you ever feel like the courts and the cops are working together to screw Americans of every shred of individual rights I saw this on Steve lado and a lot of people were giving me this article and I just couldn't even believe it until I read it and and then I saw the decision here at the end you can actually read the decision but I wanted to go over some of the highlights of this what is worse than qualified immunity the court giving cops the blessing to arrest somebody without probable cause and then manufacture probable cause after the arrest this says this case involves a possible First Amendment violation but somehow ends with a Judicial blessing of cops who make things up after the fact to justify an arrest that has already taken place according to the Fourth Amendment you have to have probable cause and that's probable cause that a crime has been committed before before you can make the arrest you can't do this Minority Report style we think you're guilty uh we don't know why you were we arrested you call a higher up and say hey can you give me a charge that I can slap on this guy you mean you didn't have to charge before you slapped the cuffs on him what the heck is the deal with that that's literally what happened here Mason Murphy was walking down a Missouri road minding his own business when he was accosted by Officer Michael Schmidt from the opening of this very unfortunate decision it reads Schmidt stopped his car approached Murphy and asked Murphy to identify himself Murphy refused to identify himself why because he can be secure in his person according to the fourth amendment that Schmidt said that he would protect defend and uphold so he Murphy refused to identify himself and Schmidt put Murphy in handcuffs after nine minutes of argument Murphy asked why Schmidt arrested them and Schmidt refused to answer on the drive to the Sheriff's Department Murphy again asked Schmidt why he was being arrested Schmidt responded that the arrest was for failure to identify now Tech dirt says now that could have been a legitimate charge state law does allow officers to demand identification in certain cases and what are those cases we already know we suspect that you have committed a crime I I can't stand the have committed a crime or about to commit a crime how would somebody know that you're about to commit a crime unless you have the actual brick in your hand and you're about to break that store window so I I I always just say if they suspect that you have committed a crime and then they have to have not not just Reasonable articulable Suspicion but they have to have probable cause to suspect that you've committed a crime that's way above Reasonable articulable Suspicion they shall also have the power this is the Court ruling on this they show up the power to stop any person abroad Whenever there is a reasonable ground to suspect the that he is committing has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name address business abroad and where he's going you have to have probable cause that a crime has been committed they said none of that happened officer Schmidt arrested first and asked rather desperate questions later it gets worse because Schmidt actually asks for the advice of maybe a superior on the phone what he can charge Murphy with after he already has him in the cop car taking him to the station once at the station Schmidt can be heard making a call to an unknown individual saying quote he saw that dip you know what walking down the highway and he would not identify himself that's it that's all he said he didn't say hey I thought he was committing a crime he just said I saw that dude walking down the highway and I thought I'd go ahead and stop and harass him well he didn't say that part but we know that's what happened because he's got the authority he can do that but if you did to Murphy what Schmidt did to Murphy Oh you would definitely be in jail but Schmidt won't be in jail why because he's got the qualified immunity Schmidt then asks an unknown individual what can I charge him with without any predicate suspected offense officer Schmidt could not demand Murphy identify himself Murphy could not have possibly violated the law Schmidt first thought he could arrest him for and Schmidt appears to have recognized this fact hence his call for charging advice that might allow him to reverse engineer the probable cause to support his actions so coming up with the probable cause for the arrest after arresting somebody without probable cause meanwhile Murphy sat in a Cell for two hours until officers identified him via a credit card in his wallet and released him Murphy sued claiming his First Amendment right to mouth off to a law enforcement officer was violated by by this obviously retaliatory arrest that was completely unsupported by probable cause but they'll get it later and the court will give the blessing both the lower court and the appeals court say there was probable cause even if officer Schmidt didn't appear to know it at the time he accosted and cuffed Murphy it says a Missouri statute requires pedestrians to walk only on the left side of the highway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction so there's they're digging deep for an excuse for Schmidt to use as a