Dallas Campbell walked into the police department in Hazard, Kentucky a free man, doing his best to keep a notoriously untrustworthy police agency (at least that’s what I learned watching the “Dukes of Hazard”) honest. Unfortunately, he left in handcuffs, the victim of a false arrest. But he had a small YouTube channel, and 12 days after he posted the video of his arrest, the Hazard Police Chief was fired.
Media Report here.
In Sharp County, Arkansas, Sheriff Shane Russell showed up at a family’s front door, following allegations from a neighbor that they had been revving their engines earlier (on their own property). Sheriff Russell, flanked by other police officers, did not have a warrant. But he didn’t let that stop him.
The original video here.
The Oklahoma City Police Department has once again been caught on video violently slamming an innocent citizen to the ground. Last time it was the elderly Vietnamese man. This time, it’s a young girl who was shoved to the ground and arrested following a 4am noise complaint. But unlike the officer in my last video, this cop has been criminally charged. Why would this officer be charged, while the other officer, who seriously injured an elderly man, has not been charged?
Yet again, police officers pulled over an innocent driver, subjecting the individual to the so-called “felony stop” or “high risk stop,” which is the process wherein they treat an innocent American citizen as if they were a terrorist serial killer, forcing the person to get out of their car, walk backwards, and so on, all occurring at the barrel of a loaded gun. This time the victim was a teenage girl in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
The taxpayers shouldered the burden of the $250,000 settlement for the obvious police misconduct that occurred. However the police department has “no comment” for the community that employs them. And the city itself doesn’t even bother to say “no comment.”
Here’s the blog post where I last ranted about the unconstitutionality of these “high risk stops” based solely on computer (or human) mistakes about a car being stolen, along with some links to prior videos I’ve done involving similar situations. Therein I list numerous instances of this occurring to innocent people across the country, including Aurora, Colorado, Raymore, Missouri, Fairfax, Virginia, Norwalk, Connecticut, as well as Lehi, Utah (which is what the blog post and video from that post was about).
It all boils down to this: without more, police officers should not be aiming firearms at people. Reasonableness is the key. Aiming guns based on clerical entries and government policy is rarely going to be reasonable. Doing so should be based on actual perceived threats presented by the persons with whom they’re dealing. Here, the officers actions of handcuffing the teen at gunpoint could not have been reasonable, and thus they would most likely be found to be unconstitutional by the courts (which is why they settled).
In the small town of Leitchfield, Kentucky, something amazing happened. A man’s house caught on fire (“far”) and emergency responders showed up. Instead of the fire department, the police department was first on the scene. Instead of helping in some constructive way, they ordered the homeowners, who were attempting to put out the fire, out of the house. When they refused, the officers beat and tased them. Then, when the government put the case before a grand jury, in an attempt to indict the homeowner, the grand jury said no, and instead indicted the police officer. The officer’s lawyer said he’d never heard of that happening before…
Raw bodycam footage from Officer Newton here.
Raw bodycam footage from Officer Cockerel here.
Media Report here.
Promotional video about the small town of Leitchfield, that I used in the beginning of my video here.
A few days ago I posted a video showing officers from the Idaho Falls, Idaho Police Department entering a family’s home and forcing them outside. When the homeowner, who was filming, demanded a warrant, the officer claimed that he didn’t need a warrant. The problem is, they did in fact need a warrant, as I explained in the prior video. The local TV news in Idaho picked up the video and reported on it, prompting the Idaho Falls Police Department to issue a statement. Here’s the statement:
Here’s the case law I discussed in the video:
Case law regarding any claims that this entry was justified by a claim of “exigent circumstances”:
The 9th Circuit discussing the very practical reason why the Fourth Amendment rights of homeowners must be protected:
My last video, about the Special Olympics Medalist who was followed, and then violently arrested, by a Clearfield, Utah police officer, made the TV news in Utah. A reporter actually went to the bar and interviewed Shawn, as well as the bartender, and others, which was fantastic. The Clearfield Police Department responded. But is their response adequate?
In Clearfield, Utah, Officer Fratto of the Clearfield Police Department violently arrested (and injured) a local long-time Special Olympics medalist. Shawn was just trying to walk home from his favorite karaoke bar, but Officer Fratto thought Shawn looked suspicious, so he began to follow him (and scare him) as he was walking home. Shawn had committed no crime. No crime had been observed or reported.
Fratto eventually jumped out of his police cruiser and detained Shawn, claiming he saw him illegally jaywalk. He demanded Shawn provide his “ID.” However, Shawn answered all questions asked by Fratto, who never asked Shawn his name or date of birth. Shawn knew that he was being harassed and did not want to provide his ID to Fratto, who continue to bully him and escalate the situation. Fratto chose violence and took Shawn to the ground, injuring him. Fratto’s supervisor showed up and helped coverup the misconduct.
Luckily, Shawn had a friend from the bar who helped him get the bodycam footage and communicate to the prosecutor and judge in court, resulting in the bogus charge being dismissed. But unfortunately, the incident has had a lasting negative effect on Shawn.
Screenshot excerpts used in the video:
Cops with the Idaho Falls, Idaho Police Department busted in an innocent family’s home, breaking their front door, looking for a third party fugitive. Though the homeowner knew his constitutional rights and demanded a warrant, the cops claimed they didn’t need a warrant because they believe a dangerous fugitive (the girlfriend’s brother) was inside. They did come inside and forced the family outside into the cold for about 30 minutes.
During this time period they handcuffed the dad, even though he was suspected of no crime and there was no search warrant for the home. The problem is, according the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1981 opinion in Steagald v. United States (1981), exigent circumstances to enter a home do not exist merely because the police know the location of a fugitive, even if they possess an arrest warrant for that person. They must also have a search warrant for the residence.
In Oklahoma City, a police officer slammed a 70 year old Vietnamese man head-first onto pavement, seriously injuring him, during a traffic detainment. Due in part to a language barrier, the officer and the Vietnamese man began to argue about traffic law. When the old man poked the officer on his chest (causing him no harm) the officer violently threw the man to the ground. He gave no warning that he was about to do so. Nor did he tell the man that he was under arrest before doing so. He just slammed him. Now the officer is on paid administrative leave and the department is investigating itself.
Here’s the raw footage showing the violent use of force:
The family’s Facebook post:
The department’s statement, also provided in Vietnamese:
The case law I cited in the video:
Casey v. City of Federal Heights:
Perea v. Baca:
