An audit of past rulings by a controversial medical examiner found that 36 cases of police custody deaths deemed accidents should have instead been classified as homicides. 

The comprehensive review of 87 determinations regarding deaths resulting from police use of force stretched back 16 years from 2003 to 2019. It highlights the often questionable conclusions the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) used to determine that police were not culpable.  

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, whose agency managed the audit of former Chief Medical Examiner Dr. David Fowler, said the audit was disturbing and that the reclassified cases warranted further scrutiny. 

“These findings are of great concern and demand further review,” Brown wrote in the preface of the report. 

The report is simply an audit. It does not formally reclassify any of the cases that have been reviewed. Normally, changing an autopsy determination requires a hearing in front of a judge.

The push to examine Fowler’s past rulings came after he testified at the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Chauvin was charged with murder after video surfaced of him sitting on George Floyd’s neck for roughly nine minutes. Floyd later died at a nearby hospital.  

The case sparked outrage and nationwide protests.  

Fowler testified that Floyd did not die from positional asphyxiation, the result of the downward pressure of Chauvin’s knee. Instead, he attributed carbon monoxide poisoning from a nearby tailpipe to be the primary cause. 

The testimony sent shockwaves through the medical community. An open letter penned by roughly 450 medical experts called for a review of Fowler’s rulings in light of his testimony. The pushback prompted the state to undertake a comprehensive audit, the findings of which were released in a 90-page report. 

But prior to Fowler’s testimony and the subsequent review of his rulings, family members of victims and activists had been calling attention to his determinations. TRNN also consulted an independent pathologist to review Fowler’s cases. 

Among them is the death of a 19-year-old Eastern Shore resident, Anton Black. 

Black died after police chased him to his mother’s home. The body camera showed officers lying atop the former track star, who weighed 160 pounds at the time of the arrest. Fowler ruled the death an accident due to an underlying heart abnormality and bipolar disorder, a decision his family said did not reflect the evidence. 

The Real News consulted noted pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht to review the case. Wecht said Black’s death was not the result of an accident, but police use of force. 

“This is a classical case of positional asphyxiation in which somebody is placed face down, and then someone leans on his back, presses down on his back, and he’s tasered, after several minutes, and then he goes limp,” Wecht told TRNN. 

Black’s family eventually won a $5 million settlement of a wrongful death suit against the state. Sonia Kumar, senior staff attorney at the Maryland chapter of the ACLU, who was lead counsel on the lawsuit, released a statement calling the audit result long overdue. 

“This report vindicates what family members and communities—mostly Black and Brown Marylanders—have been saying for decades: that the entire system has been complicit in making police-involved deaths seem inevitable,” Kumar wrote. 

The audit also includes other cases covered by TRNN. 

Among them is the death of Tyrone West. West was pulled over in 2013 in North Baltimore after officers stopped his car for a broken taillight. Officers dragged him out of his vehicle and beat him for roughly an hour. West died later at a nearby hospital.

Fowler ruled his death was accidental, the result of dehydration and an underlying heart condition. Prosecutors also declined to press charges.  

But Tyrone’s sister Tawanda Jones fought back. She started a series of protests known as West Wednesdays that have continued every week since her brother’s death in 2013. 

Jones noted that the first protests were staged outside Fowler’s office. 

“That’s where West Wednesday started, at his office. And now the right is finally coming out. I am just overwhelmed.”

Now she is calling for the prosecutor to reopen her brother’s case. 

“Yes absolutely, I am going to keep pushing forward.” 

While Fowler’s police custody cases were more widely scrutinized, TRNN has also explored how his less notable rulings negatively impacted Baltimore residents. 

In our Hidden Victims series, we examined how Fowler’s unusual classification of large numbers of deaths as unclassified or ‘undetermined’ impacted cases with suspicious circumstances that might have warranted further investigation. 

The series examined multiple cases, including the death of a woman who was found buried under a pile of mulch, which were ruled undetermined. It also explored how investigations into the past deaths of women who suffered from addiction might have overlooked evidence of foul play. 

Critics say Fowler’s misclassifications were purposeful, with the aim to lower the number of homicide cases in a city where political careers are made or broken by the murder rate. Other sources say the primary goal of his questionable findings was to protect police officers from accusations of wrongdoing. But families like Tawanda’s are simply seeking closure and justice. 

“I’ve been fighting for my brother and other families for so long. I just want the truth to be known.”

Police violence has shaken the US to its foundation multiple times in the past decade, but the problem has not been solved and only grows with each passing year. In the face of this, intrepid cop watchers across the country have stepped up to defend working people and communities. Why does the cop watching movement matter, and what can the rest of us learn from activists who have done this vital work for decades? On the sixth anniversary of the launch of Police Accountability Report, Taya Graham and Stephen Janis speak with a panel of cop watchers, including James Freeman, Tom Zebra, Otto The Watchdog, The Battousai and Laura SharkCW.

Pre-Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Written by: Stephen Janis
Studio: Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Today we are not only going to be celebrating the sixth anniversary of our show, but we will also be seeking to answer a fairly profound question about a form of activism that has as much to do with the evolution of our show as policing itself. And that is cop watching. That’s because during the last six years as we have produced hundreds of shows, many have featured the work and personalities of this uniquely American art form. So we thought as we celebrated this special anniversary, we should do so in tandem with the people who have shared their work with us, which is why over the next hour we’re going to try to answer several important questions. First, why does Cop watching matter? In fact, why does any sort of activism matter and what makes it matter? It’s a question that I think is not asked enough, an idea that we feel must be explored in light of all the challenges we are facing.

And we’ll be trying to address it by examining the work of one of the people who literally helped invent it. He’s a man who started watching cops when VHS tapes were the dominant technology, and he’s a person who’s impacted Steven and my life in ways that are hard to measure. And of course, to help us unpack all of these ideas, we’ll be joined by cop watchers who are legends in their own rights. James Freeman, out of the Watchdog and Laura Shark, and they will be with us later to discuss their work. And at the end of the show, we’ll be making a big announcement about something Steven and I have been working on for quite some time. So please make sure to stay tuned. But of course, all of this begins with this show, the police accountability part. I mean, when we started it six years ago, we had no idea where it would lead.

I mean, sure policing was front and center as an institution that needed serious reform. Examples of police brutality were everywhere. And in our own hometown, we had just experienced the uprising after the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, which engulfed our city and led to even more recognition that law enforcement was basically broken. But really, if we’re honest, there was something else, not just immediate concerns that prompted us to launch this show. Instead, I think our impetus was about something deeper. Remember at the beginning of the show, we always made clear it’s not just about the bad behavior of individual cops. No, it was and is more than that. It was a way to examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And it was that system which allows rogue law enforcement to be pervasive, which has divined our work, prompted us to dig deeper and to explore the underlying imperative that we will interrogate further as we celebrate our anniversary. So Steven, can you talk a little bit about that idea and how the show came together?

Stephen Janis:

Well, every time we looked at policing, especially the worst parts of policing, or there’s some of the worst policing we’ve seen, it occurred in communities where there was an absolute underlying unfairness to the way the community was situated. And when I say that, I mean a community which was beset by poverty or a community that had unfair economic and unfair economic inequality. And so we said, why is bad policing always part of this equation? Well, it’s because policing in a sense, enforces the idea that unfairness is okay, that unfairness is actually a natural outcome of what we call late stage capitalism. So the idea was saying if we just look at a bad cop and take what they do and just show it on the screen and not really give some context, and we’re not doing our job as journalists. So the idea was to expand the palette and say, look, this is part of a system of unfairness. Please enforce that ideology that this is actually inevitable. And so we wanted to go beyond that. That’s why we look at the system.

Taya Graham:

Really well said, Steven. Thank

Stephen Janis:

You.

Taya Graham:

And just as he was saying, back in February, 2019, we just kind of launched the show. Just sort of did it. I mean, I wish I could say it was all planned out and we were sort of working in trial and error mode, but we weren’t winging it, but we just didn’t really know where it would lead. Maybe let’s watch a brief compilation of some moments from our first shows.

Stephen Janis:

The audience is small, we’ll be out of business pretty soon. So we got this idea that we need to focus on what we did best on what we knew best.

Taya Graham:

So one thing about Baltimore City is that policing is everywhere. You’re probably familiar with the death of Freddie Graham police custody in 2015, or you might know that my city is under consent decree for racist and unconstitutional policing.

Stephen Janis:

We had to pick what we knew and make it something special.

Taya Graham:

So when Steven said he wanted to do a show called the Police Accountability Report, I thought it really made sense.

Stephen Janis:

I think that came up at the same time I’d been teaching journalism at a local university and I was trying to teach the next generation of journalists to survive. I came up with this idea of subject matter expertise, like do a show or report on what you know the best. And to us, well that was policing.

Taya Graham:

And honestly, I think it was like a last ditch attempt to really make this work to find an audience for our reporting.

Stephen Janis:

So in January of 2019, we shot our first show. We just went ahead and did it.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report on the Real News Network. Honestly, I was just hoping we could break 10,000 views.

Stephen Janis:

I would’ve been perfectly happy with that. We’re talking about 10 years. These police officers were robbing people,

Taya Graham:

So we kept going and doing more shows. This is Taya Graham and Steven Janis for The Real News. Welcome to the Police Accountability Report.

Stephen Janis:

And it seems like T’S talent hosts a show and the topic was working, and we finally found a way to get a broader audience.

Taya Graham:

Oh my gosh, Steven, look how young you were. Look how young I was reporting on policing ages. You I think a

Stephen Janis:

Little bit. It was weird because we really did just kind of do it and we just sort of made up was going along. So it’s interesting to see that how the show has evolved themselves.

Taya Graham:

I know it really has. But as we were building the show, we started to hear about a community that we knew nothing about, a group that was in a way doing what we were doing, but let’s just say in a more different and more direct style. It was a slowly growing YouTube based movement that caught our attention. Thanks in part to our mod, Noli d Hi Noli D that we couldn’t ignore. Of course, I’m talking about Cop watchers, the people and personalities that go out and actively watch the police and then post their encounters on YouTube. Now, of course, cop watching existed long before YouTube. We all know the Black Panthers who watch police in African-American communities by taking notes and keeping track of the officers who were problematic. But along with the growth of YouTube, a new type of cop watching emerged. And that’s what Steven and I decided to report on the evolution of this form of digital activism that was different in many respects than what we were used to. And Steven, this version of Cop watching was uniquely formed by YouTube, wouldn’t you say?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I mean, the thing was you had a historic moment where for once an average working person could form an audience or have an audience. Remember before YouTube came along, and obviously the internet, most people who wanted to report the news or report what’s going on in their community needed an intense amount of capital. They needed a broadcast license or they needed a newspaper. But suddenly YouTube had created this alternative form of reaching an audience. It was kind of revolutionary. And I think that’s why Cop watching was so uniquely positioned and why it was so different, because YouTube gave a platform that didn’t exist before, a way of communicating to an audience, a way of forming an audience that didn’t exist before. So it was really revolutionary in a lot of ways.

Taya Graham:

I have to agree. And just to let people know, I will be trying to address some of the folks in the chat. I want you to know I see you, I saw you. Linda Orr. I see you. Lacey R. Hi, Lacey. R Hey, Lacey. So I just wanted to make sure to acknowledge some of the moderators and the supporters in our community are here, and Noli Dee helped introduce me to Cop watching. And I think we can honestly say that without Cop Watchers, this would be a very different show, very different. I mean, not that we couldn’t report on police, of course we could, but reporting on Cop Watchers and the personalities that drive it gave us access to a community that shaped how we thought about law enforcement by examining their work. It changed our perspective on how law enforcement had become more pervasive and powerful than even we could imagine.

And in a way, it gave us a sense of how much policing could affect not just the health of the community, but the entire psychology of it. Meaning the fact that there was a community of people who would literally go out and document police in communities across the country day in and day out for no other reason than it had to be done influenced how we thought about our show and what we needed to report again on the system, which is how and why the idea of making a show that we called Reverse Cops emerge. So let me explain. I’m sure most of you’re familiar with the show called Cops. It’s one of the longest running police reality series ever. The format is also pretty familiar, a bunch of photo follow cops as they arrest working class Americans for generally speaking petty crimes. The show, I believe, is meant to solidify the notion that only police can impose order and that the police are the moral arbiters of right versus wrong, and that working class folks are simply degenerates only worthy of arrest and jail cells. But Steven, I think our experience with Cop Watchers gave us some other ideas on how to, in a sense, reverse this narrative through journalism.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I mean because Cop Watchers and people like Tom Z were had gone out and sort of shifted the narrative, right? Gone out every night and reported from the community perspective, we sort of adopt that into our show where the person, the cops would make look bad. This guy who cops go and arrest for some dumb reason, not always the dumb reason, but a reason that is questionable, let’s put

Taya Graham:

It that way. Or at least maybe for a nuisance crime,

Stephen Janis:

Right? For a ance crime. We thought, okay, let’s reverse the perspective of the camera there. The way cop watchers are. Let’s turn the camera around. Let’s not tell it from the police going in and rushing after some guy and chasing him. Let’s do it the way Tom Zebra and Otto the Watchdog and James Freeman do, where they’re the ones holding the camera and telling the story from their perspective. So we ended up dedicating a huge amount of our show to the people who had been either brutalized, questionably, arrested, whatever. That actually became like the linchpin of our show, which is just as someone from the mainstream media, that’s not the way we report on police. We follow the police around and we follow their cues. So this whole community that created this kind of reverse cops, we just followed their cues and said, we’re going to give 15 minutes to the person who got arrested and let them tell their story, just the way police get to control the narrative. And it was really, again, sort of a revolution of narratology. We are actually looking from the different perspective that the cop watchers have adopted, and I think that’s why, how it influenced our show, what made our show kind of different in some ways.

Taya Graham:

Steven, I think that’s such an excellent point and something that I think you really teased out there is that not only did Cop Watchers show us to turn the perspective around, but they also showed us, you were talking about how you had to have money to be able to control the narrative and to sort of democratize the process.

Stephen Janis:

They absolutely democratize and absolutely took away the need to have other than a cell phone camera and the ability to edit and the ability to be creative, which is what’s really cool about it. There’s so much creativity. It kind of inspired me to say, play around with the show, have the swipes, all the things that we know are signature. Or the police accountability report came from just watching Cop Watchers and what they would do. And I’d be like, well, we can’t just be this blase report. We’ve got to have a little action in there.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, we have to add a little creativity. Absolutely.

So as we built the show, we dedicated a large part of it to the perspective that mainstream media ignores. We turned the camera around to give the people who’ve been negatively impacted by policing the opportunity to tell their stories in detail. And we made the show not about police, but about the community. And no other community played a bigger role in this evolution than of course cop watchers. And no other cop watcher embodies the spirit of that ethos better than the man we will be talking about tonight. And I am of course referring to the legendary og cop watcher, Tom Zebra. And like our show, his story and his life is intertwined with his work, and it is that work that’s transformed him and the community he lives in. But let me try to share part of his story so you can understand why that is so important.

It’s the story of a man who lived in Los Angeles in one of the city’s struggling neighborhoods who saw a problem. People have been cracking down on, excuse me, police have been cracking down on working people for years with aggressive car stops, arrests for minor infractions. Law enforcement had adopted more and more punitive tactics as a way to fight crime, but that’s not what happened, and that’s not really why they were doing it. And this man understood this implicitly. He knew that over policing was an instrument of poverty. He understood that it only made the lives of those struggling to afford housing and even put food on the table. Even worse, he comprehended the pain inflicted by a system that trapped people and stripped them of their ability to fight back. But what did he do? I mean, in a sense, he didn’t have the tools necessary in our money fueled system to fight back.

He wasn’t a powerful politician or billionaire. He wasn’t a celebrity. He was just a man, passionate man, but one seemingly without the power to protect the community he loved. So what did he do? Well, he picked up a camera, not a cell phone, but a camera back when video was recorded on VHS tapes when YouTube didn’t even exist when the internet was still in its infancy. And when his fight was essentially his own will and ingenuity against the entire Los Angeles law enforcement industrial complex. But against those odds, he decided to fight. And he did it despite a powerful institution more than willing to fight back despite the obvious imbalance of power of one man with a camera against a legion of guns and badges. And he did it for the myriad of reasons people in our flawed democratic republic decide to step forward. He did it because it had to be done. Let’s watch a little bit of his video from 2005.

Speaker 6:

Man, where you going? Why a hard T got a bike license? Have a bike license. The driver’s license. I told you to that I, yeah, it does. Your bike over here. Probation, parole. Why you being such an ass about it? What’s your problem tonight? I have no problem. Good. You have a bike license for your bike? No, I don’t see one on there. No, you need to register your bike and the city have a bike license. You riding the city. Where are you going? Okay, where are you coming from? Okay. You want to

Taya Graham:

Do a difficult No,

And of course that was the OG I was talking about at the beginning of the show, Tom Zebra. In that dramatic footage, you can see how one person with one camera lit a fire that burns bright to this day. You see someone who’s fighting against power in ways that would eventually be adopted by thousands of cop watchers and activists using the camera, not just as a mirror, but as a tool of dissent recording video that no one would perhaps ever see, but still recording. Anyway. Steven, can you talk a little bit about how Tom has helped shape contemporary cop watching?

Stephen Janis:

Well, the thing when I was watching that video and I was thinking about it, and we both hung out with him a little bit. He is tireless, right?

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Stephen Janis:

He’s like a one man mainstream media kind of org,

Taya Graham:

One man media machine,

Stephen Janis:

Right? Because the thing that was really interesting about Tom and talking to him, we interviewed him a lot. He goes out every night and he goes out every night and he just films. And sometimes when he films, something happens and he will confront police as what he sees as being wrong. And that to me is such a David and Goliath story of someone who goes out and is willing to every night, watch cops no matter what, and willing to push back. And that creates, I would say, an alternative mainstream media ecosystem. Not mainstream in the sense that it looks like mainstream media, but that counter power, that counterbalance that doesn’t always exist in a community to tell their own stories. And so he was out there like a storyteller looking at what’s happening, watching and observing and exposing police in ways that are more subtle. It’s not just about the really, really bad events, but the way they abuse their power. And when you watch these Zoe videos, you can see where are you going, where are you headed, what are you doing? Those are the things that create this psychology of power that makes policing so devastating for people living communities where that type of policing is allowed. And I think Tom did the work

And that really made a difference.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. That’s such an excellent point. And just to add to that idea, let’s run a clip about Tom Zebra. We produced for this yet to be announced project.

Stephen Janis:

Why were they focused on policing? What were they getting out of this and what was the real story?

Speaker 7:

It was like to protect myself from the police.

Stephen Janis:

Hello.

Speaker 8:

What’s going on

Stephen Janis:

Man?

Speaker 8:

Not much you doing here.

Speaker 7:

Doing know the tapes will just go in a box.

Speaker 8:

Good. How are you? Just your car?

Speaker 9:

Yes sir. Where are you coming from? Where do you

Speaker 8:

Live? I’m coming from getting dinner and I’m going home. Do you

Speaker 9:

Any guns or knives in the car?

Speaker 8:

No, sir.

Speaker 9:

You got valid driver’s license?

Speaker 8:

Yes,

Speaker 9:

Sir. Where is it at? It’s

Speaker 8:

In my center

Speaker 9:

Console. Don’t reach. You got any? You don’t have a gun or anything in

Speaker 8:

There? No, sir. There’s nothing illegal in here.

Speaker 9:

What’s going on with the camera? That’s the camera. Yeah, but what’s going on with that? Well, it’s sitting there

Taya Graham:

Recording. Mr, why don’t you pull me over? But this is only just part of the story, the beginning about the growth of a collection of YouTube activists that stood up for communities across the country, a movement that has actually achieved something tangible. People who connected on YouTube and other social media platforms to push back against power and actually made a difference. Activism that might’ve started with OGs like Tom Zebra, but has expanded to include hundreds if not thousands of channels and YouTubers working in big cities and small towns across the country. And so to talk about how this happened and what it means, and of course the work of Tom Zebra, we’re going to be joined by several guests who have been intimately involved in all of it. And to get this discussion started, we are happy to have Otto the Watchdog as our first guest. I mean, really, who else could it be? And just to let you guys know, if you see me looking down, that is because I’m looking to make sure to put some of your lovely comments on the screen. And I wanted to let you know, I think we finally have super chats and super stickers.

Now, I don’t know if you guys know this, but we don’t run any ads on our channels, and I’m sure you’ve noticed I’ve never done a HelloFresh commercial, so we don’t take any corporate sponsors, but if you want to buy us a little super chat so we can say hi to James Freeman or a The Watchdog for you, we’d be happy to do that.

Stephen Janis:

And also, we should also tell people to try to subscribe to our newsletter. Go to the real news.com. You can subscribe because that way, even if you don’t have money to be able to support our journalism, you can also subscribe to the newsletter and keep in touch with what we’re doing. So we really would like people to do that as

Taya Graham:

Well. Yes, absolutely. You can hit and subscribe to the email and that would really help us as well. Now back to Otto, he’s probably one of the best, along with our other guest, James Freeman, at actually injecting comedy into the practice of Cop watching. He’s a style that is both unique and illuminating. You know what? Let’s watch a quick clip about Otto talking about how he came up with this.

Otto The Watchdog:

So I wanted to do something comical because I was becoming an angry person. I was sitting at my kitchen table, I was writing down slogans. I said, well,

Speaker 10:

He’s got stuff from there and in other counties that they’re going to try to put together and they’re going to try to get his ass organized crime.

Otto The Watchdog:

I said it out loud and I was like, hand stuff

Speaker 4:

That

Stephen Janis:

Awesome, Otto, that could have been a hit song if maybe Otto, if you’d had a few less swear words in it, I

Taya Graham:

Guess. But the thing is, I’m sure with the beeps, I am sure you all could probably figure out what was being talked about. Some of you who know the cop watching community, well might’ve recognized the other voices singing despite all the beeps. And that Otto is another important member of the cop watching community, Eric Brant, who was known for his extravagant actions to help protest treatment of the Denver homeless community. And like Tom Zebra, Eric Brat is an important part of the Secret project that we’ve been working on that we cannot wait to share with you. But perhaps it would be better to let the fellow singer speak for himself, which is why we are joined by Otto the Watchdog. Thank you so much for joining us.

Otto The Watchdog:

Hi. It is pleasure to be here. Thanks. It’s always nice to be here.

Taya Graham:

Well, we’re so glad to have you are so glad. And first, we just want to ask you a very simple question, or maybe actually it’s not a very simple question. What got you involved in COP watching? What prompted you to pick up a camera and start filming your encounters with police?

Otto The Watchdog:

Well, those are two separate things. So what got me started looking towards police and being upset in general was license plate lights. A lot of my friends were being pulled over and they were being pressured to allow a search of their vehicle over license plate lights. And when one of my friends was roughed up and one of those traffic stops, I decided that something had to be done. And the inspiration to film it came from people like Tom Zebra and James Freeman. Freeman was in my local area at the time, and I saw those guys and I thought that it was a great idea. And then I found out that there was actually a lot of people doing this, and I wanted to make sure that I wasn’t going to get run over and falsely accused of some pretty terrible stuff. And I wasn’t expecting that it was going to go bad, but it did quickly. So

Stephen Janis:

When you say it went bad quickly, can you just explain a little bit what you mean by that? It went bad quickly. Are you talking about the potatoes or something like

Otto The Watchdog:

That? Oh, no. So yeah, the potatoes, the first time I went out with the camera, I was only out for 15 minutes before I had my first police contact. And that was when I was like, oh, this is probably going to be a little bit more of a thing than I thought it was. Then I took a break for a while and I really went out and looked and made sure that what I was doing was going to be legal. And if it wasn’t for people posting on YouTube, their encounters, I never seen it. And like Tom Zebra, he was doing it before when VHS was out and he said that he put all those tapes in a box and nobody would ever know unless a major production company put it together and then distributed those videos.

Stephen Janis:

Right, which is what we’re trying to do. Not really, but we did use some excerpts from them. But Kate, go ahead.

Taya Graham:

Oh, I do have to ask though. I mean, we’ve discussed and highlighted some of your more humorous approaches to watching cops. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because I know it might seem strange to people who see police brutality or police overreach and says, that’s not a funny topic, but you managed somehow to bring humor into it. Can you kind of explain how you did it and why you did?

Otto The Watchdog:

Well, I did it because I brought humor into it because it is so dark. It is not a funny topic. And it was something that I felt passionate about and I think that everybody should know, mainly because my family was very supportive of law enforcement. I have several members of my family who are law enforcement, and we get along fine, just for the record, everybody’s fine. Thanksgiving can get a little bit, sometimes we have to change the topic of conversation,

But I believe that they were good people and they think that they were doing good work and doing good things. And since I’ve been more active in this topic genre specifically, we’ve come to the conclusion that they might’ve not been breaking the law and violating, violating people’s rights, but they were violating people’s rights. You mentioned the long running show cops. Well, that was very popular when I was a kid. We watched it all the time, and I watched it for a long, long time, and I loved that show. It was always entertaining. There was always something going on. Now here I am many years later, I go back and watch that show and shows like it, and basically every single encounter is a violation. Every single one of those is like, oh, well, why are they doing that? Why are they immediately pulling somebody out and putting ’em in handcuffs? What’s the purpose of that? And they’re beating people up. They’re very violent. But that was because that’s the content that got them the most views and interesting. Nothing’s really changed about that. I guess there’s still the thing that gets them the most views is when they’re the most violent.

Stephen Janis:

That’s really interesting because now there shows live pd and there just seems to be this fascination with other people’s misery. But that’s really interesting. And so at some point you kind of said, I’ve seen enough actual encounters with cops that I know that kind of propaganda the cops is promulgating or whatever. I know that’s actually false. I mean, is that what someday it just clicked for you? Or is it because after you went out a couple of times you kind of felt like, wow, this is all wrong?

Otto The Watchdog:

Oh no. It was a slow progression and then a sudden snap. I was watching these things because I wanted to know what I was illegally required to do at traffic stops

Laura Shark:

And

Otto The Watchdog:

Things of that sort. I didn’t really have any run-ins with the law, but when I was not quite an adult yet, there was an incident where law enforcement, there was a fight in the park and the law enforcement showed up and somebody pointed at me and I was arrested. I was not involved in it,

But nevertheless, I went to jail and I was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. And that case was dismissed because I wasn’t the guy, but I had to call into a bondsman every Wednesday with the threat that I could be arrested if I didn’t. And that went on for a while. So that was my first, oh, maybe these guys aren’t all superheroes. And then again, one of my friends was pulled over for their license plate lights being too dim, not being bright enough, and she’s a minority. And when the police officer pulled up to the window, said, get out, and she asked one question and he opened the door and yanked her out and then roughed her up a little bit. And I just had enough. I just had enough. And that’s when I put my boots on for the first time and actively what I love about cop watching. Thank you for asking Steven. What I love most about Cop watching is that protesting in general is a reactive response to a situation that has occurred. Cop watching is a proactive protest, or No,

Stephen Janis:

You’re right.

