Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. This episode covers seatbelt laws, excessive force, and hindering and is brought to us by Accountability Matters 2023's channel. Be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve. On the morning of February 6, 2023, Deputy Chris Tier of the Coweta County Sheriff's Office approached driver Tyler Murkerson after he pulled into a gas station in West Newnan, Georgia. The encounter that followed was captured on Deputy Tier's body camera, although no sound is available for the first 10 seconds of the interaction. Now, You got your insurance card. You don't have a seatbelt on. So, how about how about this? Let's let's restart. How about you don't give me a reason to stop you? You ever heard of that before? So, wear your seatbelt and you won't get pulled over. It's a very simple task. If you don't wear yours, Absolutely. just see it on? I had it on in the parking lot. Awesome. Give me your insurance card. I don't have it on me. No, that's another one. Be right back with you. Yep, ride it. 184, Deputy Tier. name? I just said it. Can you hear me? Deputy Tier. Obviously I can't. It'll be on your It'll be on your ticket. Hold on 1 second. Deputy Tier returns to his vehicle to write Mr. Murkerson a ticket for a seatbelt violation, even though he began the encounter at a privately owned gas station. According to section 40-8-76.1 of the Georgia Code, quote, "Each occupant of the front seat of a passenger vehicle shall, while such passenger vehicle is being operated on a public road, street, or highway of this state, be restrained by a seat safety belt." The citation Deputy Tier issued to Mr. Murkerson states that, quote, "Driver was not wearing a seatbelt as he passed me on Georgia 34," meaning Georgia State Route 34, and that quote, driver was leaned forward and strap was not across his chest. Similarly, in Deputy Tear's probable cause affidavit, he claimed that he observed Mr. Murkerson not wearing a seatbelt as he was quote, turning into Crossroads Convenience Store. However, Mr. Murkerson told me in an email that he pulled the seatbelt off as he was turning into the fueling station because he was about to get out and fuel up the truck. Now, although the statute does not require seatbelts to be worn on private property, if Mr. Murkerson unbuckled his seatbelt while still on a public highway, a court would likely conclude that he was violating the seatbelt statute and that Deputy Tear could therefore initiate a traffic stop to address the infraction after he had turned into the parking lot. Back up so I can see you. You said what? I got as long as I need. Yes, I do. See you in a minute. Hey, stay in the truck. Stay in the truck and shut the door. If I have to ask you If I have to If I have to ask you again, you're going to jail. Hey, he's being all Have him step out and sit on my car. No, I not 95. I'm done with this. 95 You ain't listening since I pulled you over. Go to jail. I'm going to taze him. In the face. Put your hands behind your back. Watch out. Watch out. I'm going to taze him. I'm good. Stop. Stop. I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. Real smart. I'm good. I wanted you to get a knife off of me so you wouldn't shoot. No, because you don't listen. That's the problem, cuz you don't listen. Why you doing me, man? Turn around. weapons and I was trying to get it trying to get it off of me. I'm going to give you one ticket and a warning for the other, but you can't follow directions. trying to get you to get a knife off of me. No, that's not how it works. What I tell you? I don't want you to shoot me. Did I pull my gun or anything on you? Bro, YOU GOT TO BEAT MY WHAT'S HE GOT ON HIM? JESUS. Y'ALL JUST beat my Deputy Radford Brooks arrives as backup and asks Mr. Murkerson if he has any weapons on him. Forgetting that he has a knife in his pocket, Mr. Murkerson states that he does not have any weapons. And Deputy Brooks orders him on the bumper of Deputy Tiers' vehicle. Mr. Murkerson initially complies, but then remembers his pocket knife and steps off the bumper to ask Deputy Brooks to retrieve it. Upon seeing Mr. Murkerson step forward, Deputy Tier tells Deputy Brooks to 95 him, and the officers effectuate an arrest by throwing Mr. Murkerson to the ground, restraining him by his throat, and tasing him. Notably, Deputy Tier stated in his probable cause affidavit that he told Deputy Brooks that Mr. Murkerson was under arrest. Now, although this is arguably true, as he told Deputy Brooks to 95 Mr. Murkerson, he did not use language that Mr. Murkerson would understand to mean he was under arrest. Additionally, Deputy Tier claimed in his affidavit that he ordered Mr. Murkerson to put his hands behind his back, which is clearly contradicted by the body camera footage. Despite this, it is still possible, if not likely, that a court would conclude the officers did not