Virginia Jury Awards Damages Against Officers for Civil Rights Violations

Posted on by
1

Today’s video is about Matthew Souter, who owns a farmhouse in The Plains, Virginia. He ended up being unlawfully arrested and tased by police officers in his front yard. Back in November of 2018. He rented a bedroom and bathroom in his home to Melissa Johnson. Following a dispute about her cat and an electric hotplate, she went to a local court and obtained an ex parte Emergency Protective Order (“EPO”) against Mr. Souter, which restricted him from “acts of violence, force, or threat of criminal offenses resulting in injury to person or property” of Johnson.

The next day, November 10, 2018, Johnson called the Fauquier County Sheriff’s Office and reported that Plaintiff had violated the EPO by terminating the electric and water service to her bedroom and bathroom. She spoke with a deputy who took her complaint and classified it as a “civil matter.” Not satisfied with that, she called again later the same day. This time she spoke with a different deputy, who was dangerously incompetent. He ended up applying for an arrest warrant against Mr. Souter, alleging a violation of the EPO. There in fact was no violation – nor any reason for him to believe that Mr. Souter had committed any crime. But, he obtained an arrest warrant. 

This deputy and his supervisor then traveled to Mr. Souter’s home with an arrest warrant. The deputies seized Mr. Souter. I spoke with Mr. Souter on the phone and he denies resisting this arrest. However, in a subsequent ruling, the federal court wrote that it was undisputed that he resisted arrest. This is what the Court found, specifically: “Plaintiff resisted arrest and did not permit the officers to handcuff him. The officers then wrestled the Plaintiff to the ground, while Plaintiff continued to resist the officers. McCauley then used a taser to subdue the Plaintiff. After Plaintiff was tased, the officers were able to handcuff the Plaintiff.” Mr. Souter was tased multiple times and was bleeding. He was taken to a local hospital emergency room. 

The officers subsequently charged Souter with the underlying EPO violation, as well as attempted fleeing from a law enforcement officer. The EPO charge ended up being dismissed by the prosecutor, and he was found not guilty of the fleeing charge following the criminal trial. 

Then Souter filed a federal section 1983 civil lawsuit. Here’s the complaint his lawyer filed:

Souter-ComplaintDownload

Fast forward in the litigation, and something pretty unusual ended up happening. The federal judge – Judge Ellis – in the Eastern District of Virginia, not only denied qualified immunity to the officers, but granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. That means that the Court found that Mr. Souter’s civil rights were violated, as a matter of law, and that the only issue for the jury to decide is the amount of money damages to be awarded. 

Why did the officers lose qualified immunity, as well as the opportunity to even oppose liability in front of the jury? In short, because they acted such utter incompetence. The Fourth Amendment protects against citizens being unlawfully arrested by law enforcement. An unlawful arrest is one that occurs in the absence of probable cause. Police officers can be held civilly liable for a false arrest “if it would have been clear to reasonable officers in their position that they lacked probable cause to arrest” Plaintiff for violating the cited law. Graham v. Gagnon (4th Cir. 2016).

The officers aren’t required to be actually correct in their probable cause determination, but rather reasonable in their probable cause determination. Here’s the Court’s full opinion:

Souter-Mem-Order-MSJDownload

In this case, all the officers knew is the allegation that the Plaintiff had cut off Johnson’s water and electric service. There was no reasonable basis for them to conclude that the Plaintiff had engaged in any act of violence, force, or threat, against Johnson. Thus, if they believed Plaintiff had done any of those acts, such a belief would have been clearly erroneous and unreasonable. 

The arrest warrant the officers obtained alleged violation of a domestic violence type of protective order, which did not exist in this case. No such domestic violence type of protective order had been issued against the Plaintiff, as would be obvious on the face of the actual EPO served on the Plaintiff. Moreover, even if Plaintiff had been served with a domestic violence protective order, cutting off water and electric do not constitute acts of violence, as defined in the EPO. Therefore, Plaintiff’s conduct could not have led a reasonable law enforcement officer to conclude that probable cause existed or that his arrest was proper. Thus they violated his constitutional rights when they unlawfully arrested him (and used force to effectuate that arrest) in the absence of probable cause. 

