’s what happened in the end. Fast forward from May of 2022 to just last week. It was announced by the Dallas Police that Senior Cpl. Leonard Anderson would be terminated as a result of this incident and trainee officer Darrien Robertson, whom Anderson was training at the time, was given a 30 day suspension.

Now here’s the question. Clearly we saw police officers fail to aid someone who needed aid. One of them was fired for it. No doubt that was a department police violation. But was it a civil rights violation under federal constitutional law? Let me know in the comments what you think. This is an interesting issue, and it’s not so easy. 

It’s important to remember the basic fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that in general, police have absolutely no to duty to protect us. They can refuse to do their jobs, or be really bad at doing their jobs, and we can’t sue them for it. It’s not a civil rights violation, according to the Supreme Court. This has come up a lot in the context of school cases, where the government has actually exposed children to actual harm, that the children actually suffered, but the courts have refused to allow compensation. It’s come up in CPS and foster home cases. And it’s also come up in domestic violence cases – and to a lesser extent in some pursuit cases. 

The Supreme Court has held that government officials cannot be held responsible for harm caused by third parties. In DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), state social workers became aware that a child might be the victim of abuse based on suspicious injuries. They concluded, however, that there was insufficient evidence of child abuse to retain the child in state custody, so they allowed him to be returned to his father’s custody from the hospital where he was being treated. Later, the father so severely beat the child that he suffered severe brain damage and fell into a life-threatening coma. The child and his mother then filed a § 1983 action against the state social workers, asserting that they failed in their duty to protect the child, thus violating his substantive due-process rights.

The Court made clear that “[a]s a general matter … a State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.” The Court identified an exception to this general rule, however, specifying that the State does have a duty to protect citizens against private violence when the State has a “special relationship” with that citizen:

[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being. The rationale for this principle is simple enough: when the state by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual’s liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs— e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety—it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause.

It is, therefore, “the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf—through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraints of personal liberty”—which constitutionally imposes on the State a duty to protect the restrained citizen from private violence. Doe v. Covington County Sch. Dist., 649 F.3d 335, 271 Ed. Law Rep. 63 (5th Cir. 2011).

So the question is, okay, so they were not technically responsible yet. But they saw the crash. They didn’t call an ambulance. They didn’t provide first aid themselves. Is that a civil rights violation? We’re back full circle to the first issue. The Fifth Circuit has specifically held that no general right to medical care exists; such a right has been found only where there exists a special custodial or other relationship between the person and the state. Kinzie v. Dallas County Hospital District (5th Cir. 2003). Thus we’re back where we started. 

While DeShaney makes clear that the state’s mere awareness of a risk of harm to an individual will not suffice to impose an affirmative duty to provide protection, most federal circuits hold that if the state creates the danger confronting the individual, it may then have a corresponding duty to protect. This is known as the “state-created danger” theory/doctrine. Here, however, the Fifth Circuit has “repeatedly declined to recognize the state-created danger doctrine.” Joiner v. United States , 955 F.3d 399, 407 (5th Cir. 2020). Since this occurred in the Fifth Circuit, that’s not going to help.

Thus, here we are. There’s probably no civil rights violation. So is this news to you? Did you know that the federal courts generally hold that police officers have no legal obligation to call an ambulance for you, provide first aid, CPR, etc.? I find that shocking and unacceptable. So it’s important to know the exception. When? When there’s custody or a special relationship. Do you think the officers knew that here and were just playing 4D chess for their insurance company? I don’t think so. But it probably was convenient. That way, the department can just throw these guys under the bus, apologize publicly, and then quietly deny any compensation to the victim.

Now the victim here perhaps didn’t deserve compensation. He did it to himself. He could have killed an innocent person. So I’m just speaking in general. The usual tragedy is that the guy hits a car full of kids and wipes out an entire family. Then the government, similar to what these guys did here, just says, oh well, and takes a right hand turn and drives somewhere else….

SWAT Raids Grandma’s Home Over iPhone App

Imagine your 77 year old grandmother sitting at home one day and an entire SWAT team shows up and raids her house, just because someone’s stolen iPhone supposedly pings at the location. No phone call, no knock and talk, no investigation at all. Just SWAT team. Well that happened. 

It was January 4, 2022. Ruby Johnson, 77 years old, a law-abiding citizen and grandmother, was alone at her home. She lives in a neighborhood called Montbello – considered to be one of Denver’s minority neighborhoods, located in northeast Denver, Colorado. Denver Police SWAT executed a search warrant at her home, looking for a stolen vehicle and guns, based entirely on Apple tracking software, “Find My iPhone.” They found nothing and achieved nothing but the contempt they earned from the victim, her family and others in the neighborhood. 

The day before the raid, a 2007 white Chevy truck with Texas license plates was stolen from a downtown Denver hotel parking garage. The driver rammed it through the gate and fled. Inside was $4,000 cash, two drones and an iPhone 11. Hours later, the hotel notified the guest who owned the truck and he began tracking the iPhone via the Find My iPhone app. The app supposedly led to Ruby Johnson’s home, before it disappeared. 

Based solely on that, the Denver Police Department obtained a search warrant. They chose not to conduct any surveillance or other investigation at the location. They didn’t even bother to drive by the house to see if the stolen truck was there. Or maybe even next door. Nor did they bother to even go perform one of their beloved “knock and talks” at the actual location where the phone pinged. Instead, they activated the SWAT team. Just to be safe, of course. It is a minority neighborhood, after all….

About a dozen Denver SWAT officers poured into the home. They sifted through boxes with the help of a K-9 unit. They used a battering ram to try to open the rear garage door. They broke down the attic door. They also cut the lock to her shed.

Officer Joe Montoya, the head stormtrooper, in an interview with channel 9 news, said officers researched the property and knew 77 year old Ruby Johnson lived at the home alone, which is why they used the “lowest threshold of aggression.” If this SWAT team, along with an armored vehicle, is their lowest threshold of aggression, I’d say their higher thresholds must involve those new-fangled exploding robots. Officer Montoya, like a good government trooper, was just following orders. They’re just doing what stormtroopers do. It’s up to prosecutors and judges to stop them. They have no minds of their own. Here’s what he said: 

“I’m not going to second guess the investigation,” he said. “The proper steps were taken. The place where that would have been questioned would have been the DA’s Office and the judge’s level. And they felt comfortable signing that warrant.”

