foreign [Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers traffic stops interfering with public duties and evading and is brought To Us by law and crime networks Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve before we dive into the interaction I want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode fume cold turkey may be great on sandwiches but there's a better way to break your bad habits we're not talking about Moon rituals or sacred crystals we're talking about our sponsor fume and they look at the problem in a different way not everything in a bad habit is wrong so instead of a drastic uncomfortable change why not just remove the quote unquote bad from your habit fume is an Innovative award-nominated device that does just that instead of electronics fume is completely natural instead of vapor fume uses flavored air and instead of harmful chemicals fume uses all natural delicious flavors fume is a habit that you're free to enjoy and makes replacing your are bad habits easy your fume comes with an adjustable airflow dial and is designed with movable parts and magnets for fidgeting giving your fingers a lot to do which is helpful for de-stressing and anxiety while breaking your habit I was surprised by how robust and fulfilling the flavors are and there are a variety of unique flavors that are all interesting and tasteful I also enjoyed the Tactical experience of twisting and twirling the fume it is very fun to fidget with stopping bad habits is something we all put off because it's hard but switching to fume is easy enjoyable and fun fume has served over 100 000 customers and has thousands of success stories and there's no reason that can't be you join fume in accelerating Humanity's breakup from destructive Habits by picking up the journey pack today head to tryfume.com audit or scan the QR code and use code audit to get 10 off when you get the journey pack today that's try fum.com and use code audit to save an additional 10 on your order today thanks again to fume for sponsoring this episode on March 28 2023 a deputy with the Smith County Sheriff's Office in Tyler Texas attempted to pull over local driver Cody Voss because both of the tail lights on his vehicle were out instead of stopping on the side of the road Mr Voss pulled into the driveway of the home of his friend Derek Phillips who happened to be driving in front of him the interaction that followed was captured on police body Cam and dash cam so yeah you got a driver's license I'm Deputy Peters with I'm Deputy Peters with the Smith County Sheriff's Office reason for the stop today your tail lights were not working as you were driving on the road okay and then you immediately pull into a residence I literally have a claim that tail lights are not a crime I'm not involved in the traffic code I have a notice here I literally have a lawsuit going on with Nassau PD okay and signed by the judge this is his death house he's also not driving driving I'm not driving it's the kind of commissioner's house County Clerk we just pulled in which Which tail light is that it was both of them I'm outside of your jurisdiction actually who do you work with the Smith County Sheriff's Office yeah the sheriff's County yes sir do you have any form of ID or driver's license I do but I don't have to resent it to The Habit you do at this point in time because it stops you have committed a traffic offense you were driving a vehicle code I'm not here to argue with you yeah I've got a dictionary because he doesn't seem to know I'm not involved I'm not involved in the traffic code so the definition of driving versus the definition of traveling there's a there's a dictionary okay you let's use this term you were operating a vehicle on a public roadway a vehicle on a public roadway I'm not sir he's right now he he is being stopped okay you have no involvement okay well actually I'm actually just being a concerned citizen because I know that that's fine okay so I'm actually just watching if you want to be a concert if you want to be a concerned citizen add your car please you have a driver's license there's not actually a crime or a victim get your supervisor here at this point in time if you can provide me with your driver's license you have a driver's license yeah and get your supervisor here for lying on the record what's your name's number you're literally lying right now Mr Voss and Mr Phillips present several arguments regarding the illegality of the deputy's conduct including claims that he's trespassing on private property and that Mr Vos was traveling not driving in general courts have consistently upheld the legality of traffic stops conducted in residential driveways for offenses observed on public roadways and in the 2016 case of United States versus Bean the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over Texas held that a driveway was not part of the constitutionally protected so-called cartilage of a home despite the fact that it was partially encircled by fences because it was open and could be observed from the street no barriers blocked access to it and the residents did not post no trespassing signs or take other steps to protect their privacy for this reason the court concluded that because the driveway quote was not part of the cartilage of his home or of any other constitutionally protected area the police were permitted to bring a dog onto his property to sniff his vehicle therefore it is highly likely that wood determined that the officer did not violate the fourth amendment by approaching Mr Voss in a private driveway as part of a traffic stop initiated on a public Street unfortunately we do not have time to explore the claim that Mr Voss was traveling rather than driving at length in this episode but courts have repeatedly rejected this type of argument as a defense to prosecutions under the traffic code we've discussed this issue in depth in several previous ATA episodes and a video on our second Channel and I have included links to these episodes in the description below right now you are being placed while the officer is in the process of detaining Mr Voss Derek's mother Smith County Clerk Karen Phillips exits her home and asks the officer to explain what is going on so foreign we're going to step back over here are you really gonna arrest me are you serious I've said this multiple times you're not under arrest I'm not searching where is your idea as a man and I'll give it to you once we're once we're complete with the traffic stop it's not a traffic stop man you're really gonna get in trouble can you talk to your supervisor it's a traffic stop if I'm a U.S citizen I'm not a U.S citizen do you have some form of an ID what have I done that was disrespectful to you no you grab me you're shaking my hands if my hands are in handcuffs I haven't committed what crime do you suspect of being committed right now Mr Phillips continues to argue with the deputy about various aspects of the traffic stop and the officer orders Mr Phillips to step back by his vehicle although Mr Phillips initially complies