Otto The Watchdog:

I’m using protests loosely there. Cop watching is proactive. We can go out and actively look for these.

Stephen Janis:

That is such a great way to put it.

Otto The Watchdog:

I love

Stephen Janis:

That. Cop watcher is always smarter than me because I wrote this whole script, but Otto said it in a way. Otto, sorry, I should be looking at you. But you said that, and that is so right. You guys go out there sometimes when there’s nothing going on, right? I mean, you’re just, you’re out there and you’re just watching

Taya Graham:

Or listening to a scanner, right?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, that’s such a different form of protest. You’re right. We have protests now against this administration or that, but Cop watchers just out there active. That’s pretty interesting.

Taya Graham:

I just want to mention this, since we did have Eric Brat singing earlier, we’re going to talk a little bit more about him later as we share our big project, but you connected with him and others that helped create this community that we covered. How did you connect with people like Eric Brat or Monkey 83 or Joe Kool or any of the other folks that we were fortunate to meet?

Otto The Watchdog:

That was definitely a 100% direct response from James Freeman being in my local area at the time, that I needed somebody to be local. And he just happened to respond to my email. And we’ve been good friends ever since. And I mean, he might disagree, but I can’t count James Freeman among my friends. I would invite him over for dinner. That’s wonderful. Eric. I had seen some of his videos and this man looks absolutely nuts, and I love it. I love it because he is so far out there that if he can get away with what he’s doing, then what I’m doing must be fine. And he was kicking ass and he would be arrested. And then before you know it, the cases are dismissed. And he did file a lot of lawsuits and he won quite a few, a lot of lawsuits, and he won a lot of his cases.

Taya Graham:

It was actually impressive. I think some of his lawsuits, he won the right for body cameras and

Stephen Janis:

Englewood,

Taya Graham:

Colorado.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. First a training,

Taya Graham:

First Amendment training,

Stephen Janis:

He $35,000 tattoo that

Taya Graham:

That’s right.

Stephen Janis:

He got arrested for a tattoo.

Taya Graham:

I think he was arrested on nearly 200 times and won over 80% of his cases. I mean, that’s a pretty impressive track record.

Otto The Watchdog:

It’s a staggering track record. It really is.

Taya Graham:

I am glad you mentioned Eric again, because I know he must have shaped to some extent how you do cop watching and how the community came together. I mean, how would you describe Eric’s role, just out of curiosity?

Otto The Watchdog:

Well, the cop watching and protesting are two separate things that I do both. I do both of them, but they are sometimes intertwined, but they are different. Cop watching is usually a little bit more somber. You’re just trying to document the thing. And then sometimes I would just get the calling and have to sing a song. And the song was inspired by Eric, his signs, and then I just wanted to make it into a rhyme. And then it just evolved into a song and it sounded really good. It was easy to sing, and I could do it loudly, and that was the key. And Eric and I, we could harmonize together and just pop it off. We had a unique chemistry that allowed such a thing like that. And as far as the protesting, Eric definitely shaped the protesting. He absolutely shaped what I was, everything from the sign and then his clothes. I liked that he would wear bright green clothes and everything about him screamed protestor. And then for him to be arrested, it’s clear and obvious to everybody that he was arrested for what he was saying and what the sign that he was holding. And I appreciated that.

Stephen Janis:

Wow. Well, last question we wanted to ask you, just give a little bit about what do you think about Tom Zebra? Did Tom Zebra influence your work at all? Or how do you feel about his work and how it’s influenced cop watching?

Otto The Watchdog:

Yeah. So I saw Tom Zebra after I had gotten fully immersed in what was going on because he’s in California and I’m not.

So I was trying to find somebody in Texas because I knew that Texas and California law were different, different enough that you need to know what goes on in Texas, not California. Right? So when I finally found Tom, I was well into my activism. So he didn’t necessarily shape and drive me directly, but I guarantee you that he inspired somebody that I saw at some point, or the six degrees of separation. I know that Tom Zebra shaped me and encouraged me through his actions, even though I hadn’t heard his name until well after I had begun. And again, Tom Zebra goes out every single night.

Stephen Janis:

I know,

Otto The Watchdog:

Right? It’s amazing. And if he’s not posting a video every single day, it’s because nothing happened last night. And when a cop watcher is not posting a video, in my opinion, that’s a good thing. We should not have content.

Taya Graham:

That’s a good point.

Otto The Watchdog:

None of us should be anybody worth interviewing because our channels should have zero followers. We should have zero views. But that’s not the case. And it’s not the case because, well, police officers feel like they can do whatever they want to because they’ve been able to do whatever they want to. They’re told that they can do it. And until that changes, I think that this genre is going to continue to grow. And as it has dramatically. So in the last five years since specifically the Floyd protests

Stephen Janis:

Instead Armada, the show should be, this show would not exist without the bad behavior of individual cops, I guess, right?

Taya Graham:

In some way. I mean, I’ve said before I would be happy if I didn’t, if I could report on something else.

Stephen Janis:

That’s a profound statement. We should have no followers and no videos.

Taya Graham:

That’s a really profound statement. Just before we let you go, I believe it was Tyler Smith asked what happened to Otto’s arrest at the gas station where the cops solicited a complaint on the day he had court for custody. Did you have that resolved?

Otto The Watchdog:

It did. That case is resolved. It took a while, and I took a beating. So we resolve that case out of court for, I believe that settlement was $90,000. And I took that money and split it 50 50 and put it into savings accounts for my children because they’re the victims. And I am deeply bothered by the events that happened early in my channel because they continue to affect you every single day. It’s something that never goes away, and I never wanted that, never thought that that would be a thing. And I’m glad that it’s over and looking forward, all we can do is hope that justice will prevail.

Taya Graham:

Wow. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for sharing that. And we just want to tell you how much we appreciate hearing from you, and we’re going to drag you back on a live stream in the future. I’m sorry. And we’re just have to do it.

Stephen Janis:

And remember, we both are going use Invisit on our car.

Taya Graham:

That’s

Stephen Janis:

Right. Your sponsor.

Otto The Watchdog:

Oh yeah, invisit. It’s the only window film approved by Nala.

Stephen Janis:

Okay, well let’s not go there, but let’s say this. It’s completely transparent, so police can’t see it. Neither can you. It’s pretty awesome. Perfect

Taya Graham:

Tint to make sure you never get arrested for Windows again.

Stephen Janis:

Alright,

Taya Graham:

Otto,

Stephen Janis:

Thank you Otto, it

Taya Graham:

Great to have you as always. Awesome. And I did just want to make sure that people saw that we had some lovely comments here. People really appreciate you, Otto. Thank you.

Otto The Watchdog:

Hey, I appreciate you guys. I wouldn’t have made it through it if it wasn’t for my friends and fantastic supporters. I could not have gotten through that if it wasn’t for you guys.

Taya Graham:

Oh, Otto,

Otto The Watchdog:

Thank Attia. And Steven, thank you for doing what you do because when I was doing this, we didn’t have a lackluster that would focus on these channels. You guys also pioneered your own little branch here because before the police accountability report, we really didn’t have anybody that cared enough to bring our videos to a larger audience in a professional way. Because a lot of people who do this are motivated, dedicated, passionate, but we’re not video editors, audio producers, and we don’t have all the skills and material and resources to do what you guys do. So thank you. Thank you as well. You’re

Stephen Janis:

Welcome. It was our pleasure,

Taya Graham:

Otto. We appreciate that more than thanks for being know that was really kind of you. Thank you. Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

That means a lot.

Taya Graham:

Especially because the Washington Post came in and said, oh, there is such a thing as Cop Watchers. I was like, thanks for noticing. Five years later,

Stephen Janis:

Right? Good

Taya Graham:

Job

Stephen Janis:

Five years after, but

Taya Graham:

At least finally, you guys are getting the recognition that you deserve.

Stephen Janis:

Absolutely.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. Absolutely. We’re so happy about that. And I just did want to also make sure to say thank you to Michael Willis, who was kind enough to give us a donation. Very kind.

Stephen Janis:

Thank

Taya Graham:

You, Mike. And I thought that was really kind. Thank you. And I just want to make sure someone else said in response to our conversation about Eric, they could not stop Eric, so they put him away like they did. That was from DJ Plus. So I just wanted to let you all know I am taking a look at your comments, and I’m going to put them up whenever I can. You know, Stephen, that story about how Otto and Eric Brandt and Monkey 83 and Friends in Code and Chris Powers, how they got together is pretty incredible.

I mean, they all met on YouTube and they were all connected because of their support for Cop Watchers and each other, and they sort of built a community together. I mean, that’s an interesting story.

Stephen Janis:

Well, no, I think it’s interesting listening to Otto talk about how he connected with James Freeman, and you know how James Freeman connected with Eric and these guys are all working in different places.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. All

Stephen Janis:

Across the country. And organically created a network of people to bring these stories to people’s attention. And that’s not how YouTube is often advertised, is building communities and building actual physical activism. As Otto said, it was proactive. We said, here’s the problem. We’re going to go out every night and film that is so different from many things that, and I think we could all learn something from that activism.

Taya Graham:

And I have to say this, and this is a personal opinion, but I think it is very brave to go out on the streets armed with nothing but a camera.

Stephen Janis:

Absolutely.

Taya Graham:

And trying to make sure that your community has justice. So I think that’s a very brave thing to do,

And that is one of the reasons why we did that documentary. But we’ll save some more of those details for a little bit later. Hope you stick around and hear more about it. But for now, we’re going to be joined by a person who has been one of the most visible, prolific, and creative members of the community. He is notorious for turning routine encounters with police into revealing examples of comedic role reversal that reveals much about the power that police have and how it affects us in unseen ways. Let’s watch a clip of one of his encounters.

Speaker 11:

But these people have been told that they’ve got it in their head, that they literally have a right. They have the authority to just arbitrarily control everyone around them.

Speaker 12:

Hey, what’s up everybody? It’s James Freeman. You doing all right over here? What department are you with? You got ID on you. I sir. Dude, can I see it? Please.

Speaker 11:

I was even disturbed by the fact that this cop let me do it. Most of the people in the comments are like, man, this is the nicest cop ever. No human should tolerate that from another human. It’s wrong.

Taya Graham:

And now we have to give a big welcome for James Freeman. James, thank you so much for joining us.

James Freeman:

Hey guys, thank you for having me on the show again. It’s always good to be here.

Taya Graham:

We love having you. So happy to have you. And so first off, if you don’t mind, I would like to ask you about the legendary Tom Zebra. What did you think of his work? When did you first see it and has it influenced you at all?

James Freeman:

Honestly, I can’t remember the first time I saw it, but Tom Zebra influenced, he was one of the first. And when he was out there doing this stuff, I’ve said this before actually, I’ve compared Tom Zebra to a pioneer. Well, I have a lot of ancestors that crossed the plains over into the west, and we call ’em pioneers, right? And they blazed a trail. When they did it, it wasn’t easy. Basically when I came into the game, it was a lot easier than when Tom Zebra did it because Tom Zebra was basically Bush whacking it. He came up with the idea. He was the one who decided, alright, I’m going to go out and record these guys. When I started, I had people like Tom to help me understand what I legally could and couldn’t do. Tom, I don’t know who was his influence, but without people like Tom, I probably would’ve ended up in prison or in jail before I even really hit the ground. Got going.

Stephen Janis:

And what prompted you personally to start doing cop watching? Why did you decide that, Hey, I’m going to do this. I’m going to take this risk, the risk of getting arrested and go out and film police. What kind of motivated you to do that? How did it get started for you personally?

James Freeman:

Like Otto, it was a lot of things. I wouldn’t say it was necessarily just one thing.

I can tell you that the first video I ever shot though was when I was going through an inland border patrol checkpoint that I traveled through on a regular basis as me and my family were traveling between Arizona and Texas. And for those who don’t know what that is, you don’t cross a border or anything. But these federal police stop you and start asking interrogating questions. And it really doesn’t even have anything to do with stopping immigration or drug trade or anything like that, because all you have to do is they ask you, are you a US citizen? And if you can say the word yes, it’s like that’s the magic word. Yes. You’re no longer what they’re looking for. And I was realizing that this really wasn’t even about stopping crime or even immigration or drug traffic or anything. It was about conditioning people to obey and to understand who their master was. When master tells you to say yes, you say yes.

Speaker 7:

Wow. Wow. That’s

James Freeman:

Really

Speaker 7:

Powerful.

James Freeman:

So I shot that video and I really only shot the video to show it to four or five of my close friends and one of my friends, I couldn’t figure out a way to share it. I was trying to email it. I didn’t know anything about this technology stuff. I sucked at it. And one of my more technologically advanced friends said, Hey, best place to share a video is on YouTube, or even just with friends. So I uploaded it to YouTube. I didn’t even know how it worked. And so it was set to public, and two weeks later, a handful of other people who did this type of stuff regularly saw the video, shared it, and it had a half a million views within two weeks. And people were reaching out to me and saying,

Stephen Janis:

James,

James Freeman:

Do this again. Do it again. And I’m like, dude, what? That’s

Stephen Janis:

Incredible. That’s amazing. I mean, a half a million views, that’s not easy.

Taya Graham:

Wow. Wow. That’s amazing.

Stephen Janis:

That is amazing.

Taya Graham:

I have to ask you though, and I suppose this is somewhat of a serious question, but what is it like going out there holding a camera knowing that you might possibly be arrested, and how do you deal with that threat and how does it affect you?

James Freeman:

People talk in my comment sections. People are like, oh, James, you’re so brave. You never back down and you never get scared. That’s not true at all. Anybody who does this knows that the people we’re dealing with are armed terrorists. That’s all there is to it. It doesn’t matter what laws or don’t law, or I’m sorry, it doesn’t matter what laws or don’t know. These people don’t operate under Law and order. They’re terrorists. They’re armed people who are willing to do anything that they can get away with to you. And law legislation, none of it really plays a part. The only thing to me that really plays a part is that I think that they feel some duty to hold up the illusion that they’re some type of legitimate law enforcement or some type of legitimate entity. And so I try to play on that more than anything because I know they don’t actually care about the law, but sometimes they do care about public opinion because if people really understood, if people really knew what they were, they’d be completely abolished immediately. I’m not just talking about the people that you talked about earlier, poor lower class, financially. I mean, if everybody middle class upper, maybe upper class knows what they are, but I really think that if most people really knew what they were, they would say, whoa, we want a system of law and order, and this is not it. This is armed thugs ruling our streets.

Stephen Janis:

Now, is that why you did those? Because we showed some of the videos, the video where you’re asking an officer for ID and those sort of rural reversal kind of videos. Is that where you got that idea? Because to me, they’re so revealing about policing space saying, I can come up to any person at any time and demand almost with the threat of arrest. Is that why you did those kind of videos because of that?

James Freeman:

Yeah.

Yeah. And that was inspired by a book that I read, the Most Dangerous Superstition by Larkin Rose. And I was reading it, and he was basically comparing, most of us were told that government is by the people, for the people, and that we delegate power and authority to our government. Therefore, and the point that he makes is if that’s true, then I can only give to you or delegate to you what I have. And so a lot of people even mimic this, that government can only have the power or authority that we give to them. But when we talk about it hypothetically and say, what if I were to go up to a cop and do this, still usually just doesn’t quite click with people. It’s a hypothetical, but when you actually do it, all of a sudden it’s shocking. It’s like, wow, what an arrogant piece of crap. This guy is a total douche bag. And I did it recently just a couple of weeks ago for the first time in years, and the internet has gone crazy over it. People described me in the way that people like Tom Zebra have been describing cops for a long time, and it’s horrible the way that they were talking about me. I said, that’s it. That’s exactly what I’m trying to tell you.

Taya Graham:

Wow, that great. And those new videos are really amazing. I

Stephen Janis:

Would encourage everyone to go to James Freeman’s channel.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. And of course, all the watchdogs channels as well, watch or Tommy. But it’s amazing. And there’s a moment, one of the videos where, I know it sounds like a strange thing to say, but you snap on these gloves and it’s like somehow it gives you another level of authority. You already had the authority in your voice, but then when you snapped on the gloves, it was as if the person, the officer you were interacting with just handed over her authority to you. It was amazing. So when you folks have a chance, definitely go check out his channel. And I wanted to mention, since I was mentioning Otto as well, when did you find yourself really interacting with other YouTubers and other cop watchers?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, that’s good question.

Taya Graham:

I mean, I think you connected with Eric Brant fairly early on, but when did you find yourself interacting with other cop watchers and forming that community?

James Freeman:

Actually, Otto Otto was one of the first that I really connected with because he was local where I was at. So I mean, I had talked to a few others. Johnny five Oh was out in California. He flew out to visit me, but Otto was actually one of the first that I regularly connected with because it was important when we were doing this stuff to have somebody close by because there is a good chance that you’re going to get arrested, you’re going to go to jail, you’re going to need help from somebody else. The truth is, you really can’t do this stuff alone. You’ve got to have some type of support group. I mean, these cops are 900,000 strong across the whole country, and they’ve got legislators and judges and prosecutors and a whole team of people to terrorize you. And so just having a small handful of people, it was David Borin and Auto, the Watchdog that were my local people that I regularly worked with and connected with. And Otto really got the poopies end of the stick on what happened out there.

Taya Graham:

And also, I think David Bore was in the chat. So Hi, David Boron.

Stephen Janis:

Hey, David. I just want two more questions. One, Alice one then to you, what did you learn about YouTube using YouTube as a tool for publishing your videos and showing people what you were learning? How did YouTube influence your work? And I know it’s kind of a weird question, but I think YouTube is always left out of this conversation. And what did you learn about YouTube in the audience too? What kind of audience you have?

James Freeman:

Let’s see. What did I learn about YouTube?

Stephen Janis:

Well, what I mean is, I guess YouTube is a big feedback machine. You kind of learn things when you do videos certain ways, and

Taya Graham:

Some

Stephen Janis:

People like something.

Taya Graham:

I mean, and do you feel like in using YouTube, do you think the activism or the work that you’ve done would be even possible without YouTube? How important is YouTube to this whole idea, to this whole idea to the work that you do?

James Freeman:

Yeah, it’s essential. My wife asked me when I recorded at a border patrol checkpoint again, just last week, we were just traveling. We traveled an hour to go have dinner with family. And on the way back ended up going through a border patrol checkpoint. And I yelled at him and told him, you don’t have the right to do this and blah, blah. I got out of the car, I was belligerent, I was nuts on this one. And I get back in the car and my wife says, would you do this if you didn’t have a camera in your hand? I said, no, of course not.

Taya Graham:

I love the honesty.

James Freeman:

But the truth is that in the nineties when I was being bullied by cops, it didn’t mean that it wasn’t right for me to do what I do and wrong for them to do what they do. It was just that if you tried to assert your rights back then you were guaranteed to get that crap beat out of you and be thrown in jail and or prison. And so just like a cop wouldn’t do what he does without that badge and gun. And so you’re right, but also, I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing here if cops weren’t doing something wrong. But you’re absolutely right though the camera, the ability to publish this and show it to the world, I really wouldn’t do it if I couldn’t show the world. I just end up beat up or dead. It wouldn’t help anyone if I wasn’t showing it to the world.

Stephen Janis:

That’s deep.

Taya Graham:

That’s incredible. But the thing is, you’ve also like Otto, you’ve incorporated humor into it, I mean, I thought what you said, because you had me read that book by Lobar, and I appreciate that, but you incorporated humor and there are these moments that seem really spontaneous. How did you decide to evolve that and why did you Yeah, it’d be funny. Yeah. How did in

Stephen Janis:

Situations sometimes didn’t seem like they were funny, but

Taya Graham:

Somehow you made them funny somehow might make them work. I don’t know how you managed to do that. Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

How do you do that? Or why did you do that?

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Better was the question. Why did you one day do that? I mean, would you see the absurdity of the situation? How did you get there?

James Freeman:

Yeah.

I think that it was both from a necessity, because I get kind of depressed watching too much of this stuff and being immersed in it too much. It’s really sad, and I am sure that you guys experience it too. Day after day after day, you see people’s lives being destroyed. You see people being terrorized, good working people. And so the comedy comes from some people have been offended by me making jokes out of really horrific stuff. But I don’t know, like Otto said, you got to do something to lighten it up. You’re either going to laugh or you’re going to cry once you really see what’s going on. So I try to laugh a little bit, and I think that it does help people. Making jokes and comedy of it, I think helps people to really truly see the absurdity of what government does, what cops do.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I think it was funny because the one that we used, the famous one where he asked the cop for his ID

Taya Graham:

And just the look

Stephen Janis:

On his face. But what’s interesting, he pauses for a second, and then you see something click in his head like, oh, this is kind of weird. Right?

Taya Graham:

Because initially he does sort of react to the authority in James’ voice, like, oh, and you see him processing, wait a second, wait a second. I’m the one who does

Stephen Janis:

This. Wait, the Exactly.

Taya Graham:

And that power reversal James, that is so powerful for people to see. It’s incredible. I don’t know. It spoke to me on a different level and it helped me interrogate for myself how much of other people’s authority, especially with law enforcement I have accepted and how I’ve had to do a lot of work to distance myself from that and find my own autonomy. And your work really highlights that. James or

Stephen Janis:

The better one, have you been drinking to, we should be showing these, but you can go to his, not the poor guy, but the cop looks at him like

Taya Graham:

Just confounded, just flabbergasted. We’re shortcircuiting his brain in that moment. Okay. Obviously I think we’re showing we’re James Freeman fans. I think we’re kind of embarrassing ourselves right now.

Stephen Janis:

But anyway, James, thank you so much for joining us.

Taya Graham:

Thank you so much. Because we are going to have to get to the super secret special person that we’ve been talking about this whole time. So we have to make sure to go forward and speak to the legendary Tom Zebra shortly. So James, we just wanted to thank you and before you go, if there is anything that you want to shout out into the world, please feel free to do so.

James Freeman:

Yeah, thanks for having me on the show. And guys, congratulations on six years.

Stephen Janis:

Thank

Taya Graham:

You,

James Freeman:

Thank you, thank you for what you guys are doing. It’s always an honor to be able to come on your guys’ show. Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you

Taya Graham:

James. Appreciate that’s really kind. We appreciate you so much. And next time we have you on the live stream, we’re locking you in for a full hour and you’re just going to have to sit with us. Just letting you know

Stephen Janis:

I’m

Taya Graham:

There. We’re locked in. Alright, wonderful.

Stephen Janis:

Cool.

Taya Graham:

Thank you James. Thank you so much. And so

We will be turning to the man we mentioned at the beginning of the show the OG cop watcher who started filming cops. And it sounds almost prehistoric to say this when people were just recording video on VHS tapes. And if you didn’t already know, his name is Tom Zebra and as we’ve explained it already and have discussed at length, his work was both pioneering and instrumental in building this community known as Cop Watchers. And just to give viewers just a little of how dedicated he is to his work and how he practically invented the current form of cop watching. We have a clip from 2012 we’re going to show, and then we’re going to have his legendary cop watcher partner, Laura Shark, come on and talk to us about it as well. So let’s take a look at this clip. Yep.

Speaker 8:

Officer, I hate to be the one to bring you the bad news. I’m going to try to break it to you gently. It’s against the law for you to ride that motor vehicle on the sidewalk here. Did you know that? Has anyone ever mentioned that to you before? Nope. None of your police didn’t tell you that in your police training.

Speaker 12:

Do you have a point?

Speaker 8:

I made it very clearly. It’s against the law for you to be on that sidewalk for me to make that left. Turn in the middle of the road and cut off that car. You’re mistaken Bacon. You need to get your motorcycle off that sidewalk. Why is that? You guys, you guys ride people on bicycle tickets every day for riding on the sidewalk, don’t you? Every day you guys write tickets to people on bicycles, don’t you? For riding on the sidewalk. And guess what? That’s not an enforceable law, but you’re on a motor vehicle. Let me ask you this, do you have an ID with you? I’m asking questions right now, not you. No, no. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, you’re wrong. You’re wrong. Let me explain something to you.

Speaker 12:

I’m asking the questions now. No, keep filming. Lemme see your id.

Speaker 8:

No, I don’t have id. You don’t need to have an ID to record. It’s the camera. It has nothing to do with recording. It has to do with

Speaker 12:

You making an illegal turn

Speaker 8:

Here. I didn’t make an illegal turn. I didn’t cut off a car. I beg to differ, bro. Keep begging to differ. Do you have an ID with you? I already told you. Told me what? I already told you. I don’t need an ID to record. You’re missing the point. You’re missing the point. The reason you just pulled around and questioned me is because I was questioning you is because you made an illegal turn. Came over here to question me wrong. Do you have a supervisor, Mr. Garver?

Speaker 12:

I’ve got plenty of supervisors.

Speaker 8:

Who’s the watch commander right now? I don’t know. Why don’t you find out? Why don’t you have ’em come out here? First of all, I don’t have No, no, no, not first of all, you do work for me. I’m a taxpayer and you do work for me. Why don’t you find out who’s the watch commander and you haven’t come out here right now?

Taya Graham:

That was pretty amazing, don’t you think?

Stephen Janis:

Oh yeah. Yeah.

Taya Graham:

I mean incredible.

Stephen Janis:

I know because motorcycle cops, they have their own TV show, so Yeah,

Taya Graham:

They do. And I have a little,

Stephen Janis:

What do you

Taya Graham:

Have? Some have just some folks saying that they love Tom Zebra and Laura Shark. Thank you. Slushy 58. And then I have someone saying hello, just saying, hi Jeff. Thank you. Hi. Real news fam. Good to see you. And I thought there was something that was really powerful here that was written and this is Leonine. And they said, then they came for the socialist and I did not speak out. Then they came for the next trade unionist and I did not speak out. And then they came for me and there was no one left to notice. And I thought that was really powerful because something that James said that was really important to have community that you can get in trouble, you can need help with

Speaker 4:

Bail,

Taya Graham:

You can need legal advice. And so that’s why I think the fact that this became a community so important.

Speaker 4:

And

Taya Graham:

Also of course, I appreciate that I’m a union member myself. I’m a union steward. So shout out Leah Teen. Thank you for that.

Speaker 4:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Okay, now we are going to go to Laura Shark and Tom Zebra. Are they here with us? Do we have Laura Shark to join us? Laura Shark?

