foreign [Music] welcome to audit the audits where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers obstruction detaining Witnesses and reasonable suspicion and is brought To Us by a private submission before we dive into the interaction I want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode surf shark surfshark is a premier VPN service on the market that offers unparalleled digital security for a fraction of the price of other competitors not only does a surf shark subscription allow you to browse the internet safely but it also comes with a ton of additional features to enhance your overall digital experience one of the many perks of a surf shark subscription is that it allows you to bypass region restrictions on popular platforms like YouTube and Netflix and view content that's not normally available in your country thanks to surfshark I can still watch my favorite episodes of The Office even though it was removed from the US Netflix catalog Right Now surfshark is offering the ATA community New Black Friday deal that is an 85 discount with an additional three months completely free when you use code audits with 24-hour customer service and a 30 day money back guarantee you have absolutely nothing to lose so click the link in the description to claim your exclusive offer now thanks again to surfshark for sponsoring this episode on July 13 2022 veterinary technician landlord and father of three Reginald James was stopped outside his rental property by several officers from the Texarkana Police Department in Texarkana Arkansas who are investigating a shooting that had occurred in the area the interaction was captured by the body worn camera of Corporal McAdams of the Texarkana Arkansas Police Department make contact with that guy they're saying that this guy walking down the street right here is the guy that they were shooting at okay I've been seeing him over and he don't live in here but I've been seeing him backpack behind us there let's have a conversation okay hey man let me talk to you a second all right hang on hold on stop walking let me talk to you a second man okay uh what's going on tonight oh no I ain't got nothing to do with y'all hey on your back [Music] yes not in any trouble you understand but we're being told by multiple people that you know you're involved in all this I think these dudes were shooting The Chew all right is that the truth that's all right go ahead and get his identification and everything we'll go together ID in your pocket sir foreign you can actually talk to us later and uh I'm just gonna go home for no reason uh no we stopped you before I'm passing by and I fit a description uh actually you're pouring it out that's okay so they may have all made a mistake when we'll work this out y'all [Music] I'd appreciate you if we worked it out together but that I'm trying to work it out to deal with y'all y'all don't understand that at certain times you do have to deal with it you don't have I me I don't have to deal with y'all at certain times I don't have to deal with you Mr McAdams yes all right so you say you don't know nothing about nothing you ain't got nothing no questions bro I'm not answering any questions hey if you keep yelling like Jason's going to try to find a way to take care take me to jail then hey relax but there's multiple people pulling him out that's what I got [Music] don't want to be bothered [Music] despite the fact that the officers wanted to talk to Mr James as a potential witness and victim they placed him in handcuffs took his wallet and searched through it and placed him under arrest for obstruction when he refused to answer any questions under section 5-54-102 of the Arkansas code quote a person commits the offense of obstructing governmental operations if the person knowingly obstructs impairs or hinders the performance of any governmental function or falsely identifies himself or herself to a law enforcement officer or a code enforcement officer however the statute clarifies that it does not apply to quote any means of avoiding compliance with the law not involving affirmative interfere appearance with a governmental function or obstruction impairment or hindrance of what a person reasonably believes is a public servant's unlawful action in the 2008 case of stufflebeam versus Harris the federal eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over Arkansas held that the Arkansas obstruction statute does not permit a police officer quote to arrest a person for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of other criminal activity and his identification is not needed to protect officer safety or to resolve whatever reasonable suspicions prompted the officer to initiate an ongoing traffic stop or Terry stop in reaching this conclusion the court reviewed rule 2.2 of the Arkansas rules of criminal procedure which states that quote a law enforcement officer May request any person to furnish information or otherwise cooperate in the investigation or prevention of crime the officer May request the person to respond to questions or to comply with any other reasonable request in making a request no law enforcement officer shall indicate that a person is legally obligated to furnish information or to otherwise cooperate if no such legal obligation exists the court concluded that because no provision of Arkansas law created a legal obligation for the citizen involved to identify himself his refusal to comply with the officer's improper demand did not obstruct a legitimate governmental function within the meaning of the obstruction statute still it should be noted that the court identified to stop and identify laws that it implied May create an obligation for an individual to identify themselves in certain situations first rule 3.1 of the Arkansas rules of criminal procedure states that quote a law enforcement officer may stop