foreign [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 de facto arrests warrantless vehicle searches and body camera policies and is brought To Us by KTVU Fox 2 San Francisco's Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on the morning of September 20th 2019 Nevada resident assili lagervale and her daughters a silly and atte arrived in Castro Valley California after driving through the night so that asili and aate could attend their college classes Ms loggervale parked her rental vehicle in a handicapped parking space with a visible placard on the rear view mirror in a parking lot outside of a Starbucks location the loggervales were resting in the vehicle and preparing to enter the Starbucks to get coffee and use the restroom when Deputy Stephen Holland and Deputy Monica pope of the Alameda County Sheriff's Office approached the vehicle the interaction that followed was captured on Deputy Holland's body camera [Applause] hi Hi how are you hi what are you guys doing here uh waiting to go to Starbucks in a second why oh we have is there a problem well actually let me tell you why I'm here okay I've been having Auto break-ins in this parking lot every morning around this time thank you I'm driving around here okay and I noticed that you guys aren't doing nothing but hanging out yeah I just got here okay I've been doing all night okay six eight hours to get here well relax that's my reason why I'm talking to you I'm here so because this is a we're in a car from the Bay Area from Oakland it's not in Nevada no I'm not Nevada you have your ID on you yeah yeah okay so wait a minute now why are you asking for my ID you just explain to me about the break-in right but why just wait to be about the um my ID what did I do what kind of crime did I come in what kind of crime did you come in yeah I'm asking you you haven't asked me for my ID yeah you have to give me your ID why do I have to give you my ID I have to give you my ID because I haven't did anything you started talking about a break I thank you for tele informing me that right I informed you that I'm resting because I'm about to go to Starbucks right after it's phone drive I'm driving all night right well Starbucks has been open for about two hours it's actually been open since five I checked my GPS okay are you doing anything wrong no I'm not so then what's the big deal I don't have to give you my ID I'm not doing it uh yeah you do no I don't I know the law I don't have to be my idea I'm not doing anything wrong Deputy Holland orders Ms loggervale to show him her ID and Ms loggervale argues that she does not have to provide identification because she has not done anything wrong California does not have a stop and identify statute that criminally sanctions an individual's refusal to identify themselves to the police during a lawful Terry stop and even if it did it is likely that a court would conclude that the officers did not have Reasonable Suspicion to detain Ms lagervale and her daughters on suspicion of the alleged vehicle break-ins as the officers later revealed that the suspects in these incidents were black males and Ms lagerville clearly explained that she and her daughters were about to go into Starbucks section 12 951 of the California vehicle code states that the driver of a vehicle quote shall have the valid driver's license issued to him or her in his or her immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle Upon A Highway and quote present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code however while Ms loggervale was parked in her vehicle she was not driving and it is clear from the interaction the deputy Holland was not attempting to enforce the vehicle code but was instead investigating his loggervale and her daughters for potential criminal conduct likewise section 22 511.56 of the California vehicle code requires that an individual using a disabled placard like Ms lagerpill was quote shall upon request of a peace officer present identification and evidence of the issuance of that placard to that person here Deputy Holland did not request evidence pertaining to the issuance of the placard instead he only requested Ms loggervale's identification and did so in the context of investigating the vehicle break-ins rather than confirming the validity of Ms lagervale's placard therefore a court would likely determine that Ms lagervale was not required to show identification to Deputy Holland in this situation anything wrong so what you're doing now is leading me to believe that you might be doing something wrong no I'm not doing that so don't try to Trump up no charges I saw like get your phones outside recording why are you getting so worried I gotta have protection because I don't know where this is about to go I'm gonna have protection it's not going to go anywhere not to cooperate everything's being recorded exactly and I'm not doing anything that's what did you hear me tell my daughters start recording as well so why are you making this a big deal this could be a completely positive encounter exactly I'm not going to give you my ID because do you have a valid driver's license yes I do so are you going to refuse to give me your ID I am because I have anything call me yes you do have to do that make sure you record that because I'm going as soon as I leave here I'm going to 150th and I'm going to the um Sheriff's Department we're being harassed for nothing it's not harassment yes it is harassment well guess what I I'm not in any rush I can hang out here till you want to give me your ID I'm not I want you to call your Sheriff I want you to call me or call your um superiors I sell it um wait hold on hold on hold on hold on hold on what what is going on here no no we're not we're not doing that okay everyone in this car is detained you can go back in the car and wait or or you can go in handcuffs and go on my car