The illegality of Plaintiff’s arrest taints the defendant officers’ subsequent actions and renders them liable for Plaintiff’s excessive force claims. Under federal law, “the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures bars police officers from using excessive force to seize a free citizen.” Jones v. Buchanan (4th Cir. 2003).

Let’s fast forward to the trial results. The jury ended up awarding a total of $50,000.00 in compensatory damages to Mr. Souter. Here’s the jury verdict form:

Souter-Verdict-FormDownload

In my phone conversation with Mr. Souter, he was actually very unhappy with the verdict, both in the amount of $50,000.00, as well as the lack of a punitive damages award. He took issue with how the presentation of the damages claim was presented to the jury at trial.

For many reasons, people many times have unrealistic expectations on the value of damages in civil rights cases. At the end of the day, a jury decides these things. This can vary wildly depending on a number of factors, including the personalities of the parties, as well as the jurors themselves. I wasn’t at this trial, so I really have no idea what dynamics were present in the courtroom. But this illustrates one of the difficult parts of the job of a civil rights lawyer. Ultimately you have to convince a jury to award money damages. How do you do that? It can be very difficult, and sometimes emotion is all you have, assuming you can instill it in the hearts of the jurors. 

There’s a form instruction in section 1983 cases that says something to the effect of, if you find that the plaintiff’s civil rights were violated, you must at least award $1.00, even if you find that the plaintiff suffered no actual damages. The value of constitutional injuries can vary wildly based on who is on the jury. But there’s also a federal law, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, which provides for an award of reasonable attorney fees following a finding of liability. That means that even if a jury awards One Dollar, there could potentially be an attorney fee award of six figures. 

Cops Trespass on Private Property and Demand ID For Imaginary Crime

Posted on by
Reply

In the early morning hours of October 12, 2021, Corey Jones got up early to work on some property improvements at his home, clearing brush around his acreage. He got out there early because he had to take his kids to school. Since it was still dark out, he used a headlamp. Unbeknownst to him at the time, the horse-owning Karen next door called 911 on him, complaining that she saw a guy in the woods on her neighbor’s property. She did this despite the fact that she had no idea who her neighbor was. Officers from the Pope County, Arkansas, Sherriff’s Department arrive, listen to her explanation, and then trespass onto Corey’s property, confronting him, and then arresting him. Everything that happens here is outrageous. But also instructive. Corey is a subscriber to my channel, and has graciously allowed me to share what happened.

When the officers arrive – this is Sgt. Damon McMillan and Deputy Hayden Saffold, both of the Pope County Sheriff’s Department – the Karen again tells them same story. Of particular importance here is the fact that she clearly does not allege that Corey trespassed onto her property. She’s claiming that she was subjectively scared of someone she saw on someone else’s property, which in fact was the property owner. She admittedly has no idea who owns the property. She makes no allegation of any crime, other than expressing her own fear of nothing. 

Now the officer notices Corey on his property. He now becomes the one trespassing, as he confronts Corey. Of course, he’s got to have that ID – like an addict. Does he care that he’s on private property and has no idea who the owner is? Of course not.

Corey ends up being arrested for violation of § 5-54-102. Obstructing governmental operations, which provides that:

(a) A person commits the offense of obstructing governmental operations if the person:

(1) Knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the performance of any governmental function;

The Arkansas courts have defined “governmental function as “any activity which a public servant is legally authorized to undertake on behalf of any governmental unit he serves.”

Thus the Arkansas obstruction statute does not specifically provide a mandatory requirement to provide ID to a police officer. Rather, it criminalizes the providing of a false ID to an officer. However, it does criminalize “obstructing” any activity which a public servant is “legally authorized to undertake…”

Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.1 provides that:

A law enforcement officer lawfully present in any place may, in the performance of his duties, stop and detain any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit (1) a felony, or (2) a misdemeanor involving danger of forcible injury to persons or of appropriation of or damage to property, if such action is reasonably necessary either to obtain or verify the identification of the person or to determine the lawfulness of his conduct….

Thus it appears that the officers in Arkansas may detain individuals if they suspect that individual committed a felony or certain dangerous or damaging misdemeanors. It would be a stretch to even include trespassing into that category – especially where they have no complaint from the owner of the property, and are actually themselves trespassing and confronting the actual property owner. 

