Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. This episode covers the juvenile justice system, official misconduct, and battery by a police officer and is brought to us by Illinois Times' channel. Be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve. Before we dive into the interaction, I want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode, Rocket Money, formerly known as Truebill. Rocket Money is an all-in-one finance platform that helps you save more and spend less. This personal finance app allows you to manage your subscriptions, build a custom budget, lower your bills, and grow your savings all in one place. Rocket Money safely and securely identifies your recurring charges, and they can even cancel your unwanted subscriptions with just a tap of a button. I saved money almost instantly because Rocket Money notified me about a subscription that was cheaper than the individual plans I was paying for. Rocket Money also helps you set a solid budget by monitoring your spending by category and using that information to build visualizations of your spending habits. This feature is perfect for people who consider themselves visual learners and want to find a new way to manage their finances. 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. Try it for free by heading to rocket money.com/audit or clicking my link in the description. That's rocketmoney.com/audit to get started for free. Thanks again to Rocket Money for sponsoring this episode. On February 27th, 2017, Officer Samuel Rosario and Officer Orlando Manzanares of the Springfield Police Department responded to a report of criminal damage to property in Springfield, Illinois and approached the home where 19-year-old Robert Humes lived with his mother and sister. The interaction was captured on Officer Rosario's body camera. How we doing, bud? Better, huh? What's going on, man? What's going on, man? Well, my daughter, she just like flipped out a while ago about a money deal. Told her I was I owed her like 40 bucks between her, so she started flipping out. She busted a glass table, which table's no good, but she still had no business breaking my glass table though. Absolutely. Do you know which way she went? That way. She went that way? You want to see if you can find her? I mean, we got at least criminal damage. After speaking with Mr. Humes and his mother, Officer Rosario asks Officer Manzanares to try to find his 16-year-old sister who allegedly broke a glass top table. According to section 21-1 of article 5 of title 720 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, quote, "A person commits criminal damage to property when he or she knowingly damages any property of another, and the offense is a class A misdemeanor when the damage to property does not exceed $500." Under Illinois law, a 16-year-old who commits a misdemeanor offense will typically not be charged with a crime in criminal court. Instead, prosecutors will file a petition in the juvenile court alleging that the child is a so-called delinquent minor, which section 5-105 of article 405 of title 705 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes defines as, quote, "Any minor who prior to his or her 18th birthday has violated or attempted to violate, regardless of where the act occurred, any federal, state, county, or municipal law or ordinance." The juvenile justice system is meant to be primarily rehabilitative in nature, as opposed to the predominantly punitive character of the criminal justice system. And while individuals who are found guilty of crimes in a criminal court receive a criminal conviction, children who are found to have violated criminal laws in juvenile court are so-called adjudicated delinquent. However, in some instances, juveniles can be transferred to the adult system and tried in criminal court. For example, Section 5-130 of Article 405 states that, quote, "The definition of delinquent minor shall not apply to any minor who at the time of an offense was at least 16 years of age and who is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, or aggravated battery with a firearm. These charges and all other charges arising out of the same incident shall be prosecuted under the criminal laws of this state." In addition to this statutory exclusion, which automatically transfers youth to the criminal justice system, Section 5-805 of Article 405 allows for the transfer of certain youths 15 years of age or older who have been accused of a forcible felony in furtherance of criminal activity by an organized gang and have previously been adjudicated delinquent or found guilty of a separate forcible felony. In these situations, quote, "If the state's attorney files a petition to permit prosecution under the criminal laws, and if the juvenile judge determines that there is probable cause to believe that the allegations in the petition and motion are true, there is a rebuttable presumption that the case should be transferred to the criminal court." Likewise, the statute also allows a minor 13 years of age or over of who has been accused of any crime to be transferred to criminal court if the state's attorney files a motion requesting the transfer and a juvenile judge finds that there is probable cause to believe that the allegations in the motion are true and that, quote, "It is not in the best interests of the public for the case to proceed in a juvenile justice system." Here, because criminal damaging is a misdemeanor offense, it is highly likely that any charges would be brought in the juvenile court and not transferred to the criminal justice system. She at least getting two charges. If y'all don't give her both charges, I want both y'all badge numbers. Oh, here it go the badge. But I ain't going for that [ __ ] Well, you know what? No offense, but if you're going to hear Okay, keep walking then. Keep walking then. Yeah, first of