and detain any person who he reasonably suspects is committing has committed or is about to commit a felony or a misdemeanor involving danger a forcible injury to persons or of appropriation of or damage to property if such action is reasonably necessary either to obtain or verify the identification of the person or to determine the lawfulness of his conduct similarly section 5-71-213 of the Arkansas code states that an individual who quote lingers remains or prowls in a public place or the premises of another person without apparent reason and under circumstances that warrant alarm or concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity and upon inquiry by a law enforcement officer refuses to identify himself or herself and give a reasonably credible account of his or her presence and purpose can be convicted of loitering here because Mr James was not suspected of criminal conduct there was inarguably no obligation to identify himself or answer any other questions and although the officers were authorized to ask questions and request his cooperation a court would likely conclude that he could not be arrested for refusing to assist the officers in their investigation did you you have to identify yourself who's this guy [Music] all right thank you so bad really bad yes really this house right here behind us on the corner and he is just straight up like that every time hey Randy I'll do I'll do the report on this this is Ashley we just need to get her information she's the one that said he was the victim being shot at it I just need your name and stuff yeah well that gives that gives us the reason to have a conversation with you so I just need your name just so I can he's not gonna know that I just need your name I'm not worried about what he knows my kids so what did you see well I was sitting in my window right here about in the living room you know when I was on the phone with her I had my blind stuff all I seen was a blue Grand Marquis speeding outwards coming coming out of the floor and then I seen him run that way but the shots was already going on I just made sure my kids were down the neighbors room you heard shooting yeah he was running this way did the car look like it was after him but which way they turn they turned this way they come up right behind him yeah and then he ran across his yard and they've been over there whoever whoever stay over there house in the corner I actually I think he actually lives there he stayed there witness Ashley Clark claims she saw Mr James running away from the scene of the incident and that it looked like the vehicle was chasing him making Mr James a potential victim but not a potential suspect as the Supreme Court of Oregon summarized in the 2013 case of State versus Fair courts that have reviewed the subject have generally determined that quote it is reasonable for a law enforcement officer to take an intermediate step that is short of arrest but that still entails significantly restricting the citizens freedom to leave in order to question the citizen as a potential witness to or victim of a crime although the circumstances in which such stops have been found reasonable are sometimes more limited than those that justify stops of criminal suspects the court concluded that inappropriate circumstances it is permissible under Article 1 Section 9 of the Oregon State Constitution which is nearly identical to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution quote for officers to stop and detain someone for on the scene questioning whom they reasonably suspect can provide material information about a crimes Commission because quote both potential witnesses to and victims of a crime can be sources of valuable information that can Aid officers in the field and making better informed on-the-spot investigatory decisions about whether and who to temporarily detain or arrest what leads to pursue and even which physical or other tangible evidence to gather knowing the identity of and the information to be provided by a witness to or a victim of a crime is as fundamental to our criminal justice system as is apprehension of a potential offender however it is less clear when an Arkansas court would determine that a witness or victim of a crime may be constitutionally detained in the 2021 case of Davis versus Dawson the U.S District Court in the southern district of Iowa which is part of the eighth circuit determined that the officers in the case violated the fourth amendment by unreasonably detaining several witnesses to a crime reasoning that quote allowing Law Enforcement Officers to detain Witnesses against their will when the officers know the Witnesses are not suspected of any wrong doing the only suspect in the crime they witnessed is already in custody and there are no exigent circumstances but nonetheless detained them merely to ask additional questions and to expedite the officer's investigation is precisely The Caprice the fourth amendment protects against in reaching this conclusion the court reasoned that although there may be circumstances that would justify an officer in detaining a witness based on so-called Community caretaking concerns eighth circuit precedent required that quote in determining the reasonableness of a seizure courts must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion because the officers at the scene knew they were quote mere Witnesses who were not suspected of any criminal conduct and there were no so-called Community concerns that justified the Detention of the witnesses because quote the only suspect was already in custody the knife likely used in the attack had been located in the kitchen sink and the crime scene was Secure the court came concluded that the intrusiveness of the detention outweighed the quote societal need to secure corroborating statements from the witnesses here although the officers admitted