The footage was very clear that the property owner, who did identify himself as owning the property, expressed that they were not welcome. I really don’t see any basis for the officers having a reasonable suspicion of any crime having been committed here. Nor does it appear that if they had such suspicion of simple trespassing, that their actions would have been justified. 

The officers are clearly worried about ending up on Youtube or in the media, as well as the fact that they suspect Corey of being anti-police, which is ironic under the circumstances. A solid case could be made here that what they actually are doing is retaliating against Corey, in violation of his First Amendment rights. 

Sadly, part of the story here is what happened afterwards. I’d like to tell you that the charges were dismissed. But apparently Corey ended up being convicted of the obstruction charge. On what basis? I really don’t know. But I do know that the judge who convicted him, I’m told, was Judge Don Bourne of Pope County, Arkansas. 

A little over a week ago, our old friends KARK in Little Rock reported that the Arkansas Supreme Court officially suspended Judge Don Bourne without pay for ethical violations, including mistreating litigants in her courtroom and failing to appoint lawyers for criminal defendants. Basically, for running a kangaroo court. I also found this gem, where KARK showed footage of Judge Bourne threatening a defendant with prison rape, among other things. It was only a two week suspension, but thankfully, after his term expires in 2024, he will never again be allowed to serve as a judge in Arkansas. Why even allow him to remain at all? 

Hopefully an Arkansas lawyer can swoop in and save the day here. I wish I could help, and I’d be happy to, to the extent that I can. But I’m not an Arkansas lawyer. Perhaps there’s more to the story, I don’t know, but the footage shows what the footage shows. I trust in the footage. And I really feel bad for Corey Jones. He was mistreated by his government – by a couple of tyrant thugs, egged on by a despicable Karen. I’d love to see a civil lawsuit here. Usually, however, you have to win on the underlying criminal charges – which is probably why Officer King George, III is pushing them. He wants to know why anyone would be anti-government or anti-police? Because of swamp creatures like you.

A few weeks ago I posted the video of my clients in McDowell County, West Virginia encountering a similar type of tyranny within the curtilage of their home. The point was, you can’t be on my curtilage without my consent and demand an ID – even if you have reasonable suspicion. Here, however, it looks like we’re not dealing with curtilage, but rather what the courts call “open fields.” Generally, unfortunately, there are no federal Fourth Amendment property protections for open fields. The line between a home’s curtilage and the adjacent open fields can sometimes be a grey area. 

However, that doesn’t mean that state trespassing and criminal procedure laws aren’t applicable. I see no Arkansas law that allows police officers to trespass on your private property against your consent and demand your ID to ascertain whether you are trespassing on your own property. Quite the opposite. 

Federal Fourth Amendment protections will always apply to the person. Federal law prohibits an investigative detention – i.e., give me your ID or I’ll arrest you – in the absence of reasonable suspicion. The Karen neighbor alleged to crime that was committed. She alleged only her objectively unreasonable and irrational fears. There was no allegation of trespassing. A police officer’s own irrational subjectively unreasonable fear that someone theoretically could be trespassing on a particular property, without more, cannot be valid reasonable suspicion. Especially under these circumstances. 

Footage Released of WV Judge Pulling Gun in Courtroom

Posted on by
1

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.

The Daily Beast has been reporting on this, as has the West Virginia Record.

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. 

Cop Busts Down Door For Chess Set

Posted on by
2

A federal lawsuit was filed in Atlanta, where body cam footage shows Clayton County Police Officer Gregory Tillman breaking down a woman’s door and slamming her to the ground after she refused to give a chess set back to a man who had moved out. All of this happened in front of the woman’s son.

According to news reports, this involved her friend’s ex-boyfriend, who showed up claiming that he had left some items there, including a remote control and a chess set. He called 911 after she refused to let him inside her home. She believed that the man had previously been arrested on domestic violence related charges involving her friend. 

The newly-released boy cam footage shows the officer banging down the door, shouting, and then using force against the homeowner. Her son was home at the time of the attack and is heard on the body cam video pleading with the officer: ‘Hey, sir. My mom got health problems, sir.’ The video shows the officer kicking the homeowner’s legs fro under her, forcing her to fall to the floor, while the officer attempted to handcuff her. 

Original Video:

Ultimately the officer was disciplined. The county’s oversight board first voted to terminate Officer Tillman. But then, they changed their mind and voted to give him a three-day suspension, with additional training. 