with this command he eventually reapproaches the officer while continuing to film him and express his disapproval of the deputy's actions according to section 38.15 of the Texas Penal Code which codifies the offense of interference with public duties quote a person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts disrupts imp leads or otherwise interferes with the peace officer while the peace officer is performing a Duty or exercising Authority imposed or granted by law importantly the statute also states that quote it is a defense to prosecution under this section that the interruption disruption impediment or interference alleged consisted of speech only and as the Third District Court of Appeals of Texas noted in the 2000 case of Kearney versus State quote even without this statutory defense a verbal interference with a public servant or officer could be defended on grounds of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in the Kearney case the Court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction under this statute where an individual quote by his argument and his conversation with the officers delayed the officers in obtaining entry into his home and lied to the officers about his wife's presence because there was nothing that showed the defendant blocked their entry into the house by physical action and now quoting arguing with the officers does does not constitute an actionable offense even if the end result is stalling similarly in the 2007 case of Freeman vs Gore the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that officers did not have probable cause to arrest an individual under this statute for arguing with them about whether they had the right to search her home without a warrant even though she was quote unquote yelling and screaming because there was quote nothing to indicate that her conduct involved anything other than speech or that she physically obstructed the deputies in any way however in the 2007 case of Duncan tell vs State the 14th District Court of Appeals of Texas upheld an interfering conviction against an individual who repeatedly ignored officer orders to stand back from a crime scene and stay in a specified area concluding that quote conduct which interrupts disrupts impedes or interferes with a peace officer performing a duty imposed by law is not expressive conduct protected by the first amendments accordingly although Mr Phillips could not be lawfully convicted in interfering based solely on his verbal interruptions it is possible that a court could find him guilty of the offense for disobeying the deputy's commands to stay back it should also be noted that the fifth circuit concluded in the 2017 case of Turner vs driver that quote First Amendment principles controlling Authority and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist subject only to reasonable time place and manner restrictions however the recognition of this right does not mean that individuals who are expressing their right to film the police cannot be arrested for criminal conduct and as the fifth circuit explained in the 2008 case of Mesa versus prajan if probable cause for an arrest exists quote any argument that the arrestee's speech as opposed to where criminal conduct was the motivation for her arrest must fail no matter how clearly that speech may be protected by the First Amendment accordingly if Mr Phillips was arrested for interfering a court would likely conclude that the officers did not violate Mr Phillips's First Amendment right to film The Encounter unless it also determined that no probable cause existed for the arrest you're gonna you're searching his eye's wallet you know do you want me to get it out for you under duress if he's saying that he's not gonna let me go on the list and you can present you don't tell me what to do you interjected yourself hey no get off the property get over here no don't want the property you piece of get over here no you get over here then he wants to say get over here like a McDonald's he's breaking my wrist get off of me I can't even breathe get back okay his glasses are right there those are his glasses okay you step out with me hey don't don't hurt me damn step [Applause] [Music] I've done nothing wrong get in the car [Music] we're 10-4 anybody else coming y'all can reduce another officer arrives on the scene and orders Mr Phillips who is standing in the garage of his home with the door open to come over to him when Mr Phillips refuses to comply the officer walks over to him and Mr Phillips flees into his home the officers follow him inside take him to the ground handcuff him and walk him to the police cruiser and Mr Phillips can be seen dropping himself to the ground and refusing to move once he's brought outside under section 38.04 of the Texas Penal Code which codifies the offensive evading arrest or detention quote a person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows as a peace officer or federal special investigator attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him therefore although Mr Phillips appears to have intentionally fled into his home after the officer attempted to detain him he could only be convicted of violating this statute if a court determined that the officer had at least Reasonable Suspicion to detain him for interfering with the traffic stop likewise section 38.03 of the penal code which codifies the offense of resisting arrest search or Transportation states that quote a person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows as a peace officer from affecting an arrest search or transportation of the actor by using Force against the peace officer in the 2013 case of Ramirez versus Martinez the fifth circuit concluded that merely pulling out of an officer's grasp is sufficient Force to constitute resisting arrest and in the 2008 case of Clement versus State the second district court of appeals of Texas affirmed a resisting Transportation conviction against an individual who after being handcuffed moved in the opposite direction from the one directed by the officers continued to resist and struggle and pushed against an officer on the way to the police cruiser additionally unlike the evading arrest or detention statute which requires that the underlying seizure be lawful in order to sustain a conviction the resisting stat attitude explicitly states that quote it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest research was unlawful accordingly while Mr Phillips's flight would not constitute a use of force sufficient to violate this statute and due to the angle of the body camera it's unclear whether Mr Phillips physically struggled with the officers during his handcuffing it is likely that a court would conclude that Mr Phillips at least resisted Transportation by struggling against the officers as they attempted to move him to the cruiser regardless of whether the underlying arrest was lawful however it is less clear whether a court would determine that the officers were within their constitutional authority to chase Mr Phillips into