how you doing where her car who car my L Car well we got to figure out cuz this was reported as unauthorized use what's good thing him we will have to go to handc we have these police officers mistakenly believe that this car is stolen but it's not they found it parked in front of this building the 60-some year old janitor for that building he knows who's driving that vehicle he asked them what they're doing but then he decides he doesn't want to talk to them anymore he wants to get back to work can those cops forcibly detain handcuff and then even tase that janitor even though the man committed no crime but just because he has information that the cops want the keys real quick are those your keys my mother Keys all right put your hands behind your back now so these cops released their own YouTube video claiming that this was completely Justified because they had quote reasonable susp to do this to that man but I know a few things and I've researched this issue to death I'll show you why they're wrong and in fact they film themselves committing a civil rights violation so police officers in Asheville North Carolina get this false report from the local Subaru dealership basically alleging that one of their cars has been stolen apparently that turned out not to be true more on that later the officers are directed to the car's location via a GPS tracker one of the officers pulls his gun on the car and holds the car at gunpoint essentially fortunately nobody is inside the car try 3 APD vehicle is clear as the officers are standing around with nothing better to do talking about the car I couldn't tell if anybody was in there so I just I just went up and cleared it I didn't see anybody moving in there this is a nice car too it is CRP huh it's a nice CRP the 63-year-old janitor for this building that they're standing in front of walks up to them and engages with them what's up what's going on uh how you doing where car car who car my car Charlie can we come talk to her real quick well she's W up in thrive in Thrive yeah I'll go ahead and point out two things that the cops conveniently ignore in their YouTube video one of the first things you could notice about this guy if you looked at him is that he's wearing his janitorial uniform for this giant building in the background that he's walking from janitors usually have keys as well secondly he provides them information that the lady who's driving the car is it Thrive now Asheville is not a huge place just a quick Google search reveals that thrive is a commercial co-working space in Asheville North Carolina which just happens to be from what I can tell located in the Grove Arcade which is the building that this guy is the janitor 4 now just that information right there would have solved their investigation but they decided to go a different route Okay so who's uh well we got to figure out cuz this was reported as unauthorized use MH but then he quickly disengages after they start acting like cops are known to act and he starts to go back to work is that the keys uh what's good to him oh man now they have no reason to believe that this man committed any crime at all which he did not yet they immediately threaten to handcuff him and then they use violence on him pull out a taser and threaten to use it on have me against thing let me go get the [ __ ] like we will have to go to handcuffs we have see the keys real quick are those your keys my mother Keys all right sir talking about put your back turn around St put your hands behind your back now put your hands behind your back body wall let go let me go put it you're going to get tasted let me go for a minute hold on put your hands behind your back now do it now the other hand other hand let your other hand go man if I don't Sue yall onest TR yeah fine yeah man I'm ask nice how about my here's how it ended according to the most recent media report following the investigation it was determined that siros was not involved in the vehicle's theft or possession in fact it wasn't a theft at all he was released without any charges and transported downtown at his request while at the scene the woman in possession of the vehicle told officers the allegedly stolen vehicle was a rental and that her car was at the dealership being repaired she said she didn't know anyone inside the Grove Arcade and did not know why sir would have approached officers about the car in accordance with Asheville Police Department's standard procedures the department conducted an an administrative review of the incident the review concluded that the officers acted with an agency policy based on Reasonable Suspicion to detain sirs key facts included his familiarity with the vehicle and its owner his possession of keys potentially related to it and his lack of cooperation during the investigation this is from the cops obviously despite media reports to the contrary surl did not identify himself as an employee of the Grove Arcade was he required to did they ask no and that's basically argument that they put in their video so just to sum things up no crime actually occurred now everybody loves this guy apparently a bystander filmed what was happening the community was outraged then a judge ordered that the body cam footage be released now in their video the cops claimed that they did nothing wrong because they had Reasonable Suspicion to detain this gentleman for various reasons is that true they said the officers asked Mr CS to stop based on reason suspicion to question him further as part of their investigation that Reasonable Suspicion was based in part on the fact that Mr Sirles approached the reported stolen vehicle with keys in his hands and that he claimed to know the owner and then walked away from the officers all right that is their case for reasonable suspicion Asheville is in North Carolina North Carolina is in the fourth circuit there is actually a recent published case out of the fourth circuit that