[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 anti-discrimination laws officer identifications and trespassing and is brought to us by family getaways channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on july 19th 2022 the owner of family getaways channel who we will refer to as mr family traveled to the camp landing entertainment district previously known as kyova mall in ashland kentucky to confront a security guard about a situation that occurred earlier that day according to mr family the security guard yelled at his wife and children and kicked them out of the mall while in the artsy fartsy walk which is described as an interactive art gallery mr family found the security guard in question and approached his vehicle hey how you doing well you gotta kicked out two girls on a bunch of kids yeah yeah no you don't raise your voice to girls a pregnant win a bunch of kids no there's no luck there's no luck department calling them what you do let not your harassing women and children at this establishment they did nothing wrong [Music] okay a little power trip you gotta run up woman and get a lot woman and kids went that way until the police got here i'm over right here because you don't intimidate me you don't scare me i ain't trying to tell me to scare you you try intimidating scared woman and children though that's what you did you just come in here and just kick out whoever you want out i can't if i want to that's how it works just kick whoever you want no matter what i had a reason for kicking them out she wants to run her mouth so she'll get kicked out while you were yelling at her as she was walking out they were leaving weren't they and you're yelling at them that they were leaving i told her to leave well you're just security you don't own this mall if i tell them to leave they leave so i mean oh you just get to tell whoever you want to leave i run something yeah yeah security that's all more cop that's it it was a little security job and you're something standing here yelling at me yeah i'm showing you well yelling my wife and my pregnant wife and my children nobody cares that your wife is pregnant nobody cares yeah evidently you did because you thought you could go yellow and get away with it nobody cares that your children got kicked out no one can yeah yeah i do i do that's what matters why don't you go in your car when the real cops come mob cop but they're gone yeah more coptic and you can kick over you want out as much right to kick you could kick whoever you want out of this place right if i want to you could walk in and kick anybody for any reason any reason you feel like it while arguing with mr family the security guard claims that he can kick anyone out of the mall for any reason he sees fit while malls are generally held open to the public they are typically not public property considering that they are not owned by the state or local government in this case the camp landing entertainment district is owned by a private company known as camp investments llc as we will discuss later in this episode a privately owned business has considerable discretion as to who to grant access to their property and generally can trespass individuals from the location for personal reasons however anti-discrimination laws on both the state and federal levels place limitations on the reasons an individual can be refused service by a privately owned business under title ii of the civil rights act of 1964 which is codified in section 2000a of title 42 of the us code quote all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods services facilities privileges advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation as defined in this section without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race color religion or national origin the section defines a place of public accommodation as quote any inn hotel motel or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests any restaurant cafeteria lunchroom lunch counter soda fountain or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises including but not limited to any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment or any gasoline station or any motion picture house theater concert hall sports arena stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment additionally the prohibition on discrimination also applies to any business that is physically located within a covered establishment or that has a covered establishment located on its premises and quote holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment kentucky has enacted a similar anti-discrimination law on the state level section 344.120 of the kentucky revised statute states that quote it is an unlawful practice for a person to deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods services facilities privileges advantages and accommodations of a place of public accommodation resort or amusement on the ground of disability race color religion or national origin and section 344.130 defines a place of public accommodation resort or amusement as quote any place store or other establishment which supplies goods or services to the general public or which solicits or accepts the patronage or trade of the general public or which is supported directly or indirectly by government funds in this situation because the camp landing entertainment district includes a movie theater and restaurants a court would likely conclude that the title ii of the civil rights act applies to the mall which would mean that the mall security guard could not legally kick out patrons on the basis of their race color religion or national origin the kentucky anti-discrimination laws which would also apply to them all would likewise prohibit the security guard from removing individuals on the basis of their disability race color religion or national origin so the kids are playing you could just kick them out it doesn't i mean you're fixing to get kicked out none of them i don't care they heard you yelling my kids i overheard him saying i heard that man yelling and that's the reason why i'm here i told him if they cannot right raising your voice and yelling in front of children i'm done talking you're talking to real cops go away i'm talking to real cops go away more cop how you doing okay first of all drop the attitude because he wants you trespassed so i need your id first of all i did i do anything illegal i need your id he wants to trespass soon as we have this conversation you're going to leave them all properly and you're not coming back that's right i'm going to have kind of paperwork for that so you can give me your id i'll give you my id if i do something illegal okay we haven't had a chance to talk to him yet okay but did i do anything illegal i'm on a call that i was dispatched you're involved in okay you have to take and give your id this is not up for discussion unless you want to find yourself in the back of my car give me your id on the risk of arrest i'll give you my id okay under wrestle of arrest here's my id deputy terry nance of the boyd county sheriff's office arrives on the scene and demands that mr family provide his identification and after challenging the legality of the order mr family eventually complies under the threat of arrest under section 519.020 of the kentucky revised statutes quote a person is guilty of obstructing governmental operations when he intentionally obstructs impairs or hinders the performance of a governmental function by using or threatening to use violence force or physical interference clearly mr family's conduct in refusing to identify himself did not rise to the level of obstruction under this statute likewise kentucky law does not have a stop and identify statute that requires individuals to identify themselves under threat of arrest when they're not driving a vehicle and even if it did it is unlikely that it would be constitutional for deputy nance to require mr family to identify himself in this situation while the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of stop and identify laws in the 2004 case of hybal versus sixth judicial district court of nevada it specifically limited its holding to state laws quote requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid terry stop similarly in the 1979 case of brown versus texas the supreme