his home to arrest him without a warrant in the 2021 case of Lang vs California the Supreme Court held that quote the flight of a suspected misdemeanor does not always justify a warrantless entry into a home rather the court concluded that quote an officer must consider all the circumstances in a Pursuit case to determine whether there is a law on enforcement emergency and although it noted that quote on many occasions the officer will have good reason to enter to prevent imminent harms of violence destruction of evidence or escape from the home the court ultimately determined that now quoting again when the officer has time to get a warrant he must do so even though the misdemeanor fled here at the time the officers chased Mr Phillips into his home he was at most suspected of interference with public duties and evading arrest and detention both of which are misdemeanor offenses due to the relatively minor and non-violent nature of these offenses and the lack of evidence to destroy it is certainly possible that a court would conclude that the officers violated the fourth amendment by following Mr Phillips into his home and arresting him instead of obtaining a warrant even if it concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest him I mean so I can get I don't think this needed to go this far yes ma'am that's it which one of these of if are his phone this is Cody's and Derricks all right let's step back outside they're breaking my wrist we'll check them in a second right now I'm not doing anything wrong are you okay man okay yes ma'am dude I'm not being funny do you need a paramedic I don't know okay after his arrest Mr Phillips was booked the Smith County jail on charges of resisting arrest search or transport interfering with public duties and evading arrest or detention and was released on bond the next day additionally once the Smith County Sheriff's Office reviewed video footage of the incident a warrant was issued for Ms Phillips's arrest and she turned herself in at the Smith County jail on April 4th where she was booked on a charge of interfering with public duties for allegedly reaching her arm between one of the deputies and pushing him away from her son as he was escorted out of the residence his glasses are right there those are his glasses okay Ms Phillips has since claimed that she was not attempting to push the officer away but rather that she was poking him to get his attention and ensure he took her son's glasses with them after the arrests Smith County district attorney Jacob Putman announced that his office was recusing itself from the Phillips's prosecution and that a prosecutor from outside the county would be chosen due to a conflict of interest as Karen's husband and Derek's father Terry Phillips is a county commissioner and therefore an existing client of the DA's office on May 9th Ms Phillips's son Lance Phillips was arrested for disrupting a meeting after shouting about his family's criminal charges and refusing to leave during the public comment portion of the Smith County Commissioner's Court meeting at his first arraignment hearing Lance was arrested for contempt of court and after his second arraignment hearing a case was set for trial on August 6 18 2023 on May 30th Ms Phillips filed a 10 million dollar Pro Se lawsuit against Smith County its sheriff and multiple Smith County Sheriff's Office deputies alleging that the deputies made multiple false statements and violated her constitutional rights in the filing Ms Phillips also claimed that because her personal information was released through the video footage provided to the media she and her family had been subject to multiple instances of harassment including drivers honking their horns outside her house for extended periods of time threatening phone calls and vulgar emails sent to her workplace Derek Phillips and Mr Voss have also filed a lawsuit against the county claiming that the deputies violated the first and fourth amendments and kidnapped them the pro se complaint requests 150.5 million dollars in Damages as of the date of writing this episode all of the Philips civil and criminal legal matters are still pending overall the Smith County deputies get a c minus because although the first Deputy generally maintained a respectful and professional demeanor and handled the initial portion of the traffic stop fairly well both deputies eventually entered Mr Phillips's home without a warrant to forcibly arrest him potentially in violation of the Fourth Amendment now while there may be an argument that Mr Phillips disobeyed the officer's order to stay back during the traffic stop the first Deputy did not protest his reapproach and the vast majority of Mr Phillips's conduct was Speech which both the First Amendment and the interfering statute specifically exempt from prosecution further the Supreme Court has specifically held that officers do not always have the Constitutional authority to enter a home to conduct an arrest of a fleeing misdemeanor and in this situation given the non-violent offenses Mr Phillips had potentially committed the lack of evidence to destroy and the fact that officers knew exactly who they were dealing with I believe that the deputies had time to obtain a warrant and should have done so instead of potentially violating the fourth amendment by entering the Phillips's residence with without a warrant Mr Phillips gets an F for demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of Texas traffic laws attempting to flee from the Smith County deputies and blatantly resisting Transportation after he had been placed under arrest now although Mr Phillips never used the term Sovereign citizen based on the various arguments that he and Mr Voss made during the traffic stop they appear to at least Believe The Sovereign citizens stance on the right to travel which as we discussed earlier in this episode has been consistently rejected as meritless in courtrooms across the country and while I admire Mr Phillips's willingness to defend his constitutional rights I would encourage him to conduct legitimate research using reputable legal sources to correct his misunderstandings on the right to travel and other essential issues additionally while Mr Phillips may have some legitimate constitutional claims against the officers his conduct in fleeing and resisting strongly diminished his credibility in pursuing those claims and because Texas law is does not give individuals the right to resist an unlawful arrest or transport Mr Phillips could be convicted for his resistance even if the other two offenses are dropped and the officer's entry into his home is found to be unconstitutional this encounter demonstrates the importance of individuals actually understanding their rights when they try to enforce them and why it's typically more advantageous for a citizen to submit to an unlawful arrest and then challenge it after the fact rather than try to resist it 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 my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music] thank you [Music]