use constitutionally excessive force. In the 2003 case of Deruthy versus Pastor, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Georgia, reviewed a case where an officer forced a non-resisting individual down to the ground and handcuffed him without a verbal arrest order. The court explained that, "quote, Some use of force by a police officer when making a custodial arrest is necessary and altogether lawful." And that, now quoting again, "the application of de minimis force without more will not support a claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment." The court then concluded that the use of force in the case was de minimis, which means too trivial to be considered, holding that, "quote, Even if the force applied in effecting the arrest was unnecessary, plainly it was not unlawful." In reaching this conclusion, the court reviewed prior cases where it found the amount of force used in making an arrest to be de minimis, including an arrest where an officer grabbed an individual from behind and threw him against a van, and an arrest where officers slammed an individual against a wall. Although the 11th Circuit recognized in the 2017 case of Stevens versus DeGiovanni that, "quote, The amount of force used by an officer in seizing an arresting a suspect must be reasonably proportionate to the need for that force." And Mr. Murkerson would have a legitimate argument that the officers used excessive force by immediately taking him to the ground without giving him a chance to comply with a verbal arrest command, given the types of force that the 11th Circuit has classified as de minimis, I am unconvinced that a court would agree with this position. The 11th Circuit has also upheld the use of neck restraints and tasers in situations involving more force and less physical resistance than this one. For instance, in the 2019 case of Hines versus Jefferson, the court granted qualified immunity to an in-school officer who grabbed a 14-year-old girl around her throat and carried her by her neck for about 2 minutes because she was, quote unquote, "squirming" in an attempt to get away. Likewise, in the 2004 case of Draper versus Reynolds, the 11th Circuit upheld the use of a taser in the arrest of an argumentative individual who had repeatedly refused to retrieve documents from his vehicle, despite the fact that the officer never told the individual he was under arrest or gave him a chance to comply with a verbal arrest order. But given this precedent, it seems unlikely that a court would conclude that any of the force used against Mr. Murkison was unconstitutional considering the broad discretion the 11th Circuit has given officers to use force to effectuate arrests and the fact that Mr. Murkison appeared to at least initially attempt to pull away from the officers. Although it is difficult to say precisely what happened from the body camera footage. Over Over me trying to get you to get a knife out of my pocket. Stop. All right, come on. Talk to me like a man, bro. Talk to me like A MAN. Y'ALL THE BIGGEST GANG IN THE COUNTY. Y'all the biggest gang, bro. Have a seat. Why y'all got to be a gang? Why y'all got to be thugs, BRO? WHY Y'ALL GOT TO BE THUGS, BRO? WHY CAN'T YOU LISTEN? I asked you to get a knife, brother. Hey, is that your boyfriend? No, that is my husband. Your husband has a really bad listening problem. Yeah, that's because you were wrong. So, he's going to catch a uh What's his I don't even know the guy. His name's Tyler, but he's done this to him several Here's the deal, if he'd stop giving me a reason to stop him, he won't get pulled over. I don't even recognize him. Okay, well I stop hundreds of cars a year. but did you give him a seatbelt ticket? I was working on it, but he won't listen. Yeah, but now he's going to catch a on charge. So, I'll let you know when he's bonded out. Hey, you got a license, man? You got it on you? We were going to work. I just need to see you. Yeah, I know. Is he going to jail? Oh, yeah. Absolutely, after fighting with him. We all need to get along. Well, I done told him. He don't Yeah, if he would just shut up and I could Take your Take that home. No. Not right now. Absolutely not. No. You sit in your car. Am I free to go? No. Yeah, you're free to go. Get out of here. Hey, you don't have to drive away. Don't talk You don't have to talk to me that way. I just Okay. Okay. Why do y'all have to be thugs, bro? I just thought I'd leave. Do you need an ambulance at all? You hurt at all? Yeah, y'all hurt me. What What do you need checked? You need an ambulance? He just choked out of me, bro. Do you need ambulance. If you need to be checked out. to be like this, bro? I was going to give you a ticket, get you on the way. But you don't want to listen. Dude, you don't understand how many cops I know. You don't understand how many cops I know. Talk to me like a man. I will, hold on a minute. Hold