[music] On January 20th, 2024, officers of the Western Washington University Police Department in Bellingham, Washington, responded to a call that an unidentified individual was breaking into a vehicle in the campus parking lot. Sergeant Wolf Lipson and Officer Robert Anderson responded to the call and through the information relayed by dispatch, Officer Anderson learned that it was his personal vehicle that had been broken into. The incident that followed was captured on the officer's bodywn camera. >> Hey, let me see your hands. >> Get on the ground right now. Get on the ground right now. Lay on your belly. Put your hands behind your back. 11 has went in custody. What you think you were doing on my ride, homie? >> Huh? >> That's my ride. >> Oh, it is. >> Yeah. My bad, bro. >> No, it ain't too bad. Get you, dog. >> Huh? >> I got confused with >> You ain't got confused or nothing. You went something and it belonged to you. >> No, I I thought it was a different truck. >> That's a cop's ride. >> What? >> That's a cop's ride that you touched. Whoa, man. Take it easy. >> No, I'm not taking it easy. Shut up. >> You man, >> shut up. >> Hey, you. >> Shut up. >> What? What are you going to do about it? >> That's my ride, man. >> What are you going to do about it? >> [ __ ] >> What's your dog's name? >> Desna. He just hit me in the face. >> Come here. >> You guys have camcorders on? >> Yep, they have recorders on. >> Okay. You want to hit me again? >> So, I'm going to file a lawsuit. >> You sure can. >> Yeah. Get up. >> Nope. I can't get up. >> Stand up. >> I can't. I'm stand I got you. Stand up. >> Stand up, bro. I can't. >> Stand up. Trouble, bro. I'm having trouble breaking. Oh my god. >> Stand up. Get the truck. >> Okay, >> there you go. >> Don't Don't stand right there. There you go. Turn around. >> Let me do that. Punch me in the face, bro. What's your problem? That's my vehicle. >> Yeah, but you don't punch me in the face, bro. What's wrong with you? >> I guess I'm sure that way you are. >> Here you go. >> I'm not sitting down until I caught a supervisor. >> Right there. The supervisor. >> No, I'm not sitting down till I talk to the supervisor. >> Sit down. >> No, the supervisor right here. Talk with him. >> Okay, >> sit down. >> He Did you see him punch me in the face? Yes, I struck you the face. >> Huh? >> Put your feet in. Sit down and we'll talk. >> Can [clears throat] I talk to you? >> Sit down there. >> You follow what he says and we'll talk. >> He punchs me in the face, bro. You see it in my eye. >> I did hit you. That's what I did. >> Yeah, you did. That's >> sit down. >> Sit down. >> Put your feet in there. >> Put your feet in >> and sit down. >> That's not You're going to close the door. Seat belt. >> That's moral. Immoral, bro. who aren't you just >> Where are you? That's what you are. Huh? >> Turn around. Turn around. >> What? >> Turn around. Thank you very much. Turn around. >> What? What? >> Turn around. >> What? What are you going to do? >> Are you done? >> What are you going to do? Are you done? >> You going to call me? Are you done? >> What are you going to do? You're just >> Are you done, sir? >> You're Are you going to assault me again? >> You going to assault me again? While placing the citizen under arrest, Officer Anderson informs the citizen that it was his personal vehicle that the citizen was attempting to burglarize and then proceeds to strike the citizen in the face in what appears to be an unprovoked attack. As mentioned in many previous episodes, the constitutional framework for evaluating an officer's use of force is governed by a so-called objective reasonleness test as established by the 1989 Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor. This framework considers the totality of circumstances surrounding the encounter along with the severity of the suspected offense, whether the citizen posed an immediate threat, and whether the citizen was actively resisting or attempting to flee. Furthermore, the 9inth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Washington, noted that the force required to control suspects is substantially minimized when they are handcuffed on the ground in the 2003 case of Drummond v. City of Anaheim. here. The unidentified citizen was suspected of a minor property crime, remained calm and cooperative before being attacked, and was restrained on the ground and unable to flee when he was struck by Officer Anderson. Considering these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that a court would conclude that officer Anderson's use of force was justified, and the unnamed citizen would have a strong argument that the strike violated his constitutional rights. After loading the citizen into the patrol vehicle, Officer Anderson appears to reflect on what had just occurred. X-ray2 Western, we're code for now. One in custody. Copy. Dang it. Well, that hasn't happened here before. X-ray. >> Let's uh you want to hold the dog? >> Yes, please. >> Who's this? >> Uh this dog belongs to this gentleman here. Yeah. Take a minute. I'm going to deal with this guy. Let's see. Really haven't dealt with him before. Do we have ID on him yet? >> Unless I was on the floor. >> Okay. >> What's he? >> His head. Yeah. Can you stop doing that, please? >> No, because that officer, he hit me in the face. >> Yes, I did. >> We're going to need to seat belt you in. >> No. No. I'm not letting that count. Are you Enough. I can't can't have you slamming your head. >> I can't breathe. I can't breathe. >> You are You're yelling. >> Help me. >> You're yelling. >> I can't breathe. >> You are yelling. >> No one's pressing. >> No one's pressing. >> You're going to punch me in the face. >> My collar bone. It's