Here’s brand-new body cam footage, never before seen on the internet or media, of two police officers in Preston County, West Virginia absolutely tearing the Fourth Amendment to shreds, while apparently completely oblivious to what they were doing. It all started with a property dispute between neighbors. One of the neighbors called the police to try and persuade them to abuse their authority and arrest his neighbor due to a car allegedly being parked on his property. At first they correctly told the man that they couldn’t do that, but then for some reason they related, and did exactly that. I’m representing the man and will be filing a lawsuit shortly….
Uncut Raw Violence Clips:
I can’t wait to ask the officers under oath where in that footage he committed two counts of battery on an officer:
Perhaps it was here?
Or here, where his feet are both off the ground, his face hurling towards his porch deck, as his rotator cuff is tearing?
Here’s the survey screenshot:
Here’s the tax map boundaries, which appear to line up with the survey plat, both of which show the location where the car is parked to be either a public right of way, or perhaps an alleyway owned by neither party:
This footage comes from Oilton, Oklahoma, where they’ve apparently been through 9 different police chiefs in the past few years, which may not surprise you once you watch this bodycam footage. The video was released by the Oilton Police Department after the local TV news ran a story about an officer confronting and attacking a 76 year old veteran on his own property. But does the video help, or hurt, the Oilton PD? Also, just four months ago, the Oilton PD apparently didn’t even exist.
Video surfaced from Andalusia, Alabama, showing a police officer entering a woman’s home to arrest her, while her 18 year old son filmed the incident. The footage was subsequently released by the woman’s attorneys, who accused the officer of race-related retaliation. The footage then went viral, prompting the mayor of the town to make a public statement. He apologized, stating that the officer was disciplined for not knowing the law.
Subject to only two exceptions, police officers cannot enter your home and arrest you without a warrant. The exceptions are consent and exigent circumstances. But where an arrest is initiated outside the home, can the officer then follow the person inside the home to complete the arrest?
This footage was submitted by Bubba, from Wichita, Kansas. He says that his go cart was stolen, and apparently someone crashed it down the street, causing injury. Bubba recovered the go cart and returned home. But then the cops showed up, demanding information. Without a warrant, a police officer entered his home, tased him multiple times and arrested him. Can they do that without a warrant?
Ring doorbell video surfaced showing the arrest of a man at his own front door, after he refused to provide identification to police officers in Clayton County, Georgia. The footage showed officers arresting the man without a warrant. After the footage went viral, the police department then made their own Youtube video responding to the footage, as well as the allegations. But the issue remains: can cops constitutionally arrest a homeowner at his own front door without a warrant?
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The constitutional protection of people in their houses extends to the “curtilage” of the home, which is “the area ‘immediately surrounding and associated with the home.'” Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663, 1670 (2018) (quoting Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6 (2013)).
Subject to a few exceptions, the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement from entering a home or its curtilage to conduct a search without a warrant. United States v. Walker, 799 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2015). United States v. Stephen, No. 19-12172 (11th Cir. Aug 06, 2020)
New and shocking body camera footage shows police officers in Georgia unjustly arresting and threatening to charge a woman just days after they handcuffed and detained her husband for not satisfying their questions about a neighborhood disturbance. It all started last year on May 26, 2022, when officers with the Covington Police Department were called to investigate a shots fired call in a local neighborhood near Melody Circle.
The LA County Sheriff’s Department recently showed up at a family’s home, entered without a warrant and then placed the teenage kids in handcuffs. No crime had been committed. No explanation was given. The family posted the surveillance footage on Tik Tok and it went viral. The sheriff’s department then responded, claiming that they received a call from a concerned citizen, and that upon arrival, the door was open.
This never-before-seen footage shows my client being attacked by a police K9 in Moundsville, Marshall County, West Virginia. Cops were looking to arrest her on a probation violation. She was scared and hiding under some clothes. The K9 was used, not only to search and find her, but to punish her by violently biting and attacking her. Today we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit.
When a K9 is deployed on a citizen, that individual is “seized” for Fourth Amendment purposes. Assuming the seizure itself was lawful, the issue is whether the seizure may be “unreasonable” due to being an excessive level of force. The deployment itself of a police K9 during the course of a seizure may be unreasonable, depending on the circumstances. Courts look to the Graham Factors: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect is actively resisting or evading, and most importantly, whether the suspect poses an immediate safety threat to the officer, or others.
Here’s the police report:
Kandi Wood was severely injured on arm due to the K9 attack:
Repeatedly over the years, the Courts have held generally that the use of serious or violent force, i.e., disproportionate force) in arresting or seizing an individual that has surrendered, or who is not actively resisting or attempting to flee, and who does not present a danger to others, is an unreasonable excessive force violation.