court determined that it violated the fourth amendment for an individual to be convicted under a texas stop and identify statute when the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct however it's important to note that even though kentucky does not have a stop and identify statute and an individual cannot be arrested and prosecuted for failure to provide identification the supreme court of kentucky concluded in the 2014 case of kavanaugh versus commonwealth that quote since an officer is constitutionally permitted to request identification any failure to comply may still be considered along with other sufficient factors demonstrating reasonable suspicion therefore while mr family's refusal to identify himself would not allow the deputies to constitutionally arrest him it could be taken into consideration when determining whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him [Music] ridiculous come here yeah what's your silence for you my wife talks home says this guy yelled at her whatever she goes we went to the movies to complain about the guy yelling okay guy follows us to the movies says get out of the movies okay and i said what what do you mean she goes you know about this guy here yes okay that's the exact guy okay he said to come over here that uh that that you know to get out the movies all this stuff so she comes home to me she tells me this is telling me this i can hear my kids in the back i'm going the minions man's yelling yeah i finally come back here i approach him i go hey listen what's going on here stops going oh oh you uh it's not what you think i'm waiting by that by that bad she's in this car gets on his car it comes over to me it's okay i have to kick who i want to kick out the more then he slowly changes it to well with dude reason yeah that's the long and short of the whole story okay all right here's what you're going to do you and your wife want to come out here during business hours your wife isn't here so i can't trespass hurt you're going to be trespassed because that's what security wants okay talk to whoever the general manager is here or whoever is over talk to them explain the situation that happened tonight and see what if anything can be done to i wouldn't resolve the issue the reason you got the attitude that you did whenever we first showed up is because when i stepped out of the car the way that you were yelling carrying on okay i want to know who i'm dealing with when you're in that state of mind and by law if i'm dealing with you and i ask for your id you have to give me your id it doesn't mean you're under arrest or you're in trouble okay yeah so i'm not trying to overrule you on anything i promise you but unless it's a stop and i state you're not okay well unless i'm being convicted of a crime or i committed a crime or oh yeah i'm in that process investigating right so yeah you do have to okay it's just like a traffic stop you do have to okay we're not going to discuss it here we're not going to return but your trespass from this point on from this property if you come back on this property you will be arrested do you understand deputy nance tells mr family that he has been trespassed from the property and that if he returns to the mall he will be arrested according to section 511.080 of the kentucky revised statutes quote a person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises which section 511.010 defines as any building or real property section 511.090 of the revised statute states the quote a person enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises when he is not privileged or licensed to do so a person who enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license or privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain personally communicated him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person as mentioned earlier in this episode mall owners and their representatives can typically trespass individuals from the property for a wide range of reasons including their speech as the first amendment does not prohibit the private owners of shopping centers from discriminating on the basis of speech in the 1972 case of lloyd corp vs tanner the supreme court determined that the first amendment was not violated when a large retail shopping center in portland oregon prohibited the distribution of hand bills within the building complex and its malls overturning the lower courts holding that because the shopping center was open to the public and the functional equivalent of a public business district the rule prohibiting the distribution of handbills within the mall violated first amendment rights in reaching this conclusion the court reasoned that the privately owned streets and sidewalks of a business district or a shopping center were not quote the equivalent for first amendment purposes of municipally owned streets and sidewalks and therefore the private owner was within its rights to restrict speech within the shopping center given this precedent it is likely that a court would conclude that mr family could be trespassed from the mall in retaliation for his speech against the security guard without violating the first amendment and as such he could be constitutionally prosecuted for trespassing if you refuse to leave or return to the property after being trespassed so you have to talk to your general manager we don't carry paperwork we don't have paperwork what it'll be recorded on is the dispatch cad so as soon as i'm done with you i'm going to tell my dispatcher that you are since i ran your id that you're trespassed and it'll be on record at the boy county 911. here's your id back you can leave the property okay what's your name and bachelor deputy nance 218. thank you sorry i appreciate that and sir just because you were here wishing a bad number that'd be all 239 thank you sir have a good day after explaining how mr family can attempt to have the trespass order removed deputy nance ordered him to leave the property and mr family complied without further incident the next day mr family uploaded the footage to his youtube channel which he had not previously used to share police interactions with the public it is unclear whether mr family was able to resolve the situation with the camp landing entertainment district so that he and his family could return to the property and as of the date of writing this episode mr family has not provided any updates or indicated whether he intends to pursue legal action overall deputy nance gets a c because although it was likely not illegal to trespass mr family from the mall the deputy initiated the encounter with a hostile demeanor misrepresented the law on when individuals must identify themselves in kentucky and threatened to arrest mr family for refusing to identify himself when he had no legal authority to do so it is unclear whether deputy nance intentionally lied to mr family in order to obtain his identification or if he simply was mistaken about when he is legally permitted to demand identification and arrest individuals for refusing either way it is completely unacceptable for an officer of the law to present inaccurate information about the law to a citizen particularly when it compels them to identify themselves when they are not required to do so a court would likely find that deputy nance's misstatement of the law and threats to arrest mr family violated the fourth amendment and i would urge all law enforcement officers to avoid such practices mr family gets a b-plus for actively and respectfully challenging deputy nance's misrepresentations about when officers can demand identification in kentucky while maintaining a polite and calm demeanor throughout the encounter although he behaved somewhat antagonistically in his communications with the security guard he was well within his first amendment rights to do so and it is clear that mr family only intended to defend his family after he felt they were mistreated i commend mr family for knowing and understanding the law regarding officer identifications better than deputy nance and for attempting to educate him on the constitutional rights of citizens and i would encourage him to continue to challenge abuses of power when he encounters them let us know if there is an interaction or 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] you