So what about them? Denver Deputy District Attorney Ashley Beck and Judge Beth Faragher both approved the warrant. Kristin Wood, a spokesperson for Denver County Court, said: “Judge Faragher signed the search warrant because she found probable cause existed,” Wood wrote in an email. “If a judge did not find probable cause, he/she would not sign the search warrant.” Prosecutor Beck also would not directly comment. Instead, a spokesperson wrote in an email that the warrant passed legal muster: “I can tell you that our office is obligated to review every search warrant the Denver Police Department writes to ensure it is legally sufficient based on the facts to which the detective swears,” Carolyn Tyler wrote in an email. 

So, at least through their spokespersons, the officers blame the judge and prosecutor; the judge blames the prosecutor and officers, and the prosecutor blames the officers and the judge. This is perfectly representative of the efficiency and competency of your government. This is why the DMV runs so smoothly and is your favorite place to visit. 

It’s true though that there are two important things to look at when reviewing warrants:

  1. The information provided by law enforcement, under oath, to the judge reviewing the allegations for probable cause; and 
  2. Whether those allegations are sufficient to comprise probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. 

Looking at the actual search warrant application, completed by Detective Gary Staab, it appears that he relied solely on representations made to him by the owner of the stolen items and did absolutely nothing himself. He notes in the application to the judge that the owner told him that the iPhone pinged to the house and that he drove by the location in a rented vehicle, but that he did not see his stolen truck there. 

However, the application notes, theoretically, the stolen phone could be inside the closed garage at the residence. Also theoretically, which the detective notes in his copy and paste warrant, his vast experience tells him that stolen items can be removed from a stolen vehicle and theoretically placed in a garage. 

That’s pretty much it. He includes a copy of the owner’s Find My iPhone screenshot and his photos of the residence. The detective did nothing himself. Instead of actually going and knocking on the door, talking to people – you know, detective work – let’s just activate the SWAT team and bust down the door. It’s a black neighborhood, after all. Guns were stolen. Therefore we have black people with guns, potentially. Better bring the armored vehicle as well. Yes she’s a 77 year old grandmother with no criminal history. But you never know. Officers have to make it home that night. 

As officers searched her home, Ruby Johnson waited in the back seat of a police car. She told channel 9 news afterwards that the experience was traumatizing and led her to feel unsafe in the home she has lived in for about 40 years. “When I start thinking about it, tears start coming down,” she said. Ruby’s longtime friends have noticed a sadness they hadn’t seen in her before. They don’t see her smile anymore. 

Officer Joe Montoya, division chief of investigations with DPD, said the department did not intend to harm Johnson and regrets that the warrant caused suffering. 

“We can always apologize and I’d be willing to apologize that there was a warrant issued and evidence was not found there,” Montoya said. “That’s a given, but I don’t think there was anything done to intentionally traumatize her.”

They just don’t get it, do they? They chose to obtain a search warrant and send a SWAT team there. They knew that the only person who lived there was a 77 year old woman who was a law abiding citizen. Yet they sent a SWAT team there first, instead of treating the woman as Officer Montoya no doubt would want his own grandmother treated. They chose to traumatize her. Because they only think of themselves. Officer safety is the only thing that matters to them. 

By the way, the stolen truck was later recovered two days after the warrant was executed about six miles away in Aurora. The stolen guns were not in the truck, of course. No arrests have been made. 

The point here is, this is a prime example of the fact that police and government misconduct can happen to you, even if you’ve done nothing wrong. This was all done lawfully. Valid search warrant. Valid search. Innocent victim. Wrong house. No stolen items found. This will continue to happen because police officers are not held accountable for their actions. Prosecutors are not held accountable for their actions. And judges certainly aren’t held accountable for their actions. I can guarantee you these things would stop happening if qualified immunity was abolished. If prosecutorial absolute immunity was abolished. If judicial immunity was abolished. But as it is now, they just don’t care, because there are no consequences. The only thing we can do is expose what they’ve done. 

Cops Afraid of Livestream | Lawsuit Backfires

Most people understand and accept that citizens have a constitutional right to record video of interactions with police officers, at this point – in general. Law enforcement has fought that every step of the way, of course. But is there a right to “livestream” encounters with police officers? More specifically, does a passenger of a vehicle detained at a traffic stop have a constitutional right to livestream the encounter from his cell phone? 

Dijon Sharpe was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation in Winterville, North Carolina on October 9, 2018. WPD officers Myers Helms and William Ellis performed the stop. Sharpe began live streaming the encounter with Facebook live. Helms told Sharpe that he could record the traffic stop from inside the car during the encounter but not livestream the traffic stop from inside the car during the traffic stop. 

At the beginning of the stop, while the driver and Mr. Sharpe waited for the officers to approach the vehicle, the driver called a third party on his cell phone in order to have a witness to what was happening. Meanwhile, Sharpe began live-streaming what was happening on his Facebook account. The livestream shows that, during the stop, the driver continued his conversation with the third party on his cell phone during the entire course of the stop, including while speaking with the officers. The footage shows the interaction between Mr. Sharpe – the passenger – and Officer Helms. The video shows Officer Helms asking for Mr. Sharpe’s identification and then returning to the police vehicle. During this time, the driver continued his conversation with the third party over the cell phone, explaining that police had begun following the vehicle for some time before initiating the traffic stop. He expressed concern that he had been racially profiled. 

As the driver was talking to the third party on his phone, Sharpe talks into his phone, reassuring viewers on Facebook live that he was fine, advocating for his practice of recording interactions with law enforcement. According to the lawsuit he would subsequently file, Sharpe began recording because he had been the victim of a brutal beating at the hands of police officers in the nearby town of Greenville ten months earlier, during a traffic stop. That experience prompted him to ensure any future interactions he had with law enforcement would be recorded for his own protection. 

After emerging from the police vehicle, Officer Helms is seen on the video approaching the car window. He says, “What have we got? Facebook Live, cous?” As soon as Mr. Sharpe responds affirmatively, Officer Helms abruptly thrusts his arm through the passenger window and attempts to seize Mr. Sharpe’s cell phone, while pulling on Sharpe’s seatbelt and shirt. During this altercation, Officer Helms tells Sharpe: “We ain’t gonna do Facebook Live, because that’s an officer safety issue.” 