all, you're not a police officer, right? Did you go to law school? Did you go to police officer school? You have a badge? Did you go through the academy? So, YOU WENT TO COURT ONCE OR TWICE, so all of a sudden now you know the law. First of all, don't tell me how to DO MY JOB, ALL RIGHT? I'M going to I just GOT HERE. YOU DON'T even know me. If you want to do something, do something, then, son. Little kid, you call me over here and then you trying to threaten ME, SON? I'LL SLAP YOU ON SOME silvers and take you down to county. That's what I got to do cuz what you going to do? False arrest? False arrest? YOU DIDN'T JUST POINT THAT STICK AT ME? YOU SEE THAT RED DOT? It's on. It's on. It's on with your scary Okay. Sure. Sure. No, you watch what you say. You watch what you say. You watch what you say, kid. I don't know who you think you talking to, but first of all, you don't talk to me like that. You understand that? I'm here to help you. BEFORE I EVEN GOT HERE, YOU LIKE YOU I'M THINKING TO DO I JUST GOT HERE. I'M RIGHT HERE, MOTHER ROOKIE. I'm right here. rookie, [ __ ] Shut up. That's police brutality. Is it? Yeah. Is it cuz you went to court once or twice? Trust me, I know my laws. Officer Rosario engages in repeated arguments with Mr. Humes and eventually approaches him and pushes him. We will discuss the legality of Officer Rosario engaging physically with Mr. Humes later in this episode. But for now, it's important to note that his verbal interaction with Mr. Humes almost certainly violated his department's policies. According to rule 18 of the current version of the Springfield Police Department Rules of Conduct, which have been revised several times since this interaction occurred, quote, "Members will be courteous to the public at all times and will not express any prejudice concerning race, religion, politics, age, national origin, lifestyle, gender, or disabilities. Members will be tactful in the performance of their duties, controlling their tempers, and exercising the utmost patience and discretion, and will not engage in argumentative discussions even in the face of extreme provocation. In the performance of their duties, members will not use coarse, violent, profane, or insolent language or gestures. Here, although Officer Rosario's aggressive and argumentative conduct clearly violates this rule, as we have previously discussed on ATA, an officer's violation of department policy is generally not considered to be illegal unless it also constituted a violation of a statute or other legal requirement. Under Section 33-3 of Article 5 of Title 720 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, quote, "A public officer or employee commits misconduct when, in his official capacity, he or she commits any of the following acts: Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law. Knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden by law to perform. With intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority. Solicits or knowingly accepts for the performance of any act a fee or reward which he knows is not authorized by law." The Supreme Court of Illinois explained in the 1991 case of Felhauer versus City of Geneva that, quote, "As the provisions of the statute indicate, a charge of official misconduct must specify the law allegedly violated by the officer in the course of committing the offense. And that a law includes a quote, 'Civil or penal statute, Supreme Court rule, administrative rule or regulation, or tenant of professional code.' While there is no case law determining whether a police department policy would qualify as a law for the purposes of this statute, given the treatment of department policies in other cases, it is likely a court would determine that Officer Rosario's verbal conduct did not rise to the level of official misconduct, even though it was undoubtedly a violation of the department rules of conduct." Ma'am, if we find her, she's going to be arrested for criminal damage. Did she hit you today? You mean you put your hands Shut up. Did she hit you today? I'm not a She You watch mouth. Put your HANDS ON THE BACK SOON AS I PUT MY HANDS ON your palm, I am not even going to take you to jail. I'll give you the freedom of that. You want to put ONE OR TWO? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOUR SON'S GOT A MOUTH ON HIM. YEP. And now I can see why your daughter's acting all out of control. You want to throw some hands, man, we can throw some hands, and I won't even arrest you, man. I'll let you go right in there. Oh, like I've never heard that before. I pushed you? on me, dude. Oh, really? So, you scared now? I pushed you once, and you scared. That's why you You scared. My camera is on. My camera has been on. What do you want me to do for you to put some hands on me? You want me to put my pistol away? You want me to put my BADGE AWAY? I TOLD I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TAZE YOU. I'M NOT EVEN going to mace you. I'm going to give you these hands, and you still going to run your mouth. YOU STILL SCARED. DUDE, I'M DONE WITH YOU, DUDE. If you ain't going to throw hands, then shut up. If you ain't going Officer Rosario takes off his badge and throws it on the ground, and then approaches Mr. Humes and shoves him for a second time. Mr. Humes retaliates, leading to a physical altercation, during which Officer Rosario wrestles Mr. Humes to the ground and punches him in the face and head more than a dozen times, even though Mr. Humes remained in a defensive position. Under section 12-3 of Article 5 of Title 720 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, quote, "A person commits battery if he or she knowingly, without legal justification, by any means causes bodily harm to an individual or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual." As the Supreme Court of Illinois detailed in the 1982 case of People versus