Unlawful Arrest & Cop GETS RIPPED in court!

Chop.nu (World)

Watch Unlawful Arrest & Cop GETS RIPPED in court! - Chop.nu (World) on Dailymotion

Transcript

00:00 Take a break for me real fast and y'all have driver's license or IDs on you.

00:04 >> I ain't gonna submit no ID.

00:05 Listen, you call the police right now.

00:07 Listen, I ain't got time for this.

00:08 I've been on the way.

00:08 I don't mean to be rude.

00:10 >> Okay, no, you do need to give me your ID or driver's license.

00:14 >> Alabama law fits in a scheme of laws that were passed

00:19 decades ago throughout the country called stop and identify laws.

00:22 These laws were discussed by the US Supreme Court in high

00:26 Bowl v Six Judicial District and they made clear two things.

00:30 One, the Fourth Amendment is a limit on governmental authority,

00:34 what officers can do.

00:35 And this court said they can ask people to identify themselves in the context of

00:40 a Terry search, but they said state law establishes the citizens' obligations.

00:47 Now in Nevada, that statute had been interpreted

00:51 to only require a person to provide their name.

00:54 Now here, this statute doesn't need any interpretation.

00:59 >> Isn't this a reasonable mistake though?

01:01 Let's just say that on the part of the officer.

01:03 >> Well, that's what I wanna talk about.

01:05 Is it a reasonable mistake applying the law?

01:07 The only issue that plaintiff believe there's any question about factually or

01:12 really legally is this section 15530,

01:15 which says what a citizen's obligations are under Alabama law.

01:20 It says an officer, if he has reasonable suspicion, may demand of him his name,

01:26 address, and an explanation of his actions.

01:29 >> Well, that's a correct statement of the law, but the question is,

01:32 was it reasonable for an officer in Officer McCabe's position to think that he

01:36 was refusing to provide his name when he said he wasn't going to provide ID?

01:41 >> So if this statute was ambiguous and

01:44 says something like the citizen has to identify himself,

01:47 then maybe an officer might think, identify gives me the option of

01:51 demanding a driver's license.

01:53 But Alabama law says it in letter, may demand of his his name,

01:57 his address, and explanation of his actions.

02:00 The statute is not ambiguous.

02:02 >> So you say you don't need a case, you're just relying on the statute itself.

02:06 >> Correct.

02:07 >> And so he couldn't ask for his driver's license.

02:10 So I mean, that's the clearly established law, period.

02:13 >> Let me ask you something.

02:14 Do you agree that the police officers were mistaken on the law here?

02:18 I mean, it is clear.

02:19 You read it, it is clear.

02:21 >> I will respond to that question this way, Judge.

02:23 This is not an obvious clarity case.

02:25 This court has to determine whether the law is clear in light of existing precedent.

02:30 There is no existing precedent defining the contours of 15-530.

02:36 >> He says he doesn't need it because he's got a clear statute.

02:39 The statute is clear.

02:41 >> I respectfully disagree.

02:43 I think that reasonable people could disagree whether or

02:46 not you have to only use those magic words that Mr. Sherrod says.

02:51 >> A reasonable officer trained to be a police officer ought to know that you can

02:55 conduct a Terry stop and ask someone for their name and identifying information.

03:01 But you can't stop somebody on the street and

03:03 just ask them for their driver's license.

03:05 Unless it's for your safety, because they've been driving a car.

03:09 If I'm focusing on 15-530, the statute that essentially codifies Terry, and

03:14 it says that an officer may demand name, address, and explanation of actions.

03:19 There's no case out there that I'm aware, Alabama Supreme Court case or

03:22 otherwise, that says thou shall only use those words and only those words.

03:26 And to the extent you deviate from it, you have violated clearly established law.

03:30 >> Trained city of Hoover police officer reasonably ought to know that you can't

03:37 stop someone on the street and ask them for their driver's license.

03:40 You're saying that an officer can make that mistake.

03:43 The critical word is reasonable, right?

03:47 >> I would agree that it needs to be a reasonable mistake, yes, sir.

03:49 But again, I think that the vast majority of officers out there conducting Terry

03:54 stops are not going up there and saying, sir, may I have your name, address, and

03:58 will you explain your actions?

03:59 I think that they're gonna say, can I see some identification?

04:01 That is a reasonable request of a police officer.

04:03 I would even add, ID is broad enough to include one's name or

04:08 at least a reasonable police officer could think so.

04:10 >> There's no issue with the officer asking for ID.

04:15 That's not against the rules.

04:17 Officers do ask for ID on the street of pedestrians all the time.

04:21 The question is, does it violate Alabama law for the person not to provide it?

04:26 The high court said they could ask for ID.

04:28 They just couldn't arrest him under Nevada law merely for failing to provide that.

04:33 >> What are y'all doing?

04:34 >> I'm just checking the description.

04:36 >> What are y'all doing?

04:38 >> Getting a car.

04:39 >> Is this your car?

04:40 >> We're gonna drive all day.

04:42 >> One of my customers.

04:44 >> One of your customers?