Shortly afterwards, following the issuance of citations to the driver, Officer Ellis states: “Facebook Live . . . we’re not gonna have that, okay, because that lets everybody y’all follow on Facebook that we’re out here…” He says that recording is fine, but if you’re live, your phone is gonna be taken. Otherwise you’re going to jail. Sharpe then asked Ellis if that was a law. Ellis responded that it was a violation of the RDO statute, which is basically North Carolina’s obstruction statute. In the end, the phone was not seized. There was no citation or arrest pertaining to the livestreaming. However, the threat was made that next time, the phone would be seized and an arrest would be made if the phone was not forfeited. 

In Mr. Sharpe’s video, look how the officer is standing there watching Sharp and the driver and treating them like they’re up to no good. Yet the reason for the stop was supposedly a basic traffic violation. The officer asks for Sharp’s ID because “he likes to know” who he’s out with. Is it any wonder that police officers get the reputation they have?

Based on the incident, as well as the threat to stop livestreaming in the future, under penalty of arrest, Sharpe sued the officers and the Town of Winterville under Section 1983 for violation of the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the claims against the individual officers on qualified immunity grounds, holding that it was not clearly established in October of 2018 that a passenger in a stopped vehicle had a constitutional right to record and live broadcast the interaction. Additionally, the Court held that live-streaming by a vehicle passenger poses a “unique” threat to officer safety that mere recording does not and is therefore not clearly protected under the First Amendment. 

Eleven months later, the district court dismissed the claim against the Town of Winterville on the grounds that Mr. Sharpe had no constitutional right to live broadcast at all, and that even if he did, the town’s policy of arresting traffic stop passengers for live-streaming passes constitutional review under intermediate scrutiny. The district court held that “[r]ecording a traffic stop for publication after the traffic stop versus livestreaming an ongoing traffic stop from inside the stopped car during the traffic stop are significantly different.”

“[L]ivestreaming the interaction from inside the stopped car during the traffic stop … allows … those watching, to know the location of the interaction, to comment on and discuss in real-time the interaction, and to provide the perspective from inside the stopped car,” JA81. “The perspective from inside the stopped car, for example, would allow a viewer to see weapons from inside the stopped car that an officer might not be able to see and thereby embolden a coordinated attack on the police.” Thus the Court concluded that Mr. Sharpe had no First Amendment right to live-stream. 

Mr. Sharpe appealed to the Fourth Circuit. It drew significant attention from civil liberties and press advocates. Seven amicus briefs were filed in support of his claims.  Here’s Sharpe’s opening brief:

Oral arguments were held last month, which involved a heated discussion between one of the federal judges on the panel and the lawyer representing Mr. Sharpe. During the oral arguments, the federal judge seemed highly concerned about the rights of police officers, as opposed to the rights of an innocent citizen being detained as a passenger in a traffic stop. Listen for yourself

Here’s the full raw footage, which was linked in the court record (Facebook video link).

The Fourth Amendment grants no rights to officers. “The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …” Its purpose is to guarantee individual rights against the power of the government. 

This flies in the face of actual Fourth Amendment law. They are using amorphous and general concerns over “officer safety” that are not particular to the individual they are seeking to restrict. In other words, the officers here, and those advocating for them to do so, want the officers to have the power to stop livestreaming, based only on obscure general concerns over officer safety. Theoretically, if some bad guy was watching the livestream he could find the location while the stop is in progress and theoretically harm the officers or cause some other safety issue. 

They’re not saying that this particular individual should not livestream under these circumstances, because that person is a particular safety threat and those facts can be demonstrated in court or to a judge. They’re using blanket reasons.  Again, that flies in the face of existing Fourth Amendment law, which requires particularity to the individual for things like frisks and searches. Blanket reasons never go well with constitutional law. Usually we’re told that law enforcement actions were justified based on the “totality of the circumstances.” Well now, because they hate video footage, we no longer look at the totality of the circumstances, but rather, at the vague concept that police officers are afraid of absolutely everything and everyone. 

The fact is, freedom is scary. They need to deal with it, or get another job. We cannot and must not appease that fear.

Driver Saved by Weird Cop’s Dash Cam | Lawsuit

Once again, a police officer films himself committing a civil rights violation. This is an extremely important issue. It’s already super easy for police officers to stop and detain an innocent person just following a driver long enough and looking for one of the hundreds of available traffic law violations, or even by just lying about observing a traffic law violation. We’ve all known compulsive liars. They justify their behavior in their own minds by convincing themselves that they’re telling the truth – or that it’s for a good cause. When it comes to police officers and constitutional rights, our freedom hangs in the balance. It’s a slippery slope, so there can be no compromise.

In this footage we see an unlawful stop, based completely on a lie, documented by the officers’ own dash cam footage. It makes no difference, legally speaking, whether the lie was malicious, or done with good intentions. This is where most of us will encounter police officers. This is also where police officers can easily get away with racial profiling or other discrimination or harassment of innocent people. The threshold is very, very low for police officers to lawfully stop a vehicle and detain the driver. Where they are caught doing so illegally, there needs to be consequences and accountability.

Fortunately, there may be some accountability coming for these police officers. This footage comes to us from a fantastic new video released by the Institute for Justice, detailing a section 1983 lawsuit they just filed this month in Louisiana. I’ll post a link to the video and press release by the IJ in the description. I also urge you to donate to their cause. They do fantastic work protecting our freedom.

On June 15, 2022, Mario Rosales and his passenger Gracie, were driving in Alexandria, Louisiana. They both worked for an HVAC business and had just left from work. It was around 5 p.m. In his red Mustang, while sitting at a traffic light, Mario properly signaled a left turn and then proceeded to turn left. Two police officers with the Alexandria Police Department, Jim Lewis and Samuel Terrell, were behind him. The officers had no reason to suspect that Mario had committed any crime, including a traffic violation. His tags were current. The vehicle was in proper working order and didn’t appear to give rise to any justification for a traffic stop. There was no lawful reason for the stop.

Here’s the full raw footage:

In the end, due to the fishing expedition, the officers end up charging Mario with three violations: failure to signal, and two hyper-technical violations pertaining to residence and vehicle registration. Fortunately, all three charges were dismissed. Assuming that someone on a bench somewhere was looking at this footage and measuring it against the Constitution, those charges had to be dismissed. Why? Because the initial stop was illegal. Therefore, everything that happened afterwards is fruit of the poisonous tree. Well, the failure to signal was easily disproved by the video footage. But the two hyper-technical residency violations would also have to be thrown out because they were only discovered as a result of the officers’ illegal behavior. 