okay sit in the car you're going in handcuffs I'm not dealing with this you can sit you can sit last chance sit in the car you're going to handcuffs yeah that was one of the things you're being really too excessive light about Nails you're being real obsessive right now that's one of the reasons why we stopped here too for me to get coffee and I was trying to get up so she'd go to the restroom you're not gonna do that you're not going to violate or victimize us they don't want to listen to us so let's go ahead and detain these two no you're not going to entertain them we haven't did anything we haven't we have nothing let's start the car get out of the car get out of the car get out of the car running the window down I'll get out just don't pull on me I'll get out all right get out of the car this is your last chance to get out of the car we have a lawsuit um excuse me officer can you can you make some Sprints out of this we haven't seen we haven't yet all of a sudden we're getting arrested I don't have a weapon on me I'm just checking Superior supervisor I asked for a supervisor grab a secret reason to know how things work man no what are you talking about the sound we haven't did anything we don't demand what we do no I'm not mad at anything the officers handcuff all three of The Lager veils and place them in the back of separate police vehicles claiming that they are being detained and not arrested and hold them for about an hour although an officer putting an individual in handcuffs and placing them in the back of a police vehicle does not automatically convert a Terry stop detention into an arrest there are situations where the circumstances of a seizure can transform it from a Terry stop which only needs to be supported by Reasonable Suspicion to a so-called de facto arrest which must be supported by probable cause in other words it is unconstitutional for an officer to detain an individual under circumstances that constitute arrest without probable cause even if the officer claims they are only detaining them when determining whether a seizure Rose to the level of an arrest courts consider factors including the scope intrusiveness and duration of the detention in the 2022 case of United States versus Guerrero the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over California affirmed the denial of motion to suppress because two of the three judges on the panel concluded that the seizure of the defendant was constitutionally reasonable albeit for different reasons each judge filed a separate opinion on the issue with Circuit Judge ghoul arguing that the one-hour seizure quote was more than a brief detention akin to a Terry stop because quote in combination the length of the detention and the use of handcuffs under the circumstances transformed Guerrero's detention into a de facto arrest on the other hand while ultimately concluding that Guerrero's seizure was reasonable Circuit Judge B argued that he was not subject to a de facto arrest however judge B's interpretation of the situation was based on the fact that the detention was on only prolong to wait for investigators from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to arrive which judge B found to be a reasonable delay based on past ninth circuit precedent because like Guerrero the lagervails were held in handcuffs and police cars for approximately one hour and their detention was not prolonged to await the arrival of specialized Federal officers they would have a strong argument that the circumstances of their detainment transformed a Terry stop into an arrest and while it is unlikely that the officers even had the Reasonable Suspicion necessary to conduct a Terry stop it is nearly indisputable that they did not have probable cause to make any arrests [Applause] me [Applause] [Applause] Deputy Holland opens the rental vehicle door and appears to search at least one bag which was located inside the sedan later in this interaction the officers searched the entire vehicle including the trunk and all three loggervale's purses and obtain their identification cards in general the fourth amendment requires officers to obtain a warrant before searching a vehicle however there are several exceptions to this warrant requirement and officers typically have the authority to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle with the valid consent of the driver or owner as required by exigent circumstances incident to a lawful arrest and when they have probable cause that the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity significantly these exceptions do not authorize the search of a vehicle to obtain an individual's identification when they refuse to provide it although there may be an argument that such a search would be permitted in situations where the refusal to identify constitutes a criminal offense although the Supreme Court of California upheld the quote limited search of the glove compartment the area underneath the driver's seat and the area beneath the front passenger seat for an individual's identification when the individual refused to identify themselves and the officer quote Was preparing to issue a traffic citation and therefore needed to learn the true identity of the person to be cited in the 2002 case of indray Arturo d none of the lagervails were being cited for a traffic violation in this situation notably although the Arturo D case was considered good law at the time this encounter occurred it was later overruled in the 2019 case of people vs Lopez where the Supreme Court of California recognized that California was the only state to have recognized quote an exception to the fourth amendment's warrant requirement for suspicionless traffic stop vehicle searches and that quote the desire to obtain a driver's identification following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent categorical exception