on. Let me finish this. She's trying to hug him. I'm like, I'm not doing that after you just fought with us. Ripped a hole in my pants. I fought with you. Y'all slammed me to the ground, too. Grown men jumped on me, and I fought with you. That was completely preventable. And I'll be honest with you, if you would have been polite and tried to work with me, I would have helped him out. But You are You are not listening. You got a lawsuit coming. Federal officers are after me. If you don't get me out of this car Apparently, I'm Apparently, I'm after him. Well, I told him I said, "If you wear your seatbelt, you don't get pulled over." I mean, but I guess Your window tint's wrong, too. It's a hard concept, but All right, I want to take him to jail. You You okay? Yeah, I'm going to head down there. Oh, okay. Well, the thing is, you violated 16-10-24, which is obstruction in the state of Georgia. Two times, actually. I didn't know obstruction Well, you're about to learn today, cuz you did. Yeah, you're about to learn when I get to qualified immunity. Deputy Brooks informs Mr. Murkerson that he violated Georgia's obstruction statute two times during the encounter, and Mr. Murkerson was ultimately charged with three counts of misdemeanor obstruction. One count for, and I'm quoting, "refusing to comply with a lawful command to sit on the hood of a patrol car," and two counts for resisting both Deputy Brooks and Deputy Tears' efforts to arrest him under section 16-10-24 of the Georgia code, quote, "A person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his or her official duties shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." As the Court of Appeals of Georgia explained in the 1975 case of Hudson versus State, quote, "The statute was made purposefully broad to cover actions which might not be otherwise unlawful, but which obstructed or hindered law enforcement officers in carrying out their duties." However, the court also specified that, quote, "This does not make any actions which incidentally hinder an officer a crime. The accused must have knowingly and willfully obstructed or hindered the officer. In the 2008 case of Council versus State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia upheld a misdemeanor obstruction conviction against an individual who refused to obey verbal commands to remain in his vehicle during a traffic stop. Although Mr. Murkerson was ordered to sit on a cruiser rather than stay in his vehicle, it seems likely that a court would still conclude a failure to comply with this order was legally sufficient to sustain an obstruction conviction. Nonetheless, as the Court of Appeals of Georgia stated in the 1997 case of Pearson versus State, quote, the offense of obstruction requires the specific intent to hinder law enforcement. So, Mr. Murkerson could argue that he did not knowingly and willfully act with criminal intent to hinder Deputy Brooks as he was actually trying to help the deputy safely perform their duties by correcting his previous statement that he did not have any weapons once he remembered that he had a knife in his pocket. Additionally, although an individual's actions in resisting arrest can constitute a violation of the Georgia obstruction statute, the requirement that an individual act, quote-unquote, knowingly may not have been met in this situation as the officers did not inform Mr. Murkerson that he was under arrest before they physically seized him. In the 1996 case of Green versus State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia noted that, quote, knowledge is part of the statutory definition of misdemeanor obstruction of an officer and that in addition to knowledge that the individual hindered was a law enforcement officer, quote, there are other types of knowledge relevant to a misdemeanor obstruction charge, such as a defendant's knowledge that officers have come to effectuate an arrest. Therefore, Mr. Murkerson could argue that any action he took to struggle against the officers was not a knowing attempt to resist an arrest as he was never informed that he was being arrested. Likewise, the obstruction statute only applies if the officer is, quote, in the lawful discharge of his official duties. And in the 2018 case of Bacon versus State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia concluded that, quote, a police officer is not discharging his lawful duties when he is making an unlawful arrest, and a person who resists an unlawful arrest does not hinder the officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties. Consequently, if a court determined that the underlying arrest was not supported by probable cause and therefore illegal, it would likely also conclude that Mr. Murkerson could not be convicted of obstruction for any attempts he made to resist the arrest. What? What? Don't act like you don't know what the [ __ ] it is. All right, bro. Just