justification to initiate the arrest so that's the court and the cops working together against Murphy guess what we are Murphy we are the Americans Murphy represents and the courts and the cops Don't Care About Us Murphy for some reason agreed there was probable cause to arrest him under this statute but pointed out that this was much like the Supreme Court's Neves case where the court decided any probable cause for an arrest automatically defeats First Amendment retaliation claim games the justices in this case noted that there are exceptions to this rule like the sudden enforcement of laws law enforcement officers had never bothered to enforce prior to the retaliatory arrest so they see these people doing the same thing that Murphy did all the time but they apply this to Murphy because Murphy just happened to exercise his First Amendment right to mouth off to the officer the party's degree Schmidt had probable cause to arrest Murphy because Murphy was in violation of Missouri revised Statute 300.405 Murphy argues the facts in this case fit into the possible Neves exception because like the hypothetical and Neves this is a situation where quote officers have probable cause to make arrests but typically exercise their discretion not to do so the Supreme Court in Neves gave an example of an individual who is arrested for jaywalking in an intersection where quote jaywalking is endemic but rarely results in arrest while the individual is vocally complaining about police conduct Murphy relies heavily on the similarities between jaywalking and walking on the wrong side of the road to prove his point but the 8th circuit decided that these cases aren't comparable but I want to go down here to the dissenting opinion the dissenting judge said this later events indicate officer Schmidt was scrambling to justify the arrest and he was while in the police car officer Schmidt told Murphy he was arrested for a quote failure to identify he then changed his tune when he told someone via his police radio that Murphy was stumbling and walking on the wrong side of the road yet Murphy was not stumbling or acting impaired when officer Schmidt arrived at the jail with Murphy he made a phone call in which he described Murphy as a dip you know what walking down the highway Who quote would not identify himself and ran his mouth off he then asked what can I charge him with later officer Schmidt falsely claimed that Murphy was drunk officer Schmidt even admitted on multiple occasions that he did not quote smell anything on Murphy despite all this officer Schmidt insisted Murphy quote sit there for being an a-hole roughly two hours later Murphy was released Tech dirt says this looks like it's a contempt of cop case because cops can't handle when somebody stands on their rights they can't tolerate somebody standing there doing the very thing that people like officer Schmidt said that they would protect it's that chain of events says Tech dirt that matters and the post-facto attempt to justify the arrest for a law most likely rarely if ever enforced makes it clear this was a plain old retaliation and getting back to the dissenting opinion because the dissenting judge further said under these factual allegations I cannot join the majority's conclusion that Murphy failed to State a plausible claim if the Sunrise Beach Police Department regularly enforces the Missouri statute prohibiting a person from walking on the wrong side of the road one would suspect that officer Schmidt and the other officers he spoke with would have had little trouble identifying that law as the basis for the arrest at the beginning not at the end instead viewing the factual allegations in the complaint in a light most favorable to Murphy officer Schmidt arrested Murphy for challenging and criticizing him before later exploring various legal justifications for the arrest indeed the allegations of the post-hoc decision-making indicate pre-text which supports application of the Neve's concept this judge had his head screwed on right tector ends with this Schmidt retains the qualified immunity he really didn't earn he hassled somebody who wasn't receptive to being hassled and turned his inability to walk away from a confrontation he created into two hours of misery for someone who's doing nothing more than walking down a road and because of this ruling cops like Schmidt will continue to engage in this sort of behavior because the courts are telling them they'll just keep getting away with it there you go qualified immunity times 10. leave your thoughts about this for the world and Global thought police in the comment section below if you haven't done so already subscribe to this channel hit the Bell notification icon give it a thumbs up share it with everybody you know don't forget to subscribe to my email list or my website high impactflix.com if you want to support the channel further grab a hard-hitting conversation starting designing gift from the store you can put on a shared hoodie mug cell phone case whatever become a channel member today and remember the price of freedom is now and will all always be Eternal vigilance and indifference this notion is the means by which the people have and will secure their own oppression I will see you in the next video [Music]