[music] Welcome to Audit the Audits, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. This episode covers firearms, reasonable suspicion, and resisting and is brought to us by Jim Hodges' channel. Be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit. On October 31st, 2022, Deputy Jamie Goady of the Columbia County Sheriff's Office stopped 61-year-old visually impaired veteran James Hodges while crossing the street after jury duty in Lake City, Florida. Mr. Hodges was carrying his cane, which he sometimes used to help him navigate while walking in the back pocket of his jeans. And according to Deputy Goady, she initiated the stop because she believed it was A FIREARM. HI THERE. HI. You want to call out with What's this in your back pocket? It's a cane. I just saw you walking at It's a navigational aid. What's the problem? You a tyrant? will be at the office. Yeah, I am, actually. What's your name and date of birth? I don't have to give that unless I'm I was investigating suspicion? want me to put you in handcuffs right now? Yes, sir, I do. What is your suspicion? It looks like you're carrying a gun in your back pocket. I'm stopping to make sure you're carrying it properly. You don't have to give you ensured that it's not a firearm? No, you keep turning so I can't see it. You don't have to be to me. Well, you're being one to me. No, sir. I'm doing my job. Am I detained? Yeah, you are. What's your name and date of birth? It does not matter. Yes, sir, it does. Do you have a crime? Would you like me to put you in Classy. It's right in here. All right. After Mr. Hodges displays his cane to Deputy Goady, she informs him that he's still being detained and orders him to provide his name and date of birth. While Florida law allows licensed individuals to carry a concealed firearm, Section 790.053 of the Florida Statutes says, quote, "It is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm." Because the cane in Mr. Hodges' pocket was mostly visible, if Deputy Goady reasonably believed that it was a firearm, a court would likely determine that she had reasonable suspicion to initially detain Mr. Hodges for a suspected violation of this statute. Still, even setting aside for a moment the reasonableness of her alleged belief that the cane was a firearm, a court would almost certainly conclude that she could not continue to detain and attempt to identify Mr. Hodges after discovering he was not carrying a firearm. Under section 901.151 of the Florida statutes, which is known as the Florida stop and frisk law, quote, "Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding the person's presence abroad which led the officer that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense. However, as the Supreme Court explained in the 1983 case of Florida versus Royer, quote, "The scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification. An investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Similarly, the investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time. Based on this and other precedent, the First District Court of Appeal of Florida determined in the 2000 case of Eichner versus State that, quote, "It follows from these authorities that an investigative detention can be valid only as long as a reasonable and articulable suspicion continues to exist. The suspect must be released if the investigation dispels the concern that initially justified the detention and if the officers have not acquired any other basis to continue the detention. Here, reasonable suspicion only existed as long as Deputy Gotti believed that Mr. Hodges might be openly carrying a firearm. As soon as her investigation revealed that Mr. Hodges was carrying a cane and was in no way engaged in criminal activity, he could no longer be constitutionally detained. Don't even What was the stop before? For a walking stick. And it could look like a weapon. She asked you to Really? She is seeing it, okay? Now she's asking me for to ID. Okay. I don't need the ID unless you reasonable articulated suspicion And it hurts and I have committed a crime and committing a crime or is about to do a crime. Sir, and her suspicion was that you were armed, okay? She's asking you for your ID. Well, now she has verified that I am not armed. So, there is no problem. your ID or not? I do have my ID. You don't need it, okay? Okay? I don't know where his wallet is. Where's your wallet at, sir? I don't have a wallet on me. Okay. Where's your ID? Where's your ID at? pocket Which pocket? You are not allowed to search me. It's in this pocket. There you go. Thank you. I want your names and badge numbers. Sergeant Randy Harrison assists Deputy Gotti in placing Mr. Hodges in handcuffs and searching his pockets. As the Supreme Court of Florida held in the 1992 case of Reynolds versus State, quote, "Police may properly handcuff a person whom they are temporarily detaining when circumstances reasonably justify the use of such restraint." However, the court clarified that, quote, "We do not suggest that police may routinely handcuff suspects in order to conduct an investigative stop. Whether such action is appropriate depends on whether it is a reasonable response to the demands of the situation. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the continued handcuffing of an individual after a pat down confirmed he was not armed was illegal because, quote, the suspects offered no resistance, were not particularly belligerent, and did not make any threats. Still, in the 2016 case of Quassy versus State, the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida concluded that, although, quote, courts have generally upheld the use of handcuffs in the context of a Terry stop where it was reasonably necessary to protect the officer safety or to thwart a suspect's attempt to flee, in the case at hand, placing the defendant in handcuffs constituted an unlawful stop because, in addition to the fact that the officer had no reasonable suspicion on which to base the detention, quote, the defendant gave the officer no reason to suspect he would flee, and no reason to suspect he was armed or dangerous. Likewise, the Quassy court found that the officer conducted an unlawful search when patting the defendant down while handcuffed, and, quote, finding nothing that suggested a weapon, the officer reached into the defendant's pocket and removed his cell phone and cigarette paper. The court determined that the search was unlawful because, quote, case law consistently holds that an officer must have a reasonable belief that their safety is in danger, and if so, must limit their contact to performing only a pat down search. And, quote, the officer exceeded the permissible scope of a pat down even if he had reasonable suspicion, which he did not. In this situation, a court would probably hold that the officers had no reasonable suspicion to continue to detain Mr. Hodges, and that even if they did, the use of handcuffs and the search of Mr. Hodges' pockets were illegal because he showed no indication that he was a flight risk, and he had already proven he was not armed when he demonstrated that he was carrying a cane and not a firearm. Officer, you