when they stopped Mr James that they did not suspect him of any wrongdoing it is still possible that an Arkansas court would conclude that he could be briefly detained based on the so-called Community caretaking concern of identifying and apprehending the criminal suspects but even if a court determined that Mr James could be legally detained it would not create a legal obligation for Mr James to identify himself or otherwise cooperate with the investigation he should have insist up in the system with Michael brownick did a report first shift one night over there because he was drunk and stupid with this guy drunk and stupid well all I care about is does he have warrants for his arrest well you showed to be clear okay one he's been now been from housing ban him from housing I'm trying to decide we're going to arrest him or not did he give you his wallet or did he take his wallet but he He Turned I said there it is but he got it doesn't matter it doesn't matter if he doesn't want to identify himself he's trying to walk away when we have a legal reasons that's when you grabbed him man I thought he's fixing to run he stays next right here I'm pretty sure that one stays in the gray house yeah he's a turd yeah he's had a lot more I mean he's hard to deal with it at all times she said he was already up on his porch and all the cops are now doing their thing and he jumped off his porch and left and went another way then he comes right back up too yeah let's see what's going on since they're busy I'm gonna get you to transport him do the arrest paperwork I'll do the narrative stuff on it yeah you're talking to the lady in the red shirt yeah I just got hers we got the witness that says he info so we can justify one we make contact the officers claim that the information they received from Ms Clark can be used to justify Mr James's original investigative detention the Supreme Court held in the 1978 case of Scott versus United States that whether an officer's actions violated the Fourth Amendment quote turns on an objective assessment of the officer's actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time however although Reasonable Suspicion depends on the objective facts of a situation courts have consistently concluded that only the facts an officer knew at the time of the detention are relevant to this determination for instance in the landmark 1968 case of Terry vs Ohio the Supreme Court explained that quote it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard with the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure warrant a man of reasonable caution and the belief that the action taken was appropriate likewise in the 2019 case of waters versus Madsen the eighth circuit confirmed that quote in determining whether an officer possessed Reasonable Suspicion to conduct a temporary investigative detention or Terry stop courts look only at the information the officer possessed at the time therefore a court would almost certainly conclude that the details Ms Clark provided to the officers were not relevant to whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment because they did not become aware of the information until after they had detained and arrested Mr James this lady here usually gives good info he's in the back of the car yellow unless he transported out of here and get him out of here so we can finish and just come back here just ban him let me give me a second I just think about I was moving stuff around just through gear in my back seat let me move it make some room for him yeah all right Mr James was transported to the police station where he was processed and booked for obstruction according to Mr James the judge that presided over the charge didn't try the case in court but quote placed it under advisement for a year Mr James is pursuing a civil lawsuit against the Texarkana police department and is being represented by the Hearst law group of Hot Springs Arkansas as of the date of this episode the results of both cases are still pending overall the Texarkana officers get an F for treating Mr James like a criminal suspect when he was actually a potential victim illegally arresting him for obstruction for exercising his right to refuse to answer questions and attempting to justify their unconstitution National actions with information obtained after the fact the officers also falsely claimed that Mr James refused to identify himself even though he was not required to do so in an attempt to justify his arrest further although it is unclear how much the officers knew at the time they detained Mr James they made it clear that they never thought he was anything but a potential victim instead of treating him with a semblance of respect they immediately handcuffed and arrested him and repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the extent of their Authority Mr James's constitutional rights and the crime of obstruction Mr James gets an a for maintaining a relatively calm demeanor throughout the interaction steadfastly refusing to answer questions when he was not required to do so and pursuing appropriate legal action after being subjected to an illegal arrest although Mr James did use some inflammatory language with the officers he was well within his first amendment rights to do so and the fact that the officers responded to his protests by arresting him does nothing more then further demonstrate these officers lack of respect for the constitutional rights of the citizens they are meant to protect I commend Mr James for knowing his rights and standing up for them even when the officers treated him like a criminal for simply refusing to mindlessly comply with their improper demands and I wish him the best as he pursues a civil lawsuit against the Texarkana officers for their unacceptable actions 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] foreign [Music]