be quiet, man. Listen, since you're so hurt, I need you to be quiet and relax. I don't want you working yourself up, okay? I only slammed him down, he got right back up. Now, her, I I recognize her. out. I ain't leaving that out. I ain't leaving that out. Don't leave that I'm not going to leave it out. Um medics said the dude's good. Um but he said that he wants to go to the hospital cuz his right leg hurts. His right knee, because he's had a surgery in the past. Mr. Murkerson was transported to the Piedmont Hospital to have his leg examined, and once he was medically cleared and discharged, he was taken to the Coweta County Sheriff's Office for booking. According to Mr. Murkerson, Deputy Teer turned off his body camera during the booking process and informed him that if he fought the charges against him in court, he would pursue felony charges rather than misdemeanors. In an email, Mr. Murkerson informed me that he was originally charged with one count of obstruction and a seatbelt violation, but that after he hired an attorney, he was charged with two additional counts of obstruction. And court records show that on February 24th, 2023, the day after Mr. Murkerson's attorney entry of appearance, an accusation was filed charging Mr. Murkerson with three counts of obstruction and a seatbelt violation. On June 26th, 2023, the prosecutor dropped all charges against Mr. Murkerson stemming from this encounter. Mr. Murkerson has started a GoFundMe campaign to assist with his legal fees, and we've included a link in the description below. Mr. Murkerson also told me that he filed formal complaints against both officers and spoke to an individual in the Sheriff's Internal Affairs Department who told Mr. Murkerson that he could not investigate unless the head of the traffic division told him that the issue rose to the level of internal affairs. Mr. Murkerson also alleged that a few hours after this initial conversation, he received a call from an officer who claimed to have reviewed the footage with several other officers and found no wrongdoing and that an internal affairs investigation would not be conducted. Overall, Deputy Tier and Deputy Brooks get an F for unnecessarily escalating the encounter, arresting Mr. Murkerson for attempting to avoid future issues by asking Deputy Brooks to take his pocket knife and using unwarranted levels of force to apprehend Mr. Murkerson without even giving him the chance to comply with a verbal arrest command. Throughout the encounter and in particular when Mr. Murkerson was attempting to explain the situation with his pocket knife, the deputies refused to listen to Mr. Murkerson, with Deputy Tier somewhat ironically accusing Mr. Murkerson of failing to listen and instead barked orders and threw him to the ground when he was simply trying to make the encounter safer for all parties involved. While it is certainly possible that a court would conclude that the officers' conduct did not violate the Constitution, that does not mean that they performed their duties admirably, professionally, or effectively. And had they taken the time to actually communicate with Mr. Murkerson, a better outcome for everyone involved could have been achieved. This encounter demonstrates the immense gap that exists between the constitutional bare minimums and ideal police behaviors and how excessive force lawsuits often fail to provide justice to individuals who have been subjected to unnecessary police force. Mr. Murkerson gets a B+ because although he could have attempted to address the issue with the knife without stepping away from the bumper and did appear to at least somewhat struggle with the officers during their attempt to arrest him, he took proper action after the fact by fighting the charges against him in court and taking steps to pursue official complaints against the officers involved. While I understand Mr. Murkerson's instinct to pull away from the officers when they grabbed him without announcing what they were doing. It is never advisable to resist officers physically during a police encounter, even in a state such as Georgia that recognizes the right to resist an unlawful arrest, because the right generally does not encompass protections for individuals who mistakenly believe that an arrest is illegal. The fact that an individual is ultimately acquitted of an offense does not make the underlying arrest unlawful. And in order to successfully invoke the right to resist, an individual must demonstrate that the arrest was not supported by probable cause, which is a relatively low standard of proof for officers to satisfy. That being said, I do not believe that Mr. Murkerson's seemingly minor level of resistance justified the deputy's use of a neck restraint and a taser, and I applaud him for his efforts to expose the deputy's actions in this interaction. 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.