Laura Shark:

Yes. Yes.

Taya Graham:

Do I hear her? Lovely boys. I think I do

Laura Shark:

Tom

Taya Graham:

Now. So Laura and Tom, we got you.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, finally together. Great

Taya Graham:

To see you.

Stephen Janis:

Great to see you guys. Great to see you.

Taya Graham:

So first, thank you both so much for being here. And then we have to ask Tom, this is your video. Maybe you can tell us a little bit why you felt it was so important to let this officer on his motorcycle know that sidewalks are not for motorcycles. You seemed very determined there.

Tom Zebra:

You cannot imagine the amount of abuse that not just myself, five years before this, before YouTube or anything else, I had gone through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is something that I’ve never really published, but the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals already ruled in my favor. I had already been through depositions with high power attorneys. I had already destroyed them and proved every single one of them was a liar. So when that video rolled around and you could still hear the fear of my voice despite 10 or more years of being proven and the police’s courts, the law, it’s not my court, it’s their court. I had beat them repeatedly. I knew the difference between right and wrong. And I knew even you hear Dusty Garber in that video, he tried to say, I don’t work for you. Whatever he was going to say, I don’t think he got all of those words out by that time. I already knew what they were going to say before they could say it. And it was like I was just on autopilot.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Tom Zebra:

But that video, when I said mistaken bacon, I think that must’ve put me on the map because that’s what people just love that. And

Before we go any further, I just want to say thank you for having me on the show and Otto and James and Laura and all you guys, it is a pleasure to be here with you. The conversation, I don’t have the video playing like the audience, but all the conversation I’ve heard has just been inspiring. All these thoughts, comments. There’s no way the human mind would be able to remember all the thoughts I just had. So I’m just happy to be here and unfortunately my mind can’t keep up with all the brilliance you guys have already discussed.

Taya Graham:

Well Tom, you are part of the reason we’re here. You have inspired us and we are just so happy to have you and have all these people talk about how important you’ve been to the community. We should ask Laura, so we have to ask Laura, I mean, how did his work affect yours? And actually, actually even before I ask that, how did you guys meet? How did this connection

Stephen Janis:

Connect? We both cop watching. You just ran into each other? No,

Laura Shark:

No, no. Literally at a store. I was walking in and we both weren’t really paying attention and we almost ran into each other.

Taya Graham:

No, you’re kidding. That’s like a

Laura Shark:

Me too. And I had been shown a video, a friend of mine was like, look at this crazy guy on YouTube. And I remembered seeing it in passing and then so when we almost ran into each other, I was like, wait a minute, are you the guy from YouTube? And he was all, oh, and it kind of just kind of spiraled from there. He’s all messaged me or I think I made a comment on one of his next videos and then, I mean I really had no intention to be doing this as well, but it gets you. I went on a cop watch with them and I was terrified. I mean naturally I couldn’t do it by myself for the first couple of times and it was just kind of amazing how much I didn’t know at that point in my thirties it’s just like, how did I not know that this was happening? And then I kind of teamed up with Boxy just to be able to break the mold and not be afraid anymore. He was doing his own thing and then we met back, I guess he’d seen some of my videos and he started to take me seriously and I really appreciated that. And then we were kind of just did all that. It’s

Stephen Janis:

Interesting, I kind of think of you as a team, even though I don’t, you both have your separate channels.

Laura Shark:

Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:

Do you work as a team a lot or is it just my impression?

Laura Shark:

We cop watch a lot, but we butt heads even more. We dunno what’s up. We have no experience with that.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, we have no experience with that at all. We don’t know how to relate to that.

Laura Shark:

Yeah, we definitely have. I’ve come a long way because of him and I admit that sometimes I don’t want to. But no, he’s taught me a lot, him, Catman, Ricky, just the people that I’ve met through him too. I mean, you can’t stop learning. Every time I pop watch, there’s always something new and something else that I absorb into the situation. Something shocking, something simple. When we experience the Christopher Bailey incident, that was shocking for me. Even though it happens when you see something like that, it changes you

Stephen Janis:

Just so people know.

Laura Shark:

Friedman was saying that it will start to mess with you if you really don’t try to make a little bit of humor out of it. But that situation, there was nothing funny that

Stephen Janis:

We could. Just really quickly, so

Taya Graham:

Everyone knows who might not have seen it, Christopher Bailey,

Stephen Janis:

Who might not have seen it, it was a man who was beaten near to death by police

Taya Graham:

And or

Stephen Janis:

By sheriffs.

Taya Graham:

And your recording was instrumental, was absolutely instrumental.

Stephen Janis:

And your recording in a lie to a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Is that correct?

Laura Shark:

Yeah, it was almost a year to the day till we heard from the lawyer. I had almost had to accept that I would never know who he was, if he survived what his story was. But we kept on the story one way or another because of the deputies we would see day in and day out. So I kept posting about it and I also did a sent video to the, I think the, forget who it was, they were doing a whole thing. They were trying to Department of Justice, sorry? Oh yeah, department of Justice, department of Justice, because they were calling for any video of sheriff abusing that stuff. And I was like, oh, I had a couple. I had a lot. And that was the first on the list that I sent them and I think that’s who contacted the lawyer or something behind the scenes.

And then she contacted me and it was literally I had resorted the fact that I would never know and then boom. And yeah, we took part in that case from beginning to end and it was a weird experience. It taught me a lot and Chris couldn’t have been so undeserving of that. There are bad people in the world, I’ll admit. Police can serve a purpose. It’s just too much that we see is the abuse part, but this is so undeserving of it, the nicest man you’ve ever met. It broke my heart when we did a Zoom. We never met him in person, but we did do a zoom with him and the lawyer and he was so sweet. He actually said he was glad it to him being in his health and just being able to take that opposed to somebody that might be on drugs or just be kind of health wise. And I was like, what? He was an amazing man and he did not deserve that and I’m glad he was able to have his resolve.

Stephen Janis:

Tom, do you remember when you decided to pick up a camera? Do you remember that moment? I know when we interviewed before, you said it was to protect yourself. Do you remember that day? Oh, you do. Okay. Can you talk about that?

Tom Zebra:

I remember it was to protect me. No, I couldn’t tell you when At first I put a bunch of cameras in my car because they would pull, I had a Cadillac that I think the stereotype is they’d expect to find a black person driving it. I don’t know if that’s the reason, but I just had a really shiny, beautiful car and I, there were certain agencies I couldn’t drive through without being pulled over. I mean, even though nobody would look at these videos, I couldn’t show them. Nobody cared to watch ’em. Not even my girlfriend friends, it didn’t matter. But

Stephen Janis:

No one wanted to watch it.

Tom Zebra:

Nobody gave a shit. There was no such thing as video sharing or whatever. It wasn’t like people’s phones probably. I don’t know if they had cameras or they didn’t, but they probably didn’t. So it wasn’t a thing where everyone just makes videos and whatnot.

Stephen Janis:

That’s so interesting. And you did it. I’ve got question, Steve. Yeah, no, no, I’m sorry. I’m thinking about that. I’m trying to understand. You’re making these videos and probably at that point you had no idea YouTube was going to and you just kept doing it.

Tom Zebra:

Go ahead. Well, I knew that they’re not going to keep pulling me over and searching me. Gosh, sorry. That’s okay. They’re not going to keep pulling me over and searching me. I wasn’t very smart, but I was wise enough to know because they had already started framing me, but they were framing me for little irrelevant things and the more they would frame me and make me have to go to court and all these stupid things just because they’re mad that they were wrong when they pulled me over, the more angry I got. Eventually I didn’t want to get out of the car and be searched again.

And so the camera thing, it was just like I said to protect me and it would confuse them and throw them off so it wouldn’t have matter if I had a hundred dead bodies in the trunk. Once they seen the camera, they’d be like, what’s that for? I’m like, the video you showed just today, you hear the guy said, well, what’s that for? Well, it’s a device, it records audio and video. I guess you never heard of such a thing, right? It’s sitting there, it’s recording you. So act accordingly. And usually at that point they would just disappear so I could continue on with my a hundred dead bodies in the trunk. Yeah. So it was to protect myself. Yeah. I mean neither of them or myself, none of us understood at that point that these videos would ever even have a purpose.

If I was smart enough to think, oh, one day there’ll be, and I told you this Steven the other night, when if I was smart enough to think ahead and realize one day I’ll be able to share these videos with the world, and if the police were smart enough to realize the same thing, we could have brought some police accountability around sooner, but unfortunately adopted. Yeah, exactly. If I would’ve been that smart, I would’ve been the inventor of YouTube. And unlike the inventor of YouTube who only published one video, he published the very first video, I think, and never to this day never published a second. I would’ve never stopped publishing videos and nobody would’ve been able to terminate my channel and take my videos down. So I think police accountability would’ve went much further. I was as smart. Unfortunately I’m not, and I wasn’t

Taya Graham:

Tom, I was sort of curious. We have our theories on why sometimes police are so aggressive in communities. Why do you think the police were so aggressive in your community? I mean, there’s one of the videos we showed. There’s a clip and I see you just sitting there and eating your chicken nuggies just looking as innocent as the day is long. And I’m like, why is this cop harassing him? And so I’m just curious, why do you think the police were so aggressive in your community and aggressive towards you?

Tom Zebra:

Okay, well, let me try to explain what I think is the reason it’s part of it. I can answer that question a hundred different ways depending on my mood. But this is according to the sheriff. I know you guys are well aware of their budget. All the money that’s spent a billion dollars goes towards what I would call unlawful traffic stops. They call it pretextual. Lemme try again. Pretextual traffic stops only half of 1% of these stops results and any contraband whatsoever, according to them, that’s their story. I don’t know if is the truth better or worse, but according to them, despite all these searches, they only find something illegal 0% of the time. Wow. They sure have a whole lot of motivation. Why would you search 200 cars and you’re only going to find something once.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, it’s a very inefficient way of police

Tom Zebra:

Make what you will that either they’re finding shit more often than they’re willing to admit and taking it home or their supervisor’s taking it home. Somebody’s taking it home because you’re not going to search 200 cars, find out a damn thing, and then next week you’re going to search 200 more cars. Why not just go have lunch

Stephen Janis:

Now, Laura, it seems like every cop knows Tom at least, and a lot of ’em know you was going out with Tom a little fraught. Everyone would see you with Tom Zebra and then the cops would be like, oh, it seems like they talk to you guys. They’ll use your names.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. It seems like they know you. Do they

Stephen Janis:

Respect you? Or they just saying, Hey, we know who you are. We’re going to retaliate. What’s that about?

Laura Shark:

I don’t know if it’s respect. I would say maybe they loathe us. They’re like, oh, great

Stephen Janis:

Here. I

Laura Shark:

Mean, yeah, they always recognize, Daniel’s got so much history with most of the police in our area. I mean, there are a lot, especially when we were doing sheriff, there’s just no way to get away from me on and around 2020, I was just put to the ground. I was just doing it almost every day. And yeah, they could not know me. But overall, just the surrounding cities, I appreciate the history that he has with them. I do feel like I’ve kind of paved my own path when it comes to it. We do kind of post in different kind of formats, but for the most part, yeah, I do appreciate when they do remember me, to be honest, like good. That’s what we’re dealing with now. Okay,

Stephen Janis:

That’s back. That also means your work’s having an impact. They wouldn’t recognize, you know who you are if they weren’t all watching your videos. So that is a good sign.

Taya Graham:

Oh no, I just wanted to mention, no, there’s Chuck Bronson is in the chat, actually have watched him. I’ve lurked during some of your videos while you’re driving around listening to the police scanner, Chuck. So hi, it’s great to see you. And Laura, I had put a comment on the screen that you’d mentioned that there are a lot of great women cop watchers, and I feel like they’re maybe not quite as well known. I was wondering if there are any cop, female cop watchers that you like in particular? Any names you’d want to shout out at

Laura Shark:

All? Oh, I love a lot of them. Yeah. And Jody of course.

Taya Graham:

Is that Jody Cat Media who you’re referring

Laura Shark:

To? Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Okay.

Laura Shark:

Hi, Jody Kat. She’s close friend. I met a lot of, I mean, I don’t want to just kind of throw out names like that mean, sure, I do do Miss Denise. We lost her and I’m

Speaker 4:

Sorry.

Laura Shark:

I do know that. I mean, so many flooding my mind right now and I don’t want to forget to say one.

Taya Graham:

Sure.

Laura Shark:

But I feel like I’ve been, it has blown my mind, the evolution of women cop watchers and it’s always so great to see when I see their posts, I’m like, and they’re doing way more than me, better than me, and I can’t express how much I appreciate their work.

Stephen Janis:

Tom, you heard what people said, James Freeman, all the watchdog about your work. I mean, how does that make you feel to know that people learn from you and how much they respect you and how much you’ve meant to their lives, and also just the fact that it’s all about YouTube connected you. How do you feel about that?

Tom Zebra:

I kind of feel like I’m not allowed to say bad words, but Tom f and Zebra, whatever, I know that’s my name, my moniker, but that’s just a persona. I’m Daniel, and I feel like the town zebra, that wasn’t really a choice that I made. Didn’t, it’s going to be tough to talk about this.

Speaker 4:

It’s okay.

Tom Zebra:

It wasn’t a conscious choice. I didn’t say, oh, I’m going to hold these police accountable. I felt like they didn’t give me any choice except to defend myself. And I feel like Otto, I can’t speak for him, but I feel like he might feel that same way, James. I don’t know if James had a bad experience or not, but just in general, it wasn’t something that I chose to do. It was something that they either I had to bend over and just spread my cheeks and take it and try to smile, or I had to turn around and stand up and it wasn’t easy. But I don’t deserve all the credit. Like I said, Tom Zebra, anybody could be the Tom Zebra in their town or the Jodi Cat or the Laura or the James or the Otto. But I’m not going to suggest anybody should. You got to be willing to probably take a beating and if you have kids, if you have a wife, if you have a mortgage, it’s going to be really difficult to accomplish anything because you can’t be going to jail and court. It’s going to be rough. You guys have all said so many brilliant things. I can’t remember all. I feel like I had a comment for everything and I’ve lost track of all of them.

Taya Graham:

No, but Tom, I think you brought up a really good point, and I think it shows the sort of self-sacrifice that I see and a lot of people in the community because like you said, if you’ve got a kid at home and let’s say you’re working two jobs, you literally can’t afford to go out and cop watching. So someone’s got to go out there and take the hit, so to speak.

Tom Zebra:

Look what happened to Eric Brandt. I mean, I can make a whole show I did. I spent weeks, if not months riding around. They put a bunch of laws in his name. That’s because he’s righteous. That’s because he’s the one telling the law what it is. It’s true if they named it after him. So how do a bunch of corrupt judges send him to prison when the same corrupt judges a year later are buried in their own corruption? If they were smart, they would’ve embraced Eric brand because instead of being embarrassed and all this by their own corruption, they could have avoided it. But they’re not smart because there’s no damn consequence for ’em. So they’ll never care. They laugh all the way to the bank. I’m sorry,

Stephen Janis:

Thomas. Okay, that’s perfect. I think you had a clip that you wanted to play.

Taya Graham:

There is a clip I do want to play. I just want, so actually I will play this clip. I have one more question for Laura before we lose, have our guest leave. Let’s play the clip, but let’s play this clip. This is very special. First, it’s a very special thank you to The Battousai who, because unfortunately because of a scheduling conflict, he couldn’t be here with us today, but he wanted to make sure to say hi to us.

Stephen Janis:

Let’s watch.

Taya Graham:

Let’s watch this.

The Battousai:

Hey Tom. Unfortunately, I was unable to make the live stream however, I wanted to make a quick video in my absence. I just wanted to say that you are one of four people who inspired me to record the police. Now, I did have the honor to meet you a few years ago back in California, and we did some cop watching together. I never forgot that moment. In fact, it was probably one of the biggest highlights of me recording police. Just wanted to wish you well and hope that you’re doing well, and hope to hear from you soon. Take care, buddy.

Taya Graham:

Wow. So we want to thank Philip of the infamous well-known Philip Turner of Turner V Driver. If anyone doesn’t know that case law, go look it up right now. It’s named after that young man who in his work has helped affirm and protect the right to record police as well as support your first amendment rights. So either one of you, Laura or Tom, I just wanted to know what you thought of, but two sides stopping in to say hi.

Laura Shark:

Yeah, no, he was great. We got to meet him and when he came out, I actually went to Texas before that and met up with him. Super sweet. Just the knowledge he has is amazing, and everything that he’s accomplished is makes me a little jealous, right? He’s so young. I know. Yeah. I mean, he is a great guy.

Tom Zebra:

If I could add, it was wonderful. We made a spoof video. We also made serious videos. He went through DY checkpoint with nothing, but I’m sorry, with his, instead of giving the license, he gave his carry concealed weapon id. I think something so outrageous that that’s kind of an outrageous thing to do. You don’t get my license. I’m not rolling the window down, but I do have a gun is basically how we went through that DUI checkpoint.

Speaker 7:

Wow.

Tom Zebra:

Obviously not my id. I would’ve never put him in that situation. But besides that, everybody here, you guys too. Happy anniversary. I’m going to shut up. If you don’t shut me up, I will talk forever. Thank you guys for having me and James Otto, everybody. Laura, even I told the one guy to put his name because I don’t remember it now. Is it Adam?

Taya Graham:

Did I

Tom Zebra:

Get it

Taya Graham:

Right? Yeah. Adam behind the scenes. Yeah. Adam, that’s Adam. Absolutely. Adam, thank you Adam. Adam’s

Tom Zebra:

Making friends.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Oh, that’s awesome.

Tom Zebra:

I’m going to mute my microphone and just tell you guys, I love you and the viewers, everybody. I love all you guys, and I’m so happy to be back. I’m finally healthy again. I never stopped being on the street, but hopefully one of these days I’m going to start publishing again. And I look forward to seeing each and every one of you again. I’m going to mute.

Stephen Janis:

Okay.

Speaker 4:

Thank you. Thank you

Taya Graham:

So

Stephen Janis:

Much. And Laura, thank you too.

Taya Graham:

That’s

Laura Shark:

Beautiful. No problem. Yeah, thank you. And congratulations to you.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you.

Taya Graham:

Thank you, Laura. We really

Laura Shark:

Appreciate it you guys so much. I can’t tell you how much I appreciated how much you’ve done for my channel, for our channels, I mean in publishing about some of our stories and things we’ve seen. So

Stephen Janis:

Is our pleasure, the

Speaker 16:

Community for the world, happy to do it.

Laura Shark:

Oh, I thought you were going to mute

Stephen Janis:

Tom. You

Taya Graham:

Said I love the interaction

Stephen Janis:

Between them. It seems familiar.

Taya Graham:

You know what, Laura, I really appreciate that. And we are just grateful that you were willing to trust us because we are journalists and the media has a certain reputation and some of it is well earned.

Speaker 4:

So

Taya Graham:

We really appreciate that you trusted us with your stories. Thank you. We do.

Stephen Janis:

And keep up the great work out there in la.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, keep up the great work you guys. We love you too.

Tom Zebra:

One more thing, guys. I told you I’m coming through town Baltimore, right? I’m putting them motor homes. It’s going to have the mistaken baking pig on the back on both sides. I’m going to stop in as many cities as I can, and when we get there, I want you guys to tell me and teach me all about the Gun Trace Task Force and the work that you guys have done in your community. Make sure you mute me so I can’t come back on, please.

Taya Graham:

That was wonderful. We would be delighted to take you on a tour of Baltimore. We can show you where the gun trace task force dealt drugs. We can show you, we can take you to the courthouse where Sergeant Ethan Newberg shot us both daggers

Speaker 4:

As

Taya Graham:

He read his statement to the courtroom if he was being convicted on how many counts was it

Stephen Janis:

32? It was nine counts of false arrest. It

Taya Graham:

Was

Stephen Janis:

A lot.

Taya Graham:

It was 32 counts overall, but nine counts were false

Stephen Janis:

Arrest. I don’t remember exactly.

Taya Graham:

It was, it

Stephen Janis:

Was significant.

Taya Graham:

It was a significant number of counts. So we would be absolutely delighted to,

Stephen Janis:

And thank you both for being here to take you on our

Taya Graham:

Tour through Baltimore. We appreciate you.

So we have to thank all the wonderful cop watchers who joined us today. All of them are special to us because they have helped guide us through this meaningful movement. But now, just for a moment, we’re just going to spend just a little bit of time talking about us and what it means to have reached our sixth anniversary. And with that, the announcement about something we’ve been working on for quite some time now. One of the aspects of the most overlooked aspects of copy watching Cop watching is unlike much of YouTube is that it’s not all talk. What I mean is that it is about action. Literally the people we spoke to, the others who do it all must decide to go out, get a camera, find and film police. And that’s what makes it so unique in the offerings of YouTube. It is a hands-on assertion against the policing of space, against the policing of movement and against the policing of behavior and all the other sorts of psychological aspects of policing that would be hidden or less obvious if not for the work of these folks on YouTube. And that’s one of the reasons Steven and I decided we needed to explore this collection of YouTubers in more detail, tell their stories in conjunction with ours. So Steven, do you just want to talk just a little bit about what that means?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I mean, we had encountered just today listening to the cop watchers that we had so many insights about things that you wouldn’t even expect beyond the realm of cop watching, about the psychology of how our government works, the psychology of how law enforcement works and the way it affects everyone’s life. And what we thought was very interesting to us, because we had to learn as journalists who adopt to YouTube and kind of become YouTubers. And through that, through the Cop watchers, we learned how to make that work on some level. And we wanted to tell that story, how our work evolved with their work. Wanted to tell through the prism of one particular cop watcher, which is Eric Brand and his story, and sort of uses a lens for which to view this whole movement, the movement, not just about cop watching, but about journalism, right? I mean you, like I said before, I started a newspaper and suddenly I found myself in our basement recording you and producing shows. And it was a journey for all of us. I mean, we kind of wanted to share how we learned from them and also look at some of the extremes and some of the questions that Eric raised as a cop watcher going to extremes that got him in a lot of trouble and celebrate this community. So we put together a film,

Taya Graham:

And it is a film that examines cop watchers, and it does so through the lens of Eric Brandt, but it’s not just about cop watching and cameras in YouTube. It’s about an aspect of YouTube that contravenes a lot of how we characterize it. Now we have to say Eric is considered very controversial. His tactics have been criticized and sometimes even condemned. And he has also been sentenced to 12 years in prison by Denver Judge for alleged telephone harassment of judges. And this story of how it unfolded and the consequences we cover in this film is just part of explaining why YouTube is not just a platform for videos, because we also covered the improbable community that emerged from the cop watchers who met on YouTube through Eric. And these connections are forged by activism which evolved into friendship, and I would say even into a family.

And the pushback from law enforcement that wreaked havoc on their lives is also explored as well, and the way they supported each other and how they endured the consequences of watching cops and how this collective fight forged real friendships and family that led to meaningful new achievements. But most importantly, as we told the story, one aspect of it seemed increasingly clear all of this, every single aspect of it was again, premised upon taking action, along with identifying the problem, policing these people decided to do something and do something specific, not just talk, not just speculate, not just debate, but act. And that was critical because through action things changed. People picked up cameras, watched police for hours on end and create videos. They were doing something specific about a specific problem. Now, by acting, things changed and by connecting their lives were transformed by using YouTube to come together in this, I don’t know, tactile sphere we call reality.

They changed it. I mean, as we mentioned earlier, I think we might have an issue with the Washington Post article. Even the Washington Post finally acknowledged in this article that cop watchers had changed police behavior. But enough of that kind of analysis onto the official announcement, Steven and I have filmed multiple documentaries, including the Friendliest Town, which is on policing on the eastern shore, about a Maryland police chief who was fired under very controversial circumstances and tax broke, which is a feature length investigation into the ways wealthy developers get even wealthier off the backs of my city’s taxpayers. And hopefully we might have a few links to those in the chat. We now have a new film that I’m excited to announce. It’s called I Am, but The Mirror, the Story of American Cop watching. It’s the story of the evolution of the YouTube version of Cop watching through not one, not two, but possibly three separate lenses. But let’s watch the trailer first and then maybe we can talk about it a little

Speaker 4:

Bit. Global. Globaltel Link has a collect call for you

Speaker 11:

From Eric.

Stephen Janis:

Our top story, a controversial Denver activist, is facing sentencing for threatening, not one, but three Denver judges.

Speaker 10:

Eric Brandt is an agitator. This is why I now advocate for the random shooting of judges. Judges have absolute

Otto The Watchdog:

Immunity, nothing that they do can they be held accountable for. I met Eric through YouTube. I really didn’t like the guy when I first saw his stuff. I thought that I’m going to watch his poor guy get his ass whipped on tv.

Speaker 16:

He’s going to say something, this cop’s going to flip the and whip his ass.

Speaker 10:

Here’s what he did in this case, he told Judge Rudolph’s staff, it is my thought that Judge Rudolph should be violently murdered. Who in the world thinks that that’s okay, Mr. Brandt, on each of these three counts, you’re sentenced to four years in the Department of Corrections. For those of you who do not know, a congregation of adult pigs is called a sounder.

Stephen Janis:

When TERs came to me with this idea of we’re going to cover these people called Cop Watchers, I was like, what? And I watched a couple videos and I was like, no.

Taya Graham:

So I finally come in, Stephen, to look at this video of a man who got arrested for filming the police.

Speaker 12:

Hey, what’s up everybody? It’s James Freeman. You doing all right over here? What department are you with? You got ID on you.

Speaker 16:

I’d say there’s about 800 people that have their own channels that are filming the police and either going live and doing it or posting in their videos later.

Speaker 17:

One of the things that, in talking about all that’s gone on is that without Eric Brand, none of this would’ve come to be.

Taya Graham:

Well, Steven, I’m sure you might have something to say since you’re the one who put together that trailer and also is the one playing the guitar and doing that music. So

Stephen Janis:

Do you want me to sing the theme song?

Taya Graham:

No, that would Maybe next time, maybe next time everyone, he can sing for you. But this time, maybe just give us a little bit about the layers of the film.

Stephen Janis:

Well, the layers, like I said, you have Eric’s, I guess, the evolution of Cop watching through the eyes of Eric and how Eric became sort of tested the extremes. And then you have the other layer of this community that was formed by YouTube of all things where people met online, but then ended up doing something active in the actual world and the tactile existence. And then you had the evolution of our journalism, as I said before, of how we learned become journalists on YouTube, and how we covered a movement that actually ended up changing the way we covered things. I mean, literally, it was like a mirror effect in some way where we adopted the way Cop watchers kind of adopted to YouTube. So all those things are told in the story,

Taya Graham:

And

Stephen Janis:

I thought it should all be put together in one place, what I like to do. And it had 1500 edits.