The original incident happened in 2019. However, it just hit the news in the past day or so. So I looked up the pending case on pacer and pulled a couple of the case documents. It looks like qualified immunity was denied to Officer Tillman by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and now the officer is appealing, begging the Circuit Court for his qualified immunity. 

I pulled the Amended Complaint which revealed a few more details. Apparently the guy told 911 that he had been “staying” at the residence. Upon the officer’s arrival, the homeowner told Tillman that the man was no longer welcome in her home, and that his belongings had been removed the day before. An argument between Officer Tillman and the homeowner ensued. She asked for his name and badge number. He refused to tell her. At her request, the homeowner’s son called for a supervisor. 

Officer Tillman then is alleged to have informed the guy trying to get inside the home that, he could come and go as he pleased, until properly evicted from the house. The homeowner then announced that she was closing her door until the supervisor arrived. Instead however, without saying a word, Officer Tillman pushed with his shoulder to prevent the door from being closed. She did manage to get it closed. 

Suddenly, Officer Tillman used his shoulder to break down the home’s front door out of its frame, forcibly entering the home. He grabbed the homeowner, wrenched both of her arms behind her body, and swept her legs to the ground. He then placed a knee on her back and roughly handcuffed her. 

After the supervisor arrived, the handcuffs were removed and the homeowner was treated by EMS. Then she was cited on charges of misdemeanor obstruction and criminal trespass, which were later dismissed. 

After the supervisor arrived, he informed the guy trying to get in that he couldn’t get inside without a court order. When the supervisor asked Officer Tillman why he knocked down the door, Tillman responded, “because we had the charge of criminal trespass” and because “he feared for his safety” because he “didn’t know what was behind the door.”

An internal investigation by the agency found that Officer Tillman lacked probable cause to arrest or charge the homeowner, and that she was within her right to refuse entry to both the officer and the guy looking for his remote control and chess set. 

As we’ve discussed many times before, law enforcement entries into our castles are presumptively unconstitutional. The only two exceptions are valid consent and exigent circumstances. He clearly didn’t have consent. Nor was there any exigent circumstances, as the Court pointed out in the order denying the officer qualified immunity, which I’ll post up at the blog post on this. So there’s a clear-cut Fourth Amendment violation for the entry. Then you can add another one for the arrest inside the home – both because it lacked probable cause and because it occurred in the absence of an arrest warrant. Even with probable cause, an officer still must have an arrest warrant to arrest someone inside their home. 

Was there also an excessive force violation? As the Court pointed out in its order, Officer Tillman’s claim that the homeowner posed a threat to him is “unpersuasive.” Frankly, this is a pretty easy one, too. He busted down her door and attacked her. She just wanted to be left alone. He had no probable cause to believe that she had committed any crime. While there’s always a possibility that any homeowner could be armed behind their front door, that’s ever the more reason to not burglarize their homes. 

Order denying qualified immunity:

Yancey-Case-MTD-OrderDownload

Hotel SWAT Team Raids Customer’s Room and Searches for Firearms

Posted on by
1

Ben was in Las Vegas for DEFCON, the world’s largest annual hacker convention. Ben’s day job is in the field of cybersecurity. He was staying at the Paris Las Vegas Hotel. Around 11pm on Sunday, August 14, he’s startled out of a sleep, in his dark hotel room. There’s pounding on the door. He walks to the peep hole in his underwear, peers through and sees what appears to be armed law enforcement in tactical gear. 

He’s ordered out of the room, in his underwear. They then search his room for firearms. They’re not law enforcement, but rather the hotel’s “Special Response Team.” They refuse to explain the basis for their belief that Ben has firearms in his room. In addition to working in cybersecurity, Ben is also involved in the firearms community, and operates the Open Source Ordinance Youtube channel, where he posted the originals of these videos. Here’s the main video:

Here’s the second one:

Many people know the basic rule that constitutional rights can only be violated by government officials, and that therefore they don’t protect us from private actors. At first blush, this seems to be the case here. Despite their appearance, these were private security guards. There may be Nevada state law protections at play, but it’s difficult to implicate federal civil rights protections. That would require a bit of legal gymnastics. But the more I research this, after having watched this footage, I think there are some possibilities. 