It hurts. I got a lot of health issues. I'm on methadone. Okay. >> Do you do you need medical at all, sir? >> I might because of the way you dropped me to the ground. >> You roll aid, please. >> We'll get medical on you so they can check you out, sir. >> You You It's on camera. You a You're not supposed to >> complaining of a broken collar bone. Uh male. You're not >> in his 20s or 30s conscious. >> You're not supposed to do that. >> Going have to get another uh agency to come out here for this one. >> You're not supposed to [ __ ] do that, man. >> 11. >> YOU YOU I'm going to put him in the back. >> So, I'm on your legs >> and I'm on your butt. Can you get out of my belly again? >> Okay. I'm not on your torso. >> Okay. >> And I want you to take a deep breath. >> And I want you to relax. >> Okay. I'm trying with that guy. The blind guy. >> Just wanted to patrol units. >> He did take this case here. >> I understand. >> Force, bro. >> I understand. >> You don't believe him. Don't believe me. >> What's your dog's name again? >> Desma. >> Desma. Desna >> can't hear you. >> Desna. >> Desna. Okay. Thank you. >> He has his ID. There you go. Can you get in there? >> You hit me. It's on your body again. >> Yes. And I admitted to it, too. You know, don't don't steal from my ride, man. >> Huh? >> That's my vehicle you broke into. I'm not I ain't too happy about it. Throughout the interaction, Officer Anderson admits multiple times to hitting the unidentified citizen while he was handcuffed, cooperating, and posed no threat. Well, not only would Officer Anderson's conduct likely constitute a violation of the citizen's constitutional protections, but it also likely violated Washington state law. Under section 9A.16.020 of the Revised Code of Washington, a public officer is authorized to use force only when it is quote unquote necessarily used in the performance of a legal duty. And section 9A.16.010 defines quote unquote necessary to mean that no reasonably effective alternative appeared to exist and that the amount of force was reasonable to affect the lawful purpose intended. However, if an intentional strike to the face is not quote unquote necessary under section 9A16, Washington statutory framework no longer shields officers from being charged with other crimes for their conduct. While Washington law refers to the common law definition of assault, they have developed several statutes regarding assault that would likely apply to officer Anderson's conduct. For example, Washington's baseline assault statute, section 9A36.041 criminalizes any assault that does not meet the definition of the statutes that cover more egregious forms of assault. If nothing else, this charge could certainly apply if Officer Anderson's actions were deemed quote unquote unnecessary and unprotected under section 9A.16.020. Well, considering that Washington's first, second, and thirdderee assault statutes are much more specific, it is unlikely that they would apply here, but there is an argument to be made that officer Anderson may have violated the state's so-called official misconduct statute. Under section 9A.80.010 010 of the Revised Code of Washington, a public servant is guilty of official misconduct if they intend to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege. In the Graham case mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court explicitly noted that excessive force used in the course of an arrest invokes the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures. If the force officer Anderson used against the citizen is found to be quote unquote unnecessary or a violation of the Fourth Amendment, then Washington's official misconduct charge could certainly apply. Once the officers get the citizen under control, Sergeant Libson attempts to deescalate the situation. >> You were able to do a s decent search on him or >> Yeah, I got all the stuff on him. You can we can search him again. >> Okay. I want to make sure he doesn't have any of your stuff. >> Yeah, some of the stuff he has on is >> I don't. Stop hurting me, though. Oh, I'm not hurting you. I'm just checking your >> He's not hurting you. You know he's not. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Get your left. GET YOUR LEFT FOOT. >> OW. DON'T PULL ME LIKE THAT. >> I WAS SITTING YOU UP. Shake a few. My handcuffs hurt. >> I was holding your arm, not by your handcuffs. >> Your handcuffs too tight or what? You need them loosen tight. Lean, lean forward. We're going to try to loosen these cuffs for you. We got medics here to check on you. >> No. >> You said you were you said you were in pain. You feeling certain kind of way, weren't you? >> Yeah, I guess. But >> well, we're not we're not medical professionals, so we have someone who is >> Can I take my dog with me with them? They usually let me >> Well, let's see what they have for you at this point. >> Okay. >> I'm going to read Jimmy Miranda rights. Okay. >> When [snorts] am I being charged with? >> Well, we'll let you know. Okay. What right now is right now is a basically we have vehicle prowl. That's basically entering vehicles without >> second degree. >> Mhm. So you have the right to remain silent. >> Okay. >> Anything you say can be used against you in the court of law. You have the right at the time to talk to a lawyer if they have been present with you while you're being questioned. >> Okay. >> If you have if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before questioning if you wish. You hear me? Julio with me. You hear me? >> If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before questioning if you wish. >> I understand. You can decide anytime to exercise these rights and not answer any questions, make any statements. You understand these rights? >> I understand the rights. >> All right. Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to me >> or us? >> About what? >> About what happened here today? >> I was on scene and I was looking through the window and for some reason like I was like in a dream. I didn't realize I was opening the car thing and going through it. >> Well, you broke into the window looks like this. What did you use? >> I don't even remember. Is there a tool that >> Yeah, there's a stick over there. Why don't you uh talk to the firefighters for a little bit? >> The officers inform the citizen that he is being charged for so-called vehicle prowl. And the citizen goes on to voluntarily wave their Miranda rightites and speak with the officers about the alleged crime. Now, in regards to the criminal charge, the officers were likely referring to RCW9A52.100, which criminalizes entering or remaining unlawfully in a vehicle other than a motor home. Well, considering that when the officers arrived, they caught the citizen inside the vehicle and captured this on body camera, it would be difficult for the citizen to defend himself against this charge. However, the citizens later decision to wave his Miranda rights and speak to the officers was equally detrimental. In the 1966 Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona, the court held that when police take a citizen into custody and interrogate them, the fifth amendment privilege against self-inccrimination is at risk because the setting is inherently coercive. In an effort to preserve the right against self-inccrimination in this context, the court established a requirement that members of law enforcement give specific warnings before interrogating a suspect, which became known as the so-called Miranda warning. Even in instances such as this one, where the officers already possess strong evidence from their personal observations, a citizen statements can still supply direct proof of intent, motive, or a separate crime entirely. and voluntarily waving Miranda rightites is almost never the most legally prudent way to navigate a police interaction. Here, the citizen voluntarily engaged in a dialogue with the officers about the crime that he allegedly committed after having been read his Miranda rights, which means that all of his statements could be used against him in court, including his indirect admission to committing the suspected violation. >> Julio, you have a broken collarbone. Is that what's going on? I have all sorts of problems here really got stolen. I have no many walk as many. >> Okay. Well, it seems like uh both your collar bones are intact. Um so that's that's excellent news. >> So far, >> what what would you like from us? >> I do not [snorts] If we can't ID him, I can see if the jail will take them and just do a world print and photo and ID him. >> Last time I tried that, they wouldn't do it. Um, Bellingham has their APHUS hooked up machine thing. They want to know, I mean, uh, if we're not, >> they need one of us to be in the ambulance with him if he's going to stay handcuffed and in custody. Yeah. Um, >> take the cuffs off him then. >> Well, it's I mean, it's up to you guys if he's going to stay in custody or not because if he goes to the hospital in custody, then it's >> Yeah, one of us, >> right? >> Um, turn your camera off real quick. >> Yeah. >> Sergeant Lipson orders Officer Todd to shut off his body camera and the citizen was transported to the Peace Health St. Joseph Medical Center for Treatment. Following the encounter, West Washington University officer Terrence Cunningham, who was not involved in the encounter, saw the body camera footage, noted Sergeant Lipson's inaction, and decided to report the incident to police chief Katie Pototts directly. Upon being notified of the incident, Chief Pototts contacted the Bellingham Police Department to conduct an impartial internal review of Officer Anderson's conduct. The chief also contacted the Mount Vernon Police Department to request that a criminal investigation be launched into Officer Anderson. Both Officer Anderson and Sergeant Lipson were placed on paid administrative leave pending the results of the investigations. The Bellingham Police Internal Review concluded that officer Anderson violated state law and four department policies and that Sergeant Lipson also violated seven department policies. The criminal investigation launched by the Mount Vernon Police Department was eventually forwarded to the Wakom County Prosecutor's Office, who charged Officer Anderson with fourthderee assault. Following the results of these investigations, Officer Anderson was terminated from the department, and Sergeant Lipson retired before the internal investigation could be officially completed. Former officer Anderson pleaded guilty to fourthderee assault, and was sentenced to 24 months of probation, a $350 fine, a $364-day suspended sentence, and was also required to attend anger management classes. Less than 3 months after being fired from the Western Washington University Police Department, Officer Anderson was rehired by the Lummy Nation Police Department, where he had previously worked for approximately 3 years before quickly being terminated from that department as well less than 3 months later. The Washington Criminal Justice Training Center, which is the agency responsible for certifying Washington law enforcement officers, announced that it would be conducting an investigation into former officer Anderson's certification, which remains ongoing. It is unclear if the unidentified individual filed any formal complaints or intends to pursue legal action. Overall, Officer Anderson and Sergeant Lipson get