Taya Graham:

Yes,

Stephen Janis:

It was very,

Taya Graham:

This took a lot of work traveling out to Colorado, back and

Stephen Janis:

Forth.

Taya Graham:

And if you think cops cop watchers chasing cops or something, we were chasing the cop watchers around as they were chasing cops.

Stephen Janis:

So

Taya Graham:

We put a lot of heart and effort into it, and we really hope that you’re going to check it out when we do our launch.

But one of the reasons though, I really wanted to tell the story myself is to show how my evolution as a journalist was actually accelerated by reporting on the community of cop watchers that we feature in this documentary. And I wanted to share that I learned a lot from people I really didn’t even know and would’ve never have known at all if it hadn’t been for YouTube. And I’ve mentioned before that I grew up in Baltimore City and that I understood police misconduct, of course, which is something I experienced personally, but I had seen it as an urban issue. Cop watchers and auditors and independent journalists and people who are literally this comment section right now, they reached out to me and they helped me understand that I should investigate rural communities. That those communities were also enduring pain and harassment and exploitation at the hands of police.

And this was critical to me understanding that the police industrial complex has a boot that steps on many necks, and we need broad consensus across racial lines across city versus country, right versus left. We’ve got to agree this needs to change because it’s hurting all of us. And that for me is what makes this whole story so critical that these social media platforms that normally just keep us isolated and divided can actually be used to accomplish real change, but only if we act together and only if we use the ability to communicate, to translate our ideas into practice. And it taught me a lot about what journalism can do. That by covering a grassroots movement with all the effort and energy that the mainstream media normally heaps on the elites, we could help connect the dots. We could be part of accelerating ideas and connecting the people to each other in a way that made the push for progress more tangible, not just theoretical.

So on this the six anniversary of the Police Accountability Report, I want to express more than anything gratitude. Gratitude to the people who openly share their stories with us, despite the threat of police retaliation to the guests on our show who talk to us about some of the worst moments in their lives, and the brave souls from small towns to big cities who are willing to push back simply because they know it’s right. I know I’ve been inspired by them. I have seen Stephen Bees inspired by them, and we both understand that independent journalism is wholly dependent upon people being willing to speak to us and share with us and trust us. So please let me say this as my final thought. Thank you, all of you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you for watching. Thank you for caring, and thank you for being willing to push for knowledge, the truth, and hopefully seeing the best in all of us. Thank you all. I really appreciate you.

Police in Jonesboro, Arkansas, are facing scrutiny following the release of body camera footage capturing a ticket issued to a local pizza delivery driver—who says that officers have pulled him over more than seven times in under a year. The driver, Christian Mobley, says police have destroyed his livelihood after he lost his job due to receiving so many tickets. Police Accountability Report investigates the case as an example of how police departments around the country employ dirty tactics to maximize city revenues through ticketing.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Written by: Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Adam Coley

Transcript

Taya Graham:  Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. To do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today we will achieve that goal by showing not one, not two, but multiple questionable stops by police of a pizza delivery man trying to simply make a living. It’s an ongoing pattern of writing tickets, pulling him over — And yes, even an arrest — That we will investigate to reveal just how problematic the actions of these officers are.

But first, before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com, or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you.

And please, like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out, and it can even help our guests — And of course you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there. And I’ve even started doing a PAR comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and what a terrific community we have.

And we do have a Patreon: Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. Alright, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, there is no doubt that times are tough for the working class in this country: Grueling jobs, underpaid work, and insufficient benefits are not only commonplace but a veritable addendum to the American dream that, for some, has turned into a nightmare.

And that is why today we are telling the story of one man who personifies both the challenges and obstacles of making an honest living under extreme duress. The man in question, Christian Mobley, has been working as a pizza delivery person in Jonesboro, Arkansas, for years. There, he has been diligently delivering food, working late into the night to make ends meet.

But soon he found, along with the occupational hazards and inherent dangers of delivering food, another unexpected challenge he had to overcome to make ends meet: the Jonesboro, Arkansas, Police Department. That’s because in spring of 2023, police began pulling him over for minor traffic violations, car stops that often became confrontational and ever more contentious as police turned traffic enforcement into something entirely divorced from public safety. Encounters with police that changed his life.

Now, Christian’s story begins, like I said, in June of 2023. Christian was driving to work to start his delivery shift when a Jonesboro officer, Michael Starnes, pulled him over. Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Michael Starnes:  What’s going on man? You all right? My name is Officer Starnes, Jonesboro Police Department. The reason I stopped you is you got a brake light out, your passenger side brake light. Is there a reason you’re not wearing your seatbelt today, sir?

Christian Mobley:  No, I’m trying to get to Walmart so I can pick up [inaudible].

Officer Michael Starnes:  You going to Walmart? You’re going the wrong way.

Christian Mobley:  [Inaudible] go north, pick up the [inaudible].

Officer Michael Starnes:  You got a driver’s license on you?

Christian Mobley:  Yes, sir.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now as you notice, the officer is already questioning Christian about circumstances that have nothing to do with his allegedly broken tail light. I’m not sure why he has to explain where he is going or even why. But the officer asks, let’s say, provocative questions, that heightened the tension of this stop. Just listen.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Michael Starnes:  OK, Mr. Mobley, is there a reason you’re nervous? What’s wrong, man?

Christian Mobley:  I mean, you’re telling me from all the way, who wouldn’t be nervous? You’re telling me all the way from back there. Well —

Officer Michael Starnes:  You have a brake light out, man.

Christian Mobley:  You tell somebody that long, I mean, you going to pull me over. You could have pulled me up —

Officer Michael Starnes:  Well I thought you were going to turn to a residence back there. I wasn’t going to bother you because you were going to be at home, but I saw you driving. So I mean, you need to know your brake light’s out, don’t you? For your safety, right?

Christian Mobley:  Alright.

Officer Michael Starnes:  I mean, right? And you’re not wearing your seatbelt. That’s not safe either, man. I’ll be right back with you, OK?

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, I won’t judge for you, but I think Christian looks annoyed rather than nervous. And truly, if the officer was concerned about Christian’s safety, why were they focusing on his state of mind? But apparently Mr. Mobley’s answer did not satisfy the Jonesboro Police Department, because again they escalated the encounter. Just look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Michael Starnes:  [Inaudible]. Visibly shaken.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, before I play the next section of the video, I want you to notice how police often needlessly escalate a routine car stop. That is because, since the initial contact, at least two other officers appear, including the one I’m showing you now on the screen. They approach Christian’s car from the back. So how would any rational person not be afraid? How could you not be fearful of a rapid and, frankly, questionable ratcheting up of police presence? Just take a look at what happens next.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Michael Starnes:  Hey Mr. Mobley, go ahead and step out for me, OK?

Christian Mobley:  Did I do something?

Officer Michael Starnes:  I’ll explain all that to you in just a second. Just go back here. So this is a high drug traffic area. So what I’m going to do is I’m just going to run a dog around your vehicle, and if it doesn’t hit, we’ll be out of here. Is there anything in your vehicle that’s illegal?

Christian Mobley:  I’m just going to Walmart. I’m a pickup driver for Walmart.

Officer Michael Starnes:  I get it man. I get it man. That’s all I’m trying to prove, man. Trying to prove your exact [inaudible]. OK? Is there anything on you illegal?

Christian Mobley:  Nothing [inaudible].

Officer Michael Starnes:  Mind we search you real quick? Is that OK? Yes or no? Yes or no?

Christian Mobley:  Yeah, sure. [Inaudible] nothing in the car.

Officer Michael Starnes:  Go ahead and turn around for me. [Inaudible]. [Inaudible] your hat. Just want to spray [inaudible]. There’s nothing illegal in here at all?

Christian Mobley:  [Inaudible].

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  So the overarching crime under investigation here is an allegedly broken tail light — Although, the cop never uses his body camera to record the evidence. From that point, police construct a narrative that Mr. Mobley, because he’s driving in a so-called “high drug crime area”, should be subject to a drug-sniffing dog to test his car.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Michael Starnes:  She’s been letting it go.

Police Officer 1:  So dispatch let her go.

Officer Michael Starnes:  Yeah, essentially. Hey dude, I appreciate your patience, man. On your brake light, I’m going to give you a verbal warning, [inaudible] give you a citation for no seatbelt [inaudible].

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  So after the entire ordeal of being personally searched, then his car subject to a drug-sniffing dog, Christian is given a citation. That’s right. All the assorted officers, including a drug K-9 unit, deployed to battle a broken tail light. But for all the duress Christian experienced with this stop, he was soon pulled over again in March of 2024. Let’s listen as an officer justified stopping him.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Police Officer 2:  Adam nor zebra, 86 M ANZ 86 M on Nettleton by the country club. Send me another unit over here. I’m not sure what he’s doing.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  “He’s over by the country club. I’m not sure what he’s doing.” I mean, that’s interesting. So driving by a country club is suddenly a crime. First he was driving in a high drug and crime area and that was justification to search his car, and now he’s driving next to a country club. Apparently Jonesboro is just a bunch of no-go zones for delivery drivers.

And like the previous stop, apparently one officer was not enough to corral Mr. Mobley. Shortly after he was pulled over, another cop showed up on the scene. Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Christian Mobley:  How was y’all harassing me? I just told you, cops are always following me. That’s harassment.

Police Officer 3:  That’s not harassment.

Christian Mobley:  It is harassment —

Police Officer 3:  There’s officers who drive every day, every [crosstalk].

Christian Mobley:  You on it too. You want to harass me too?

Police Officer 4:  I just came here because he asked for backup, man. [Pause]. He’s clear.

Christian Mobley:  I’m always clear. I ain’t never committed no crimes. I’m always clear. You ain’t never going to catch me with nothing, no drugs or nothing.

Police Officer 3:  Listen, dude, bring it down [crosstalk]. Just bring it down.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, the car stop then takes a troubling turn as the officer says something that seems very pointed and, honestly, a bit disturbing.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Police Officer 4:  Where have I talked to you before? Your name sounds familiar.

Christian Mobley:  Yeah, I got these cops always following me, and harassing me. So if I don’t come home, you know where I’m at. They’re arresting me for no reason.

Police Officer 4:  We’re not arresting you for anything, man.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  But yet again, this car stop ends without charges. Not even a ticket, as the officer never fully articulates what Christian was apparently doing wrong other than driving adjacent to a country club.

But this is not the last encounter in the series of stops that have pervaded Mr. Mobley’s life. That’s because, just months later, he’s pulled over yet again, this time just outside his workplace. See for yourself.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Christian Mobley:  Yeah. What’s up?

Officer Odie:  What’s going on?

Christian Mobley:  Yeah, what’s going on? I’m working.

Officer Odie:  [Crosstalk] JPD —

Christian Mobley:  I’m working right now. I know.

Officer Odie:  Officer with JPD. The reason I stopped you is because you didn’t use the turn signal [inaudible].

Christian Mobley:  Yeah, I did use the turn signal. Yeah, I did.

Officer Odie:  You didn’t use it 100 [inaudible].

Christian Mobley:  I used the turn signal. Yeah, I did. [Crosstalk] What’s your name?

Officer Odie:  — 100 feet prior to turning into the parking lot.

Christian Mobley:  What’s your name?

Officer Odie:  Can I have your driver’s license [crosstalk], registration, and insurance? What?

Christian Mobley:  What’s your name? Name and badge number?

Officer Odie:  [Pause] Driver’s license, registration, insurance.

Christian Mobley:  Name and badge number. Name and badge number [crosstalk].

Officer Odie:  Driver’s license —

Christian Mobley:  OK.

Officer Odie:  — Registration, insurance.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  OK, so I’m just going to have to be blunt for a moment. I understand enforcing the law is not easy and is often complicated. I understand officers have to do their jobs to make sure we obey certain rules of the road. But to pull a man working to make a living for not signaling quickly enough within 100 feet, is that really worth anyone’s time, let alone a police officer’s?

How many times have we been told traffic stops are one of the most dangerous facets of policing? How many law enforcement officials have repeatedly claimed that they take a mortal risk simply by pulling over a driver to procure their license and registration? My point here is why? If indeed this is so risky, why bother to pull over a man for a traffic infraction that is so minor and of such little consequence? Why take the risk if the alleged misdeed is so inconsequential?

Well, Stephen has been working on that question, and we’ll discuss it later. But despite the questionable nature of the allegation, the Jonesboro officer presses on and actually escalates the encounter. Just watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Christian Mobley:  Hey [censored], I need to get my, uh, my driver’s license out of there.

Officer Odie:  Driver’s license, registration, and insurance.

Christian Mobley:  I need to go in there and get my driver’s license out of there.

Officer Odie:  You not going inside.

Christian Mobley:  It’s inside.

Officer Odie:  Well you not going inside. I’ll take your name and date of birth. Matter of fact, step out for me.

Christian Mobley:  We have to lock our stuff up in the car — Up in the job then. All right, cool.

Officer Odie:  You [inaudible] away? Do you have any weapons on you?

Christian Mobley:  No, I don’t have no, no weapons, nothing on me. Alright, cool. I’m working right now. As you can see, Papa Johns, I’m working.

Officer Odie:  What’s your name, date of birth, man?

Christian Mobley:  Christian Mobley.

Officer Odie:  [Inaudible].

Christian Mobley:  I did use the turn signal. I did.

Officer Odie:  You didn’t. If you stop talking over me and let me explain.

Christian Mobley:  OK.

Officer Odie:  You didn’t use the turn signal 100 feet prior before making this right turn into this parking lot.

Christian Mobley:  I used the turn signal fully, and you know I did.

Officer Odie:  Not 100 feet prior. That’s what I’m saying.

Christian Mobley:  100 feet prior. I used the turn [crosstalk] —

Officer Odie:  You keep trying to talk over me and you giving the wrong information.

Christian Mobley:  OK, man. OK. This is clearly harassment.

Officer Odie:  Do you have any registration and [crosstalk] —?

Christian Mobley:  Yeah, I got everything you need in the car.

Officer Odie:  Where is it?

Christian Mobley:  Can I get in the car?

Officer Odie:  Of course, go ahead.

Christian Mobley:  OK.

Officer Odie:  Registration and insurance please.

Christian Mobley:  OK.

Officer Odie:  Hold on, hold on, hold on.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, as the stop continues, I want you to notice something as I run the video. Again, these car stops are not being conducted by a single officer. No. This apparently serious offense of not signaling more than 100 feet before the turn has actually warranted not one, not two, but seemingly three cops at least. That’s three law enforcement officers for one pizza delivery man who apparently made an ill-timed use of his turn signal. Take a look at how this increased police presence makes this stop even more tense.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Christian Mobley:  This is clearly harassment.

Police Officer 5:  I’m only going to ask you this one time, OK? Stay right there. Don’t move. You understand what I’m telling you?

Christian Mobley:  Yeah, I understand what you’re telling me fully, officer.

Police Officer 6:  …Name and date of birth [inaudible]?

Christian Mobley:  Am I being detained?

Police Officer 6:  Yes [crosstalk]. At the moment, yes.

Christian Mobley:  I’m being detained?

Police Officer 6:  At the moment, yes.

Officer Thomas:  Where is it at in the glove box?

Christian Mobley:  It’s in the glove box. My insurance and everything’s in the glove box, officer.

Officer Thomas:  Are you giving us consent to go in there and get it?

Christian Mobley:  You said I’m being detained, right?

Officer Thomas:  Yes sir.

Christian Mobley:  So if I’m being —

Officer Thomas:  — [Inaudible] have to have consent for you to go inside there so we can get your —

Christian Mobley:  So if I deny, if I deny…

Officer Thomas:  If you deny it, we’ll cite you for not having proof of…

Christian Mobley:  OK, go on there and get it. Go on there and get it. Come get my keys out the car and get my driver’s license out the box.

Police Officer 6:  Because you’re supposed to have it while you’re driving. So we just won’t even worry about that. You shouldn’t be driving without a license.

Christian Mobley:  Yeah, yeah. Come get my keys out the car.

Officer Thomas:  No, stay over there.

Christian Mobley:  Come get my keys out the car so you can get my driver’s out the box.

Police Officer 6:  [Crosstalk] If you keep yelling, I’m gonna detain you and put you in the vehicle. Stop yelling [inaudible].

Officer Thomas:  Until we tell you to, don’t throw nothing. OK? Thank you.

Christian Mobley:  OK.

Officer Thomas:  Let’s get this right. You’re not in control, you don’t get to tell him what to do. You don’t get [crosstalk] —

Christian Mobley:  I get you officer. I got you. What’s your name and badge number?

Officer Thomas:  D. Thomas. 1533.

Christian Mobley:  Thank you. Thank you, officer. Yeah, they harassing me [censored]. They harassing me.

Officer Thomas:  Get your hands out your pocket.

Christian Mobley:  Ain’t no weapons on me.

Officer Thomas:  Get your hands out of your pockets. I’m just telling you [crosstalk] —

Christian Mobley:  My bad. I’m used to putting my hand in my pocket, man. That’s all it is [crosstalk].

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  OK, just wait a moment. I think I actually undercounted the number of cops at the scene this time. It looks like there are at least four officers who’ve joined this investigation. And guess what? More cops probably means more problems. And that’s exactly what happened, as police decided to put Christian in handcuffs. Just look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Christian Mobley:  Huh? What’s your badge number? What’s your badge number?

Police Officer 7:  [Inaudible].

Christian Mobley:  Thank you. Who is that right there?

Officer Thomas:  He’s not a part of this traffic stop. It doesn’t concern you.

Christian Mobley:  OK. Hey, hey, hey [censored]. They won’t let me get my license out the box. They won’t let — He’s my manager.

Police Officer 7:  Don’t be yelling back and forth.

Christian Mobley:  He, yeah, they harassing me [censored].

Police Officer 7:  What did I just say?

Christian Mobley:  Hey, [censored], they harassing me [censored].

Police Officer 7:  Hey, put him back in there. Put him back in the truck.

Officer Thomas:  Here’s what’s going on. [Inaudible] behind your back.

Christian Mobley:  I’m being arrested?

Police Officer 7:  You’re being detained.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  That’s right. They detained him — Although this looks like an arrest to me. And again, this entire ordeal did not lead to any actual charges, just more mental anguish for Mr. Mobley. But it wasn’t over, not hardly. Just 48 hours later, just two days after the stop we just watched, Christian was pulled over again by the same officer.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Odie:  [Inaudible] Jonesboro Police Department.

Christian Mobley:  I know [inaudible].

Officer Odie:  The reason I stopped you is because you was following too close.

Christian Mobley:  No I wasn’t.

Officer Odie:  Yes you were.

Christian Mobley:  No.

Officer Odie:  You flashed me with your high beams. No I wasn’t. When I pulled over into this parking lot, you was so close, you almost rear-ended me. OK. What was the purpose of you —

Christian Mobley:  You harassing me again, Odie.

Officer Odie:  Can I have your driver’s license, registration, insurance?

Christian Mobley:  What’s the traffic infraction, Odie?

Officer Odie:  Driver’s license, registration, and insurance.

Christian Mobley:  You harassing me again, Odie!

Officer Odie:  Mr. Mobley.

Christian Mobley:  OK.

Officer Odie:  Driver’s license, registration, insurance.

Christian Mobley:  Do you know that’s BS, Odie.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  But this time, the crime was apparently following too closely. But this time as well, the officer seems to have decided that he would employ the full extent of his police powers. Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Odie:  Set out. Step out. Step out.

Christian Mobley:  Here’s your driver’s license here.

Officer Odie:  No, step out. It’s too late.

Christian Mobley:  Here it is. Here it is. What you doing man?

Officer Odie:  Step out.

Christian Mobley:  What are you doing?

Officer Odie:  Turn around.

Christian Mobley:  What are you doing, Odie?

Officer Odie:  Hands behind your back.

Christian Mobley:  What are you doing?

Officer Odie:  Hands behind your back.

Christian Mobley:  What am I being arrested for, Odie [handcuffs close]? What am I being arrested for?

Officer Odie:  Obstruction.

Christian Mobley:  For what?

Officer Odie:  1-42 dispatch.

Christian Mobley:  Oh damn, this is bullshit.

Officer Odie:  15 one time.

Christian Mobley:  You know this is bullshit, right?

Officer Odie:  Turn around. I asked you three times to give me your information.

Christian Mobley:  I gave it to you. It’s in your hand.

Officer Odie:  I’m only required to ask you once. You gave it to me once I came over here and told you to step out the vehicle.

Christian Mobley:  You know what you’re doing is BS, man.

Officer Odie:  Let’s go.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Obstruction. Well, that’s interesting. Bear in mind obstruction is premised upon obstructing an investigation into a separate crime, and since the officer did not articulate what the underlying crime is, we have no idea how he is justifying the charge — A lack of full disclosure that is not addressed during a postarrest discussion. Let’s watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Odie:  Mr. Mobley.

Christian Mobley:  Yeah?

Officer Odie:  What’s a good phone number for you?

Christian Mobley:  What am I being arrested for?

Officer Odie:  Obstruction.

Christian Mobley:  I’m being arrested for obstruction?

Officer Odie:  Yes sir. What’s a good phone number?

Christian Mobley:  How did I obstruct, Odie?

Officer Odie:  Are you going to tell me your phone number, Mr. Mobley?

Christian Mobley:  What’s the number for?

Officer Odie:  For your citation.

Christian Mobley:  How did I obstruct, Odie?

Officer Odie:  What’s your current address?

Christian Mobley:  You know my address, Odie. It’s on the driver’s license.

Officer Odie:  OK. You mind telling it to me?

Christian Mobley:  It’s on the driver’s license.

Officer Odie:  All right. Well, like I said, you going to jail tonight for obstruction. I asked you three times to provide me with your identification.

Christian Mobley:  I gave it to you.

Officer Odie:  After the fact. I came over there [crosstalk] —

Christian Mobley:  How was I obstructing though, Odie? How was I obstructing?

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  And so Christian is taken to jail without sufficient justification, and truly without understanding what crime he’d committed. And as you’ll learn later, this had devastating consequences for him and his livelihood.

But there is more to the story, so much more that we’re actually not showing all the video now. Instead, there will be a part two of our investigation into the Jonesboro Police Department. And please feel free to reach out with your own stories of your interactions with the Jonesboro Police Department. And we will be soon joined by Christian to tell us how this continuing series of police encounters has impacted his life and what he wants to happen as a result.

But first we will be joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been reaching out to the police and examining the documents. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  Now, first, I know you sent a lengthy email to the Jonesboro, Arkansas, Police Department. What did you ask and how did they respond?

Stephen Janis:  Well, I was very specific because I was very concerned about the probable cause for putting Mr. Mobley through all these car stops and some of the searches. So I asked them very specifically, how do you designate a high-crime area in the city? Is that like an official designation? What is the process you use? Secondly, I asked about the country club: Is driving within the vicinity of a country club actually a crime, and how do you establish this? Basically I was looking for a criteria for how they decide when to pull someone over and what that means.

Now, you sent an email to answer the Jonesboro Police Department. We actually sat and talked to them on the phone. We actually spoke to a traffic sergeant there who said he would get back to us. I have not heard, but we’re going to keep following up. And I just want to let people know we did our due diligence to get these people to respond. We let them know the questions we had. We asked specific questions, and we did not get a response. But they have certainly been put on notice about this.

Taya Graham:  So you have reviewed all the video in depth. Do you think the officers had probable cause to stop Christian?

Stephen Janis:  Well Taya, certainly not, because I have a lot of experience with being pulled over myself and living in a city where part of their crime enforcement was to pull random people over all the time. And these stops, saying high-crime area, that’s so subjective. Driving near a country club, even more odd. And I can’t even call it subjective, just kind of crazy.

And then the stops occurred later when he was driving 100 feet. I mean, how on earth is any person supposed to know? How is a cop supposed to know that? How do you know when someone’s not put a turn signal on 100 feet before they turn? That’s just impossible. So to me, these stops are highly questionable. I don’t think the law backs it up, and I think the questions need to be asked.

Taya Graham:  Stephen, can you give me some background on the Jonesboro Police? How large is the department and what their crime rates look like?

Stephen Janis:  Taya, there are a lot of different ways to look at crime statistics, and we’ve seen some reports that say Jonesboro has somewhat of a high crime rate, although it’s not that much different from the rest of major cities in Arkansas. Some people have given them a B-plus for certain types of crimes and a C for violent crimes, so they’re all over the board. Obviously they have some problem with crime.

But I will say as a word of caution that pulling people over randomly does not reduce crime. They did that a lot in Baltimore and it didn’t work. And if that’s the department strategy — And I really wish they would talk to us about this — Then I think they’re going in the wrong direction.

Taya Graham:  And now to give us a sense of how his ongoing encounters with police have affected his life and his livelihood, and how his perception of law enforcement has changed, I’m joined by Christian Mobley. Christian, thank you so much for joining us.

Christian Mobley:  No problem.

Taya Graham:  Now first, please walk me through what we’re seeing in this video. You’re working in food delivery, driving back from a stop, I assume. What happens when the officer pulls behind you? What did they say, and why are they pulling you over?

Christian Mobley:  I didn’t use the turn signal at 100 feet before making the turn — But I used the turn signal.

Taya Graham:  So the officer initially says you’re not using your turn signal and then admits, well, you used the turn signal, you just didn’t use it within 100 feet of the turn. What were your thoughts when he said this, and do you agree with his assessment?

Christian Mobley:  What you don’t see, what you don’t see is there’s another cop on the left side of me. He’s right on the left side of me, and Odie is behind me. So it’s like they kind of got me boxed in. But yeah, it’s just harassment. The police department is actually across the street from Papa John’s, so they sit over there all the time stalking me, trying to make their presence felt. It’s like they’re just trying to agitate me all the time, and it’s just what they do.

Taya Graham:  This seems to be a simple traffic enforcement issue, and really, if you were guilty at all, there should have just been a warning. Why did it escalate? It seemed like there were four officers on the scene just for a turn signal infraction.

Christian Mobley:  Simply put, they don’t like me. They don’t like the fact that I stand up to them and they can’t bully me or intimidate me, and I speak out against them. So they just got a problem with that. But like I said, I’m not really necessarily doing this for me. I know I’m not the only one in this town dealing with this kind of stuff, so this is more so for the other people that’s dealing with this. And somebody needs to do something about it. I feel like I’m the one to do something about it.

Taya Graham:  Now, you were trying to communicate with your manager or one of your coworkers. You tried to explain to the officers where your information was. Why do you think they were so adamant about stopping you from communicating with your manager?