Police officers must have reasonable suspicion that the driver committed a crime or traffic violation in order to justify a traffic stop detainment. In order to have valid reasonable suspicion here, the officers must have had some belief particular to Mario, based on the totality of the circumstances, that Mario committed some violation. Just a hunch by Officer Fifth Amendment here is not enough.  His instincts are either way, way off, or he racially profiled Mario. Or maybe he just doesn’t like Mustangs. Either option violates the Fourth Amendment. 

Even if there was a failure to signal, what other problems would we have here? As I explained in a previous video about traffic stops: The Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from prolonging a traffic stop beyond the time necessary to investigate (and write a ticket for) a traffic violation unless the officers have reasonable suspicion that the stopped vehicle’s occupants are engaging in other crimes. Officers may detain the driver only for the time necessary to complete the tasks associated with the reason for the stop. Once the traffic-related basis for the stop ends (or reasonably should have ended), the officer must justify any further “seizure” on a reasonable suspicion that the driver is committing those other crimes.

As we saw in the footage, this wasn’t just a regular traffic stop, Officer Fifth Amendment chose to take Mario out of his car, for an extended period of time and question him about criminal allegations completely unrelated to the supposed reason for the stop. For that to be legal, the officer would need to have separate reasonable suspicion particular to Mario – not just anyone and everyone he stops – that Mario may be involved in the suspected illegal activity. Thus even if the failure to signal allegation wasn’t a lie, the Fourth Amendment would still be violated. And then there’s a First Amendment violation in there for refusing Mario and Gracie the option of filming these lying police officers. That is well explained in the IJ’s complaint

Here’s the complaint:

UPDATE: Wild WV Judge(s)

You may remember the judge who was alleged to have pulled a gun in the courtroom, then denied doing so, then apparently admitted to doing so. The saga has apparently now just ended. For now. You may be asking yourself, which West Virginia judge is this again? Let’s run through a few of the crazy cases of West Virginia judges gone wild real quick, then I’ll tell you what happened. We have to set the context here. Some of these cases are absolutely insane. 

There’s the family court judge I filed a lawsuit against for personally performing an illegal search of my client’s house, who was deprived of judicial immunity in the lawsuit. She’s currently appealing to the Fourth Circuit. The Institute for Justice recently announced that they joined the case and published a great video about it. Here’s the last update video I did on that case:

Here’s the IJ’s video on it:

Here’s the excellent brief the IJ filed in that case:

There’s the case of the West Virginia circuit court judge who acted up at a traffic stop. I was the one who first obtained and released that footage on Youtube. That judicial disciplinary case is still ongoing. That judge was recommended for suspension. Here’s my previous video with the footage:

Here’s the decision from the Judicial Hearing Board recommending discipline:

The state supreme court has the final say, however, which has yet to be heard.

There was another West Virginia circuit court judge who ordered the arrest of two correctional officers with no legal basis for doing so, which earned him a public reprimand.

Here’s the public admonishment he received:

That, by the way, is the same county as my recent wildlife officer antler heist case, if you were wondering what type of environment that could occur in….

There was the West Virginia family court judge who went on a tirade in his courtroom against a litigant, earning him a suspension. That was Judge Watkins. From the ABA Journal, March 28, 2013: “Judge whose angry rant was caught in YouTube clip is suspended for nearly 4 years.”

In one hearing, the opinion says, when speaking to a woman who was seeking an order of protection against her then-husband in a domestic violence case, Watkins blamed the woman for “shooting off your fat mouth about what happened,” told her to “Shut up!” and then continued:

“Shut up! You stupid woman. Can’t even act properly. One more word out of you that you aren’t asked a question you’re out of here, and you will be found in direct contempt of court and I will fine you appropriately. So, shut your mouth.You know I hate it when people are just acting out of sheer spite and stupidity.”

Here’s the full video referenced in the article:

There was, probably the worst of all – no definitely the worst of all, as far as my recollection goes – Judge Thornsbury, who was indicted by the feds for official corruption in Mingo County, West Virginia. That one made national headlines

From an FBI press release on August 15, 2013: “West Virginia Circuit Judge Arrested for Framing Romantic Rival, Rigging Grand Jury.”

Judge Thornsbury is charged with conspiring to violate the constitutional rights of a victim identified as “R.W.,” who was the husband of Thornsbury’s secretary. In early 2008, the indictment alleges, Thornsbury began a romantic relationship with his secretary, identified as “K.W.,” which she broke off in June of that year. After K.W. ended the relationship, Thornsbury instructed a co-conspirator to plant illegal drugs underneath R.W.’s pickup truck and then arranged for police to stop R.W. and search for the drugs. The co-conspirator tasked with planting the drugs backed out of the plan at the last minute, thwarting Thornsbury’s scheme.

Thornsbury then tried a different approach, the indictment alleges. R.W. worked at a coal preparation plant, where newly mined coal was processed before shipping. One of the plant’s functions was to remove scrap metal that had fallen into the coal during mining. Thornsbury learned that R.W.’s supervisors had given him permission to salvage scrap items, including drill bits, that were found amid coal at the plant, which were simply discarded if R.W. did not collect them.

Thornsbury secretly instructed a West Virginia state trooper to file a criminal complaint that falsely alleged R.W. was stealing the scrap material from his employer. The trooper resisted, telling Thornsbury that R.W. was allowed to salvage the scrap, but ultimately yielded to Thornsbury’s demands, filing a false criminal complaint that led to R.W.’s arrest for grand larceny in December 2008.

Fast forward to a Charleston Gazette-Mail article from March 13, 2018: “Ex-Mingo judge Thornsbury to be released from prison this week.” That article explained that a federal judge sentenced the former judge to 50 months in prison in June of 2014 after he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy against civil rights. It also explained that the judge’s criminal conduct was only exposed due to the murder of the sheriff in that county, which ended up revealing a criminal scheme involving the judge, the murdered sheriff, the former Mingo Prosecuting Attorney, as well as a former County Commissioner. 

But wait, we’re not done just yet. There was the West Virginia judge who bit a guy’s nose…. This was one was a little bit before my time. I was playing high school football at the time this story came out. October 24, 1997, the AP reports, “Feisty Judge Bites Unruly Defendant’s Nose.” This one is actually pretty interesting and probably deserves a video of its own. 