to the fourth amendment's warrant requirements accordingly as the officers did not search the vehicle under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement a court would almost certainly conclude that the search of the vehicle was unconstitutional [Applause] so where's your driver's license at it's in my wallet okay which one's that it's my black wallet the black wallet is that in the purse that was right by your feet yes it is okay well talk to my partners after muting the sound on his body camera Deputy Holland discusses the situation with Deputy Pope and the other officers that responded to the scene according to the Alameda County Sheriff's Office general order number 8.17 officers in the department may use mute mode quote in extended video situations including search warrants housing unit searches and investigative activities where no suspect interaction is occurring however the policy requires that quote for any mute mode activation for an extended operation supervisor approval must be sought additionally the policy states that mute mode may also be useful when audio recording should be deactivated quote based on articulable reasons such as sensitive intelligence gathering when discussing sensitive tactical or confidential law enforcement information or other investigative purposes the policy also requires that quote when utilizing mute mode members shall verbally announce they are placing the camera in mute mode prior to activating the feature that quote the reason for this activation was will be reasonably announced as well and that quote absent and extended video situation with supervisor approval or an incident where the member has determined audio recording may be stopped based on articulable reasons mute mode shall not be used it is clear that Deputy Holland's use of mute mode on his body camera in this situation does not comply with this policy however it should be noted that the current body camera policy was last revised in December of 2022 and a version of the body camera policy from 2017 did not include these provisions on the use of mute mode therefore it is unclear when these requirements went into effect and it is possible that when this interaction occurred in 2019 the policy may not have prohibited Deputy Holland's use of his body camera's mute feature as we discussed earlier in this episode the officers searched the vehicle including the loggervale's purses and the vehicle's trunk and obtained the loggervale's identification cards during this search Deputy Holland's body camera remained muted the officers held the log reveals for about an hour and then released them with without filing any charges the logger veils allege that they suffered abrasions on their arms and wrists from the incident on July 14 2020 the lagervails filed a lawsuit against the officers involved in the encounter and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office for assault battery false arrest and a violation of constitutional rights among other allegations on March 1st 2023 a federal jury unanimously ruled in favor of the lagervails and awarded them a total of 8.25 million dollars in Damages specifically the jury held Deputy Holland and Alameda County jointly liable to a silly for 2.75 million dollars in Damages and to ayote and assili for 2 million dollars each the jury also held Deputy Pope and Alameda County jointly liable to aorti and asili for 750 000 each as of the time of writing this episode The Alameda County Sheriff's office has not announced any disciplinary action against Deputy Holland or Deputy Pope in fact both deputies have been promoted since this incident occurred over all the Alameda County deputies get an F for ordering Ms loggervale to show her identification when she was most likely not required to do so unconstitutionally detaining the loggervales without Reasonable Suspicion or probable cause unnecessarily using handcuffs and placing the loggervales in the back of police vehicles and searching the rental vehicle in violation of the Fourth Amendment although I cannot know the deputy's motivations for certain given the fact that Deputy Holland claimed to be investigating a string of break-ins involving male subjects it seems logical to conclude that he only detained the loggervales for standing up for their rights and refusing to comply with his unlawful demand for identification handcuffing the logger veils and placing them in the back seats of Cruisers was excessive and appeared to be a punitive reaction to the loggervale's refusal to cooperate although Deputy Holland was the primary offender Deputy Pope and the other officers who responded to the scene still get an F for going along with Deputy Holland's unreasonable and illegal actions and likely violating the Constitution themselves elves in the process the loggervales get an A for refusing to surrender to the officer's unconstitutional demands for identification firmly and for the most part respectfully advocating for their constitutional rights and taking prompt and effective legal action against the officers involved in this encounter it is highly unusual for these types of cases to go to a jury trial as they are typically resolved via settlement before the lawsuit progresses to the trial phase and the fact that this case Was Heard by a jury allowed the log reveals to receive a public verdict declaring that their rights had been violated without any sort of non-disclosure agreement preventing the public from learning of the Alameda County officer's misconduct while I'm unsure of the reason this case did not settle I commend the loggervales for their patience and their commitment to obtaining Justice through the often slow-moving U.S legal system that would encourage others who have had their rights violated by the police to learn from their example 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]