[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 true threats fighting words and resisting and is brought To Us by California body cams Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve channels like California body cam are a valuable resource to the public and deserve recognition so be sure to check out his channel for the unedited footage before we dive into the interaction I want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode rocket money I recently discovered that I was being charged every month for a newspaper subscription that I hadn't used in over a year if you're anything like me and you have trouble keeping up with subscriptions bills and budgeting then rocket money is the perfect app for you rocket money is a personal finance app that helps its users man manage subscriptions lower bills build a custom budget and grow your savings all in one place with rocket money you can automatically monitor your spending by category get notifications when you've exceeded them and visualize your spend to earn ratio by month quarter or year rocket money also helps negotiate your internet phone and cable bills so you can pay less on Services you already have just snap a picture of your bill and Rocket money will take care of the rest if you'd like to start saving more and spending less join the 3.4 million members using rocket money and download the app today scan the QR code on the screen and try it for free by heading to Rocket money.com audit or clicking my link in the description that's rocket.com audit to get started for free thanks again to Rocket money for sponsoring this episode on May 15th 2023 patrolwoman Clemens of the Logan Township Police Department pulled over a man just outside his place of employment in Logan Township New Jersey while she was conducting the stop another employee who we will refer to as Mr coworker walked over and began to speak to her the interaction that followed was recorded on the body cameras of the various officers involved hello how are you oh Mom officer CL loging down to Police Department give your license registration Insurance uh my my license number I thought I brought my wife but got my license that's no problem what did I get stop I said that plate cover on the back so you can't have a tinted plate cover the frame is fine but the plate it makes it difficult for the plate to see so that is not allowed hello I'm sorry I'm going to stop huh I'm going to stop no I know yeah I understand that that's fine but I'm want to stop if you could just go back over there please talking I Car 25 cars but something else slide out here you know who this guy is yeah I know he is what's his name you got to ask you don't know his name I can't I mean yeah some dude just walked up to my stop and told me that he's going to beat me up Patrol woman Clemens radios for backup claiming that Mr cooworker told her that he was going to beat her up while the body camera did not capture all of Mr cooworker speeech the last two words he said clearly seemed to be and I'm quoting effed up and patrolwoman Clemens later stated that Mr coworker told her he was going to quote unquote F her up although the First Amendment ordinarily prohibits States from criminalizing speech as the Supreme Court explained in the 2003 case of Virginia versus black quote the protections afforded by the First Amendment are not absolute and we have long recognized that the government May regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution one of these categories is true threats which the court defined in the black case as encompassing quote those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals the court also recognized that quote intimidation in the constitutionally prescribable sense of the word is a type of true threat where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death under section 2C 12-3 of the New Jersey statutes which defines the crime of terroristic threats quote a person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to commit any Crime Of Violence with the purpose to terrorize another or in Reckless disregard of the risk of causing such Terror or inconvenience according to the jury instructions for this statute quote the words or actions of the defendant must be of such a nature as to convey Menace or fear of a crime of violence to the ordinary person it is not a violation of this statute if the threat expresses fleeting anger or was made merely to alarm similarly section 2C 33-4 of the New Jersey statutes which codifies the offense of harassment states that quote a person commits a petty disorderly person's offense if with purpose to harass another he subjects another to striking kicking shoving or other offensive touching or threatens to do so depending on the exact words that Mr cooworker spoke it is possible that he could be convicted of either of these offenses if he actually threatened to cause physical harm to patrol woman Clemens and his words could be considered a so-called true threat or another category of unprotected speech you know your insurance all right that's no problem 44 just to clarify this is a pedestrian that walks up on your stuff can you give a brief description please yeah it's a black male he works at lineage he about 35 red pants navy blue hoodie orange traffic vest all listen let me check on this I say my registration just run I yeah I'll check on this and uh when I come back if you have your insurance no problem thank you sir you need to go back inside yeah you need to go back inside let's go I want to stop4 check I'm okay the driver is being cooperative I patched him but uh this's kind of just lingering yelling at me all right copy coming on second here look like again blackmail pants navy blue hoodie orange traffic vest he is inside the gates at Lage there's a few more people approaching me now you guys are good good morning how you doing good morning I'm sorry could you go back over there I want to stop it'll be 2 seconds I just came I'm in the supervisor here I just came and see he works here that's why yeah I understand I and I'll be clear with him in two seconds problems then I'm just ask you is everything okay yeah everything's fine and I'll be clear in two seconds can I ask you what he stop for yeah he would stop for the play cover that's it all my ask you I don't got a problem patrolman Andy khian