Joseph Troisi, a 47-year-old judge on the Pleasants County Circuit Court, could get up to a year in jail and a $500 fine for the alleged attack June 26 against Bill Witten, 29. Troisi still faces federal civil rights charges carrying up to 10 years in prison. Troisi was accused of stepping down from the bench, taking off his robe and confronting Witten after the defendant cursed at the judge while being led out of the courtroom. Afterward, witnesses said, Troisi returned to the bench as if nothing happened.

A report prepared for the state Supreme Court said Troisi, who was first elected to the bench in 1992, had a long-standing inability to control his temper on the bench. In all, Troisi lost his temper 19 times in the past two years, the report said.

Then, July 29, 1998, the AP reported, “Nose-Biting Judge To Return to Jail.” 

A former judge who served five days behind bars for biting a defendant’s nose was ordered back to jail for the rest of his original six-month sentence Wednesday for violating the terms of his probation.

Circuit Judge Arthur Recht ruled that former county judge Joseph Troisi inappropriately confronted and provoked a court official who had testified against him in the nose-biting case.

Troisi admitted on the stand that he called Pleasants County Deputy Circuit Clerk Ward Grose a liar and other epithets in the St. Marys courthouse June 30. But he showed little remorse over the incident.

“I feel it was stupid. I don’t feel it was wrong,″ Troisi said of his behavior.

Troisi resigned from the bench and pleaded no contest to battery charges in October 1997 for biting the nose of a defendant after a contentious bail hearing. He served five days in jail and received one year of probation.

I don’t want to say “last” but not least, because this seems to be ongoing, but would you believe me if I told you that not too long ago, basically our entire supreme court was impeached by the legislature? From another AP story, August 14, 2018: “All of West Virginia’s Supreme Court justices impeached over spending.” 

West Virginia lawmakers completed the extraordinary move of impeaching all four state Supreme Court justices Monday night for spending issues, including a suspended justice facing a 23-count federal indictment.

Justice Robin Davis was impeached for $500,000 in office renovations. And lawmakers approved articles against Loughry for spending $363,000 in renovations to his office; having a $42,000 antique desk and computers, all owned by the state, at his home; lying to the House Finance Committee about taking home the desk and a $32,000 suede leather couch; and for his personal use of state vehicles.

Here’s the $32,000 couch. Definitely worth impeachment and prison….

The Wikipedia on this explains it well, as far as I can remember:

So, of the 5 justices on the West Virginia Supreme Court, Justice Menis Ketchum resigned before impeachment, pled guilty in federal court to one count of wire fraud, and had his license to practice law annulled and was sentenced to three years probation and fined. 

Returning back to the judge accused of pulling a gun in the courtroom, here’s the update: Circuit Judge David W. Hummel Jr. submitted his letter of resignation November 23 to Governor Jim Justice.

“I write to advise you that as of the close of business today, I am resigning the position of Circuit Court Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit,” Hummel wrote in the one-paragraph letter, which also was delivered to state Supreme Court Chief Justice John Hutchison. “It has been a terrific honor to serve in this role since January 2009.”

That’s it. No reason given. The reason is obvious though. According to the West Virginia Record:

Hummel is the focus of a state Judicial Investigation Commission investigation. Even though the JIC can’t confirm or deny the existence of such a probe, JIC Chief Counsel Teresa Tarr told The Record complaints and investigations are confidential unless the JIC issues formal charges or an admonishment.

Also, Rule 2.2 of the state Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure states, “The resignation of a judge shall not relieve the obligation of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to investigate a complaint that the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and to fully proceed in accordance with these rules.”

The gun in the courtroom controversy first started when a Texas lawyer, Lauren Varnado, who had been trying a contentious oil and gas case in the oil and gas region of West Virginia – the upper panhandle. She provided allegations to the Daily Beast, who first reported on it. They claimed that the judge initially denied the presence of a gun. Later, video surfaced of the gun. That caused a slight problem with the judge’s denial – or at least the ability to deny the presence of a gun. At the end of the day, the video proves that the judge had the gun out in the courtroom. Here’s my prior video on this one, discussing it in more detail:

Officers Lose Their Trophies | They Chose Poorly…

In the Fall of 2020, David Craft, who then lived in Statesville, North Carolina, killed a monster buck in McDowell County, West Virginia, and also killed another trophy buck back in North Carolina, during the same season. David is a serious deer hunter. He does his homework; he puts in the time. He gets result. But others get jealous. Law enforcement ended up essentially stealing his antlers, posing with them for the media, dragging him through over a year of frivolous criminal prosecution, and then abruptly dropping the charging just prior to the jury trial, when it turned out they had no evidence.

Apparently accusations began to fly in early 2021. West Virginia wildlife officers, or DNR officers, from McDowell County completely ran with unfounded suspicions or allegations that David’s North Carolina buck was actually killed in West Virginia, which would be a violation due to the fact that he had already killed this monster trophy buck there, and you can’t kill two – just one. Then, while they’re at it, they for some reason conclude that the trophy monster buck must have been illegally killed somehow, either with a crossbow instead of a regular bow, or because it must have been killed on the jealous neighboring hunt club’s land. Either way, a bunch of bros in West Virginia, law enforcement included, wanted those antlers. So they dream up a story of some sinister plot to deprive McDowell County good ‘ole boys of their rightful trophy bucks, removing them to the undeserving state of North Carolina.

Why did they want them? To show them off of course. In 2022, no mere peasant can post trophy buck brag photos online – just law enforcement. A quick review of social media shows that wildlife officers in West Virginia have really gotten into this. 

Ultimately, the charges were dismissed, apparently due to a complete and total lack of evidence. A jury trial was set to occur on April 28, 2022. But on April 21, 2022, the prosecutor moved to dismiss all charges, which was granted by the Court. 

Looking back at the February 26, 2021 media report about David, let’s look at what they said back then. 

“Like a lot of things the investigation started with help from people in the community. That’s our greatest resource for information. We received information of possibly two bucks being taken illegally,” said Natural Resources Police Officer Jonathan Gills in McDowell County.” 

“According to Gills, once they learned the suspect was from North Carolina they reached out to officers with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.” “They were a HUGE help to us, said Gills. 