The Fourth Circuit has also held that sending a police dog into a home that contained a burglary suspect, without warning, resulting in severe injuries to the homeowner, was an excessive force violation. Vathekan v. Prince George’s County (4th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, doing so where the suspect was surrounded by police officers is itself unreasonable and excessive, even where a warning is given. (Kopf v. Wing (4th Cir. 1991).
The 7th Circuit has denied qualified immunity to a police officer where he failed to call off a police dog that was mauling a “non-resisting (or at least passively resisting) suspect.” Becker v. Elfreich (7th Cir. 2016). That Court also denied qualified immunity to an officer who commanded a dog to attack a suspect who was already complying with orders, and where there were multiple backup officers present. Alicea v. Thomas (7th Cir. 2016).
The Fourth Circuit cited that last case in 2017 as providing “fair warning” to police officers that they will lose qualified immunity where an officer deploys a police dog against a suspect was was “not in active flight at the time he was discovered,” but was “standing still, arms raised….” Booker v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr. (4th Cir. 2017).
Where K9s are deployed, a warning should be given, along with an opportunity to surrender, where possible. Deploying K9s on suspects who have been already subdued, surrounded, or who are not actively resisting or evading arrest, is also likely excessive force, with or without a warning. Deploying K9s on suspects who pose no immediate threat is generally going to be unreasonable. K9s should only be deployed where there exists a serious immediate safety threat in a tense, fast-moving situation, where there’s some actual reason for doing so.
Help END Qualified Immunity. DONATE to the Institute for Justice:
Home video cameras are certainly handy at catching law enforcement violating your constitutional rights. Check out those prior videos if you want to hear me discuss the constitutional rights at play in those incidents. But did you know that the government is also actively using them as well? Do you have a Ring doorbell? How is the footage stored? Can the police obtain that footage against your will, even if you’ve done nothing wrong? What if I told you that Ring just might provide stored footage from cameras inside and around your home to police, even without your consent?
A guy named Michael Larkin was featured in a Politico article. His story exemplify what can happen to you if you use Ring doorbells. He’s a business owner in Hamilton, Ohio, and has a Ring doorbell camera and 20 other Ring cameras in and around his home and business. Five of those cameras surround his house, which record in 5 to 15 second bursts whenever they’re activated. He also has three cameras inside his house, as well as 13 cameras inside the store that he owns. All of these cameras are connected to his Ring account. Ring, the company, stores this footage on their servers for up to 180 days. He thought his footage was his own private footage. But he thought wrong.
Imagine it’s winter time. You’re at home in Erie, Pennsylvania. There’s snow everywhere. Your Ring Doorbell alerts you to movement at your front door. It’s a SWAT team. They grab your doorbell camera and chuck it into the snow and then start to bust down your door. You’ve done nothing wrong. You’ve broken no law. You have no idea why they’re there. And neither do they apparently. What do you do? What is the law?
It was March 12, 2023.Officers approach the house and notice the Ring doorbell and then they remove or destroy it. The homeowner got to the front door and confronted the officers. They told him to come outside, which he did.
Sadly, Lance, who submitted the footage, has early onset dementia. He explained this to the officers. He decided to take out his cell phone and begin filming their interaction – for his safety and theirs, of course. That’s when Lance’s cell phone footage begins. The cops absolutely did not want to be filmed, even though they were on Lance’s property, without a search warrant and without probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, to believe that Lance had committed any crime at all.
Searches and seizures which take place in a person’s home are presumptively unreasonable, which means they are illegal by default according to the Fourth Amendment. The only exceptions are consent and exigent circumstances. Here, the officers had no search warrant for this house. It also appears that they had no legitimate reason to believe that the fugitive they were looking for was inside the house.
According to their own words, they received an anonymous tip that the fugitive could be inside the home. In reality, the fugitive had no connection whatsoever to the home. Anonymous tips cannot form the basis of probable cause. Which is why they didn’t have a warrant. They should have investigated the anonymous tip, in which case the officers would have discovered that it was not credible. Instead, they just got the boys together, rolled up on the house, destroyed private property and then commenced an illegal search.
While the homeowner gave the officers consent to go inside the house, he subsequently revoked that consent after finding out that the officers were acting off a bogus anonymous tip. Moreover, they had already invaded the curtilage of the home and destroyed private property prior to obtaining that consent. They had no legal justification to do so and therein violated the Fourth Amendment.
Lance is looking to file a lawsuit, if any Pennsylvania lawyers are interested in helping him.
UPDATE: Since I made the video on this, Lance found out that the officers had first applied for a search warrant, based on the anonymous tip. That warrant was apparently denied by a judge as lacking probable cause. Then the officers showed up anyways. In the end, they were apparently at the wrong house. Not surprisingly…. Lance’s home had no connection to the fugitive they were looking for.