There are actually quite a few cases out there discussing private hotel security and constitutional rights. Many of these arise out of criminal cases. There are actually cases where federal courts have attributed state action, and Fourth Amendment violations, to private hotel security. However, these cases involve the question of suppressing evidence in criminal cases. Basically, if private security searches a hotel room, then police arrive, there may be a sufficient connection to establish state action by the private security. There was actually a Las Vegas casino found liable for Section 1983 violations in a Ninth Circuit opinion, where they had a system of working with the police in issuing citations, performing certain law enforcement functions. That was Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., from 2012.

In the last few years, with concern over active shooters, certain hotels in Las Vegas have apparently formed their own SWAT teams, so as to provide what is essentially a faster law enforcement response. There may be facts there, depending on the level of interaction between the hotels and local law enforcement, to show a similar system of privatization of law enforcement. Where that’s the case, government shouldn’t be allowed to avoid Section 1983 liability by merely delegating their law enforcement functions to private corporations. So there may be a theory of liability there. 

Another possibility, the thought of which is fueled by the speculation here regarding the source of the hotel’s belief that Ben had firearms in his room, is that perhaps the federal government is indeed compiling, maintaining, and sharing information about the firearms community with private corporations responsible for site security. We don’t know if that was the case here, but can we really take anything off the table at this point? If that were true, that could be another potential basis for federal civil rights liability. 

I suspect we will be seeing more of this type of activity in the future, just as we’ve been seeing troubling behavior out of the ATF, as well as the FBI. Instead of a social credit score, perhaps they have a firearms community score. Do you have access to machine guns? Well, you may have a great credit rating. 

Doxxed by a Senator: Free Speech Retaliation by Public Officials

Posted on by
1

I want to expand on the legal issues presented in yesterday’s video a little more. Yesterday I posted a video on the issue of warning fellow motorists about a speed trap via flashing the lights on your car. If that is protected speech, and as a result of that protected speech, you get pulled over, harassed, arrested, or so on, at that point you may have not just a Fourth Amendment violation, but also a First Amendment violation. More specifically, the cause of action in federal court is called First Amendment Retaliation. It’s a violation of your First Amendment rights to suffer retaliation as a consequence of exercising your rights. This area of the law can be extremely murky. But it can also be straightforward. Like everything else in federal constitutional law, it’s highly fact-dependent.

This can be illustrated by a case I litigated, which pre-dated my Youtube channel, so you won’t find it there – at least before now. Imagine that a private citizen, riding in his work delivery truck, through the West Virginia countryside, sees a vehicle come barreling around him on a stretch of road with a double yellow line, going into a curve. This is filmed by the citizen with his cell phone. He recognizes the vehicle as that of his state senator. He then posts the video to social media, showing and denouncing the senator’s actions to his social media friends. But the senator has his own social media following, which is exponentially larger. In response to the citizen’s video, that senator with a large social media following goes on a rant against the citizen, calling him names, and also then identifying his place of employment – doxxing him, essentially. But he didn’t stop there.

Large numbers of § 1983 complaints allege free speech retaliation claims. These claims frequently give rise to difficult legal issues and sharply contested factual issues. The majority of these claims are asserted by present and former public employees. First Amendment retaliation claims are also asserted by government contractors, individuals subject to criminal prosecution, prisoners, and landowners, among others.

As a general matter, public officials may not respond to “constitutionally protected activity with conduct or speech that would chill or adversely affect [t]his protected activity.” Balt. Sun Co. v. Ehrlich , 437 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir. 2006). That is so “even if the act, when taken for different reasons, would have been proper.” ACLU of Md., Inc. v. Wicomico Cty ., 999 F.2d 780, 785 (4th Cir. 1993).

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) [the] speech was protected, (2) the alleged retaliatory action adversely affected [the] protected speech, and (3) a causal relationship [existed] between the protected speech and the retaliation.” Raub v. Campbell , 785 F.3d 876, 885 (4th Cir. 2015).

However, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Public officials can theoretically act both under color of law, as well as a private actor not under color of law. The defendant acts under color of state law if he is “a state actor or ha[s] a sufficiently close relationship with state actors such that . . . [he] is engaged in the state’s actions.” Cox v. Duke Energy Inc., 876 F.3d 625, 632 (4th Cir. 2017). Put simply, the defendant acts under color of state law when he “exercise[s] power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because [he] is clothed with the authority of state law.” Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, 679 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“[T]here is no specific formula for defining state action under this standard.” Rather, Courts evaluate “the totality of the circumstances.” Holly v. Scott, 434 F.3d 287, 292 (4th Cir. 2006). “If a defendant’s purportedly private actions are linked to events which rose out of his official status, the nexus between the two can play a role in establishing that he acted under color of state law.” In addition, “[w]here the sole intention of a public official is to suppress speech critical of his conduct of official duties or fitness for public office, his actions are more fairly attributable to the state.” 

In my case, this was the big issue. The senator’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss. The federal court ended up denying that motion to dismiss, ordering the case to proceed. The Court pointed out that the state senator posted his response video on his official campaign Facebook page that he was using to both share information with his constituents, as well as to campaign for Congress. Thus the social media account generating the alleged retaliation was closely connected to official activities. 

Using that official account and social media following, the Court concluded that an inference was supported that the state senator was using his official position to pressure my client’s employer to fire him. Moreover, the Court found a causal connection between the response video, as well as the phone call to the employer, and my client being fired. He ordered the case to proceed and a subsequent settlement ensued.

Is There a Right to Flash Lights to Warn Motorists of a Speed Trap? – Can They Stop You?

Posted on by
1

Is there a constitutionally protected right to flash your lights at oncoming traffic, in order to warn them of an approaching speed trap? There’s remarkably few rulings out there on this issue, and a quick search reveals very little guidance from the judiciary and the legal community. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a common occurrence. I hear about it from time-to-time and there’s a few instances out there if it being captured on video. Perhaps my favorite is an old video from the guy they called the Godfather of First Amendment auditors, Jeff Grey.

This occurred in Florida, near Jacksonville, on I-10, and involves a classic Florida speed trap, full of unnecessary government employees who have nothing else better to do than to harass people and flex their egos and authority. Jeff sets the trap with the bait. And the cops can’t resist it. 

Here’s the original video:

What we have here is an acknowledgment that Jeff was subjected to a traffic stop as a sole result of his flashing his lights. There’s no allegation of speeding, seat belt, or other pretext for the stop. Remember: every traffic stop is already an investigative detention, by definition, and therefore reasonable suspicion must be present to justify the invasion of Fourth Amendment protections. Now, reasonable suspicion is usually pretty easy for even the dumbest of police officers to articulate, which encourages them to lie. They just have to say they saw you violate some traffic law. Here, had they known ahead of time who they were dealing with, they probably would have made something else up. But the first thing that popped out was feigned concern about protecting or helping Jeff. They know that’s a lie. Jeff knows that’s a lie. They know that Jeff knows that’s a lie.

If this were true, there would be no Fourth Amendment justification to continue to detain Jeff. However, the footage clearly shows that they indeed continue to detain him. What likely happens is that the officers now go back to their police cruisers, and discuss the situation. Now they’re aware that Jeff was filming them. For police officers who were already willing to lie about the reason they pulled Jeff over, this could be a problem. As you’ll see, their strategy is to stop the recording. But Jeff refuses, calling their bluff.

Even now in 2022, there’s still no clear federal law on the issue on whether there’s a federally protected First Amended right to warn oncoming traffic about a speed trap. But there’s a wealth of clearly established law on the right not to be detained by the police in the absence of reasonable suspicion. If the officers in Jeff’s video had been honest about the reason they were pulling Jeff over, and if they were able to point to a Florida statute he was violating, they may have been justified in their actions, or at the very least entitled to qualified immunity. However, they basically admitted that they pulled him over in retaliation for warning other motorists, without bothering even to lie about a pretextual reason for doing so, thereafter repeatedly trying to intimidate him into turning off his camera.

There are no Supreme Court cases on this. There are no federal appellate cases, to my knowledge. There are only a couple of U.S. District Court opinions, and a couple of state circuit court opinions. There was a 2019 memorandum opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin holding that a policy and practice of stopping, detaining, and citing drivers who flash their headlights to warn oncoming drivers of a speed trap violates his right to free speech under the First Amendment. This was Obriecht v. Splinter.

