[music] On April 11th, 2025, officers with the Penllis County, Florida Sheriff's Office, including Deputy Alexandra Mitchell, responded to a call about suspicious persons looking into a residence. Shawn Mimmude, also known as Neon Shawn, was filming at the scene when the officers arrived, as was a couple out for a walk. Mr. Mimmude filmed the encounter that followed, and it was also partially captured on body camera footage. Sheriff's are coming to stop you. Sheriff's are coming to stop you. I don't know whoever they just talked to at that house. >> That house? >> The house that was right there on the corner. >> Yeah, >> that's them right there. >> I'm filming. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. How's it going? It's >> going all right. >> Where you guys coming from? Where are we coming from? >> Yeah, >> we live right here. >> Oh, no. Not right here. >> Okay. >> Uh, some somebody's complaining over there about maybe somebody looking around the house. Just trying to figure out who it is and what's going on. >> Yeah. No, to a house. >> Okay. >> Walking. >> Okay. >> You got any kind of identification on me? >> I can tell you my uh my name, birthday, and everything like that. You got any idea? >> Kind of woke up. >> No, not the same thing. >> Not the same thing. >> Not the same thing. >> No. >> Oh, I don't know. >> Aren't you tired? You were just out over there like an hour ago. I'd be sleeping if I did right now. reason why we do have to do that. >> We give our information. I mean, it's we don't have no warrants, nothing. >> That's fine. So, right now, we've got a call for service on the corner right there saying that they thought someone was breaking into the house or potentially looking on a ladder. >> So, they told us that the subjects who were walking, >> he saw us. He's right. I mean, we weren't doing anything. >> Yeah. I just saw you guys walking this way. >> Yeah. I didn't know what was going on before. >> Okay. >> So, that's good. So, So, because we're investigating, caller stories right now. >> Yeah. >> You guys would detain. >> All right. >> And hopefully it's nothing and it's just someone who thinks they saw something that was nothing on our merry way. So, >> yeah, definitely. So, >> all right. You got So, you don't have a deal or anything on it ID? No. I just I don't want to get my like, you know, information. I don't think >> then you can go to jail for failing to identify yourself. The officers tell the citizens that they're being detained while they investigate the so-called call for service. And when one of the citizens says that he does not want to provide his name, Deputy Mitchell threatens to arrest him for failure to identify. As we have discussed many times before here on ATA, the Supreme Court held in the 1979 case of Brown v. Texas that an individual may not be detained and required to identify themselves absent reasonable suspicion to believe that they're involved in criminal activity. here. Based on the officer's statements during the interaction and court documents, there is no indication that dispatch provided any description of the allegedly suspicious individuals, meaning the detention was based solely on the fact that they were found walking near the location of the reported so-called suspicious activity. Florida courts have held that an individual's proximity to the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion on its own, particularly when coupled with a vague or incomplete description of the suspect. For instance, in the 2008 case of Gan v. State, the fourth district court of appeal of Florida found insufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the detention of a group of individuals who were found within a few blocks of a crime scene shortly after a burglary was reported. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that there was no clear description of the suspects and that despite the fact that the individuals were found in close proximity to the scene of the crime, there was no evidence that anyone was acting suspiciously or attempting to flee. In this instance, the quote unquote suspects were in close proximity to the reported suspicious activity, but there was no other evidence supporting their relationship to the scene, and they actually stopped and waited to speak with the police rather than flee. Accordingly, it is likely that a court would conclude there was insufficient evidence to establish the reasonable suspicion necessary for a detention and identification. >> Are you not trying to give you a hard time? >> Me neither. Okay. >> Yeah, it's Thomas. >> What's your ass? >> Walk, you know. >> All right. How about you? >> I'm not identifying. >> Huh? >> I'm not going to identify myself. >> Okay. I mean, port is a state where you have to identify yourself. >> No, it's not. So, >> did it just be easy? You know what I mean? But I know we don't have to give you >> Is there a reason like you have warrants or what? >> Suspecting I have a warrant. What would I want? Because usually people like to be scared. >> So >> if you don't identify yourself, then we'll just have somebody come and bring your finger first and we'll identify that. >> I want to get my finger. got out. You know what I mean? >> I mean, why are you being so open, man? >> It's not being difficult. You shouldn't You shouldn't take it as being difficult. >> You should use >> If I'm If I'm investigating a potential crime, then Yeah. >> Can you run over here if you got a friend? >> I have. I'll get the body cam footage. You can request the body cam footage. >> Yeah, everything's public record. >> They threaten you with arrest, so you were compelled. >> Oh, it is you, Sean. Oh, dude. Like the Did you shave? >> Yeah. >> Like it's not you. >> Longer beard or something. >> All right. So, what's going on, guys? >> Oh, no. We were just out. Guess somebody said uh that they thought we were trying to break into a house or something. We didn't I didn't even go over near that house. Nothing like that. We just got out. We walked we got into a wreck and for her therapy we just go out and walk when she can't sleep and stuff and >> I gota When you When was that? Like recent? >> Yeah, just a few minutes ago. >> No, the wreck. >> Uh the wreck happened back in March 2024. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> I gotcha. So just to get out of the house like when you're restless night. >> I can't stay in one position very long. >> I got you. Shoot. I feel like that too. >> And what are you doing, man? Just riding. >> What I do? Yeah. >> I don't think you did anything, but >> you didn't have an ID on you? >> No. >> No. Okay. Let me see your right hand. >> That's all right. >> Okay. Do you want to go to jail for obstruction? if that's what you want to do to me. >> Okay. If >> you don't want to identify yourself, then you can go to jail. >> Mr. Mimmude refuses to identify himself or provide his fingerprints and the officers place him under arrest. In the 1985 case of Hayes v. Florida, the Supreme Court determined that officers cannot take a suspect into a police station or otherwise impose a custodial detention for fingerprinting on mere reasonable suspicion and that probable cause, consent, or judicial authorization is required for officers to take such an action. However, the court also noted that the Fourth Amendment could permit seizures for the purpose of fingerprinting if police have reasonable suspicion the person has committed a particular crime. there is a reasonable basis to think that fingerprints will quickly confirm or dispel that suspicion and the procedure is carried out without delay. Well, here it is unlikely that Mr. Mimmude's fingerprints would have any bearing on whether he was involved in the suspicious activity under investigation. And as we discussed earlier in this episode, it is improbable that the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was engaged in any criminal activity. While the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held in the 2015 case of Moore v. Peterson, that an individual can be arrested under the state's obstruction statute, which is codified under section 843.02 of the Florida statutes if they fail to provide identification during a lawful investigative detention based on reasonable suspicion. There likely was no reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Mimmude in this instance. Accordingly, there is a strong argument that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Mr. from a mood for obstruction based on his refusal to identify himself or submit to fingerprinting. >> Don't know his last name. I only know his first name as Sean. >> Let's take your backpack off cuz I don't want to have to cut it. Okay. >> All right. >> Yeah. Pull my There you go. >> Is that all right? >> Come on, man. Just give your last name. >> I don't I only know your first. >> Yeah, I know. But there's no reason to ID me. >> I explained to you why we had to identify everyone. You don't got to identify me. I wasn't the one that these people pointed out. I'm here filming. >> You got a supervisor? >> I do have one. Yep. Lots of supervisors. So, either you identify yourself or I break your finger. What would you like? >> Deputy Mitchell tells Mr. Mimmude that he can either identify himself or she will break his finger. Based on court documents, this threat appears to be a response to the fact that Mr. Mimmude was allegedly tensing his finger to prevent fingerprinting. Accordingly, Deputy Mitchell seems to be saying that if he does not identify himself, she will break his finger so she can forcibly take his fingerprint. In the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor. The Supreme Court held that force used in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure must be reasonably proportionate to the need for that force, as measured by the severity of the suspected offense, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to flee. Additionally, as the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals explained in the 1986 case of Lesie v. Ingram courts in the circuit also assess reasonleness by examining the need for the application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used and the extent of the injury inflicted. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Mimmude was legally required to identify himself. Deputy Mitchell's threat of intentional bone breaking to overcome alleged quote unquote tensing during fingerprinting is nearly impossible to justify as constitutionally reasonable and necessary force because the suspected offense at issue was not severe. Mr. Mimmud's refusal to identify did not inherently create an immediate safety threat. The stated objective of the proposed force was evidentiary compliance rather than preventing flight or neutralizing danger. And the threatened level of injury was grossly disproportionate to any legitimate need for force. >> Oh well, if you want to break my finger, that's ridiculous. I mean, that seems like excess. >> Go to the jail as a John Doe and then not be released or get any kind of bond. >> If I'm going to jail, then, you know, I'll identify myself. But >> you are going to jail. So you can identify yourself >> right now. I don't think I'm going to jail. >> Well, you're in handcuffs. So, we can take your photo. We can do it that way, too. >> Yeah. >> Take his uh helmet off for me. >> Is this in here? >> I got the thing in my pocket. >> All right. When we grab your stuff, I'll throw it in there. Jeffy Mitchell. Uh, just hang with them for a sec. Help