Christian Mobley:  They knew that if he could get my driver’s license they probably wouldn’t have, they probably wouldn’t be able to get me with that charge of failure to present driver’s license. But when I come into work, my driver’s license is always in my wallet, and I lock my wallet up in my locker, so I forgot it that day. So that’s why my driver’s license wasn’t on me at the time.

Taya Graham:  So what surprised me was that they placed you in cuffs, effectively, for trying to speak. How did they treat you? Did they put you in the back of the car? You can’t really see because the video goes dark for a little period of time.

Christian Mobley:  Well, they didn’t put me in the back of the car, they just cuffed me. They just took my phone, placed it on the hood of his patrol vehicle, and that’s why the screen went dark. But I was in front of the vehicle, handcuffed.

Taya Graham:  So this wasn’t the first time Jonesboro police officers have followed you looking for traffic infractions. Can you tell me how many other times you’ve been pulled over this year, and for what?

Christian Mobley:  If I could, off the top of my head, I could say at least five times. It’s like they would pull me over to try to find out where I live, try to get my… They would issue me warnings, but they would pull me over. It’s like they trying to find out who I am and where I live at so they can monitor me or something.

Taya Graham:  So I know you mentioned that after one of your traffic stops with Officer Sgt James D. Stout on March 3 this year, you said he followed you into a Walmart afterwards. Do you believe this is harassment?

Christian Mobley:  It is something they do. It’s like this little thing they do. It was after the encounter. I was doing Walmart Spark. And while I’m doing Walmart Spark, he drives by me and kind of nods at me. It’s something they do. They’ll drive by you and they’ll nod at you, like, we’re watching you. It is just something they all do. It’s like a little gang thing that they do. And yeah, he drove past me. He nodded at me like he’s trying to intimidate, like he’s trying to send me a message. They all do it.

Taya Graham:  They said they aren’t following you, but pull you over because they thought you were brake checking them? Can you please explain?

Christian Mobley:  I was just coming from Natural Grocers, and they have this thing where they’ll always get behind me and start telling me, and he was just doing the same thing. And what you don’t see is him looking in his mirror. I can see him looking in his mirror, making a face, trying to intimidate me. It’s what you don’t see in the video. So I’m just slowing down to see what he’s on, and then he turns his lights on and said, I’m trying to brake check him. It is what it is.

Taya Graham:  So Officer Michael Starnes of the Jonesboro Police Department pulled you over June 27 this year, allegedly for having a brake light out. But then he started saying you look nervous. Considering how often you’ve been pulled over this year, I would be nervous too. Do you think he was hoping to search your car? And he was talking about smelling deodorizing spray in your car, and talking about running a K-9 around your vehicle, and that you’re in a very high-crime area. I’m familiar with that sort of police procedure as a Baltimore City resident. Do you think he was fishing for a bigger crime than a traffic infraction?

Christian Mobley:  It wasn’t a high-crime area, not at all. But I think he was just targeting me. But the very next day after that incident, I’m in Dollar General on East Johnson. He walks in. My back is to him. He walks in the dollar store and, like I said, as I turned around, I seen him standing there. He gives me this nod. He’s trying to send me a message, like, we’re going to be watching you. It’s what they do. It’s like they target people. It’s like a game to them.

Taya Graham:  So you were driving your mother’s car during that stop, which is a nice looking car. And the officer said you were in a high-crime area. Do you think that you were being profiled? There were at least four officers on the scene and a K-9, so it seems like they were expecting you to be the catch they were fishing for. Is Jonesboro a place where there’s lots of criminal activity?

Christian Mobley:  Not at all. I mean, nah. Even if you say you live in the hood in Jonesboro, it ain’t dangerous. Give me a break. Nah, it’s not high-crime at all.

Taya Graham:  So Christian, how much has this cost you personally? I would imagine it is stressful just getting into your car for work considering how often you’ve been followed and ticketed and how much it costs in tickets and time going to court. What has this cost you, either financially or even emotionally or psychologically?

Christian Mobley:  I would just say I’m built for it. No, I’m not. And like I said, they’re not going to intimidate me. I’m not the one they’re going to intimidate. I’m going to stand up, I’m going to stand up against them. But in the beginning it was kind of stressful because it was new to me. But it started to anger me, and that’s when I decided, you know what? I’m going to stand up against this. I’m going to bring light to this situation because I can’t be the only one in Jonesboro, Arkansas, dealing with this from these officers.

One time it got the best of me where I made a mistake and thought someone was following me, and I ended up getting arrested by Deputy Jordan Drum. But that was in the beginning when it was new to me, but now I built a tolerance for it and I know how to deal with it, and I know how to manipulate it and catch them in the process of trying to do it to me.

Taya Graham:  Christian, I hate to ask this, but do you have any sort of criminal history that could explain why these officers have chosen to keep such a close eye on you?

Christian Mobley:  No. The only thing, if you want to consider it, is when Deputy Jordan Drum from the Craighead County Sheriff’s Office, he arrested me. The only thing they charged me with was obstruction. That’s the only, I guess, major thing you can say that’s on my record. Everything else is just traffic tickets.

Taya Graham:  By any chance, do you know why Officer Peyton Perkins was fired? He was one of the officers that was involved in your interactions.

Christian Mobley:  I don’t know. I went in there, I went in there one day to get a FOIA video. And yeah, Trevor, I was talking to Trevor, Officer Trevor, and I said, I was talking to him about Perkins, and he said he got fired, and I asked him why. He wouldn’t disclose to me why he got fired. So I’m not really sure, but I’m happy he’s fired.

Taya Graham:  If you could speak to the Jonesboro Police Department right now, what would you say? If you knew they were listening to you right this moment, what would you want to tell them?

Christian Mobley:  Personally, I just want to tell them they cowards. They cowards. For you to do for them to try to put that type of… This is the type of stuff that can make people commit suicide. So for them to find some sort of satisfaction out of doing this type of stuff, they’re cowards. That’s what I would tell them. They’re cowards, and that’s all you’ll ever be.

Taya Graham:  OK. I have a lot to say about what happened to Mr. Christian Mobley. Part of what I’m thinking about is directly related to the constant and, I think, obviously unnecessary police interactions we just witnessed. It seems, based upon the video evidence, that these traffic stops were the result of concerns other than just enforcing the law. One can only imagine the stress that Christian must have experienced when a drug-sniffing dog was deployed to search his car. Or one can guess how he felt when a police officer told him he was pulled over because he was driving near a country club.

All of these interactions with law enforcement hardly build a connection with the community. In fact, all of this police intervention for noncrimes only increases the distrust of institutions — And not just policing — That has become endemic in this country. And I don’t think policing like what we just witnessed is simply the result of officer overreach.

But that’s not the only aspect of Christian’s ordeal that concerns me. Something else bothers me about what we just watched that more than likely will get less attention than the stops themselves: an idea about law enforcement in this country that deserves to be discussed so that we understand what we’ve truly seen.

And to make it more comprehensible, I’m going to explain it as a story, a tale about people like Christian who work hard, struggle, keep trying, only to discover that the biggest obstacle to carving out a good life for himself is the government that’s supposed to serve him. The story starts almost 50 years ago, before Christian was even born. That’s when the working people of this country had benefited from one of the most robust expansions of the middle class in history. High union membership and less income inequality meant that the American dream was alive and well and, more importantly, actually possible.

But over the past 50 years everything changed: Union membership fell, income inequality rose, the road to the middle class was filled with potholes of neglect. As the wealth of the top 1% expanded to engulf the bottom 80%, it seemed like the hope for a comfortable middle-class life turned into an unattainable dream, a mirage of a long-forgotten social contract that seemed to move further and further away the harder we reached for it.

Now, the reason I bring this up is because the excessive policing we just witnessed is part and parcel of the lack of opportunity for the middle class. It’s something I’ve been thinking about because I’ve witnessed so many cases like this where police seem inexplicably drawn into conflicts with people whose biggest crime is being economically vulnerable.

Now, it made me think about something I heard about, one of the reasons America seemed so invested in the middle class 50 years ago. I don’t remember who it was, but their argument went like this:

The country’s political leadership, concerned over the Cold War with Russia, felt they had to prove that democracy could deliver for the people. The idea was that the best life prospects for the greatest number of people would lead to proof that a democratic society was an effective society. It would be proof that the whole system actually worked.

So what happened? That’s a good question. Apparently, after the end of the Cold War, our country’s elites decided to abandon the egalitarianism of making the greatest number of lives better. Without the so-called Red Scare, it seems like we all veered in the opposite direction, extracting the biggest gains for the smallest number of people. And I think, along with that decision, was the idea that, in order to prevent such an imbalanced system from collapsing, the elites turned to an institution that could, in some sense, keep the declining middle class and working class in check by sowing chaos in their midst.

And that’s why we see so many questionable car stops and ordeals like Christian’s. That’s why police roll out drug-sniffing dogs because you simply drive in an area they deemed, well, basically poor and off limits, or while you’re stopped a second time for driving next to a country club. No need to worry if you’ve committed a crime. No need to think about if you’re a threat to public safety. The whole idea is containment, to make you feel less capable of demanding your rights or of expecting a fair shake or of being treated fairly. The unnecessary scrutiny and inexplicable traffic stops is all a part of the same process to make you feel estranged from the rights that are bestowed upon you by the Constitution.

And to make this point even more salient, I want to share some news with you, a development to reinforce my argument that overpolicing is a consequence of rampant inequality.

Just as we were finishing recording our show, Christian sent me an email, and I want to read part of it to you: “I just found out I lost my job because of this arrest.” Christian wrote me. Not only that, his car was impounded and he spent three days in jail, and now he’s unemployed.

So I ask you, what exactly did law enforcement accomplish here? What exactly was the goal, the purpose, the public interest that was served by causing a hardworking man to lose his job? I am at a loss to explain the underlying societal justification for a process that culminates in this type of economic loss, that bolsters such unnecessary hardship, that conscripts humiliation to justify the deleterious effects of a society that are intrinsically unfair.

Honestly, when I watch videos like these, I feel like all the mainstream media pundits who say discussing economic inequality is class warfare are right, except the abuse runs downhill to those who can least afford it, to people like Christian, who were struggling but working hard, and now must struggle even more just to overcome the government that he literally funds through his taxes — But only if the police department will allow him to work.

One of the things that is most discouraging about Christian’s ordeal is, like many cities we cover, Jonesboro spends more on policing than any other facet of city government. As Stephen pointed out, the city dedicates less to firefighting, sanitation, parks, recreation, and fixing city streets than to law enforcement. Basically, 37% of all the money their city collects goes to cops, cars, arrests, and jails.

But how do city leaders justify this expenditure? What do they say to residents who might ask why they need to find countless numbers of officers to conduct countless numbers of questionable stops? How do they explain the dedication of communal resources to a process that seems so unnecessary?

And Jonesboro is not the exception. Throughout this country, we invest more in handcuffs than we do in housing; more on cages than in keeping our cities clean; more on traffic stops than healthy recreation. And that’s what’s really intriguing. The recent trend in crime calls into question the entire justification for this hard-to-fathom spending.

As you may already know, there has been a historic drop in violent crime in many of the largest cities across the country. In our city, Baltimore, homicides reached a record low, dropping by nearly 40% over the last year. But what’s also intriguing about this good news is that it occurred when the police department also had a record number of vacancies. And Baltimore is not alone. Departments across the country have raised concerns about a dearth of new police officers, shortages that they simply can’t fill. Vacancies that have remained vacant.

So then how can we explain the historic drop in violence? If more police and increased spending on police will somehow deliver more public safety, then why did crime drop when fewer officers were on the streets? What exactly am I missing here when fewer cops translates into less crime?

I think what we’ve considered and truly examined is that perhaps all the spending on policing has less to do with crime than police partisans would want us to believe. That pumping tax dollars into shiny new SUVs for cops isn’t really about keeping us safe, but perhaps about keeping us in check.

Maybe, just maybe, cops have another purpose, an often unacknowledged role in the economic inequality that has engulfed people like Christian. Maybe, along with traffic stops and minor crimes, they are the guardians of the border between extravagant wealth and soul-crushing poverty. Maybe they are here not just to enforce the law, but impose boundaries on the chaos that communal poverty creates.

Just consider that roughly only 20% of property crimes and 40% of homicides are solved. I’m not saying it’s easy to catch a thief, but certainly that doesn’t seem to be the focus of police who have the time to constantly pull over the same man over and over and over again.

That’s why we take the time to report on cases like Christian’s. That’s why we produce a detailed show to scrutinize the actions of police that deserve the attention. And that’s why we tell the stories of people who end up on the wrong side of police overreach. That’s why we produce this show, so that someone other than the cops holding handcuffs can tell their side of the story.

I want to thank our guest, Christian Mobley, for bravely coming forward, supplying us the video evidence, and, of course, sharing his story. And we really hope that things are going to take a positive turn for you soon. Thank you so much for your time, Christian.

And, of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  And, of course, I want to thank mods of the show, Noli Dee and Lacy R, for their support. Thank you. and a very special thanks to Accountability Report Patreons. We appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every single one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon associate producers Lucita Garcia, David K., and John E.R., and super friends Eddie Clegg, Kenneth K., Shane B., Pineapple Girl, Chris R., and Matter of Rights.

But also I want to thank a very special supporter of the show, Scott Rushing. Scott was kind enough to share his family story with us. Unfortunately, this case is a tragic use of excessive force that resulted in the death of his unarmed son, Tyler Rushing. 34-year-old Tyler Rushing was tasered, attacked by police K-9, shot, and killed on July 23, 2017, in Chico, California. But Scott has never given up on the hope that his family will receive justice for his son’s death, and neither have we. Scott, we appreciate you supporting our work, and we hope you’ll join us soon to update us on your progress on reforming the excessive force policies and training practices of private security guards. Thank you for your support, Scott.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us, and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately to par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. Or, of course, you can message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment. I do read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports. If you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads and never take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

My name is Taya Graham, and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Dakarai Larriett was driving a friend home at 3:00 in the morning when he saw the flash of a Michigan State Trooper’s siren. Although Larriett was stone-cold sober, he soon discovered this would not be enough to protect him. After accusing him of a minor traffic violation, Officer George Kanyuh began to speculate over Larriett’s sobriety. A lawsuit brought by Larriett alleges that, after subjecting Larriett to a series of sobriety field tests, Kanyuh spent over two minutes unsuccessfully looking for drugs in his patrol car to use as planted evidence against Larriett. Once this failed, Kanyuh and his partner, Matthew Okaiye, took Larriett into custody and forced him to endure even more humiliating ordeals at the police station—including requiring him to defecate in front of them. It’s only thanks to body camera footage that the truth of this incident was revealed, but there are countless cases of similar behavior by police across the country which has never come to light. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of Police Accountability Report review the case and its implications, speaking directly with Dakarai Larriett about his ordeal.

Written by: Stephen Janis
Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production: Adam Coley

Transcript

Taya Graham:  Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video of a bogus DUI stop that led to the false arrest of a man who is still suffering from the consequences of it. A harrowing encounter with Michigan State troopers that led to questionable charges, a humiliating search, and allegations of an officer attempting to plant drugs.

But it also calls into question the whole idea of how DUIs are investigated, all of which we will break down for you as we unpack yet another problematic use of police powers.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests.

And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there. And I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you all how much I really appreciate your thoughts and to show off what a great community we have.

And of course, we have to thank our corporate sponsor — Oh wait, that’s right, we don’t run ads or take corporate dollars. But you can donate below, and we have a Patreon, Accountability Report, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do, because we don’t run ads or take those corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, there is no crime more potentially destructive or dangerous than driving while drunk. Here at the Police Accountability Report, we support efforts by law enforcement to prevent it. However, we have also noticed a troubling trend, as we’ve reported, on questionable DUI arrests across the country. Sometimes it seems that police are overly eager to charge someone driving while drunk, overreach that can have devastating consequences for the people subject to it.

And no DUI stop embodies this problem more than the video I’m showing you right now. It depicts the highly suspect arrest of a Michigan man who’s being put through a grueling field sobriety test. Despite passing every facet of it, he still ended up in handcuffs.

But that was only the beginning of his ordeal. That’s because even after his detainment, police weren’t done subjecting him to the cruelty and violations of our criminal justice system, the details of which we will share with you shortly. But first, the arrest itself.

This story starts in Benton Harbor, Michigan in April of 2024. There, Dakarai Larriett was driving a friend home at 3:00 AM when he was pulled over by a Michigan State trooper for, ostensibly, not coming to a stop for a flashing red light, an accusation Dakarai firmly denies. However, from the beginning, the officer began accusing him of being drunk. Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  Hey, how you doing?

Dakarai Larriett:  Good.

Officer Kanyuh:  Good. You got a license on you?

Dakarai Larriett:  Yep, it’s in my bag.

Officer Kanyuh:  In the back?

Dakarai Larriett:  In my bag.

Officer Kanyuh:  Oh, go for it. Yeah, the reason I’m stopping you, there’s two red lights there. Make sure you come to a complete stop.

Thank you.

Where you coming from?

Dakarai Larriett:  St. Joe’s.

Officer Kanyuh:  St. Joe? Where are you trying to get?

Dakarai Larriett:  I’m dropping him off right here.

Officer Kanyuh:  Oh, OK. This address here? With the fence?

OK. Do you have any paperwork for the vehicle?

Dakarai Larriett:  I’m sorry?

Officer Kanyuh:  Any paperwork for the vehicle like registration, insurance?

Dakarai Larriett:  I do.

Officer Kanyuh:  Can I see that please?

Dakarai Larriett:  Sure.

Officer Kanyuh:  Does alcohol impact your ability to drive today?

Dakarai Larriett:  [Inaudible]

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. When was your last drink? Has it been at least two hours?

Dakarai Larriett:  Yes.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. All right. Two hours you said? What was it specifically? Smelling fruity and a little bit of something else on you.

Dakarai Larriett:  There was no alcohol in me.

Officer Kanyuh:  I can smell it on your breath. Something fruity like what were you drinking?

Dakarai Larriett:  There was no alcohol in here.

Officer Kanyuh:  No? But it’s been at least two hours.

Dakarai Larriett:  There’s no alcohol on me.

Officer Kanyuh:  All righty. Just hop out for me. I’m going to verify, OK.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now Dakarai, again, politely denied the accusations. As you can see, he’s calm and collected in his answers. The officer did not accuse him of driving recklessly or swerving. Instead, he simply ordered Dakarai to get out of the car as he continued to question him. Let’s watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  You do the open carry for protection at all or no?

Dakarai Larriett:  I don’t.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. You should, it’s kind of crazy out here. Right back this way for me.

Why are you changing your story on that? I said two hours, and then I said I smell it on your breath, and now you’re denying it at all. That’s suspicious to me.

Dakarai Larriett:  I am not commenting any further. I have not had any alcohol.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  And so, it appears that based on a “fruity” smell and Dakarai invoking his right not to answer questions, the officer begins what can only be called the most potentially treacherous aspect of American DUI enforcement: the field sobriety test.

Now I want to make something clear before we watch: field sobriety tests are not as scientific as they’re portrayed. The six studies cited by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to justify the use of these tests were not peer reviewed, and reveal a harrowing number of false positives anywhere between 20-40% of the time. Nevertheless, it has become a key tool of law enforcement even though it is important to note that you can refuse to take it.

Still, unfortunately, Dakarai is put through a grueling battery of examinations starting with the horizontal gaze test.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  And then arms down at your side like a pencil dive. Yep, just remain like that and then don’t move until I tell you move. OK? Do you understand those instructions?

Dakarai Larriett:  Yes.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. Is there any reason why you couldn’t stand there like that?

Dakarai Larriett:  No.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. Weird question I got to ask you. I’m going to check your eyes. What I want you to do is just follow the tip of my finger with only your eyes. Do not move your head, OK? Do you understand?

Is there any reason you couldn’t do that?

Dakarai Larriett:  No.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. Are you wearing contacts right now?

Dakarai Larriett:  I am.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. Same thing, just keep following with your eyes and only your eyes. You got to rub your eyes or something?

Dakarai Larriett:  No.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. You’re just not tracking it.

How long you had your contacts in?

Dakarai Larriett:  Um… An hour or so.

Officer Kanyuh:  Hour or so? So they’re not dry or anything?

Dakarai Larriett:  They’re fine.

Officer Kanyuh:  They’re fine? OK.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Next, the officer asked Dakarai to do the so-called walk and turn test, an assessment, by the way, that can generate false positives 30% of the time and, truthfully, isn’t easy. Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  Good.

See this line here?

Yeah, we can use this line.

See this crack? Go ahead and stand on the crack with your left foot on it, and then your right foot in front of it, heel to toe. See how mine are heel to toe? Go ahead and do so.

When I tell you to do so, you’re going to take nine steps heel to toe, when you get to your ninth step, I want you to turn, taking a series of small steps, come nine heel-to-toe steps back up that line, all the way to nine. It’s important you’re keeping your arms down at your side, you’re looking down at your toe, and you’re counting out loud. When you begin the test, don’t stop until you’ve completed it.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, even though he performs the test meticulously, the officer persists in putting him through even more stressful examinations. At this point it seems crystal clear Dakarai has no problem with doing exactly what the officer demands, but he still makes him continue.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  Do you understand those instructions?

Dakarai Larriett:  Yes.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. Is there any reason why you couldn’t do that?

Dakarai Larriett:  I don’t think so.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK, I’ll stand back here, and whenever you’re ready, you may begin.

Dakarai Larriett:  One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

Officer Kanyuh:  Good.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  But now, the officer ups the ante. That’s because even though Dakarai passes the so-called Standard Field Sobriety test endorsed by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, the officer turns to a battery of non-standard tests that are even less scientific, raising even more questions about the process. That includes asking him to recite the alphabet. Let’s listen.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  So you know your alphabet?

Dakarai Larriett:  I do.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK, I’m not having you say it backwards, that’s not a real thing. Can you say your alphabet starting at A as in Adam, stop at R as in Robert, A to R. Do you have that ability? OK, go ahead and do so.

Dakarai Larriett:  A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R.

Officer Kanyuh:  Good.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Then, venturing further into non-scientific territory, he asked Dakarai to count backwards.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  Starting at the number 99. Can you count backwards from 99 to 81?

Dakarai Larriett:  99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90…

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  But Officer Kanyuh is not done, not hardly. Because even though Dakarai passed each test flawlessly, the troop returns to another questionable exam: the one-leg stand test, which, once again, has been accused of being non-scientific and inaccurate 30% of the time.

Officer Kanyuh:  I want you to stand just like this again, the same drama we’ve always been doing. Good. Remain like that and then don’t move ’till I tell you to move, OK? Do you understand these instructions? OK. Is there any reason why you couldn’t do this? No? OK. Whenever you’re ready, you may begin.

Dakarai Larriett:  One thousand one, one thousand two —

Officer Kanyuh:  Remember to look down at that toe.

Dakarai Larriett:  One thousand three, one thousand four, one thousand five, one thousand six, one thousand seven, one thousand eight, one thousand nine, one thousand 10, one thousand 11, one thousand 12, one thousand 13, one thousand 14, one thousand 15, one thousand 16, one thousand 17, one thousand 18, one thousand 19, one thousand 20, one thousand 21, one thousand 22, one thousand 23, one thousand 24 —

Officer Kanyuh:  And you can stop.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now as each of these tests unfold one after another, I want you to think about how Dakarai is feeling. First, he’s flawlessly following orders. One can only imagine how gut-wrenching it is taking these vague, imprecise, if not scientifically questionable, tests with your life hanging in the balance.

And even though he is clearly under duress, he is respectful and steady, and he is obviously not drunk and not high. And yet the endurance test continues with another scientifically sketchy request that requires him to decide when 30 seconds has elapsed. Just watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  Go ahead and just take one step forward. Good. Hit same heels and toes touching just like this. Arms down at the side. When I tell you to do so, I want you to tilt your head back, close your eyes, and when you believe 30 seconds has passed, bring your head forward and say stop. OK? Does that…

Dakarai Larriett:  Closing my eyes?

Officer Kanyuh:  Yep, closing your eyes. When you believe 30 seconds has passed, look forward, say stop. You understand the instructions?

Dakarai Larriett:  I think so.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. Is there any reason why you couldn’t do that?

Dakarai Larriett:  No.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. Whenever you’re ready, begin.

How much time was that?

Dakarai Larriett:  About 30 seconds.

Officer Kanyuh:  And then how’d you get there?

Dakarai Larriett:  I’m sorry?

Officer Kanyuh:  Did you count one, two, three? You didn’t do one Mississippi or anything like that?

Dakarai Larriett:  No.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. So just one, two, three. OK, cool.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  And there’s more — Yes, there’s more. The officer, not satisfied, veers into another non-standard test known as the finger to nose test, which, again, is nonstandard and is not an accepted test from the National Highway Safety Administration. Still, the officer persists. Just look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  You’re going to keep your hands down to your side, and I’m going to call out an arm, so if I say left, you’re going to take your left arm… This is the tip of your finger. This is the tip of your finger and this is the pad of your finger. OK? This is the difference. I want you to take the tip of your finger, the tip and touch the tip of your nose.

Go ahead and tilt your head back and close your eyes. Left. Right. Left. Right. Right. Left. Good. You follow me.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  And finally, the officer asks Dakarai to incriminate himself, requiring that he assess his own drunkenness even though it appears he has passed every single test thrown at him. Just listen.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  On a scale of zero to five, as far as five being unsafe to operate a motor vehicles, the most drunk and high you’ve ever been, and then zero being sober, where are you at right now?

Dakarai Larriett:  I don’t know. Is that relevant? I really don’t want to talk about —

Officer Kanyuh:  It is relevant. But if you don’t want to answer it, I don’t care.

Dakarai Larriett:  I have not had any alcohol.

Officer Kanyuh:  Not had any alcohol.

Dakarai Larriett:  I have not.

Officer Kanyuh:  OK. Now how about marijuana? Did you have had that?

Dakarai Larriett:  Excuse me?

Officer Kanyuh:  Marijuana?

Dakarai Larriett:  I’m sorry, I didn’t understand. What did you say?

Officer Kanyuh:  I said how about marijuana?

Dakarai Larriett:  No.

Officer Kanyuh:  No marijuana? No.

Dakarai Larriett:  OK. You want to hang out right here for me?

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, apparently the officer has already reached his conclusion about Dakarai’s condition. You can listen here as he discusses it with another trooper who just arrived on the scene. It’s also a rare glimpse into how officers interpret a field sobriety test. Even if, for all intents and purposes, you passed, the point is it seems that no one passes.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  Booze and marijuana. His eyelids fluttered worse than that guy’s.