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” It protects conduct, symbols, and non-verbal communication that express or convey a particularized message reasonably understood by viewers. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404-06 (1989). Flashing headlights could easily be placed into the category of expressive conduct. In the Obriecht v. Splinter case, this point was conceded by the state. However, even expressive conduct may be regulate by the government. For example, speech that incites or produces “imminent lawless action,” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969), or is integral to criminal conduct, such as fighting words, threats, and solicitations, United States v. White, 610 F.3d 956, 960 (7th Cir. 2010), is not protected by the First Amendment. 

Another similar case from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held in 2014 that this conduct was entitled to protection under the First Amendment. (Elli v. City of Ellisville, Mo). At least two state circuit courts have found that drivers have a constitutional right to flash their headlights. (State of Oregon v. Hill (2014); State v. Walker (Tenn. 2003)).

The problem with the lack of precedent on this issue leads to a big problem for potential plaintiffs: qualified immunity. The standard for qualified immunity requires establishing that the police officer violated clearly established law. Where there is almost no established case law, that’s going to be a tough task. 

However, as we saw from Jeff’s video, if police are going to pull people over for flashing their lights at other motorists, they need to be honest about what they’re doing, and identify a state or local statute they allege is violated by the relevant conduct. Then, the victim of that stop can mount a First Amendment challenge. This is how the law will become clearly established. At the same time, if they’re not being honest, only video footage is going to protect the motorist from pre-textual lies, which if documented, will establish liability for a Fourth Amendment violation, with no good argument for qualified immunity. 

Kentucky Officers Denied Qualified Immunity and Headed to Trial

Posted on by
2

Big update in Chris Wiest’s case in Kentucky, where several Kentucky police officers are being held accountable for their misconduct. Tonight he joined me for a live video, and we discussed developments in the case, at length. This is the case where the officers denied (under oath) striking the guy they were arresting, later finding out that video footage showed otherwise. This led to Officer Thomas Czartorski later being charged with perjury.

Prior video:

Update video with the footage:

Here’s the recent court order in the case, discussed in the videos:

Video Shows Teen Arrested Waiting For His Dad – Court Denies Qualified Immunity

Posted on by
3

In 2019, on a rainy April night in Sterling Heights, Michigan, 18- year-old Logan Davis had just gotten off work at a sandwich shop and was waiting under a nearby awning for his dad to pick him up and drive him home. A few minutes later, Davis ended up hand-cuffed in the back of a Sterling Heights police cruiser, having been forcibly taken to the ground and arrested for loitering. Davis subsequently sued the City of Sterling Heights and Officer Jeremy Walleman for unlawful arrest in federal court.

Recently, the federal court issued a memorandum opinion denying Officer Walleman qualified immunity. So we have both a video of what happened, and the subsequent opinion from a federal court after examining the video and sworn deposition testimony.

Here’s the Video:

And here’s the Order:

As I’ve explained many times before, you have stronger Fourth Amendment protections as a pedestrian, as opposed to an occupant of a vehicle. A warrantless arrest, like the one at issue here, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if supported by “probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.” An officer has probable cause “only when he discovers reasonably reliable information” that that an individual has committed or is committing a crime. 

Where an officer lacks probable cause but possesses a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person has been involved in criminal activity, he or she may conduct an investigative “Terry” stop and briefly detain that person to investigate the circumstances. During a Terry stop, an officer may request that a suspect identify him or herself, and the suspect does not have a Fourth Amendment right to refuse the request. Additionally, a state may criminalize refusal to provide identification during a Terry stop. 

Section 35-17 of the Sterling Heights’ City Code of Ordinances prohibits loitering and provides that prior to making an arrest for loitering, the officer must provide the individual with an opportunity to dispel any concern or alarm – which can be accomplished by the individual identifying themselves and providing a reason for their presence. 

Section 35-19(B)(4) of the City Code provides that it’s a violation to fail to produce identification upon the request of an officer who is investigating possible unlawful conduct. 

If Officer Walleman had reasonable suspicion to investigate Davis for loitering under § 35-17, he could lawfully order Davis to produce identification then, under § 35-19(B)(4), arrest him if he refused. To conduct an investigatory stop, reasonable suspicion requires that an officer have more than a hunch—they must possess a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the individual of criminal activity. Such a determination of probable cause or reasonable suspicion must be based on the totality of circumstances, considering “both the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence”— that is, an officer “cannot simply turn a blind eye toward evidence favorable to the accused,” nor “ignore information which becomes available in the course of routine investigations.” 