04:45 >> No, I'm kidding.

04:46 [BLANK_AUDIO]

04:49 I was over here earlier.

04:52 >> Whose car is that?

04:54 >> It's mine.

04:54 >> The black one?

04:55 >> Yeah. >> We also premise the arrest on the basis

04:59 of 3269.

05:00 3269 is likewise not clear by its terms and case law makes it even less clear.

05:06 3269 is a statute that says it makes it a crime for

05:10 a driver to provide a driver's license upon demand by a police officer.

05:14 Under Alabama law, the term driver is not limited to one who is driving.

05:20 It is also based upon someone who is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

05:25 That is where the legal fuzziness comes in.

05:27 >> Could a reasonable officer think that here, Mr.

05:29 Edger was the driver of the vehicle?

05:32 >> A reasonable officer could wonder if he had been a driver of a vehicle.

05:36 Almost everybody walking around in this country had at one point-

05:40 >> If that's the case,

05:41 then wouldn't there be arguable probable cause?

05:43 >> No, because the statute specifically said if you were driving.

05:46 He was not driving.

05:48 The wheel was off the car he was working on.

05:50 The other car was shut down.

05:51 He was a mechanic working on a car.

05:54 >> Mr. Edger wasn't the driver of the car.

05:56 This wasn't his car.

05:57 He wasn't the driver.

05:58 He explained it to the officer.

05:59 He explained that to the officer.

06:01 Does the Fourth Amendment permit an officer to demand that he show his

06:06 driver's license?

06:07 >> I think an officer could reasonably conclude that you could.

06:09 I think that could be a reasonable mistake.

06:11 But I cannot point the court to any law that says you can or cannot.

06:15 I'm not arguing that he was a driver of the car that was on the jack.

06:18 >> Again, statutes that set forth citizens obligations by the state legislatures.

06:24 When they're clear, officers don't get to disregard what they say and

06:29 say it was a mistake.

06:30 This is simple.

06:31 He was not driving.

06:32 >> What if he's not driving but he's reasonably able to drive?

06:36 >> There could be scenarios, and there's lots of Alabama case law talking about

06:41 somebody that's effectively in control of a vehicle.

06:44 Like people trying to get out of DUIs who are actually sitting there in their car

06:47 with the keys in it.

06:48 I mean, there are all kinds of scenarios where you get close to the line.

06:52 But this is not close to any of the lines in the statute or

06:55 in the law interpreting that statute.

06:58 This is not all is driving or nearly driving.

07:01 This is a guy who's working on a disabled car.

07:03 The car's shut, car's not on, nobody is driving, the vehicles are parked.

07:08 >> I'm arguing that he was in actual physical control of the vehicle that he

07:11 arrived in.

07:12 When Officer McCabe arrived, she said, whose car is that?

07:16 And he admitted, that's mine.

07:18 And it was just feet away.

07:20 When we're talking about can reasonable mistakes be made,

07:22 I would urge the court to take a look at how ambiguous the law is surrounding

07:27 what is someone who's in actual physical control.

07:30 It speaks in terms of the power and ability to operate, move, park, or

07:34 direct whatever use or non-use is to be made of the motor vehicle.

07:37 And that can be based upon the totality of the circumstances.

07:40 And this court in Cantu also recognized that the officer doesn't have to see

07:44 them driving.

07:45 That black car was feet away from him.

07:47 >> The officer wouldn't have any reason to know.

07:49 Maybe the other person there was the driver.

07:52 >> Correct.

07:53 But either one of them, they were potentially drivers, future drivers,

07:57 past drivers.

07:58 They were not currently driving.

08:00 And no reasonable officer to believe they were driving.

08:02 >> The district court's opinion was the undisputed body camera footage makes

08:07 clear that Officer McCabe didn't ask Edger for his name and

08:12 Edger didn't refuse to explain his actions.

08:14 However, a reasonable but mistaken officer could have believed that

08:18 Edger's failure to provide his driver license violated Alabama Code Section 15-5-30.

08:26 The 11th Circuit Court reversed qualified immunity.

08:30 The Alabama statute is clear.

08:32 It lists only three things that the police may ask.

08:36 This is not an issue of magic words that must be uttered.

08:40 There is a difference between asking for a specific information, for

08:44 example, what is your name, or where do you live?

08:47 And demanding a physical license or ID.

08:50 The information contained in a driver license goes beyond the information

08:54 required to be revealed under 15-5-30.

08:58 Further, neither the parties nor our own research can identify any Alabama law

09:04 that generally requires the public to carry physical identification,

09:07 much less an Alabama law requiring them to produce it upon demand of a police officer.

09:13 There simply is no state law foundation for Officer McCabe's demand that Mr.

09:18 Edger produce physical identification.

09:21 It was thus clearly established at the time of Mr.

09:24 Edger's arrest that she could not demand he produce physical identification.

09:28 And because Officer McCabe's demand for an ID or a driver license went beyond

09:33 what the statute state law required of Mr.

09:36 Edger, she violated clearly established law.

Category

Transcript

Recommended