Officer Okaiye:  He’s got neck pulsation too.

Officer Kanyuh:  He had numerous clues on the walk and turn like crazy

Officer Okaiye:  I didn’t catch the standard, but you said walk and turn one leg stand and all that?

Officer Kanyuh:  One leg stand was the wobbles, one out of four, Romberg was 23 seconds, fly with flutter, sways. Finger to nose, terrible.

Officer Okaiye:  What’s all that? Romberg?

Officer Kanyuh:  99 to 81, he stopped at 89. So even his mental, short-term memory. He’s going to refuse and then search warrant, but…

Officer Okaiye:  He’s showing?

Officer Kanyuh:  In the driving.

Officer Okaiye:  What do you think? You think is just number [inaudible]?

Officer Kanyuh:  I think he’s got a medication he’s not telling…

Officer Okaiye:  He’s got medication and I’m guessing it’s a medication for… He may be… I think he’s got a medication for that. And with that would be consuming substances like THC, marijuana, alcohol, whatever. You know what that does.

Officer Kanyuh:  Yeah.

Officer Okaiye:  Explaining what you’re seeing.

Officer Kanyuh:  His driving behavior, I saw lack of smooth pursuit, but he wasn’t very good at following my finger.

Officer Okaiye:  Lack of smooth, and divided attention, abilities affected. Whenever you speak with him, he’s looking away and moving his head, so I think it’s a combination of THC for sure. I didn’t really evaluate him, but you can definitely see impairment from the THC. And then I think in his medications, describing medications affecting it, too. He [inaudible] performing [inaudible].

Officer Kanyuh:  I’m going to take him.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  But let me play some audio for you here that brought to Dakarai a lot of concern. Apparently at roughly 3:25, officer Kanyuh can be seen on body cam rifling through the trunk of his squad car for about two minutes, and then the video goes dark. During those moments. Officer Okaiye seems to say, “Drugs?” And Officer Kanyuh responds, “I don’t think I have any, I had a stash in here somewhere, but I don’t know where it’s at.”

But you take a listen and judge for yourself.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  [Rustling] I don’t think I have any.

Officer Okaiye:  [Inaudible] in the box.

Officer Kanyuh:  Yeah, I had a stash in here somewhere. I don’t even know where it’s at. [Inaudible] Don’t know why he thought [crosstalk], but yeah, I’m assuming weed and alcohol.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, I am unfamiliar with any part of a field sobriety test where an officer needs to search for a stash in his own patrol car, but perhaps Michigan State troopers have a unique investigative technique.

And I do understand, as I said before, that drunk driving is incredibly destructive, but it’s equally pernicious to accuse someone of it who’s ostensibly not guilty and perhaps even worse is to fabricate a crime to make the innocent guilty. Remember, our system is designed to protect the innocent, and yet those safeguards fail as you watch what the officer does next when he says, “I’m going to take him.”

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Kanyuh:  Is it Dakarai? Am I saying that wrong?

Dakarai Larriett:  It’s Dakarai.

Officer Kanyuh:  Darkarai, I told you the reason for the stop was there’s two red lights. OK? I know they’re flashing, but that’s still, you have to treat it like a stop sign at nighttime. At midnight the lights turn from red to flashing. Flashing red still means stop.

I walk up to the car and I can smell alcohol, whether it’s you or your passenger, that’s why I asked the question, have you been drinking? To which you responded it was two hours ago, and then you denied drinking alcohol.

Dakarai Larriett:  Actually what you stated was, was it at least two hours? Something like that. You kind of inferred something, but no, I’ve not been drinking.

Officer Kanyuh:  Well, I didn’t mean to give you a leading question.

Dakarai Larriett:  No, but to be clear, I have not been drinking.

Officer Kanyuh:  You haven’t had any alcohol?

Dakarai Larriett:  I did stop. Correct. And I did stop at each of those lights.

Officer Kanyuh:  I do have it on camera.

Dakarai Larriett:  OK.

Officer Kanyuh:  So it is recorded.

Dakarai Larriett:  All right.

Officer Kanyuh:  Along with all my sobriety evaluations, which have led me to determine you are under the influence and driving. So now I have to bring you in for a blood draw, and then you have to sit a detox window. I can’t let you operate safely, because I don’t believe that you can.

Dakarai Larriett:  Please explain to me what test I failed.

Officer Kanyuh:  Well, they’re not pass or fail, OK? But I’m noticing several signs of divided attention, not being able to focus on the instructions as I’ve given them.

Dakarai Larriett:  Well, I’m very tired.

Officer Kanyuh:  And then fine motor skills being impaired, such as not being able to touch the heel to toe, the rigid body movements, you have sway, and on and on and on. I’ll type up a whole, probably be an eight-page report on this.

And then here’s the deal, if you’re right and there’s nothing in your body, everything gets thrown out.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  He said, if I’m wrong. Well, that’s an awfully big if. And you will soon learn what happened when Dakarai was tested when we speak to him. And what we showed was just the beginning of the way that Dakarai’s rights and body were violated by these troopers, and he will share what happened to him in jail.

But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been looking into the case and going through the documents to report back to us. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  So, Stephen, what were the results of the blood test? Was the officer wrong?

Stephen Janis:  Yeah, it turns out the officer was absolutely wrong. The blood test showed no sign of any alcohol or anything else. So really it was a completely negative and, actually, inaccurate assessment of Dakarai’s state at that time. And so really it shows how flawed these systems are for evaluating people. And so yeah, absolutely nothing, zero, negative, although it took five months to find out.

Taya Graham:  Can you discuss some of the questions surrounding the field sobriety tests and what concerns it raises in these types of cases?

Stephen Janis:  Well, I think one of the concerns it raises is pretty simple. You have something masquerading as science that isn’t as scientific as it seems.

If you look at the studies, they were controlled environments that aren’t similar to what happens when you’re out in the field, and they’re also highly inaccurate, like showing inaccuracy rates of sometimes up to 35%. So I think it’s very, very, very critical to look at these with a cautious eye and not be so willing to embrace an officer’s interpretation of some very subjective tests and say, well that person is drunk.

Taya Graham:  Stephen, you also researched a strange statement the officer made, which is that he had over 800 hours of field sobriety training.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Okaiye:  Well, like I said, we’re trained in standardized field sobriety evaluations. We’ve had over 800 hours that, and let’s say he’s wrong, let’s say I’m wrong, let’s say that you are completely fine. In our professional opinion, through our training experience, we don’t believe you can operate their motor vehicle safely. So it’s our job as we swore to take an oath to make sure that you get home and everybody else gets home safe. We’re not going to chance it.

What we’re going to have to do is we’ll allow you to park your vehicle, let your friend park your vehicle, whatever, we’re not trying to cost you the money, but we do have to take you to hospital, make sure you’re OK, because the substance we believe you’re taking with your medication, and then get the blood draw done. After blood draw is done, you’ll be detoxed and be free to go. There’s no added charges, nothing like that.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  We researched the updated Michigan field sobriety test. Does that number sound right to you?

Stephen Janis:  Taya, it’s really interesting. What’s required right now is 24 hours of training for officers, including field training and some classwork, so 800 hours seems highly excessive. The guy really is doing a lot of time in the classroom. I don’t know if that really measures up, or if we can say that’s actually accurate. But right now the standard is much, much lower, and so I think questions remain about this entire arrest.

Taya Graham:  So do you have any insight into why these field tests occur at all? I, Wouldn’t it be easier just to do a breath or urine or blood test and just let the science speak for itself?

Stephen Janis:  Well, I think that’s the big, big question. I know officers need tools to evaluate people, and they need tools to come up with probable cause. But we’ve watched so many of these where there’s so many questions, and people really seem to pass them on every ostensible measure, and yet they still end up being arrested. So I think there needs to be a full and thorough evaluation of this process to make sure it’s really generating the results that are helpful in the sense that you’re arresting drunk drivers, but not innocent people, Taya.

Taya Graham:  And now to learn what happened after he was detained, the humiliation he endured at the hands of police, and the consequences for him since, I’m joined by Dakarai Larriett.

Dakarai, thank you so much for joining me.

Dakarai Larriett:  Thank you so much for having me.

Taya Graham:  So tell me how this begins. Where were you headed before you were pulled over?

Dakarai Larriett:  Thanks for asking. So I was just dropping a friend off at his home.

Taya Graham:  When you were pulled over, how did the officer approach you? Did he describe why you were pulled over?

Dakarai Larriett:  So when he pulled me over, he mentioned that he believed I ran some blinking red lights a couple of miles away.

Taya Graham:  So the officer put you through a sobriety test. Can you describe what that was like for you?

Dakarai Larriett:  Well, it’s funny, I used to be a ballet dancer, and studied at the Alabama School of Fine Arts, and the way he was describing all of the steps, I thought to myself, is this a dance routine?

It started out initially as an inspection of my eyes and my ability to follow his finger, I believe. And from there it became standing in one place, counting, I guess determining my perception of time and space, and a very complex heel-toe routine. I was asked, do I know the alphabet? And from there I had to do A through R. I did a number countdown.

And that was just with Officer Kanyuh. Officer Okaiye also inspected me and asked a number of different questions about my ability to drive.

Taya Graham:  I’ve tested myself and my friends stone-cold sober with sobriety tests and found them difficult. What was going through your mind during this extensive test?

Dakarai Larriett:  So, I was wearing pajamas. It was 3:00 AM. I planned to drop my buddy off and then head right back to the house and go to sleep. So I was not dressed for the weather. We have to remember this was Michigan on April 10. It’s still winter weather, and I was shivering. I was in this dark alley. It was scary. I thought I was about to be murdered, frankly.

So imagine having to do those tests, and you’re thinking this is your last moment on this planet. I was thinking of my family. I had been in Cleveland, Ohio, earlier that day for the solar eclipse, and spent some time with my sister, and it just really hit me that that might’ve been my last time seeing her or any of my family members. And I thought about my dog…

Taya Graham:  I’m so sorry.

Dakarai Larriett:  Sorry.

Taya Graham:  I know it’s traumatizing.

Dakarai Larriett:  My dog was in daycare because I was in Cleveland for the weekend for the eclipse. and I was just thinking, what if my dog was at home by himself all this time and something happened to him? He’s a nearly thirteen-year-old dog, he’s a senior dog. I’m sorry.

Taya Graham:  Trooper Kanyuh said you were wobbling excessively, that you fluttered and swayed during the one leg stand, and that your walk and turn were terrible, and that there were numerous clues that you were intoxicated. In truth, it’s a blessing to have the body camera, because it shows that you held your leg in the exact position he wanted for 26 seconds, on one foot, with not a single error.

When you listen to the body camera, does it shock you to hear what the officer was saying and how he mischaracterized what happened?

Dakarai Larriett:  I guess the other interesting thing for me, and I guess surprise, if you will, was what was happening to my friend in the passenger seat. So, that is not in the video that has gone public, and I have not shared that body cam video because it is obviously altered. All the videos are altered.

In fact, I made my freedom of Information Act request two, three days after this incident. It took them five months to give me video, and there are missing chunks in the video. The audio between the officers even when they’re standing next to each other is inconsistent, so it sounds like it was dubbed. And there are sections that are completely missing audio. You can tell they were obsessed with the car, nice car.

It was just humiliation. And my survival mechanism was, Dakarai, you’re not going to win this battle in a dark alley at 3:00 AM with two cops. You will not. Be quiet, comply. You can win the war because you are going to have all the evidence on your side. You’re sober, you don’t use drugs. All the evidence is going to support your side of the story.

And that’s why I was so heartbroken when I heard the word “drugs” uttered by Okaiye because then I thought, well you can’t even win when you’re doing the right thing. If they had just found the stash, I would still be in jail and my life would be ruined.

Taya Graham:  So if I understand correctly, you were pressured into a blood draw at the hospital. It was the best thing, considering that you had no drugs in your system, but still you were pressured into it.

Dakarai Larriett:  Yes, I was absolutely pressured to do the blood draw.

And how did I arrive at the decision to do it? Well, I was told that I would get six points on my license and a suspension if I did not comply. But I thought it was so odd that they wouldn’t just give me a breathalyzer, like something objective besides a dance routine.

Taya Graham:  The way the officers treated you, I thought, was very demeaning. And I hate to bring this up, but you were accused of swallowing drugs and you were made to go to the bathroom in front of Trooper Kanyuh. This officer appeared very polite on the early body camera, but forcing you to do this is violating.

Dakarai Larriett:  Going into the jail, it’s a typical booking process as one was seen on TV — Because I’ve never been through this process before, ever, never been stopped like this. But name, all my identifying factors, et cetera, and fingerprints. All that is collected.

And then they put me in this machine that looks like something from the TSA. And they are scanning me, I presume for any type of contraband. And there is a novice that is running the machine, and very unclear on how to operate it. And they identify what they called an anomaly. And from there on throughout the night I am being sent through this machine, I presume x-rays, again, and again, and again. So I’m not even really lodged, if you will, in the jail. I go to the cell, I come back, I go to the cell, I come back.

Finally, they brought on a technician that seemed like she actually knew what she was doing. She looks at it and she goes, oh, those are gas bubbles. In the midst of all of this going on, Kanyuh goes, that looks like a bag of drugs! Confess now or you’re going to face a trafficking charge, too! At some point I’m going back and forth, back and forth to the cell, and I asked if I could use the restroom.

Kanyuh comes behind me and says that’s where I need to go. It’s just this open toilet that anyone in the room can see. And he yells, don’t flush! It was so dehumanizing.

Taya Graham:  It seems to me the officer is very performative in his behavior of being a good guy and a professional on camera, but in the jail he really does change.

Dakarai Larriett:  A couple of follow-ups on that.

So, when he was playing the good guy, good cop, and Okaiye obviously tried to do it as well, I just want to go back to something you said. They offered to park my car for me. And I was discussing this with the passenger this morning, and we both just like light bulb moment realized that would’ve been the opportunity to plant.

Taya Graham:  So something that concerns me is that for about two minutes the officer’s really been searching through his patrol car, and then he says to another officer that you seem confused, and then he says he’s trying to find his stash. What do you think this means?

Dakarai Larriett:  It’s 100% drugs. And it’s all written there in very plain, easy-to-understand language, not even coded. And you really have to think about not only do we have that, which is mind-boggling, but the context of it all.

So the context is he spent two minutes digging through his cop car, the backseat, then he moved to the trunk. Whatever he was looking for, he wanted it badly. Okaiye comes around to the back of the car probably trying to figure out what’s going on with this guy. Because think about it, I’ve been standing in the cold waiting after the sobriety test while he’s fumbling around in the car.

So Okaiye comes around to see what’s going on. He says “drugs”. Kanyuh responds, “I don’t think I have any, I knew I had a stash in here.” So he connects drugs to stash.

Then there’s a little bit of mumbling, but listen to it intently. They then basically make a comment to each other that I’m going to refuse anyway, meaning I would refuse an opportunity for them to get in my car, to search my car, to park my car, and that’s when they ultimately decide, we’ll just charge him on weed and alcohol.

Taya Graham:  Did their dash camera show that you allegedly ran through this flashing red light? You calmly told them you committed no moving violations. Can you tell me what the dash camera actually showed?

Dakarai Larriett:  I believe the light they’re referring to was completely green, so that one was thrown out. And then the light that they alleged that I did not stop at, the one that actually was red, I pulled to, I paused, I put my signal on and I turned.

Taya Graham:  I read that it took over five months for you to receive your negative drug and alcohol results. Is that correct?

Dakarai Larriett:  At the hospital, I immediately tested negative for alcohol. And because the hospital was connected to my own healthcare plan, I managed to get that report in real time and pulled it for myself when I got home that afternoon. And then, of course, they confirmed the result to me when I asked at the jail.

Now in terms of getting the drug test results and Michigan State Police’s version of the alcohol test results, that did not happen until the very end of September. But if you look at the timeline in the request for testing, they knew by middle of April that everything was negative, and it seems like they continued to test, and test, and test. I don’t know if that’s a standard procedure or they were just incredulous that I was negative.

Taya Graham:  Can you tell me what you went through during that time, that five months waiting to be proven fully innocent? It must have been incredibly stressful.

Dakarai Larriett:  My first responsibility was to confirm that there was not a criminal matter at all against me. And the case actually was thrown out within a week, but they refused to give me a receipt or confirmation or anything like that until I received that formal test. But I still haven’t received anything that says that the case is 100% closed. I have not.

So two-and-a-half months I did not have a plastic driver’s license card, couldn’t rent a car. I traveled extensively. And I would contact the sergeant, who I believed to be the bosses of the two troopers, almost weekly. Like, hey, what’s going on? Did you guys get the results? This is really inconveniencing my life. And I would get answers that were very opaque, like, we’re still working on your test, which really confused me and worried me that there was some tampering happening.

Taya Graham:  What do you want as the result of sharing your experience? What do you hope that outcome will be?

Dakarai Larriett:  I made a commitment that when I was mistreated I would use my resources, my privilege, to help those behind me. And I could have easily just walked away and took my driver’s license and been fine. But I decided I have got to expose this, I’ve got to get these troopers off the streets, and I’ve already reached out to some major, major law firms and encouraged them to look into what’s going on in Southwest Michigan.

I am already protected. I’m not under any criminal investigation, but when I was in that jail, I knew that there were innocent people in there.

Taya Graham:  If you could speak directly to the troopers who arrested and harassed you, what would you want to say to them? What would you want to tell them if you knew they were listening to you right now?

Dakarai Larriett:  I would want them to know that I’m a person. I’m a human being. People care about me. Think about that. Think about what you’re supposed to be doing in your job. You’re supposed to be taking care of people, protecting, not inventing crimes.

Taya Graham:  Now, I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning of the show: drunk driving is a dangerous and destructive crime. And I, for one, understand why police departments and the public emphasize efforts to thwart it. Drunk driving deaths account for roughly one third of all traffic fatalities every year. Roughly 11,000 died in 2023 due to people driving while intoxicated.

But also, I think that what we witnessed in the video of Dakarai’s arrest shows the pitfalls of abandoning common sense and sound science as we try to prevent it — Or more precisely what happens when a zeal to address a problem with cops and cuffs overwhelms common sense and the nuance that comes with it.

This is certainly not the only false DUI arrest we have covered. There were the bogus charges against a Dallas firefighter, Thomas C., who was forced to retire from his lifelong job as a first responder when officers used another specious field sobriety test to accuse him of driving under the influence because he freely admitted to using his doctor-prescribed Adderall. It took him two years to get his test results, which, although they were negative or too late to save his job.

Or we shared the story of Harris Elias of Colorado, a professional pilot who was pulled over, and again, thanks to a biased interpretation of a field sobriety test, ended up with false DUI charges, charges that took months to clear, that threatened his ability to do his job, and later resulted in a major civil rights lawsuit.

All of these share some common problems: Cops are overly eager to bring DUI charges, and because of that, ignoring the evidence that is contrary to their opinions. Add to that a very subjective and flawed field sobriety test, a diagnostic process that seems easily susceptible to the concept of confirmation bias, where the officer administering the test already believes the subject is intoxicated, and thus interprets the results to confirm what he already believes no matter how the person performs.

And yes, there are imperatives that often lead to the incarceration of the innocent. Well-intentioned organizations like MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, run DUI ticket competitions that frequently encourage officers to hand out DUIs in order to receive grants, awards, public acclaim, and promotions. Even the most wholesome goals can be warped when law enforcement is incentivized by quotas and financial rewards.

But I believe something else lies deeper at the very root of these bogus arrests we’ve covered, something more profound than just an officer making a bad decision, or not maintaining an open mind about how to enforce the law. I believe that flawed field sobriety tests are just like the other unjust forms of governance that were originally designed to solve a problem, but in the end seem only to perpetuate them. So what do I mean?

Well, Stephen and I have spent a great deal of time reporting across the country on a variety of issues, and that includes our hometown of Baltimore, where we spent five years documenting the use of tax breaks to spur development.

As you may or may not know, Baltimore is a city beset by poverty and housing segregation that has struggled to stem population loss. It’s often deemed one of the most violent cities in America, and it has some of the highest concentrations of poverty, with thousands of abandoned homes — And, to top it all off, the highest property tax rate in the state, almost double the surrounding counties.

Put simply, much of Baltimore is part of America’s great inequality machine, incapable of producing enough affordable housing or reasonably priced healthcare for all of us while increasing the amount of wealth concentrated among the top 1%. A symbol, in many ways, for how our current system consistently fails to address the needs of the many. And to my point about our flawed system for catching drunk drivers, Baltimore’s response has been equally flawed in addressing the root problem that afflicts our community.

As we outlined in our documentary Tax Broke, one of the city’s primary solutions to population loss has been to award huge tax breaks to these developers. These carve-outs have allowed the wealthiest suburban builders to avoid paying the high rate that the city’s working class is regularly subjected to.

And this is no pittance. Some estimate the city has given away billions in future revenues in order to build luxury developments that, ironically, do not include affordable housing. Instead, future tax revenue that should help pay for critical services and investment in the city’s future has been handed over to the already wealthy.

Now of course, you’re probably asking at this point, Taya, what are you talking about? How are tax breaks for development related to unfounded DUI arrests? What on earth are the commonalities between a bad development strategy and an overeager DUI cop? Well, hear me out.

Here’s where it all ties together, and I will even give it a title: America is the Land of the Perverse Incentive. In other words, our country and its great neoliberal project have abandoned the idea that the government can do good and productive things. Instead, the elites have exchanged that idea for the false narrative that only incentives laden with cash can prompt real productive behavior.

In this land of perverse incentives, medical companies are incentivized to bill people for diseases that they do not have. As stated in this report by The Wall Street Journal that found billions of dollars spent on patients who did not have the underlying disease that the medical insurers submitted to the government.

In the land of perverse incentives, private equity firms take over stable companies and load them up with debt so they can pay themselves a dividend. Then, they fire staff and neglect investing in the firm itself, selling a carcass to Wall Street for the vultures.

In the land of perverse incentives, people make more money trading money than they do building things like affordable housing. In fact, Wall Street creates huge funds to purchase single-family homes across the country and then they jack up rents, so middle-class families are stuck without options.

And of course, in the land of perverse incentives, cops who make more DUI arrests are given awards, and departments that make more drunk driving stops are given more money, and thus we have the stories we reported before.

And finally, in the land of perverse incentives, one of the poorest cities in the country has doled out billions in tax breaks to wealthy developers who don’t need it. In fact, it’s so absurd that luxury condos on top of the Four Seasons hotel in Baltimore received millions in tax breaks for environmental mediation, even though the records we uncovered showed none was done, and that the condos in question were literally hundreds of feet above the ground where the non-existent pollution was actually supposed to be.

All of this is why we end up with sketchy DUI arrests based on shaky science, or a poor city that can’t build affordable housing but can fund wealthy developers to build luxury apartments. Why a city rocked with poverty is neglected, while a system that monetizes the sick so wealthy Wall Street investors can get rich overbilling them and pushing them into bankruptcy is called, ironically, health care.

It’s this thread that connects all the dots of the realities that often seem to contradict themselves. Why would the wealthiest country in the world not be able to deliver affordable medical care to all who need it? And why would one of the poorest cities in the country not be able to build affordable housing if it is, at the same time, capable of giving away a billion dollars of tax revenue to the ultra rich?

All of these questions are worth asking, because the outcomes are just so difficult to comprehend. Being sick should not be a prerequisite to bankruptcy. Being poor should not mean you pay higher taxes than someone who is unfathomably wealthy. Being sober, by having difficulty balancing on one leg, which was decidedly not the case with our guest, should not lead to an arrest charge and a shattered life.

These apparent destructive inadequacies of governance affect all of us. This inability to use the resources of the people to serve the people ensures that we all suffer. This type of incentivized mayhem that finds form in bad policing should make us all question the priority of those who hold and wield the power. It’s incumbent upon us to hold them accountable and remind them that they serve us, not the other way around.

I would like to thank my guest, Dakarai, for coming forward, courageously sharing his experience, and shining a light on this abuse of power. Thank you so much for speaking with us.

And, of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli Dee and Lacey R. for their support. Thank you.

And a very special thanks to our Accountability Reports Patreons, we appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon Associate Producers, John E.R., David K., Louis P., and our super friends, Shane B., Pineapple Girl, Chris R., Matter of Rights, and Angela True.

And I want you to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos, it can actually help our guests, and you know I read your comments and I really appreciate them.

And of course, once again, we have to thank our corporate sponsor — Wait, that’s right, we don’t have a corporate sponsor. We don’t take corporate dollars, we don’t run ads, but we do have a Patreon, Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. You know you never see an ad on this channel, and we’re never going to be corporately sponsored, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

My name is Taya Graham, and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.

Maximillian Alvarez:  Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most. And we need your help to keep doing this work. So please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to The Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

Like many cop watchers, Carolina Ft. Worth has an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of her local city. So when she noticed Fort Worth police seemed to be targeting the vehicles of bar workers late at night, she set out to investigate. According to Carolina, many of the tow companies in the city are operated by retired police officers, raising questions about the possibility of a racket being run from within the police department. As she was filming police towing cars in the downtown area, an officer familiar to Carolina confronted her and began to arrest her. The ensuing police-initiated altercation left Carolina bleeding and unconscious on the ground with a dislocated shoulder and elbow. Carolina Ft. Worth joins Police Accountability Report to discuss her harrowing ordeal, and how police across the country are engaged in similar kinds of suspicious behavior driven by municipal and even potentially illegal private economic incentives.

Written by: Stephen Janis
Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production: Adam Coley

Transcript

Taya Graham:  Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As we always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video of an officer throwing a well-known cop watcher to the ground and causing severe physical injuries for simply filming them. An example of police reacting violently for being watched, raising questions about just how dangerous it can be to hold police accountable.

But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you.

And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It can help get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them, you see those little hearts I give out down there. And I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show off what a great community we have.

And we do have a Patreon called Accountability Report, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, as we have documented rigorously on this show, filming cops is not easy or without risk. For one thing, they have the power to retaliate with an arrest, but also they have the threat of using violence to subdue those who dare to turn the camera in their direction. And that’s exactly what happened in the video I’m showing you now.

It depicts a Texas cop watcher, Carolina in Fort Worth, as she tries to film police for what she believed were unwarranted parking tickets. But how police responded and the severe consequences for her is what we address today in detail.

Now, just a note. This story has received a lot of attention within the cop watcher community, but today we are going to break it down with new footage and an interview with the victim of the arrest herself, Carolina in Fort Worth. And believe me, she has a lot to say. But first, let’s review what happened.