tell us 322. So, you're illegally armed? Yes, I am. I had to walk up here in the dark for jury duty, which was canceled. Why aren't you using your stick? You don't have to use your stick all the time. Not all the time. All right, Mr. Hodges. Was that that hard? It's going to be. I want your name and your badge number. I put him in jail for resisting. Okay. All right, let's go. When Mr. Hodges implies he will be filing a complaint and asks for the officers' names and badge numbers, Sergeant Harrison tells Deputy Body to, quote, put him in jail for resisting. Section 843.02 of the Florida statute states that, quote, whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer in the lawful execution of any legal duty without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. In general, courts have concluded that individuals can be convicted under this statute for refusing to comply with a lawful order from an officer. For instance, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held in the 2008 case of Vadimsky versus City of Melbourne that an individual could be arrested for resisting and obstructing an officer's efforts to detain him during a lawful Terry stop by attempting to leave the scene. In the same vein, in the 2007 case of Zivkovic versus Barner, the 11th Circuit determined that probable cause existed to arrest an individual for resisting when he, quote, disobeyed a command by members of law enforcement as he was escorted off a property he had been asked to leave. However, it is essential to note that both the statute and the relevant case law require that an individual oppose a lawful command in order to be convicted of resisting. In the 2008 case of CHC versus State, the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a delinquency adjudication against a juvenile defendant who fled when an officer ordered him to stop because the state failed to show that the officer was, quote, engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty. The court reasoned that "quote, although flight in knowing defiance of a law enforcement officer's order to stop can constitute a violation of section 843.02, the officer must be justified in ordering the detention based on founded suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. Because the officer did not have the necessary reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify a detention and quote, the flight occurred after the unlawful order to stop, the court granted motion to dismiss the charge. Even though the officers did not arrest Mr. Hodges until he threatened to file a complaint. According to Deputy Gody's arrest report, "quote, James was found to be in violation of Florida statute 843.02 by obstructing the ongoing investigation when he repeatedly refused to allow identification of the object in his pocket as well as refusing to identify himself. Despite the fact that Mr. Hodges removed the cane from his pocket and clearly displayed it to Deputy Gody when he was under no legal obligation to do so. Given the precedent on the issue, the court would likely determine that Mr. Hodges did not violate section 843.02 of the Florida statutes because the officers could not lawfully detain him or require that he identify himself once it became evident that he was not carrying a firearm and therefore were not engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty. I want your name and badge number too, sir. Hussy. Will you pick my property up, please? will. After you have a seat. You want to pull this out of my back pocket? Sure. Here, I'll grab your jacket for you, too. Mhm. Mr. Hodges was charged with resisting without violence in violation of section 843.02 of the Florida statutes. However, the charge was dropped on November 7th, 2022 by state attorney John Durrett, who stated in a court filing that, quote, "After having examined all known evidence, it is the determination of the undersigned that said cause does not warrant criminal prosecution against the defendant." On November 3rd, 2022, Mr. Hodges contacted the Columbia County Sheriff's Office about the encounter and requested the body camera footage, and the office initiated an internal investigation into the incident as a result. According to a video statement from Sheriff Mark Hunter, which was released on Facebook, the department determined on November 11th that both officers had violated policy during the interaction. As a result, Sergeant Harrison was immediately demoted, suspended without pay for 7 days, and will not be eligible for any favorable action for 2 years. Deputy Godi was suspended without pay for 2 days, and both officers will be required to undergo remedial civil rights training. In comments on the original video on his YouTube channel, Mr. Hodges seems to indicate that he will be taking legal action against the officers, and a GoFundMe campaign has been created to assist Mr. Hodges with the related expenses. I've included the link to the campaign in the description below. Overall, the Columbia County officers get an F for illegally detaining, handcuffing, and searching Mr. Hodges, demanding that he identify himself when he was under no legal obligation to do so, and arresting him when he refused to comply with their unlawful orders, and threatened to file a complaint against them for their unconstitutional actions. Although it is possible that Deputy Godi initially mistook Mr. Hodges' cane for a firearm, throughout the encounter recorded on her body camera, the cane is clearly visible and does not look remotely similar to any firearm, making her claims highly unreasonable at best. It is evident that the only crime Mr. Hodges committed was refusing to unquestioningly comply with the officers' unlawful commands, as they continued to detain and handcuff him after he had clearly demonstrated he was not involved in any criminal activity. While I commend Sheriff Hunter for actually taking disciplinary action against the officers involved, I seriously question whether the abusive and authoritarian attitudes these officers demonstrated towards Mr. Hodges can be corrected with additional training. And I hope Sheriff Hunter will take more permanent steps if another issue arises with either of these officers. Mr. Hodges gets an A+ for knowing, understanding, and defending his constitutional rights, refusing to comply with the officers' illegal orders, and taking appropriate action after this interaction. Throughout the encounter, Mr. Hodges repeatedly communicated to the officers that he did not consent to their actions and that they were violating his rights. And although the officers did not seem to care, Mr. Hodges did not allow their indifference to the Constitution to dissuade him from exercising his rights. I commend Mr. Hodges for having the courage to stand firm in the face of police overreach and to immediately file a complaint and pursue legal action against the officers involved. And I wish him the best as he seeks to defend his rights in court. Let us know if there is an interaction or other legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching, and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content. [music]