for search. >> You got a knife in your pocket. So, I ask you about that. >> Usually, it's going to poke you. Any drugs in your pocket? >> No. >> This is your truth? >> Yep. Both your body cameras are going. >> Mhm. >> Good. >> You check the coin pocket. Which one? >> Like the one are a little bit lighter in there. >> Good. >> Yep. >> Anything concealing is fine. But I don't want to have to give you a few things. >> I'm not worried about anything. I can get his name. >> Huh? >> I can get his name. He's uh >> does he? He uh he's he's always filming. >> Yeah, he was filming where all that was. >> Uh Jose had gone out with him. He's usually actually like >> really polite with us, but >> he just doesn't ever like to. >> All right, let me work through this, too. Did you give an ID? >> Yeah. >> ID. They're good. Yeah. >> You checked them both? >> I didn't check her. I believe [music] she gave them uh >> I don't know if she did. Mitchell, were you were you able to get her ID or No. >> Yeah, I already She's 10 54. >> Cool. Thank you. Was he uh 5429, too? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. Were you Did you guys even just be upfront with me, man? Did you guys even just walk up to that fence line like right where you parked? >> Yeah. >> That property there. Did you walk up to that fence line like look over or anything like that? >> I just got out. You know what I mean? That's all I did. >> Okay. Did you walk around to help her out of the car or anything? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right, man. >> I mean, this guy didn't do anything. I'm telling you. He came the same time we did. Like >> I understand that. I'm familiar with him. Do you know him? >> No. Like first time ever seen that? I'm familiar with him. The reason he's going though is cuz always identify yourself to us. That's obstruction. If you don't, especially when we're doing an investigation, which we are right now. >> Yeah. >> Um but otherwise, I mean, >> I just don't want to give him hard times. >> Did you put him in stuff? I understand that. >> No, I can't. >> Yeah, >> but you got his ID, you said. >> Yep. >> Oh, that's good. All right, you guys are good. Uh continue your walk. Just >> I apologize if you >> No, you're good. Just I guess be careful where you park. Some people just >> I understand >> even if it seems sketchy. Um other than that, yeah, you're good to go. All right. >> Following Mr. Mimmude's arrest, he was charged with one count of obstructing an officer without violence in violation of section 843.02 of the Florida statutes. As of the date of writing this episode, Mr. Mimmude's case remains pending and is scheduled for a jury trial on February 4th, 2026. Overall, Deputy Mitchell and the other responding Penllis County deputies get an F for detaining multiple citizens without reasonable suspicion, arresting Mr. Mimmude without probable cause, and threatening extreme force to compel fingerprinting. As discussed earlier, the Fourth Amendment requires that officers have individualized reasonable suspicion to detain an individual and demand identification. And the fact that a quote unquote call for service was received does not automatically authorize officers to detain and identify everyone who happens to be nearby. Here dispatch provided no meaningful description of the allegedly suspicious individuals. So the detention was based on proximity alone rather than specific articulable facts tying any particular person to criminal activity which is exactly the kind of generalized suspicion that courts reject. That lack of reasonable suspicion also undermined the arrest because officers cannot transform a legally unsupported detention into probable cause by criminalizing a person's refusal to identify absent reasonable suspicion. Most strikingly, Deputy Mitchell's threat to break Mr. Mimmoot's finger to obtain fingerprints was an extreme and disproportionate escalation that is nearly impossible to justify under the objective reasonableness standard given the minor nature of the suspected offense. the absence of an immediate safety threat and the sheer severity of the threatened injury in service of an evidentiary goal. This interaction highlights how quickly constitutional protections collapse when officers treat a call for service as blanket authority to detain, arrest, and threaten grievous bodily harm to compel compliance instead of grounding their actions in individualized suspicion and proportionate objectively necessary force. Mr. Mimmude gets an A for respectfully asserting his Fourth Amendment position without escalating the encounter, remaining composed and non-violent throughout the detention and complying once officers made clear that they were taking him into custody, thereby preserving the dispute for judicial review rather than turning it into a physical confrontation. As discussed earlier, citizens are not required to identify themselves absent a lawful detention supported by reasonable suspicion. And Mr. Mimmude's refusal was firm but controlled without threats, flight or physical aggression. When the deputies proceeded with arrest and processing anyway, he did not resist. He did not attempt to flee and he allowed the encounter to move into the legal system where a court will determine whether the detention, the fingerprint demand, and the obstruction arrest were supported by the constitutionally required level of suspicion. I commend Mr. Mimmude for contesting the officer's demands calmly, for avoiding any conduct that could create an independent safety justification for force, and for confronting the officers verbally rather than resorting to physical resistance or violence. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments down 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] [music]