The story starts in June of this year in Fort Worth, Texas. There, Carolina was filming police in a parking lot. She believed cops were running a bit of a scam, writing unwarranted tickets, and in the process, unjustly saddling hardworking bartenders and waitstaff from a nearby entertainment district with excessive fines and towing of their cars.

Bear in mind, this was 3:30 in the morning when she initially started filming. Let’s watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Carolina in Fort Worth:  They’re saying, “Okay, we’re going to tow this, we’re going to tow that. Let’s see, what are we going to do?” I bet it’s a cop car that’s broken. That’s hilarious if it is. Predator tow truck drivers, they’re the worst. They’re towing a bunch of cars off. They’re trying to build the entertainment district up, right? This is a great way to do it. This is great for community relations, haha. It’s a great idea for community relations to start towing people’s cars. I think that’s a wonderful idea.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, at this point, it is undeniable that Carolina in Fort Worth is doing nothing wrong. She isn’t interfering with police, simply filming them, and for good reason. As you can see, police were having cars towed from the parking lot right in the heart of one of Fort Worth’s most vibrant gathering spots.

But soon things get tense, when police decide they don’t want their towing dragnet scrutinized. Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Carolina in Fort Worth:  That’s great for community policing. They’re trying to build up the entertainment center, but now you’re going to tow everybody’s shit.

That’s a private parking lot. How the hell are you going to tow off a private parking lot? Are you allowed to tow off a private parking lot? Are you allowed to tow off a private parking lot? Oh, you’re going to ignore me. Okay. Do you see any towing will be strictly enforced signs? I don’t see any.

So there’s no signs that say towing will be enforced. What does this say? This is validated parking. It says, “Please register upon parking. Validated parking. Please register upon parking. Business is [inaudible], validated parking for Folk Street Warehouses. Ways to validate: You can scan the QR code or text pay. Failure to pay or extend time may result in boots.”

Okay, so how do they know if they paid or not? How do you know if they paid or not, ladies? Hey, ladies. Hey, ladies. Hey, ladies. Hey, Krueger.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, shortly after she begins questioning the ticket-writing officers, another cop shows up on the scene, a member of the Fort Worth Police Department that she was more than familiar with. And it doesn’t take him long to confront her. Take a listen.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Krueger:  [Inaudible] sounds [inaudible].

Carolina in Fort Worth:  No, I’m not going to the floor. There’s no investigation. There’s no nothing.

Officer Krueger:  You can go to the other side of the street or you’re going to get arrested. I’m not warning you again.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  What are you talking about?

Officer Krueger:  Go to the other side of the street right now.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  Why? Wait, tell me why first.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  She asked a simple question that we hear quite often on this show, but is rarely answered: why? Why do you, Officer Krueger, believe you have the right to arrest me? What law empowers you to put me in handcuffs?

Krueger doesn’t answer. but not being able to articulate a reason also doesn’t stop him from deploying the powers of the state in a highly questionable manner.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Krueger:  You’re under arrest. Turn around please.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, okay.

Officer Krueger:  Stop resisting. Stop resisting.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Stop resisting. Seriously, how many times on this show have we heard that phrase, cops who say “stop resisting” when the victim clearly isn’t. However, this time, we have several other camera angles to, in fact, check on Officer Krueger’s camera performance.

First, let’s watch the officer’s body worn camera and you be the judge if she was resisting.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Krueger:  Hey Carolina, we’re busy. Go to the other side of the street.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  There’s nothing to report. There’s no investigation, there’s no nothing.

Officer Krueger:  You can go to the other side of the street or you’re going to get arrested. I’m not warning you again.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  What are you talking about?

Officer Krueger:  Go to the other side of the street right now.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  Why? Wait, tell me why first.

Police Officer:  We’re doing an —

Officer Krueger:  You’re under arrest, turn around, put your hands behind your back —

Carolina in Fort Worth:  No, no, no, no, no.

Officer Krueger:  Stop resisting.

Police Officer:  She’s bleeding [handcuffs clanking].

Officer Krueger:  [inaudible].

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Okay. How exactly can you resist if you are lying on the ground bleeding? I mean, seriously. Resistance cannot occur when you are unconscious. That is simply an indisputable fact. You can’t resist if you’re lying on the ground in a pool of your own blood.

But just to be sure, let’s watch the footage from an entirely different angle, courtesy of the CCTV video released by the Fort Worth Police Department.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Krueger:  Hey Carolina, we’re busy. Go to the other side of the street. You can go —

Carolina in Fort Worth:  You did this before, there’s no investigation, there’s no nothing.

Officer Krueger:  You can go to the other side of the street or you’re going to get arrested. I’m not warning you again.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  What are you talking about?

Officer Krueger:  Go to the other side of the street right now.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  Why? Wait, tell me why first.

Police Officer:  We’re doing an —

Officer Krueger:  You’re under arrest. Turn around, put your hands behind your back.

Police Officer:  Okay.

Officer Krueger:  Stop resisting.

Police Officer:  She’s bleeding [handcuffs clanking].

Officer Krueger:  [Inaudible] an ambulance.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Again, it’s hard to understand why the officer chose to be so aggressive. Yes, she was following the officers with a camera, which can be annoying, but that comes with the territory of having a badge and a gun. And yes, Carolina in Fort Worth is a stickler for accountability, as you will learn later. But why he decided that a cell phone camera justifies near deadly force is simply hard to understand.

Let’s just listen to his reaction after Carolina in Fort Worth is literally snoring. Snoring because she was literally knocked out.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Police Officer:  She’s bleeding.

Officer Krueger:  [inaudible], I need a supervisor and an ambulance.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Being knocked unconscious was just one of several severe injuries Carolina in Fort Worth endured. She also suffered a dislocated elbow and shoulder, along with bruising and abrasions on her face, which I am showing you on the screen right now. She also suffered damage to her orbital ridge and needed stitches to repair the damage around her eyes and lips.

But of course, none of the aforementioned injuries include the trauma of being taken to the ground for nothing.

Now, the incident actually attracted local media attention and was widely decried as excessive. But when she and fellow cop watcher Manuel Mata confronted Officer Kruger just a few days later, he was not receptive to their complaints.

Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Carolina in Fort Worth:  When’s the last time you falsified a police report?

Officer Krueger:  I have never falsified a police report.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  You know what jaywalking is? You know, jaywalking occurs between two lights. There wasn’t two lights in here.

Officer Krueger:  Are you referring to jaywalking as a concept or jaywalking as a statue?

Carolina in Fort Worth:  As a statute.

Manuel Mata:  You’re stupid. There’s only one [Carolina laughs]. This was in the concept.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  Oh, no, no. Jaywalking is not a real thing.

Manuel Mata:  Remember, I told y’all to give me the ticket. What’d you say? You’re going to jail for jaywalking. And then how do I end up with [inaudible]? Because y’all plain lie, right? It’s all on your cameras. And didn’t you just say it’s not a third degree felony to turn it off or mute it, right? Yeah, that’s how I like my servants, closed mouth.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  But there’s so much more going on behind the scenes than the questionable arrest you just watched, and that includes some intriguing background on the officer and his contentious relations with Carolina Rodriguez. And for more on that, we will be talking to her later.

But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been looking into and examining the evidence. Stephen, thank you so much for joining us.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  So Stephen, what did the Fort Worth police charge her with?

Stephen Janis:  Well, Taya, it’s really amazing. It’s resistance, interfering, evading arrest, and false report, all from what you see on video. It’s kind of hard to believe that they would use these charges, but it seems to me that it’s actually kind of purposeful because they’re trying to make her look as bad as possible because a video makes them look bad.

So those are the charges. They’re kind of shocking. We reached out to the police department. They said, we don’t have media credentials, we need to present them before they will answer our questions about whether they’re going forward with these charges.

Taya Graham:  Okay, wow. Interfering, but resisting and evading arrest? That really does seem like a stretch. You reached out to prosecutors about the case. What are they saying?

Stephen Janis:  Well, first of all, Taya, the prosecutors have not gotten back to us. But secondly, you’re right. It does seem really weird to charge you with things like that when she’s actually unconscious on the ground. I don’t see how you evade an arrest when you’re lying on the ground snoring. I don’t see how you resist an arrest when you’re incapacitated.

So really, I think these charges are very questionable, and hopefully prosecutors will back off on this, but we haven’t heard yet. When we do, we’ll say something in the chat.

Taya Graham:  Now, this officer has had problems before. Can you talk about that and the concerns that it raises?

Stephen Janis:  Well, as Carolina in Fort Worth herself will tell us in the interview later, he has been noted for being very aggressive with the community.

Now, we reached out to the Fort Worth Police Department and asked them specifically what they’re going to do about this officer, and they have not gotten back to us.

But I think it raises concerns to see how quickly he turned to force. He could have talked to her, he could have engaged her, but he didn’t. I think that’s problematic, and I think that might be emblematic of some of the problems he has as a police officer, Taya.

Taya Graham:  Now to get her take on what happened and how her relationship with Fort Worth police presages much of what happens, and what she thinks about cop watching and why she will continue to fight for transparency and accountability, I’m joined by Carolina in Fort Worth, our cop Watcher.

Carolina, thank you for joining me.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  You’re welcome. I’m glad to be here. Glad you asked me.

Taya Graham:  So please help us understand what we see in this video. First, we see you approach officers, asking them questions about their car impounding practices. You’re a cop watcher. What were you investigating that night?

Carolina in Fort Worth:  It was about 3:00 in the morning after the bars are already closed and most of the teenagers and everybody are gone. And I just noticed a bunch of activity going on at the end of the street.

So I walked down there to see what was going on. And I’m really into community policing, just like the chief says he’s into community policing. But I noticed that there’s a row of cars that were parked in a private parking area, but you had to pay for the parking spot. And so I was trying to figure out what was going on, but nobody would really tell me. And you have to really look at the clues to kind of guess because they won’t tell you what’s going on.

So I was trying to just put guesses together. So I heard this one lady say, well, I paid $31 to park here and you’re not taking my car. And I saw a man walk up, a cop walk up to her and go, no, no, no, no, we’re not taking yours. You’re leaving in yours, right? So I assumed that they were going to take that whole row of cars, because there was a tow truck there already.

Now the tow truck driver, I have a good rapport with the tow truck drivers, but this one I’ve had bad karma with before. And so I said, so I asked him what’s going on? And he didn’t tell me. He totally walked by me like I wasn’t there. He totally ignored me. Didn’t even say, I can’t tell you, or, you know I can’t tell you, or anything like that. He just totally ignored me and he walked right on by me to go to his tow truck.

So I just assumed that they were going to tow that whole row of cars. And I thought, well, that’s not very good community policing because why don’t they just put a note on the car and say, hey, we’re going to tow you next time you’re here. It was a private parking area. It was 3:30 in the morning. Those people that were in those cars were probably too drunk to drive and drove home with somebody else, or were maybe working at a restaurant somewhere and still hadn’t finished their job yet.

So I think it’s pretty dirty that they’re pulling these cars out without any kind of type of warning. It’s not community policing. Who’s the crime hurting that they’re parked like that in a private parking area?

Taya Graham:  So the officers didn’t seem interested in responding to your questions, but it suddenly became violent. Can you help me understand what happened?

Carolina in Fort Worth:  I’m still asking myself that to this very day because what happened was is after the tow truck driver walked by me and ignored me, I noticed two female cops walking by me. And I’ve talked to those two ladies before, but they were just strolling. They didn’t look like they were busy doing anything. They were just strolling, really just strolling along like you’d see two ladies at the mall doing, just strolling.

So I started to ask them what was going on and they ignored me. They totally ignored me. So I tried to get their attention and I said, fire, fire, fire, fire, and they still ignored me and they kept on walking. So I thought, okay, I let them walk up to where they were, and I said, well, I’m going to go find out what’s going on. So I started to walk up towards them.

And then I saw Krueger jump out of the vehicle. Well, first I talked to the girls. I was like, girls, do they have to pay? How do you know they haven’t paid that you’re towing them off like that? And they were starting to answer me and then Krueger jumped out of the car and said, hey Carolina, I need you to go across the street. I’m not going to tell you again. He said it to me one time.

I said, but there’s nothing going on. What do you mean I have to go across the street? I was questioning his unlawful order to go across the street. I figured it was an unlawful order because I didn’t see anything going on. The girls were strolling. I saw two officers in the street, they were talking to each other like on a break. I didn’t see anything going on at all.

And so he walked toward me and he said, I’m going to arrest you if you don’t go across the street. I said, okay, okay, okay, but just tell me first what’s going on? And that’s when he attacked me.

I didn’t know where it came from. I have no idea what I did to cause him to do that. I asked him, just tell me what’s going on first. What’s wrong with asking? He only asked me one time to move. And I just wanted to know what was going on because that’s what I’m trying to portray to the people.

But he never said anything. He just grabbed my wrist and then threw me down on the ground. And that’s the last thing I remember from there.

Taya Graham:  So for all of us who were watching the livestream, it was horrifying and quite obvious you’d been knocked unconscious. What were your injuries, and were you medically treated?

Carolina in Fort Worth:  Well, like I said, I don’t remember anything that happened after I hit the ground. Nothing. I don’t remember the ride to the… If I rode in an ambulance or if I rode in somebody’s car. I don’t know if they carried me. I have no idea. But I woke up in a hospital bed with my arm, my good arm, chained to the side of the bed. I was like, what the heck is going on here?

In the meantime, I’m going in and out of consciousness. So I passed back out again after I saw my arm was attached. And then I felt them shaking me, and they woke me up, and they said they were giving me something in my IV. I didn’t even know I had an IV. And they were starting to just put my arm back into the socket because my arm had been out of the socket the whole time, didn’t even know it.

I just couldn’t believe it. And then I couldn’t see because both my eyes were swelled shut. So I didn’t know why my eyes were swelled shut, and I just didn’t know what was going on. There was no mirror there. All I know is that I was chained to the bed. Nobody was answering any questions for me. And there was a female cop sitting at the foot of my bed.

And that’s the only thing I remember from there, because I went back later and found out that I only was there from four to nine, not enough time to treat my injuries and monitor me at all.

The doctors there at the emergency room told me that this whole eye socket right here is broken. It’s still broken, and if I touch it, I can feel little pieces of bone moving. I can feel the little pieces of bone moving. I still have the black eye on this side and on this side.

And my lip was split open, and so they weren’t going to do anything about it. And I asked him to sew me up. Can you please sew me up, doctor? And he goes, are you sure you want me to sew you up? He goes, I think we need to wait for one of the orthopedic people to come. I’m like, no, just sew me up. So he sewed me up.

So it looks like I have collagen on this side because it’s a big old bump right there. So I have to have that fixed. But the bad thing is I can touch my bone right here and I can feel it moving. Every once in a while my eye will go blurry. And then I have ringing in my ears constantly now, constantly. So I’m going to have to get all that taken care of.

Taya Graham:  So after you were briefly given medical, you were taken to jail, right?

Carolina in Fort Worth:  Okay. This is amazing. So when I went to the first… Here in Fort Worth, you go to the city jail first and then they transfer you to the county jail, and you have to go in a tunnel underneath like a rat, underneath the street.

So recently we’ve had overcrowding at the jail, and so they’ve been holding the people at the city jail for longer than they can handle. So usually you’re only at the city jail for about 12 hours while they just check you in. But they’ve been holding people there for three days.

So when I got to the city jail, they all knew who I was. They already knew who I was. And they said, well, she’s in really bad shape. We don’t want to take her because we don’t have any medical stuff over here. We don’t have any way to give her meds. We don’t have any way if she goes into a seizure, we don’t have anything for her. So we don’t want her. And they made me stay there.

And I remember crawling on the floor from the front door to where I got checked in over to the cell, my regular cell that we always go to over there. So I crawled on the floor over there and they just let me do it. And she goes, I don’t know what to tell you, but we’re having to make you stay here three days. But next thing I know, I passed out on the floor. They put me in a wheelchair and they wheeled me into the tunnel.

And they were going to use one of my old mugshots, but one of the jailers said, no, you need to take a picture of her now. You don’t need to use one of her old mug shots. I remember that. I told him, I said, yeah, you can use my old mugshot. That’s fine. I didn’t realize that that would be an important piece of evidence, that mug shot. That mug shot was really important. And I’m glad that that woman, whoever it was, insisted that I take that mug shot picture.

Taya Graham:  So what exactly were you charged with, and how were you treated? And how long were you kept incarcerated?

Carolina in Fort Worth:  My first charge is interference with public duties. Okay, we have a clause that says, “Speech can be used as a defense to interference.” It really has to be physical. I really have to come in between whatever they’re doing or working on. I didn’t see myself do that.

If I walked into their crime scene, it’s because they didn’t have it marked. But I didn’t see a body with a cover on it. I didn’t see anybody taking notes. I didn’t see anybody measuring anything. I didn’t see anybody taking pictures of anything. I saw tow trucks towing off a vehicle. So I don’t know how I interfered with that just by asking what’s going on.

My next charge was false reporting. False reporting, because when the girls were ignoring me, I said, fire, fire. That’s what you’re supposed to do when you want someone to take your attention, you say fire. But it was not in a crowded theater and they totally ignored me and didn’t take the report. So I got charged for that.

Then I got charged for resisting, which I suppose I was resisting after I was knocked out because that’s when he started saying, quit resisting.

All right. And then also evading. So that means running away, running away from them. So I don’t know how I can interfere and run away at the same time. That doesn’t make any sense. And also if you look at his body cam footage, my arm’s behind my back, I put my arm behind my back to be arrested. I didn’t resist whatsoever.

Supposedly he grabbed both my arms and threw me on the ground. That’s what happened. So I don’t know what I did to be handled that way. I have no idea what I did. I didn’t know that asking a question would cause you to be thrown on the ground and knocked unconscious.

Taya Graham:  Did you have to pay bail? And are there any conditions around your release?

Carolina in Fort Worth:  Well, there was no real conditions except for I had Harvey and Manuel and a lot of other people, they helped me get out of jail. They helped get that 10% to get me out, and I have to report there every week. And I’m surprised that they’re still pressing forward with these charges. I’m really surprised, because I don’t know how they can justify any one of them, any one of them at all.

But I have to report there every week to the bonds people, and that’s about it. So it was $4,000, they had to get 10% of that. So each bond was $1,000 dollars.

Taya Graham:  Now, the officer who slammed you onto the ground, his name is Officer Kruger, and he has a bit of a history with cop watchers. Can you share with me a little background about him?

For example, I believe he pulled a gun on Manuel Mata, who’s been, of course, a guest on PAR before.

Carolina in Fort Worth:  Well, see, I knew Officer Kruger before this happened, only because he was the same officer that arrested Manuel Mata at gunpoint for walking across that very street that he told me to walk across. Manuel and I do a lot of cop watching down there, and what we do is we go on separate sides of the street and we walk together simultaneously down the street and we keep an eye on each other to see, to watch each other.

I had turned around just briefly to get my equipment ready to go, and when I turned around, he was gone. He totally disappeared. I was like, what in the world? I’m looking for him across where he was supposed to be, didn’t see him. Then all of a sudden I get a phone call. It’s Manuel Mata, said he’s in jail, that they had arrested him when I had my back turned.

So he was arrested at gunpoint for jaywalking. Well, you can’t bring somebody to jail for jaywalking because the punishment is not jail time. You can only take somebody to jail if the punishment is jail time.

So they added a charge onto his little arrest there and they added evading. So he walked across the street, was held at gunpoint, made to lay down on the ground, but he was evading too. That didn’t make any sense. That’s why that charge got dismissed for him.

Come to find out when Manuel Mata got arrested that this man had been fired from the Irving Police Department for hurting two women on two different occasions, pulling one out of a car, and that was one of them, within 28 seconds of arrival. And the other one was jumping a woman who had turned to go back to her house, and he jumped her.

Both of them were hurt. I don’t know if they’ve had any lawsuits or anything like that, but he sued the city of Irving because he was fired, and he got his job back. But it had stipulations, and the stipulations were psychiatric help, meetings with the psychiatric thing, drug testing, all sorts of little stipulations he had to do for a whole year if he came back. And I guess he didn’t want to do the stipulations because he was hired at the Fort Worth Police Department right after that.

Taya Graham:  Now you’ve recently won a lawsuit against another Texas police department. What can you tell me about that suit?

Carolina in Fort Worth:  So I was just sitting on the bench filming them, and a man came out from behind from where he was supposed to be watching stuff go through the X-ray machine, and he took a camera and he put it like two inches away from my face and started daring me to hit him.

My lawyer took that and we won a small lawsuit. The man was already retired and everything, but it was very small, pretty insignificant, But at least it sent a message saying that they can’t do that to us anymore. They just can’t do that to us just because we’re filming something.

I was sitting on the bench. I wasn’t instigating. I wasn’t interfering. I was sitting on a bench just filming that new equipment that we had. That was it.

So they feel like… I think they talk among each other that we’re instigators, that we’re bad guys, that we just try to make trouble. We’re just trying to get views and all that sort of thing. But most of us are really trying to find, we’re doing investigative journalism work, and they don’t seem to understand that. They don’t watch our videos either. They just judge us by hearsay.

Taya Graham:  Now, something that really amazed me is that you went out cop watching and livestreaming practically the day after you were released. Why are you so dedicated to cop watching, and why are you willing to risk jail and even injury to do this work?

Carolina in Fort Worth:  I went right out the next day because the reason why we do this is to make sure that people don’t get hurt. We were watching their rights. We’re making sure that they don’t get violated. We actually have saved a lot of people with our cameras, and I was not going to let them think that they had taken me down or put me out. I want them to know that I’m going to be doing this until my very last breath. I don’t care.

And I mean, of course I was sore. I had my arm in a sling and I have the ringing in my ears, but I’m still going to do it. I’m still going to make as much time as possible to do it because we’re out there protecting the citizens is what we’re doing, and trying to teach them their rights and bring awareness to the rest of the country or the rest of the world that it’s not fair what they do to us. It’s not fair.

I was lucky. I had a camera. How many times have they done this to people that don’t have cameras? How many times have they hurt people that actually die? Three people a day are killed by police every day, and we don’t want one of them to be here in Fort Worth, and that’s why we’re out with our cameras every single day.

Taya Graham:  You told me you like to protect the underdog. What inspires you to cop watch?

Carolina in Fort Worth:  I guess because what happens is that these cops are allowed to lie to the people. And I hate that we’re brought up as little kids to trust the police, listen to what they say because they’re the heroes, they’re out there protecting you and making sure that nobody gets hurt. But in the meantime, what we’re finding out is that they break the rules to get people, they break the rules to get people.

In other words, would they stop a vehicle and take everybody’s driver’s license or everybody’s ID to check them, all for warrants, to see if they can catch anybody that has a warrant out maybe instead of just taking the driver’s. And I feel like if we have to play by the rules, they should play by the rules, and I don’t think they should be able to lie to us.

Taya Graham:  Okay. Now, the treatment of Carolina in Fort Worth prompts quite a few reactions from me. None of them, I would add, are particularly charitable to the institution of law enforcement.

For one thing, I still can’t really reconcile the officer’s behavior with Carolina’s simple act of filming. If there’s any example of the excessive use of law enforcement in our country against transparency, this one really takes the cake.

But there is something else going on here that I think is perhaps revealing about how policing in general has become misguided, to say the least. It’s an idea that actually sheds light on the imperative that informs what the officers were actually doing that evening that’s been overlooked, if not ignored, but deserves further examination.

So let me put this simply. The officers in question weren’t investigating a murder, tracking down a burglar, or otherwise pursuing the laudable goal of public safety. They weren’t helping a cat out of a tree or helping a distraught family search for a missing loved one. No, that’s not what was happening.

Instead, they were writing parking tickets, at 3:30 in the morning, no less. That’s right. The officers who were uncomfortable under the gaze of the cop watchers’ cell phone were exacting fees and fines from the hardworking people, who I assume really can’t afford it. They were even towing the vehicles of the entertainment district workers who were more than likely finishing a night-long shift in a bar or a restaurant.

Now, I want you to think about that, what it means and why it matters. We spend billions in this country on law enforcement. We train and equip cops to work for roughly 18,000 police departments spanning small towns to big cities across the country. And the idea, at least in theory, is that this investment will somehow translate into better public safety.

But how? And I ask this question seriously. How does writing parking tickets achieve that goal? How does towing cars in the middle of the night advance the off-sighted imperative to protect and serve?

Well, clearly it doesn’t, and that’s sort of the point, right? Time and time again on this show, we encounter examples of overreach by the law enforcement-industrial complex that seems more designed to simply punish than to protect. A clear lack of consideration for the people that ultimately pay for it. Something that I think speaks to the broader issues about why the uniquely American process of enforcing the law seems predicated on a philosophy that’s far removed from the idea of a collective common good.

What do I mean? Well consider this article in The Washington Post. It recounts how a group of former police officers participated in a mind-boggling crime that sounds like it’s lifted straight from a Hollywood script. Not just troubling, but profoundly disturbing.

The officers included two former members of the LA County Sheriff’s Department, which we’ve covered often on the show for some pretty questionable arrests.

Now, these officers were working at the behest of a Chinese national who wanted to extract money from his former business partner. The person who hired what were described as mercenaries was not named in the indictment. She allegedly had a dispute with the man whose home was raided, and she wanted to collect the money she felt was her due.

The officers showed up with expired badges and forced their way into the victim’s home. The cops then proceeded to pressure him to sign paperwork to turn over roughly $37 million. They tore his shirt, threw him against the wall, and threatened to deport him. All of this while his two youngest sons cowered in fear, unsure of what would happen next.

At one point, an officer said he was, in fact, not law enforcement, suggesting that the man was facing an immediate threat to his life. All of this prompted him to sign over a $37 million stock under the threat of a bunch of cops who actually weren’t even cops.

But I think the broader point of this story about bizarre police behavior goes beyond a faux raid and a bit of boneheaded extortion, a tale of policing for profits that isn’t just isolated to a group of former cops turned bill collectors.

No, I think this is, in fact, a symbol or what drives bad policing and our historic economic inequality and the reason that Carolina was confronting a bevy of police in a nondescript parking lot at 3:00 AM in the morning.

All of this really is not about morality or crime or law and order. It is, though, about a particular type of cruelty that underlies the fragile system of democracy in which we all hope to flourish.

It is, put simply, a regime of enforcement, not tethered to any idea of bolstering or building a community, but rather exacerbating the inequality that greases the wheels of penalties for the people who aren’t part of the fabulously wealthy. You can’t maintain the historic concentration of wealth without some type of system that extracts and enforces the inequitable reality that we all share.

I think we can see this imperative at work in the story I just recounted and the near deadly encounter with Carolina not just the aggressive behavior alone, but the deeper systemic failures that drive police to do things that really make no sense.