arrives on the scene and approaches Mr coworker and his supervisor my supervisor I just came to check on my employee that's yeah first off first yeah first off B I did to walk up and no I didn't walk she wasn't talking about me she called yeah what's and what's What's your deal man they to stop yeah but you don't need to be you don't need to be flapping your gums at us I got you I live here I got you I'm going speak to him now now you're under arrest now you're under arrest you can't arrest me now now you're under arrest turn around turn around turn around don't resist me to me bro listen to me this hand behind St are you going to put him as tight as you kid I'm not I got to explain you sir you're under arrest for disorderly arrest me at work bro I didn't I ain't break no Ru no law get off me bring my arm get my boss yo yo get that my relax all right bro too tight all right we will loosen it up okay you relax bro I just lost my daughter you hear me he did all right okay that's fine bro came back all right we will figure this out okay dude I'm sorry for your loss right but relax okay we're just going to roll you over and let you catch your breath all right I know him I know once we get you up we'll we'll loosen your cuff yeah what's your name I give you my name bro came up on me so I asked you why you were flapping your gums at us and your response to me your response to me was Suck my hey you talking about my G so now you're my coworker well now you're under arrest for using the words you had to use in front of everybody I want to talk to my boss no yo y yo yo yo it's not worth it man it's not worth it bro I'm trying to relax my phone not even on me that's tring to tell you relax relax Bud all right let me go put in here you know I just lost my daughter bro they arrested me for nothing can you calm down this isn't going to get you any better take that anger down have a seat please all right I did 11 years on Road keep going to me here ain't going to solve anything pton is this who approached you yeah he told me that he was going to okay yeah so his response to me when I asked why he's flapping his gums to me while I was talking to him your security officer was Suck my now he's under arrest for disorderly you're not going to use that language you got employees out over there I was speaking with him as well not having that to you bro patrolman Kian explained explains that he arrested Mr coworker for disorderly conduct due to the words he chose to use to express his dissent under section 2C 33-2 of the New Jersey statutes quote a person is guilty of a petty disorderly person's offense if in a public place and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in Reckless disregard of the probability of so doing he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance to any person present the statute defines the word public as including quote unquote places of business so it is probable that a court would conclude that the encounter occurred in a public place nonetheless it does not seem likely that a court would find that Mr coworker's speech was quote unquote unreasonably loud as he spoke at a normal volume and was Outdoors further even if Mr cooworker speeech fit the requirements of the disorderly conduct statute a New Jersey Court would almost certainly conclude that it was protected by the first amendment in the 1971 case of Cohen versus California the Supreme Court overturned a citizen's conviction for wearing a jacket emblazoned with a profanity holding that quote the state may not consistently with the first and 14th amendments make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter exploitive a criminal offense however it is important to note that the court clarified that this use of profanity did not rise to the level of so-called fighting words defined as quote those personally abusive epithets which when addressed to the ordinary citizen are as a matter of common knowledge inherent likely to provoke violent reaction and emphasize that now quoting again while the four-letter word displayed by Cohen in relation to the draft is not uncommonly employed in a personally provocative fashion in this instance it was clearly not directed to the person of the Herer and that now quoting again no individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words as a direct personal insult additionally in the 1987 case of Houston versus Hill the Supreme Court recognized that quote the first amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers and that now quoting again the freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free Nation from a police state nonetheless the court also noted that quote the freedom verbally to challenge police action is Not Without Limits of course we have recognized that fighting words are not constitutionally protected accordingly some Juris itions have concluded that profane insults directed at police officers are fighting words and therefore can be criminally punished for instance in the 2018 case of State versus hail the six District Court of Appeals of Ohio upheld an individual's disorderly conduct conviction for directing several obscene remarks including the same phrase that Mr coworker used here at a police officer concluding that they were fighting words that quote would reasonably incite the average person to retaliate however in the 2003 case of Johnson versus cam the third Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over New Jersey held that quote swear words spoken to a police officer do not provide probable cause for an arrest for disorderly conduct because the words as a matter of law are not fighting words relying on this case the US District Court for the District of New Jersey determined in the 2022 case of Morales versus Maxwell that an individual could not be convicted of disorderly conduct under this statute for directing a profane insult at a police officer therefore a court in New Jersey would likely conclude that Mr coworker could not be arrested simply for the remark he directed at patrolman kishan although a different jurisdiction May reach the opposite conclusion he's not going to jail or nothing actually he might be because of we got terroristic threats on offic we got ter threat resisting arrest oh we have it we have it he just walked away you know obviously want a car stop don't walk up on us cuz it