“Officers from the two agencies were able to come up with photographs and other physical evidence in the case which proved both bucks were killed in West Virginia. Turned out one of the bucks in question was actually checked in as being killed in North Carolina. Now, North Carolina investigators are closely watching the West Virginia case and the individual will likely face charges in his home state as well.” 

Gills said the evidence also showed both bucks were killed with a crossbow” and that “crossbows are not allowed in those four archery-only hunting counties unless the hunter has a Class Y hunting permit.”

Gills also told the media, “We’ve been sent a lot of photos and there are a lot of folks who are upset these deer were taken.” 

However, looking at the actual investigation report received in response to our FOIA request, they provided only a single grainy photo of a single deer, and it could be a great Bigfoot photo, looking almost photoshopped and inconclusive either way. Additionally, there is no mention of any involvement of North Carolina officers, other than the accompanying then to David’s house and then assisting them in seizing the antlers from the taxidermist. They didn’t appear to have provided any evidence at all against David, nor made any allegation that he had committed any crime. 

Thus the photographs and physical evidence Officer Gill claimed to possess, proving that both bucks were killed illegally in West Virginia, just didn’t exist. That was false. As the February, 2021 article goes on to say, this appears to have been more about local hunters, including law enforcement officers, trying to keep outsiders away from their deer. Officer Gill goes on to say in the article that the West Virginia legislature had recently drastically increased the so-called “replacement costs” for trophy bucks illegally killed. “Gills said it was a major weapon to deter poaching of big bucks in his county,” the article said.

“Our department was given a great asset with that. Basically, they’re stealing the deer. They’re stealing quality bucks from legitimate hunters; men, women, and kids who are trying to go out and enjoy the sport.” 

So, just because David was living in North Carolina, despite the fact that he bought a license, which mind you is way more expensive for an out-of-state hunter, he’s somehow not a “legitimate” hunter. He had a license, with which he killed one buck in West Virginia. He had a North Carolina license, with which he killed on buck in North Carolina. Both were properly checked in and all that rigamarole. This seems to have been more about hunters in one particular county protecting their trophy bucks from outsiders. 

The article ended, “So far, no court date for the suspect had been set.” Not surprisingly, there was never a follow-up article. They did no press release mentioning that they had to drop the charges and were forced to return both sets of antlers to David. But even when he got them back, the attached capes were ruined.

Here, they drug David through the mud and criminal prosecution for over a year. Then when it came time to present the evidence to a jury, they walked away. No apology, no compensation – just returned his damaged antlers. They got their photo-op. Officer Gills got to play with the antlers for a while, but he had to give them back. So that’s how this thing started.

Sounded great, right? The politicians probably loved it. The hunters back home probably loved it. But here’s how it’s going now. 

Also now, Officer Gills and Officer Damewood are going to have to answer for their actions in a section 1983 lawsuit. We have multiple constitutional violations that appear to have occurred here. I’ll provide an update with the details when the suit is filed. Wouldn’t it also be nice if the government would issue an updated press release about how this ended? If you just read the last one, it sounds like they got the bad guy and kept the antlers. If you just read the last one, David sounds like a real criminal. And the officers all sound like heroes. Let’s go ahead and set the record straight.

Cops Arrest Outlaw BARBER | Just Following Orders

In April of 2020, a 72 year old combat veteran, himself a retired law enforcement officer, was arrested in his barbershop, for refusing to close his business during the lockdown ordered by our Governor. The criminal case is long over. The civil lawsuit that I filed is also over at this point. But the footage is a good reminder about your government.

Government employees will follow orders. Law enforcement will follow orders, constitutional or not. It doesn’t matter whether they have an American flag tattoo and/or sticker on their truck. It doesn’t matter whether they spout off on the inter-webs about patriotism and the Constitution. They’ll follow orders. And never count on the judiciary to hold them accountable. 

This case was detailed last year in a Federalist article titled, West Virginia Barber’s Arrest Shows Failings Of The Bureaucratic State:

When Winerd “Les” Jenkins first became a barber, Neil Armstrong hadn’t yet set foot on the moon. For over five decades, Jenkins has made a living with his scissors and razor. For the past decade, he’s worked his craft from a storefront in Inwood, West Virginia. At Les’ Place Traditional Barber Shop, you can get a regular men’s haircut for $16 and a shave for $14—but come prepared to pay the old-fashioned way: in cash.

His insistence on “cash only” isn’t the only thing that’s old-school about Jenkins. He lives with his wife of 52 years on a small farm, where the couple raises rescued animals. He believes in paying his bills on time. He doesn’t use the internet, email, or text messaging. And he’s skeptical that his profession can become illegal overnight merely on the governor’s say-so.

He was ultimately arrested by two deputies from the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, who transported Mr. Jenkins for incarceration and charged him with “obstructing” an officer.

The prosecuting attorney’s office of that county then aggressively prosecuted Mr. Jenkins for the better part of a year, until the judge finally dismissed the charge in January of 2021, finding that it would be a violation of Mr. Jenkins’s constitutional rights to prosecute him for violating the governor’s executive order. He beat the criminal charge. Here’s an excerpt of the dismissal order:

In the subsequent civil lawsuit, we asserted two separate violations of Mr. Jenkins’ Fourth Amendment rights (unreasonable search and seizure and false arrest), as well as a violation of Mr. Jenkins’ First Amendment rights. Here’s the original complaint:

Unfortunately, however, the Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Here’s the order granting the inspector’s motion to dismiss:

Here’s the order granting the deputies’ motion to dismiss:

The point is, here is concrete proof that it matters not whether your local police officer is a nice guy, or patriotic, or whatever. They will follow orders. They are agents of the government. If they don’t do it, they will be replaced with someone who will. But they will do it, I assure you – even if they personally disagree with it. It would be a tragedy to lose the pension and dental plan, of course. Don’t get confused about the difference between an individual’s personality and personal beliefs and their status as an agent of the government. There are countless examples of this, going back to the beginning of our republic. Don’t get caught ignorant.

Worst Cop Ever Prolongs Stop for Drug Dog and Baptizes Arrestees

How long can a traffic stop last? Can officers “prolong” a stop and order a drug dog? Also, can police officers baptize you in lieu of a ticket? April 17, 2019, William Klaver was driving south towards Chattanooga, Tennessee. Police Officer Daniel Wilkey, a Hamilton County deputy sheriff, stopped Klaver for a tinted-window violation. The driver didn’t know it at the time, but he was facing a police officer described by the New York Times seven months later as having been charged “with rape, extortion, stalking and assault,” as well as “false imprisonment, child molestation and forced baptism.” Yes, that’s right. “Forced baptism.” And there’s video, believe it or not. 

