[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 wellness checks pedestrian violations and the right to remain silent and is brought to us by daily mail's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on the night of february 16 2021 18 year old high school student rodney reese was walking home from a shift at walmart in plano texas when he was approached by officers from the plano police department who had received a phone call about a man stumbling in the middle of the street in the snow wearing a short sleeved shirt the body camera footage begins after the officers had attempted to flag mr reece down from their patrol vehicle dude stop we're trying to help you hey man you trying to get home are you trying to get home you straight you need to ride somewhere hey look we just want to make sure you're all right we just want to make sure you're all right come here sir you need to talk to us okay sir bro the officers asked mr reese if he would like a ride home but mr reese declines informs them that he is all right and continues to walk home according to an article about the incident the officers were sent to perform a wellness check also known as a welfare check on mr reese after receiving a call about him a wellness check occurs when the police respond to a call or other request to check on an individual's well-being or safety and it is not considered a type of criminal investigation instead when police officers conduct wellness checks they are performing a quote-unquote community caretaking function which the u.s supreme court defined in the 1976 case of katie versus dombrowski as police investigations and interactions that are quote totally divorced from the detection investigation or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute in the 2017 case of byram vs state the texas court of criminal appeals defined the scope of welfare checks under texas law stating that quote as part of his duty to serve and protect a police officer may stop and assist an individual whom a reasonable person given the totality of the circumstances would believe is in need of help however because the reasonableness of a community caretaking seizure sprouts from its disassociation from the competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime a police officer may not properly invoke his community caretaking function if he is primarily motivated by a non-community caretaking purpose determining whether an officer may properly invoke his community caretaking function is thus a two-step inquiry one whether the officer was primarily motivated by a community caretaking purpose and two whether the officer's belief that the individual needed help was reasonable in determining whether an officer's belief that the individual needed help is reasonable texas courts will evaluate four non-exclusive factors identified by the texas court of criminal appeals in the 1999 case of right versus state where the court held that quote in determining whether a police officer acted reasonably in stopping an individual to determine if he needs assistance the following factors are relevant to said determination the nature and level of the distress exhibited by the individual the location of the individual whether or not the individual was alone and or had access to assistance independent of that offered by the officer and to what extent the individual if not assisted presented a danger to himself or others however the subject of a welfare check is not obligated to assist with the officer's investigations and under section 38.02 of the texas penal code it is only illegal for an individual to refuse to give their name residence address or date of birth to a peace officer if they have been lawfully arrested therefore mr reese was not obligated to provide his name or address to these officers during the welfare check can you calm down all right sir sir look we just want to talk to you all right i'm on the way home i'm streaming okay hold on where okay but you're walking in the middle of the road i i understand that the officers accused mr reese of walking in the road in violation of section 552.006 of the texas transportation code which states that quote a pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian if a sidewalk is not provided a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on the left side of the roadway or the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic section 541.302 of the texas transportation code defines a roadway as quote the portion of a highway other than the berm or shoulder that is improved designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel and a highway as the width between the boundary lines of a publicly maintained way any part of which is open to the public for vehicular traffic while mr reese claimed he was walking in the road because the sidewalks were icy under the statutes he should have walked on the left side of the road instead of the middle if he could not use the sidewalks regardless of the original reason the officers attempted to stop mr reese upon observing a violation of the transportation code they had the reasonable suspicion necessary to detain him and likely also had the probable cause necessary to place him under arrest in the 2019 case of king vs paxton the court of appeals of texas in austin held that while quote a welfare check is not a criminal investigation a welfare check could in some situations evolve into a criminal investigation depending on what the officers observed during the encounter although the officers were initially called to the scene to conduct a welfare check on mr reese once they witnessed him walking in the middle of the road they could detain him on reasonable suspicion of a pedestrian violation despite the fact a reasonable officer would probably conclude that he did not need help we just trying to figure out where you're going home oh you okay dude what's up man do you want us to just give you a ride i do this every night literally i'm straight okay you ain't cold or nothing no with that cheese what's your name man huh you don't know can you just stop and talk to us for a minute do you mind do you mind just talking to us for a minute just talk to us for a minute just talk to us for a minute i ain't gonna put my hand on the female please don't tell me okay i'm just trying to get your attention okay we're just trying to don't touch try to make sure you're okay we're trying to make sure now okay no no no way no no no way we're doing an investigation i don't care i'm going home you were officially detained no yes you want stop after informing mr reese that he was being detained mr reese attempted to walk away from the officers which prompted them to physically restrain him mr reese initially resisted being placed into handcuffs and accidentally bumped into one of the officers after apologizing for touching the officer mr reese was handcuffed and led to a nearby patrol car what's your name let go i'm gonna i'm gonna take care of your phone dude what's your name which is a safety hazard and you're not supposed to be in the room all right you're not i thought you was turning me around why are you trying to put me on the ground just relax just relax you're not at liberty i can do it actually right now