In denying qualified immunity to Officer Walleman, the federal court held that, even if reasonable suspicion to investigate Davis for loitering existed early in the encounter—and it is not clear that it did—any reasonable suspicion, even arguable reasonable suspicion, was dispelled when Davis explained to Officer Walleman why he was standing where he was and showed Officer Walleman his Firehouse Subs shirt and badge. After that point, a jury could conclude, no reasonable officer would believe they had a justified suspicion of unlawful loitering, and without such a basis, Officer Walleman no longer had the legal authority to demand Davis’ identification and arrest him if he refused. 

The Court pointed out that Davis was standing near Firehouse Subs, wearing a Firehouse Subs shirt, which he showed to the officer, and that more specifically, he was standing under the Dickey’s BBQ doors because there was an awning – and it was raining. He is observed on the video not acting suspiciously – not peering in windows, but just waiting.

It always comes down to this though: that police officers can’t seem to do anything, or talk to anybody, without forcibly demanding an ID from people. If people refuse, it becomes time to teach a lesson about the authority of government – a power trip. However, two can play at that game. Now a jury gets to decide whether government did have that authority. Perhaps it would be easier to just be a polite public servant and use common sense. 

Officers Show at 2AM to “Flex” on Homeowners

Posted on by
1

You’re home asleep in your bed. It’s two in the morning. Your significant other is asleep next to you. Your child is asleep in the next room. Suddenly, you hear shouting outside. Three armed police officers are outside your house, shining lights, shouting at you to exit your home. You’ve done nothing wrong. You’re afraid. You comply with their orders, because they’re the police. There’s three of them, armed with the authority of the government. So you go outside. They order you onto the ground. They place you in handcuffs. Once in custody, you recognize one of the officers. As it turns out, he’s there to intimidate you. And also ask about your puppies. 

This happened on August 2, 2020 at the residence of Shane Glover, who was there with his girlfriend and their sleeping child, as reported by the Post and Courier newspaper. These officers showed up to Shane Glover’s home after Glover had attempted to talk to Officer Jermaine Smith earlier that day, about inappropriate comments Smith had made about Glover’s girlfriend. Prior to approaching Officer Smith, Glover called 911, telling dispatchers that “he knew Smith was a police officer and that he did not want anything bad to happen to him when he approached Smith to talk. But Smith drove off before Glover was able to make contact with him. Just hours later, Officer Smith and two of his buddies would show up to Glover’s house and force him out of his home at gunpoint.

Officer Smith can be heard on the video asking Glover, who is now standing outside in his underwear, if he was “making threats.” This is referencing Glover’s attempt to confront him earlier in the day. Glover denies making any threats. Smith says, “it’s all recorded” and “they say you were looking for me.” One of the other officers says, “You’ve got to expect consequences.” The officers eventually uncuffed Glover and his girlfriend and left the property. They were not charged with any crimes. The officers weren’t even in their jurisdictions. The Orangeburg County Sherriff’s Office has jurisdiction over the area. But they were never contacted for assistance. They actually asked the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (“SLED”) to investigate this incident. An investigation was opened, and is apparently still pending. 

As I’ve explained many, many times, at this point, a man’s home is his castle. It doesn’t have to be a brick home. It can be a single-wide trailer, an apartment, or even a hotel room. The police cannot arrest you in your home without an arrest warrant. They cannot arrest you in someone else’s home without a search warrant. Any entry, or violation into the sanctity of a home is presumptively unconstitutional, as explained in the 1967 Supreme Court opinion in Katz v. United States. There are only two valid exceptions: consent and exigent circumstances. Consent is explained in the 1973 Supreme Court opinion in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte. Exigent circumstances is detailed in the 2006 Supreme Court opinion in Brigham City v. Stuart.

Even assuming a threat was made earlier in the day, as Mr. Bamberg correctly explained, the proper response to that would have been to seek a warrant from a judge. Police officers do not get to be judge, jury, and executioner. There was no warrant here, thus, it’s irrelevant whether a threat had been made. Even if it had, that pales in comparison to what happened here, which was essentially a kidnapping at gunpoint, among other things.