After stopping the driver and approaching his window, Wilkey told Klaver that he stopped him because his windows were “way too dark” and requested his driver’s license. It was 8:10 p.m. As Klaver searched for his license, Wilkey inquired about where Klaver was headed. When Klaver didn’t respond, Wilkey asked, “Not going to talk to me?” At about this time, Police Officer Tyler McRae, another Hamilton County deputy, pulled up and approached the vehicle’s passenger side window. After several seconds, Wilkey asked Klaver, “You okay?” and again requested his license. Klaver then asked, “Am I being detained?” Wilkey responded “yes” because of the “window-tint violation,” after which Klaver handed over his license. 

The Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from prolonging a traffic stop beyond the time necessary to investigate (and write a ticket for) a traffic violation unless the officers have reasonable suspicion that the stopped vehicle’s occupants are engaging in other crimes. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354-56 (2015). Officers may detain the driver only for the time necessary to complete the tasks associated with the reason for the stop.

The Supreme Court has provided a list of acceptable tasks that are connected generally to safety and driver responsibility:

Officers will usually question a driver about the traffic infraction; they will run the driver’s license plate; they will request and review the vehicle’s registration and insurance; they will check for outstanding warrants; and lastly they will write a ticket. Officers also commonly question drivers about their travel plans. So long as they do so during the time that they undertake the traffic-related tasks for the infraction that justifies the stop (Arizona v. Johnson), officers may also ask questions about whether the driver has drugs or weapons in the car, or even walk a drug-sniffing dog around the car (Illinois v. Caballes). These unrelated tasks turn a reasonable stop into an unreasonable seizure if it “prolongs” the stop. Officers may not avoid this rule by “slow walking” the traffic-related aspects of the stop to get more time to investigate other potential crimes. 

Once the traffic-related basis for the stop ends (or reasonably should have ended), the officer must justify any further “seizure” on a reasonable suspicion that the driver is committing those other crimes. See Hernandez v. Boles (6th Cir. 2020).

The reasonable suspicion basis for the traffic stop detainment was an allegation of dark tint. Later, the officers would argue the existence of other criminal suspicion, including suspicion of Klaver being a “sovereign citizen” and Klaver visibly shaking. This, they would argue, justified the officers suspecting Klaver of being in possession of drugs.  As Wilkey and McRae headed back to Wilkey’s cruiser, Wilkey said the words “sovereign citizen” to McRae. The officers then talked. Wilkey observed that Klaver’s van had an “obstruction” which was a Marine Corps sticker, over his license plate. He also claims to have noticed that Klaver was “shaking like a leaf.” He told McRae they should “make sure he ain’t got no pot or anything.” Wilkey suggested that they call for a drug-sniffing dog. McRae agreed because Klaver would “say no to a search.” A criminal background check revealed no relevant criminal history. 

About 5 minutes into the stop, the officers returned to Klaver’s van and requested his registration and insurance card. Wilkey continued to question Klaver. He asked him whether he had ever been arrested; whether he was on any “kind of medication” or had “any kind of disability,” because “you’re shaking.” He asked if he had “Parkinson’s or anything like that?” Klaver responded he didn’t think that Wilkey was entitled to ask him these questions. Wilkey responded that Klaver’s shaking suggested he was “hiding something” or had “drugs.” He asked, “you don’t have any of that, do you?” Klaver responded, “You know I don’t.” A minute later, Wilkey again asked Klaver if he had anything illegal in the car like “weapons or anything like that.” Klaver said no.

Did the deputies have reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop? 

To have reasonable suspicion here, the deputies needed a “particularized” belief (that is, one tied to Klaver) and an “objective” belief (that is, one tied to articulable facts rather than amorphous hunches) that Klaver possessed drugs. The court looks to the totality of the circumstances. 

The 6th Circuit rejected the officers’ claims that Klaver might be a “sovereign citizen” solely because he asked if they were detaining him. They noted that the video showed that Klaver was reasonably polite, not loudly confrontational. “Unless everyone who is reluctant to speak with the police might be a ‘sovereign citizen,’ the deputies’ claim appears to have rested more on a ‘subjective hunch’ than objective facts.” The Court noted that the officers failed to identify a single judicial decision or evidentiary citation suggesting that a person’s “sovereign citizen” status correlates with the likelihood of possessing drugs. Therefore the assumption was irrelevant. 

The 6th Circuit also rejected the officers’ claims that Mr. Klaver shaking justified a suspicion of possessing drugs. “Many law-abiding people show their nerves in the same way when confronted by the police . . . [s]o we have always given nervous shaking little weight,” as it “amounts to a weak indicator of crime.” The Court also rejected the officers’ claims that Mr. Klaver’s reluctance to cooperate or respond to questions, including about why he was shaking, justified a suspicion of possessing drugs. A suspect generally does not have a duty to cooperate, and so the lack of cooperation does not alone provide reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect is committing a crime.” See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991).

Wilkey then asked permission to search the van. Klaver responded, “I refuse permission for you to search my vehicle” and said “there’s nothing in here.” Wilkey continued to ask many of the same questions he had already asked, about the reason for Klaver shaking.

At 8:18 p.m., now 8 minutes into the stop, the deputies returned to the police cruiser and requested a canine officer. Dispatch informed them two minutes later than one was in route to the scene. Wilkey then filled out paperwork for the traffic ticket over the next several minutes. At 8:24 p.m., McRae approached Klaver. A few minutes before, Klaver began recording video from inside his van. He filmed himself peeling the tint from the inside of his driver’s side door window. McRae attempted to ask him about his military service. Klaver responded that he didn’t mean to be “disrespectful,” but that he would not “answer any more questions.” He stated that he wanted to be “on my way” if they were not arresting him. McRae stated that Wilkey was writing a ticket. Klaver said they needed a reason to detain him. McRae described the window tint and license plate violations, and then returned to Wilkey’s cruiser. 

Deputy Wilkey continued filling out the ticket until the canine officer arrived at 8:32 p.m. The stop had now persisted 22 minutes. Wilkey told the canine officer that Klaver was likely a “sovereign citizen” who was “being combative” and “trying to conceal himself.” He said that the canine officer should let him finish with the ticket before deploying the dog in case Klaver “does something stupid.” Wilkey then returned to the van and ordered Klaver to exit the van for the dog sniff. He patted Klaver down and discussed the citation with him as the dog circled the van. Klaver now told Wilkey that the tint was now off his driver’s side window. 