dealt with reasonable suspicion that case is similar to this one the police were told or believed that a crime had occurred and they located a nearby individual they had no information that was particular to that individual that he was involved in any criminal activity but they knew a crime had occurred and he was nearby so at the very least he was a witness right and if they want to investigate and they want to detain and question that witness they should be able to do that right according to the cops according to the Asheville Police Department Force circuit said absolutely no way the Reasonable Suspicion standard which is a fourth amendment constitutional standard it has to do with suspicion of criminal conduct not just the cops want to talk to you because M investigation as the court wrote in the opinion Reasonable Suspicion to initiate a Terry stop which is what this ISS requires a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that the particular person stopped of criminal activity not a witness criminal activity the court also made clear that government attempts to spin largely mundane acts into a web of deception don't cut it ultimately the Court held that the police officers lacked an objective basis to Su to suspect that Miller specifically engaged in any crime and therefore lacked the requisite particularized basis for the stop if the officers had no objective basis to suspect that Mr Sirles had engaged in any crime then they had no right to detain him they had no Reasonable Suspicion the court went on to say that we have explained that nearby exigent circumstances such as a recent stabbing or we could use a false report of a car missing from a dealership do not justify a warrantless seizure of a person unless the seizure is narrowly targeted based on specific information of a known crime in a controlled geographic area the court pointed out that the US Supreme Court in Illinois versus wlow held that stating an individual's mere presence within the vicinity of criminal activity is not enough to support a reasonable particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime but what about the fact that Mr Sirles refused to answer any questions he refused to comply with the police he initially engaged with them and then he chose to walk away he was therefore evasive and that was suspicious the officers should have been able to detain him and question him further right let's look at the holding from this for circuit case which is controlling binding case law in Ashville North Carolina but Miller's actions were not evasive at most they were a decision to ignore the police and go about his business and refusal to engage with police is not by itself a valid basis for reasonable suspicion while headlong unprovoked flight is inherently suspicious refusal to cooperate or acknowledge the police is not an indiv indvidual has a right to ignore police and go about his business when an officer approaches without Reasonable Suspicion or probable cause refusal to cooperate without more does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure the fact is is that Mr Sirles had every right as a free American citizen to walk away from those cops to refuse to answer any questions that they asked they could not force him to be a witness they could not force him to answer the questions they had no information indicating that Mr CS had committed any crime at all period they merely wanted him to answer their questions which he had already done by the way perhaps if they had been more respectful to him he may have helped them but they immediately wanted to detain him to inconvenience him to harass him so while the Asheville Police can claim that they had Reasonable Suspicion because they wanted to talk to him because he had keys in his hand and he said that he knew the woman who had the car they had no information indicating that Mr Sirles had committed any crime just because he may have information that they want that cannot be reasonable suspicion according to the binding case law in the fourth circuit so let's review while the Reasonable Suspicion standard is not a difficult one for law enforcement to meet they have to at least allege that the individual they are seizing is involved in some criminal activity and here is their claim basis for reasonable suspicion number one familiarity with the vehicle and its owner or driver is that illegal is that a crime no even if the car was stolen or being used without authorization would it be a crime to arrest somebody who was familiar with that person no secondly the fact that he had keys in his hand also was not indicative of a crime in fact he told them that those were his keys and they were in fact his keys the officers had no indication other than their own incorrect hunch that those may have been related to that car whatsoever and lastly the fact that he walked away and refused to cooperate according to binding federal case law he has every right to do that that explicitly cannot form the basis for for reasonable suspicion while sometimes it's possible to take completely legal behaviors such as having keys or being familiar with something or walking away or running away and Ty them together to form some reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime here they can't do that in fact the court has warned that government attempts to spin largely mundane acts into a web of deception are unconstitutional and here they didn't even put that much effort into it but let me know in a comment what you think do you believe that these cops acted reasonably just in your opinion and if you like going through these sorts of cases and also learning the law at the same time then please subscri subscribe both here and at the blog at the Civil Rights lawyer.com you can also follow me on Twitter at John Brian Esq also the civil rights lawyer there remember our rights don't end where your fear begins freedom is scary deal with it