Maze, quote, "Although it may be difficult to pinpoint exactly what constitutes bodily harm for the purposes of the statute, some sort of physical pain or damage to the body, like lacerations, bruises, or abrasions, whether temporary or permanent, is required. Otherwise, there would be no need for the other type of battery, contact of an insulting or provoking nature. Additionally, under section 12-3.05 of article 5, quote, "A person commits aggravated battery when, in committing a battery, he or she knowingly causes great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement." The second division of the First District Appellate Court of Illinois explained in 1991 case of People versus Figures that while the term great bodily harm, quote, "is not susceptible of a precise legal definition, it requires an injury of a greater and more serious character than an ordinary battery." The question of whether the victim's injuries rise to the level of great bodily harm is a question for the trier of fact, which is neither dependent upon hospitalization of the victim nor the permanency of his disability or disfigurement. Instead, the determination centers upon the injuries which the victim did in fact receive. In the Figures case, the court considered the 1984 case of People versus Matthews, where it had affirmed an aggravated battery conviction based on great bodily harm, where the victim was struck on the head with a gun and received several full force blows on the head and arms with a baseball bat, despite the victim's admission that she only had a bruise on her head. However, the court ultimately determined that the injury at question in the case they were reviewing, where the defendant fired a shot which pierced the victim's shoe but did not penetrate his skin, did not rise to the level of great bodily harm. Here, given the broad discretion given to the fact-finder to determine if a victim suffered bodily harm or great bodily harm, it is certainly possible that a jury could determine that Officer Rosario committed either battery or aggravated battery in his attack on Mr. Humes. Hold on, what the Done. Don't arrest him. Don't arrest him. I'll murder him. Do not Come on. Like I you, dude. You ain't about that life, kid. Like I told you, you ain't about that life. Now go inside. Go inside. We done here. I'm sorry, but your son over here needs some discipline. Man, you should I give him one more? Should I turn this off and give him one more? I don't think you want it, kid. Ma'am, if she comes back, we just give us a call, please. Okay, we'll handle her accordingly. Officer Rosario and Officer Manzanarez left the scene without any further incidents. And Officer Rosario later returned with several other officers to apologize to Mr. Humes. Mr. Humes informed Officer Rosario that he did not need to apologize. And when officers returned without Officer Rosario to photograph the injuries on Mr. Humes's face, Mr. Humes told them that Officer Rosario should be promoted. Immediately following the incident, Officer Rosario was placed on leave while the Springfield Police Department conducted an internal investigation, and he was terminated from his position on May 9th, 2017. He was also charged with official misconduct and two counts of battery in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County. And after a trial, a jury found him guilty of official misconduct and one count of battery for making {quote} physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with Mr. Humes. However, the jury determined that he was not guilty of battery causing bodily harm. As a result of his conviction, former Officer Rosario was sentenced to 24 months probation and ordered to comply with mental health, substance abuse, and anger management treatment. When issuing the sentence, Judge John Madonia stated that the body camera footage of the incident, {quote} absolutely has the potential to erode confidence our community has to place in our officers, and that he had {quote} a responsibility to impose a sentence based on the jury's verdict, but to also make sure it doesn't happen again and that our community be confident that we're addressing these issues. Overall, Officer Rosario gets an F for maintaining a confrontational and aggressive attitude throughout the encounter, escalating the situation instead of taking steps to de-escalate when faced with Mr. Hume's hostile conduct, initiating a fist fight with Mr. Hume's and striking him repeatedly when he was on the ground in a defensive position. While I appreciate that Officer Rosario later apologized for his behavior, his actions were so egregious that I cannot in good conscience assign him a higher grade, even though he eventually took responsibility for misconduct. As Judge Madonia pointed out during his sentencing, interactions like these can significantly erode the public's confidence in police departments in general, and there is absolutely no excuse for an officer initiating a physical altercation with a citizen because of his speech under any circumstances. Mr. Hume's gets a C minus because, although he was within his First Amendment rights to challenge Officer Rosario, he maintained a hostile demeanor throughout the interaction, consistently taunted and provoked Officer Rosario, and urged Officer Rosario to physically attack him on multiple occasions. While Mr. Hume's's behavior in no way justified any of Officer Rosario's conduct, Mr. Hume's certainly did not do himself any favors by continuing to antagonize Officer Rosario and engage with him in a negative manner. That being said, as we have discussed many times here on ATA, the First Amendment protects a substantial amount of criticism towards the police, and Officer Rosario's response was not only unprofessional, but it likely violated Mr. Hume's's constitutional rights. 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. Mhm.