At 8:40 p.m. Deputy McRae told Wilkey (and an incredulous Klaver) that the dog had alerted to drugs in the van. McRae and Wilkey then searched the van for five minutes. They found nothing. Wilkey again asked Klaver whether he had drugs. Klaver again answered that he did not.  As Klaver signed the citation, he said to Wilkey: “In case you were wondering, I have muscular dystrophy.” Wilkey replied: “That’s all you had to say, sir.” Klaver then drove off at 8:50 p.m.

Mr. Klaver filed a pro se lawsuit against Wilkey and McRae (among others). The defendant officers moved for summary judgment. The Court denied the motions on the ground that the officers unreasonably prolonged the stop without reasonable suspicion that Klaver possessed illegal drugs. The defendant officers filed an immediate appeal on qualified immunity grounds. The 6th Circuit issued an opinion on November 3, 2022.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from prolonging a traffic stop beyond the time necessary to investigate (and write a ticket for) a traffic violation unless the officers have reasonable suspicion that the stopped vehicle’s occupants are engaging in other crimes. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354-56 (2015).

1. Did Wilkey and McRae prolong the stop beyond the time necessary to resolve the window-tint violation? 

2. If so, did they have reasonable suspicion to believe that Klaver was engaging in other crimes?

The 6th Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find that both Wilkey and McRae unreasonably prolonged the stop. 

The 6th Circuit upheld the denial of qualified immunity to the officers, noting that, “[w]e have a mountain of caselaw indicating that heightened nerves represent weak evidence of wrongdoing and cannot be the primary justification for a stop.

Stay tuned for Part 2, on the aftermath of Daniel Wilkey…

How Not to Arrest a Runaway Autistic Child

On February 23, 2022, a 12 year old autistic boy, reportedly ran away from home. Law enforcement was dispatched. That child encountered Deputy Matthew Honas, who handcuffed and hogtied the child, and then tased him without warning in the deputy’s police cruiser. This happened in Jackson County, Kansas. Although the officer was fired, the government is doing what government does: it’s hiding the video footage. Also, the government is protecting a bad cop, who is a threat to public safety. They fired him; then they let things settle down for awhile. Then, when it’s no longer in the news, the officer pops up somewhere else and continues working as a police officer. 

There was no report of the child committing any crimes, other than running away from home, which perhaps is some of juvenile delinquency status offense under state law. There was a history between the child and the officer, however. Deputy Honas had previously encountered the child and was aware he was autistic. During the prior encounter there was also a physical struggle, according to a report disciplining the officer. But no details are provided. 

Is there any video footage? How do we know what really happened? The Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper reported that Honas was not wearing a body cam, but that most of the interaction was captured by his in-car camera. The Capital-Journal attempted to obtain a copy of the footage via an open records request, but was denied under the open criminal investigation exception to disclosure under state law.

Honas was fired a little over a week after the incident. Termination of employment isn’t enough though. Why? Because bad cops just pop up somewhere else, usually in a small town that pays less. Then they get what they pay-for, which is a police officer who is already certified and experienced, but willing to work for less – because they’re damaged goods and a liability risk.

The Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training, which oversees law enforcement certifications in Kansas, issued a disciplinary report that reprimanded Deputy Honas. The report concluded that Deputy Honas “used excessive force multiple times throughout his contact” with the child. He “shoved, elbowed, applied pressure points, carried, pulled, ‘hog tied,” and ultimately tased” the child.” During this time, the child was “sitting in the patrol car” and “not actively resisting.” His hands were cuffed behind his back. Deputy Honas began to press the child’s jaw pressure points without giving any direction to the child to do anything. This, the report concluded, “appeared to be of a punitive nature.” 

But it gets worse. Deputy Honas refused and cancelled assistance from two other available officers. He chose not to use de-escalation techniques; he failed to use other options in restraining the child. He said that he was going to call a transport van, but did not. On several occasions, Deputy Honas applied pain compliance techniques without telling the child what he was supposed to do. He told the boy, “When the other guy gets here, you’re going to hurt more.” He also said, “here’s the deal, you do anything you’re not supposed to do I will tase you again.” 

The report ultimately concluded that Deputy Honas engaged in “Unprofessional Conduct,” which at least in part, is defined as “using excessive physical force in carrying out a law enforcement objective.” The report, for purposes of law enforcement discipline in Kansas, then defines excessive force as “physical force . . . greater than what a reasonable and prudent officer would use under the circumstances.” Unfortunately, the report merely “reprimanded” Deputy Honas rather than revoke his certification to continue to work elsewhere in Kansas as a police officer. 

Isn’t it crazy that I just did another hogtying video, where there was body cam footage, out of Colorado. In that video I discussed some rare hog-tying law that existed in the 10th Circuit. Well guess what. It can be confusing to understand which states are in which federal circuits. But guess which federal circuit Kansas is in? That’s right, 10th Circuit, just like Colorado. There’s a 2008 case, Weigel v. Broad, out of the 10th Circuit, that denied qualified immunity to police officers for hogtying arrestees. Basically, it holds that hogtying is almost never reasonable, as it poses a high danger of positional asphyxiation.

Here’s the prior video:

Pastor Calls Cop a “TYRANT” and Gets Chased Into Church

On August 25, 2019 in Worcester, Massachusetts, police officers arrived outside Cornerstone Baptist Church. They were there attempting to retrieve a child after receiving a report of a custody dispute involving the granddaughter of the church’s pastor, Joseph Rizzuti, Sr. Officers arrived at the church to retrieve the child after the child’s father alleged that the mother had failed to return the child following a visit. Officers wrote in their reports that churchgoers and family members kept interfering, refused orders by police and resisted arrest. The body cam footage shows what happened. The church’s pastor, Joseph Rizzuti, Sr., stands outside the church, telling his daughter to leave. Worcester Police Sgt. Michael Cappabianca, Jr., walks over to him.

Is there a First Amendment right to call a police officer a “tyrant?” Yes. Does it matter whether he’s actually a tyrant or not? No. Does it matter whether you’re a pastor standing in front of your church or a homeless guy with a cardboard sign? No.