makes us nervous and now he's walking up on her threatening her yeah so sometime we stun whenever get your camera do and I'm hoping my camera fell off and I don't even know if it was on it's on now cuz I hit it I saw that was off when it fell minimum disorderly conduct terroristic threats and resis resisting OBU after patrolman Kian mutes his body camera for a discussion the officers determined that in addition to charges of terroristic threats and disorderly conduct the merits of which we discussed earlier in this episode they will pursue charges of obstruction and resisting against Mr coworker under section 2C 29-1 of the New Jersey statutes which defines the crime of obstruction quote a person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs impairs or perverts the administration of law or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight intimidation Force violence or physical interference or obstacle or by means of any independently unlawful act in the 2019 case of State versus schneberger the appell at division of the superior court of New Jersey upheld an obstruction conviction against an individual who pulled away from officers flailed her arms and refused to place her hands behind her back to be handcuffed after an officer informed her she was under arrest additionally in the 2015 case of State versus ree the Supreme Court of New Jersey explained that while the term lawfully performing an official function means that the police officer is acting in objective good faith and under color of law in the execution of their duties quote a suspect is required to cooperate with the investigating officer even when the legal underpinning of the police citizen encounter is questionable and that now quoting again once an officer makes his investigatory intentions clear and he is acting under the color of law the validity of the underlying police action is inconsequential accordingly if a Court held that the officers were acting in so-called good faith when placing Mr coworker under arrest it is likely that he could be convicted of obstruction for struggling with the officers as they attempted to arrest him even if the underlying arrest was determined to be unlawful as for the resisting charge section 2C 29-2 of the New Jersey statute states that quote a person is guilty of a disorderly person's offense if he purposely prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer from affecting an arrest the statute also specifically states that quote it is not a defense to a prosecution that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest provided he was acting under color of His official Authority and provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to arrest prior to the resistance therefore it is highly probable that a court would conclude that Mr coworker could be convicted of resisting even if it also determined that the arrest was unlawful and the officers were not acting in good faith she came came to the car stopped call his parole officer also if he's still on parole yes if he's not he said he did 15 years on so I'm assuming he's off now when I approached him and told him when I approached him and told him now you're under arrest we went we was like right here you better now that you got some air going back there mhm I was just trying to ask him what she was pulling the M for I just watch them come out from work yeah well uh unfortunately that's really not none of your business a lot of cops get hurt with guys just walking up on them I know from you understand yeah I get it man it's a crazy world we live in according to the Logan Town ship PD crime log Mr cooworker was taken to the Salem County jail for processing where he was booked on charges of terroristic threats obstruction of law resisting arrest disorderly conduct and harassment and held in summarizing the interaction the crime log stated that while officers conducted a motor vehicle stop quote a pedestrian approached and began interfering with the officers and making threats as officers addressed The Pedestrian for his interference and threats he began using profanity and continued the threats while being placed under arrest The Pedestrian resisted and continued with the threats at this time no additional information is available about this encounter over all the Logan Township officers and patrolman Kian in particular get an F for repeatedly and unnecessarily escalating the situation exhibiting a hostile and aggressive demeanor and arresting Mr cooworker because patrolman kishan did not like his speech despite the fact that the third circuit has clearly ruled that such speech is protected by the First Amendment although Mr coworker's speech seems to have offended patrolman kesian it is essential that officers have thick skin when dealing with the public and as Supreme Court Justice Lewis pal noted in his concurring opinion in the 1974 case of Lewis versus City of New Orleans quote a properly trained officer May reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to fighting words in this encounter I believe that patrolman kishan demonstrated a lower degree of restraint than the average citizen and it's certainly seems that he chose to arrest Mr coworker because he injured his ego Mr coworker gets to see because although I strongly believe he was within his first amendment rights in his speech towards patrolman kesian he inserted himself into a police investigation that did not involve him and likely violated the New Jersey resisting and obstruction statutes during his struggle with the police officers although the body camera footage does not show all of the actions that Mr cooworker took during the arrest at the very least he can be seen pulling away from the officers which given the low standard of opposition required for resisting and obstructing in New Jersey would likely be sufficient to sustain a conviction now while I understand that Mr coworker's actions were likely in response to the apparent violation of his first amendment rights given the fact that many States including New Jersey do not recognize a right to resist an unlawful arrest this encounter demonstrates why citizens typically only hurt themselves when they refuse to comply with an officer's attempts to arrest them 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 channel for even more police interaction [Music] content