you can't where do you live all right if he's not going to cooperate in the back of the car like this after mr reese refuses to answer questions one of the officers states that if mr reese is not going to cooperate then he will be placed into the patrol car which implies that he will be officially arrested however as we have discussed many times on ata citizens do not have a duty to assist officers with their investigations and exercising the right to silence is not refusing to cooperate the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination exists to protect individuals from being compelled to provide incriminating or potentially incriminating evidence against themselves however it is important to note that the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not self-executing and an individual who wishes to use their right to remain silent must explicitly invoke the privilege as the u.s supreme court explained in the 2013 case of salinas versus texas in this case the court held that quote a suspect who stands mute has not done enough to put police on notice that he is relying on his fifth amendment privilege in reaching this conclusion the court rejected arguments that reliance on the fifth amendment privilege is the most likely explanation for silence in situations involving police questioning and that quote it would be unfair to require a suspect unschooled in the particulars of legal doctrine to do anything more than remain silent in order to invoke his right to remain silent despite the common sense appeal of these arguments the court concluded that quote someone might decline to answer a police officer's question in reliance on his constitutional privilege but he also might do so because he is trying to think of a good lie because he is embarrassed or because he is protecting someone else not every such possible explanation for silence is probative of guilt but neither is every possible explanation protected by the fifth amendment while the court would likely find that mr reese did not expressly invoke his fifth amendment privilege he certainly was within his rights to not answer the officer's questions or assist in their investigation all right the officers eventually placed mr reese in the back of a police cruiser and transported him to the plano city jail where he spent the night mr reese was charged with being a pedestrian in the roadway in violation of section 552.006 of the texas transportation code which is a class c misdemeanor offense according to the plano police department's facebook post on the incident quote the arresting officer noted in the arrest report that although the subject committed the class b misdemeanor offense of interference with public duties by resisting officers efforts to detain and handcuff him the officers elected to only charge him with pedestrian in the roadway the charges against mr reese were eventually dropped by plano police chief ed drain who stated that the arrest wasn't consistent with why officers were called to investigate in the first place at the time of writing this episode it is unclear whether mr reece will be pursuing legal action overall the plano officers get an f for betraying the community caretaking function of a welfare check exercising poor discretion by needlessly pursuing mr reese and for arresting mr reese for a minor violation in an effort to gain control of the situation given that welfare checks are not considered criminal investigations mr reese was under no legal obligation to engage with the officers upon their initial approach and there is certainly an argument to be made that the stress of being followed by police officers for no apparent reason was a factor in mr reese's violation of the walking in the roadway statute when mr reese informed the officers that he was not in need of help and that he did not wish to speak to the officers the community caretaking aspect of the encounter was dissolved and instead of allowing mr reese to continue on his way the officers decided to invoke the authority of section 552.00 to justify their continued pursuit this is yet another interaction where a lawful justification may have existed to arrest a citizen but when the totality of the facts are considered it is clear that the intent of the law was not aligned with the results of its enforcement what began as an attempt to ensure that mr reese was not in need of assistance quickly evolved into a criminal investigation and arrest and it appears that the deciding factor for that evolution was mr reese's reluctance to comply with the officers another important aspect of this interaction is the line of questioning that was presented to mr reese as the officers were following him the plano officers never asked mr reese if he was suffering from any kind of mental disturbance or ailment and were purely focused on ascertaining mr reese's identity and determining where he intended to go at no point did the officers express an authentic concern for mr reese's health and well-being and any reasonable citizen would have likely perceived their actions as hostile and confrontational the plano officers utterly failed to consider the practical implications of their conduct and this interaction showcases the type of behavior that manufacturers distrust between members of law enforcement and their respective communities mr reese gets a b-plus because although it could be argued that he was a victim of police retaliation he did commit a violation in plain view of the officers and he did resist the officers as they attempted to place him into handcuffs as mentioned before there is a high degree of stress associated with any police contact and mr reese's desire to get away from the officers likely played a role in his decision to walk into the roadway setting aside the merits of the national debate regarding police misconduct in america the societal context of this encounter cannot be ignored there are millions of americans who fear interacting with the police and the hyper focus that has been placed on police misconduct coupled with the often exaggerated narratives associated with mainstream media coverage of the issue is enough to make any reasonable individual question whether their own interactions will render a similar newsworthy outcome nearly all major media outlets are guilty of either dramatically amplifying or fiercely downplaying the significance and legitimacy of any police encounter that finds its way into the news cycle and this leaves many americans confused conflicted and lacking an understanding of even the most basic elements of the issue it's no surprise that many americans have subscribed to radical perspectives regarding police when the institutions that have long been held as a beacon of reliable information have all but abandoned the traditional role of providing information and context and become infused with partisan ideologies in this climate anyone who is contacted by police officers while innocently walking down the street is warranted in feeling uneasy stressed and compromised and escalating a welfare check into an unnecessary arrest does nothing to curb the public's negative perception of law enforcement 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 more police interaction content you