an F for Officer Anderson blatantly assaulting the citizen while he was detained and cooperative, for Sergeant Lipson failing to intervene or meaningfully deescalate the situation, and for both officers demonstrating a glaring lack of professionalism and accountability. As mentioned before, the governing standard for force during an arrest is the objective reasonleness framework from the Graham case. And under that framework, an intentional strike to the face of a citizen who was already restrained, cooperative, and under control is not plausibly justified by any legitimate law enforcement need. The suspected offense here was a property crime, and the citizen's ability to threaten officer safety or escape had been substantially reduced once he was on the ground in handcuffs. Furthermore, Washington's statutory framework authorizes officers to use force only when it is quote unquote necessarily used in the performance of a legal duty. And it defines necessary to mean no reasonably effective alternative appeared to exist and the amount of force was reasonable to accomplish the lawful purpose. A handcuffed citizen on the ground who is not actively resisting presents obvious reasonably effective alternatives to a facial strike, including continued control, separation, and transport. Once force cannot be characterized as quote unquote necessary within that statutory definition, the conduct is no longer insulated by the use of force statute and can be evaluated under the ordinary criminal laws that apply to everyone else. Officer Anderson's conduct was simply unacceptable and the fact that he is still technically certified to perform law enforcement duties is troubling to say the least. And while Sergeant Libson may not have physically attacked the citizen as the supervisor on scene, he was responsible for controlling the encounter. He was responsible for preventing further unnecessary force and for restoring professional distance when an officer has become personally entangled in the event being investigated. All of which he failed to do. Officer Anderson's immediate personal connection to the vehicle being burglarized created an obvious risk that the arrest would become personal and Sergeant Lipson's failure to promptly separate his fellow officer from the citizen and take control of the scene reflects a breakdown in his supervisory judgment. While officers are allowed to be angry about a suspected burglary, they're not authorized to use anger as force justification, and supervisors are not allowed to treat an officer's loss of control as a tolerable byproduct of the call. This interaction highlights how quickly legitimacy collapses when an officer injects personal emotion into a custodial arrest. A supervisor then fails to impose immediate control and accountability and the resulting misconduct jeopardizes both constitutional rights and the integrity of the underlying criminal case. Now, the unidentified citizen also gets an F for clearly attempting to burglarize former officer Anderson's vehicle, failing to invoke his right to remain silent even after having been read a Miranda warning, and for failing to maintain his composure and using highly offensive slurs throughout the encounter. Although it has not been proven in court, it appears that the citizen was likely guilty of the vehicle prowling statute the officers were referring to. And whatever misconduct followed on the officer's side does not retroactively legalize breaking into a vehicle or erase the underlying criminal exposure that the citizen created for himself. When a suspect is encountered inside a vehicle during a lawful response and that observation is captured on bodywn camera, the factual dispute that generally drives a defense is largely absent, leaving very little room to contest whether the elements occurred as alleged, and the citizens post arrest decision-making greatly exacerbated his legal exposure. Miranda warnings exist because custodial questioning creates a heightened risk that a suspect will incriminate himself. And once a suspect voluntarily waves those rights and speaks, those statements become usable evidence for the state. Even in a case where the government already has substantial evidence, voluntary statements can supply intent, motive, and narrative detail that the prosecution otherwise might not be able to prove cleanly. Here, the citizen chose to engage with the officers and explain himself after being advised of his rights, including making statements that functioned as admissions and excuses rather than preserving a defensible silence. Finally, the citizen's loss of composure and use of slurs was self-destructive and entirely unproductive to his subsequent defense against the charge. Offensive language is not a substitute for a defense, and it can be introduced to contextualize the encounter, rebut claims of cooperation, and frame the citizen is hostile and unreasonable at precisely the moment when credibility matters most. Even where the citizen's anger is understandable in light of being struck, escalating into a verbal tirade does not strengthen the legal position on either the underlying charge or any potential civil claim arising from the force, and it risks shifting attention away from the officer's misconduct and toward the citizen's own behavior. This interaction highlights how quickly a citizen can exacerbate a bad situation by stacking clear criminal exposure on top of avoidable self-inccrimination and inflammatory conduct that will all undermine their credibility later in the courtroom. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to check out Audit the Court if you're interested in exploring the legal nuance beyond the body cam. [music]