Let’s face it, parking tickets are supposed to encourage the most productive use of space, not impose usury fines on unwitting people. They aren’t supposed to be deployed like a weapon to burden the working class with fines and tow truck fees and costs that can drown a person who’s barely getting by.

Meanwhile, the fact that a bunch of retired cops thought they could turn into a crew of paramilitary bill collectors shows the same inherent disregard for the rights of the people that often put law enforcement at odds with the people they purport to serve.

But what really strikes me about both stories is that each, in its own way, tells a story about us, about how we are not respected, and how we often suffer in silence while the government uses the police we fund to make our lives miserable.

Now, this is not to suggest that a parking ticket is the end of the world or that a $300 tow will necessarily destroy a person’s life. And this is not to say that an errant mob squad that illegally raided a man’s home got away with it. In fact, the only reason we know about it is because they’re actually being prosecuted.

But what this does tell us is that government power must be kept in check, and by extension, the government’s ability to employ, deploy, and empower people with guns and badges.

Now, I know I make this point often, but the work to hold police accountable is vital, not just because cops are inherently bad or they’re always doing something wrong. I would say just the opposite. They behave better when we watch them, just like anyone else would.

But what’s really important is to understand the fluidity of power, or rather, who it really serves, how it concentrates at the top and flows down until it envelops the working people of this country in a deluge of fines, fees, and petty arrests. How it leads to a country where a just released report noted that America spends more on healthcare than any other wealthy country, and yet we have the worst outcomes in terms of life expectancy and wellness to other comparable nations.

That’s why we have to comprehend the true nature of the punishment regime that makes all of these incongruous realities possible, how it accumulates power in institutions that are supposed to serve and then swallows whole the communal benefits and turns into overpolicing and an invasive attempt to shape our lives in ways that are often punitive and destructive.

The broader point is that inequitable power is not reluctant or discreet. It doesn’t watch over us to be constructive or helpful. Ultimately, it is intended to prescribe a reality where we don’t matter, our rights don’t matter, and our pursuits of happiness don’t matter. Where cop watchers are just a nuisance, the working class is ripe for exploitation, and every single one of us is diminished by a system predicated on denying our humanity.

That’s why we need cop watchers, activists, journalists, YouTubers, and perhaps even a show that reports on all of them. That’s why we need to be vigilant, demanding, and skeptical, and that’s why we need the community that you are all a part of, the people that refuse to be ignored or forgotten.

I want to thank Carolina in Fort Worth for speaking with us, sharing her experience, and being willing to get back on the streets and filming police. Thank you, Carolina. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  And I have to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you. And a very special thanks to our accountability report Patreons. We appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every single one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon Associate producers, John E.R., David K., Louie P., and Lucille Garcia and super friends Shane B., Kenneth K., Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter and Facebook.

And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. Anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham, and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Darcy Layton was pleasantly surprised with a free sweater and fruit from her local convenience store—but what she didn’t know was that a more sinister surprise was awaiting her outdoors. Without explanation, local police confronted Layton and ordered her to show ID. Police body camera footage reveals the officer got physical when Layton was slow to give her full name, and arrested her under questionable pretenses. Suddenly facing charges, Latyon was hit with another shock from police: if she did not accept a guilty plea, she would be involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitalization. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report investigate the case and examine how it reveals the role of police in enforcing social boundaries by criminalizing mental illness and homelessness.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose. Holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today, we will achieve that goal by showing you this video of a cop making an inexplicable arrest of a woman who was simply standing on a public sidewalk. A questionable use of power to detain and cage a person who had not committed a crime. But it’s an arrest which reveals the destructive consequences of over-policing and why cops need to be watched at all times. But first, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you.

You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct and please share and like and comment. It really helps us and it can even help our guests and you know I read your comments and appreciate them. And please consider joining our channel and if you click that blue fundraising button over here, you can make a huge difference to help keep us going. If you donate $75 or more or become a $10 a month supporter, you’ll receive an exclusive Real News T-shirt as a special thank you so please consider helping us. You never see ads here and you know we don’t take corporate dollars.

All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as we reported on the show repeatedly over and over again, police power is often used in situations that do not justify it, but in fact call for entirely different solutions. There are incidents where people simply need the help of another human being, not a gun, a badge or a set of handcuffs and no use of police power is more indicative of our penchant for applying it to the wrong situations than the video I’m showing you now.

It depicts an encounter between Darcy Layton and an Ogden, Utah police officer that ended with horrible consequences for her and questions about how the department treats people in need at their most vulnerable moments. The story starts in Ogden, Utah in April 2023. There, Darcy Layton is experiencing what she’ll tell us later was a moment of personal crisis. Not violent, as you will see, or even alarming. She’s just dealing with the consequences of her tenuous housing situation and she’s struggling with the stress of it. She happened at the same time to be standing on a street outside of a 7-Eleven, which is a fact that will be important later. That’s when an Ogden police officer drove to confront her for reasons that remain unknown. Take a listen.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Hey, excuse me. Hey.

Darcy Layton:

Hi.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Hi. What’s your name?

Darcy Layton:

I’m sorry, I was kind of praying to God for a minute.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Okay, no, that’s fine. It’s just the people at 7-Eleven don’t want you here so can I get your name?

Darcy Layton:

Oh, they didn’t tell me that [inaudible 00:03:01] been in there.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Okay, well what’s your name? What’s your name? Hey, stop. Stop.

Taya Graham:

Now, you will notice as the officer exits the vehicle, Darcy was clearly standing on a public sidewalk, not on the property of a 7-Eleven. And as is her right, since the officer had not expressed reasonable, articulate suspicion that she had committed a crime, she had declined to identify herself and simply exercise her right and walk away, but the officer decided to pursue. Take a look.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Hey, what’s your name ma’am? Ma’am, what’s your name?

Darcy Layton:

I’m okay. I just would go for a walk, I’m okay.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

What’s your name?

Darcy Layton:

I didn’t shop with [inaudible 00:03:51].

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Okay, what’s your name?

Darcy Layton:

I’m going to go. I’m fine. I haven’t done anything wrong.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

You’re not leaving.

Darcy Layton:

I’m fine.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

You’re trespassing. They want you out of here.

Darcy Layton:

I am walking off the, wait, wait. I’m not trespassing. I’m on public road.

Taya Graham:

First of all, the officer has not established that she has committed a crime. Yes, as you heard, he accused her of trespassing. But given that she seems far removed from the actual property of the 7-Eleven, that is at best, a questionable allegation. Still, without any evidence of intent of a crime, he continues to try to detain her – watch.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Come back to my car.

Darcy Layton:

I was on a public road.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Come back to my car.

Darcy Layton:

Public road, public road.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Come, stop.

Darcy Layton:

Let me go.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Stop.

Darcy Layton:

What the you fuck [inaudible 00:04:30].

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Stop.

Darcy Layton:

Fuck, fucking God. Oh my God.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Stop.

Taya Graham:

Okay, so for some reason that I cannot conceivably justify legally he puts his hands on her and I will note at the time this occurred, she was not threatening anyone and she was in the process of leaving the area, as I will repeat, is her right. Therefore, the question at this point is why did the officer put his hands on her? What exactly is the crime? Take a look for yourself and decide if this use of force is justified.

Darcy Layton:

[inaudible 00:05:03].

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Stop.

Darcy Layton:

Fucking stop, fucking God. Oh my God.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

If you don’t stop.

Darcy Layton:

Fucking hell.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Get the fuck off [inaudible 00:05:17].

Darcy Layton:

Rick, you got a PP.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Hey, don’t feel my leg.

Darcy Layton:

Rick you got a PP. God, damn you.

Taya Graham:

Before I weigh in on the legality of this arrest or what the law entitles the officer to do, at this point I want you to take a look at something that we see quite often when watching police body cameras, but rarely discuss, the way the officer initiates pain compliance. Now you can see how the officer bends her arm up into her arm socket. This is an extremely painful maneuver that can have lasting physical effects. Just recall our last show when Eddie Holguin was still suffering from the ongoing nerve pain of a previous arrest when the police arrested him again and caused pain in the same arm. Still, despite the risks, along with the obvious fact, Darcy is hardly a physically formidable detainee, the officer continues to press her arm up and into her shoulder, see for yourself.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Stop.

Darcy Layton:

Fucking hell.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Get the fuck off [inaudible 00:05:17].

Darcy Layton:

Rick, you got a PP.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Hey, don’t feel my leg.

Darcy Layton:

Rick you got a PP. God, damn you. [inaudible 00:06:44] Fucking bullshit [inaudible 00:06:44]. God damn.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Okay, give me your other arm. Give me your other arm.

Taya Graham:

Now, I really want you to think about what you’re seeing here. A woman pressed into the ground on the wet sidewalk, her arm dangerously pushed up into her back and is facing this physical duress for doing what exactly? What was the crime here? What was the threat to the public safety? A couple of 7-Eleven employees didn’t like her. Is that how we justify the use of force? Let’s just listen and see if the officer shares the particulars of the crime upon which he bases his use of force.

Darcy Layton:

Fuck.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

You’re being ridiculous.

Darcy Layton:

Don’t you dare, mother fucker. Fuck, your mother.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Sit up.

Darcy Layton:

It’s okay, fucking your mother.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Sit up.

Darcy Layton:

If you’re okay with fucking your mother. Fuck you, bullshit, [inaudible 00:07:36].

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Please stand up.

Darcy Layton:

Fuck Eddie. God damn it. Fucking, what is your problem?

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Come on.

Darcy Layton:

What did I do?

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Put your shoes on.

Darcy Layton:

What did I do?

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Let’s go.

Darcy Layton:

What did I do, please? What did I fucking do? You, God damn it.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

What did I do? What crime had I committed? A fairly simple question and yet the officer does not answer it. Now, instead, he ridicules Darcy and continues to implement pain compliance, a situation that only gets worse as he forces her into the patrol car all the while maintaining his silence about her alleged crime.

Darcy Layton:

Please, what did I fucking do? You God damn it.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Stop. Stop. Do you have anything on you shouldn’t have? What’s your name? Huh? What’s your name? I’m going to add another charge.

Darcy Layton:

I’m sorry please be nice.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Get in.

Darcy Layton:

Fucking bullshit.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Get in.

Darcy Layton:

Please be nice. Who are you?

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Police, get in.

Darcy Layton:

Please, who are you?

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Get in.

Darcy Layton:

Who are you?

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Get in. Get in please. Can you put your feet in the car please?

Taya Graham:

I’m going to add another charge. Well, that’s interesting. For what exactly? Because you can’t have a secondary offense without an underlying crime to justify it, right, officer? So what exactly is the first offense that justifies the second? Because as far as I can tell you never really made clear what the initial reason for the arrest is. And let me say this as well, this particular arrest up until this point embodies many of the problems people endure when they push back on the state of law enforcement in this country.

This is why people don’t trust the police because so far the officer has been less than forthcoming about his justification for this violent arrest, and yet he has been more than articulate about his disdain for Darcy, which incidentally, is not a crime. In other words, you can’t arrest people that you don’t like. But still the officer persists and continues to refuse to answer questions. Just watch.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Get in, please. Can you put your feet in the car please? It’s soaking [inaudible 00:09:57].

Darcy Layton:

I’m very hot.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

What’s your name?

Darcy Layton:

I’m sorry.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

What’s your name?

Darcy Layton:

Ah.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Huh? What is your name? What’s your name?

Darcy Layton:

I don’t know.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Huh?

Darcy Layton:

I’m sorry.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

What’s your name?

Darcy Layton:

I just kind of daydreaming for a minute.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Okay. What’s your name?

Darcy Layton:

I don’t know. I don’t remember. [inaudible 00:10:23]

Taya Graham:

But now perhaps the officer realizes that he has made an arrest for no good reason so he starts to make an accusation on body camera, the one that seems problematic, if not impossible. Take a look.

Darcy Layton:

I’m sorry I fucking [inaudible 00:10:39] myself I didn’t mean to you.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Lean your up a little bit.

Darcy Layton:

Am I dead?

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Why did you scratch me? Did you bite me?

Darcy Layton:

They drowning me in the fucking hole.

Taya Graham:

Did you bite me, seriously? This is what we like to call body worn camera performance. You know, I don’t have reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause to make an arrest, but what I do have is the ability to perform my own version of stop resisting on body worn camera to justify any actions that might not meet the actual legal threshold for putting someone in handcuffs. Now, I’m not going to review the entire video, but here are a few excerpts and you tell me when and where she had the opportunity or inclination to bite the officer. Let’s watch.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Stop.

Darcy Layton:

What the fuck.

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Stop.

Darcy Layton:

Fucking, fuck. What the hell?

Ogden, Utah Police Officer:

Stop.

Darcy Layton:

Fucking dick.

Taya Graham:

So I, for one, didn’t see it and if you did, please leave a comment sharing where you did if you do indeed think she tried to harm the officer. But for the record, the bite may have been literally impossible because as Darcy shared with me later, she didn’t have her dentures in. But in the meantime, there is much to reveal about what led up to the arrest and the way police in Ogden, Utah have been aggressively targeting members of the community that we will unpack for you when we speak to Darcy and her boyfriend, Eddie Clegg, details, which only make the circumstances surrounding this example of over-policing even more questionable. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been reaching out to the police and examining the evidence. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Tay, thanks for having me, I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So Stephen, how are police justifying the arrest? What crime did Darcy commit?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I looked at the charging documents. We obtained them from the police department. Pretty simple. They charged her with some very questionable crimes that don’t seem to match the body-worn camera, namely trespassing and then interfering. But of course interfering would be a secondary offense to trespassing. And if you look at the video, you could see that she’s clearly on the sidewalk, I think, although the snow is covering, but not on the property.

But what they did because of those charges is that they had her plead guilty to the trespassing, threatening to charge her with that other bogus charge, which is injuring a police officer, which again, on video clearly contradicts what the officer was saying. So really it’s an example of law enforcement using their powers, to strong-arm someone into giving up their rights.

Taya Graham:

Okay, so wait, you’re saying Ogden, Utah prosecutors actually threatened her with charges of assaulting an officer. What was the plea offer and what eventually happened?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I mean Tay, it’s amazing. What they use is that very, I think questionable charge of trespassing to then intimidate her and saying that she was going to have to plead guilty of something that clearly wasn’t on body-worn camera, which just shows you how ridiculously ill-equipped I would say, our justice system is to defend people who can’t afford a high-priced lawyer. I’m sure if she had an expensive lawyer, that case would’ve been tossed in a second, but instead she ended up spending time in jail having plead guilty to a crime she didn’t commit.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, it seems to me that police are targeting this area’s unhoused population. What does this use of police power say about the underlying imperative of it and how does this jive with some of the theories of police power and its role in capitalism?

Stephen Janis:

Well, Tay, let me go back to what I just said. Let’s do a little thought experience. Imagine if all these unhoused people had expensive lawyers who could fight back and question the police, question the charges, question the legality, put officers on the stand and put the legal system on the stand as well. Let’s imagine what would happen. Do you think they’d be harassing these people? Do you think they’d be arresting them and pulling them in for charges they didn’t commit? Do you think so? I don’t think so. And that just shows you that our justice system is for sale and it goes to the highest bidder and that’s the problem we see here. People don’t have a way to defend themselves. They don’t have access to the same services that rich people do. And so police mess with them. That’s all this is. That’s what it is.

Taya Graham:

And now to talk about their encounters with police prior to the arrest we just watched and how law enforcement continues to harass them, I’m joined by Darcy Layton and her boyfriend, Eddie Clegg. Darcy and Eddie, thank you so much for joining us.

Darcy Layton:

Thank you Taya for having me.

Taya Graham:

So first, what were you at the convenience store before you were grabbed by police?

Darcy Layton:

I had gone for a walk but forgot my ID, my wallet and keys and I had somebody mail it to me, that was mailed to my address and I was just kind of asking if anybody knew where they might’ve moved to because I’d been living there for three years already in my apartment and still receiving mail to this person. Yeah, so I was just taking a break from my house for a minute. I was getting ready to head back home and somebody offered to buy me a drink. I wasn’t panhandling by any means, but it was cold and raining so somebody offered me, they put a jacket on me and offered to buy me a drink and they bought me some bananas and that’s why I was there.

Taya Graham:

An officer approached you but did not seem to explain why you were being stopped or detained or articulate any kind of reasonable suspicion. Did the officer ever explain to you what your crime was?

Darcy Layton:

I wasn’t catching on, I’m hard of hearing in my left ear and he approached me from my left side and at the time I was saying a prayer and I even mentioned that to him and then he said, “Stop.” So I thought he meant stop praying. But I couldn’t see him. I had been offered a ride home by two people in two white cars and thought it was one of them coming back to offer me a ride again. So I didn’t look. I just kept my eyes closed, praying still when he said to stop. At some point after I saw the video, but I didn’t hear it while I was standing there because of the deafness in my left ear, after they finally released the video over a year later to me, that’s when I heard him say that the store didn’t want me there, but I was already off the property.

Taya Graham:

The officer appeared to be strongly twisting your arm behind your back and then put you face down on the wet sidewalk. Was any reason given for using these pain compliance techniques or even for cuffing you?

Darcy Layton:

There was nothing given to me, nothing I heard at all. He basically told me that I wasn’t wanted on the property, they wanted me to leave, so I was walking away from the property. I was already off the property. I started to walk away when he said, “Stop.” And so I continued on my way By then I was on the public road, which is not their property anyway.

Taya Graham:

Did the officers identify themselves or give you any information?

Darcy Layton:

No, they didn’t and would not, I asked them repeatedly afterwards. Even at that point, who are they? Who are you and what’s going on? What did I do? And they would not respond to me and give me an answer whatsoever so I was uncertain of them even being official officers at all. Whatever happened to a rights to remain silent because they never even said anything about that. And so I was just remaining silent and then I felt like I must’ve been so confused because I didn’t realize, know what was going on because they wouldn’t give me any information whatsoever about who they were even when I asked who they were. So I didn’t feel comfortable giving them information about who I was because I’d heard on TV or on the news to make sure that if you don’t trust that they are true officers, to call 911 and go to a store or somewhere where there’s more people and get some real officers on board before contacting or telling them anything. So I didn’t feel I was doing anything wrong here by not giving them my name at first, but I did give them my first name, but it’s not in the video.

Taya Graham:

Darcy, were you injured during the encounter? It looked very painful.

Darcy Layton:

Yeah. Well I also have previous injuries in my lower back, a slipping disc. It is slipping. There’s no fluid in my, between L-4 and L-5. It just, it’s completely gone so it’s bone on bone already. They were putting their knee in my back pushing so hard that I lost control of my bladder with all their weight on top of me and up in my cervical C-spine now and my neck also with more damage as well. It was hurting pretty bad. Yes, that’s why I was swearing so much. Definitely causing me pain.

Taya Graham:

So the part with multiple officers being on top of you wasn’t shown in the body camera video we have because that body cam was not available because of the cost, right?

Darcy Layton:

Because I am on SSI for disabilities that I have and I only get, well right now, back then it was just a little over $900 a month. I had been going to that store at least three times a week every month for three years. But the income level is not high enough to retain that. They want $2,000 for the entire footage. So after asking for over a year and getting the run around of nothing coming back to us, they finally released seven minutes of the video to me just last week or week before. So yeah, I had nothing to go on yet, but they still want $2,000 for the entirety of it. And on SSI you’re not allowed to have anything more than $2,000 at a time on hand so how would I survive?

Taya Graham:

If there were three officers present and one of them was on top of you, I have a feeling, and now this is just speculation that the body camera video probably looked pretty bad to have three officers on top of one woman and perhaps they don’t want the world to see that.

Darcy Layton:

I was face down so it was hard for me to see anything. But when they first pulled me up, I was totally soaked because they had me down in the gutter with a lot of water coming down. Then they were giving me a hard time. They were saying, “Okay, miss no name.” And then they said, “Come on [inaudible 00:19:57]” I mean I’m white, I’m as white as they come and I also read part of his police report and it said he was working overtime and I don’t see crime in the area being necessity for any cop to work overtime in the area. Generally, it’s a pretty calm town.

Taya Graham:

I have seen officers make double their salary with overtime in Baltimore, so I know it’s a precious commodity. What were you charged with and how long were you in jail?

Darcy Layton:

It was like interfering with arresting officer and failure to disclose information and then they were trying to say that I assaulted the officer and I bit the officer and I scratched the officer. However, I was face down with my arm behind my back the whole time. I don’t see how any of that could have possibly happened and I had no teeth. So yeah, my dentures do not fit right. I choke when I try to eat with food so I don’t even wear them at all, but I’m cool with that. It’s fine.

Taya Graham:

Now, something I noted during the body cam video was the officer started pointing at his arm with his smartwatch and suggested that maybe you had bitten him or was that even possible or was it likely he reddened his own arm while cuffing you? I mean you didn’t even have your dentures in, right?

Darcy Layton:

Oh yeah and face down like I was, I thought they were going to drown me right there on the spot in the gutter with so much water coming down and then as much pressure as they applied to me with their knee in my back and I could not hold my bladder whatsoever, like I was getting ran over almost by car. It was stupid. And then I believe, they don’t really have calendars in the jail anyway. They don’t treat you very well here in Ogden in the jail. I believe it was like nine days that I stayed there in the jail before they let me out with no medication. I’m schizophrenic, I got Alzheimer’s or not Alzheimer’s, sorry, what is that called? Parkinson’s like movements and Parkinson’s going on, early stages, but I did not get a single visit from a nurse of any kind.

Also, I did read their written report down at the police station. Just recently, they finally allowed me to see that. He stated that I had said my head hurt, which I never did. They said that they brought a paramedic down there to have me checked out before he brought me to jail. It never happened. There was never a paramedic brought by and the whole time I was there for nine days in jail, zero medications brought to me for my conditions.

Taya Graham:

Darcy, that’s awful you didn’t receive your medications while you were in jail. How are you feeling right now though? I mean how are you processing this? What you describe is really awful.

Darcy Layton:

I have a real hard time being around the officers. Eddie likes to play these videos trying to get them to, he’s just wanting to learn as much as he can about police brutality and them making them do things better and be accountable for their actions and I am stressed out post-traumatic stress disorder and I have to keep getting out the vehicle because he keeps planning so much he doesn’t understand how it causes me stress and I have to go for a walk to get away from it. But I’m having some serious issues. I went and spoke with a therapist just yesterday and it makes me shake. I mean I’m dealing with it, I’m working on it, not letting it bring me down like it was. But yeah, I had some serious, serious issues there and I’m going to get through it though. But yeah, I don’t trust them.

Taya Graham:

So you told us that you’re homeless right now living out of your truck with Eddie. Have the police offered you any help?

Darcy Layton:

In a truck right now that’s just what we do. Most of them have been a hindrance. We’ve run into a couple of real good ones though that are very helpful. We’ve even had them come to a court hearing just to be there for support with us, a couple months back. She was a really nice lady. She did show up because I was having some real uncomfortable feelings about going around police officers and feeling safe at all and triggering my post-traumatic stress disorder coming in and she showed up and she’s very cool.

Eddie Clegg:

She’s an advocate.

Darcy Layton:

An advocate. And she even gathered us up some clothes and stuff and a pill medication holder to help me with my medication because I could lose them sometimes in here and sometimes I forget or I’ll fall asleep before I take my nighttime ones. Not purposely, I just check out though. So yeah, it was good to find at least one out there.

Taya Graham:

How did the police generally treat homeless people in the area? Now you’re living out of a truck and at the time of arrest Darcy, you actually still had an apartment. How do police handle homeless people and do they offer any support services?

Darcy Layton:

At the time of the 7-Eleven incident when I was tackled by the officer or yeah, I was living in an apartment. I had been there for a year and I had just come out on a rainy day with no makeup on and looked like a wet cat already so when I was put into the jail, they were treating me as if I was homeless and the judge even said, or the representative even said, “Well what are we going to do for her address? Where do we send the information?” Because they automatically assumed I was homeless and didn’t even ask me so I don’t know. They have harassed people on Washington Boulevard just because they’re homeless. They stop them and check their bags. One, the other day had just barely gotten released from jail. I don’t know what from, but Eddie got out to record, to make sure he wasn’t bothering him. This guy’s frail and shaky, he’s not doing anything wrong.

Eddie Clegg:

Just got out of jail.

Darcy Layton:

He’s got his backpack and his belongings, whatever he can carry and you can’t carry hardly anything. You need more things with you than you can carry already, but he’s not doing anything wrong. He’s minding his own business and this guy is messing with him. He picked it up and got out of the vehicle, pulled over the side of the road, got out and started to film, record the guy.

Eddie Clegg:

I watched him go through his backpack. The guy’s telling me somebody stole my wallet, I don’t have any ID, but I got my paperwork. I just got out of jail. He didn’t care about the paperwork, he wasn’t trying to find out who he was.

Darcy Layton:

And they give camping tickets to people who are laying out on the parks they don’t let you be at the shelter property during the day.

Eddie Clegg:

And he found a beer bottle in the backpack, so he went to his car and he was going to write him up. I know he was. But he hadn’t seen me yet. Talking to the guy, I got it on video and he was telling me, “Yeah, I tried to tell him that I had ID in here, show my paperwork but he didn’t want to see it.” And then when he seen me recording, he got out of his car, he went back over and says, “Well, I’m not going to charge you with anything, you’re free to go.” And he actually zipped his backpack back up. He zipped it back up and they don’t do that. So he knew he was doing something wrong and I was so happy that he did that. I told him that pretty cool of him to zip your backpack up and let you go and I gave the guy $20 and said, “Things are looking up for you, hang in there.”

Taya Graham:

How do you think the police should have handled this encounter? I mean you were off 7-Eleven property when they approached. I mean how do you think this could have been handled differently?

Darcy Layton:

Well, afterwards when I finally, like a year later, by the time they finally let me see the real video, they should have called for probably paramedics or took me to the hospital because knowing, I took some college courses myself in physiology and psychology and all that. I know, based on watching the video that I needed to go get checked by a doctor mentally because I was a little out there that day because of the schizophrenia, but I still was not doing anything wrong and he is the one who needed to be checked out, not really me.

Eddie Clegg:

So yeah, he had no right, he wasn’t called there. They didn’t tell her to leave. They would’ve told her.

Darcy Layton:

Rogue. He’d gone rogue.

Eddie Clegg:

Yeah, he told her they didn’t want her on property, she started to leave, he should have let it go with that.

Darcy Layton:

Because that’s what he told me. Basically, they don’t want you here, they want you to leave. And so I started to leave as he told me and then he grabbed me for no God damn reason.

Taya Graham:

I think it’s so important for people to understand how people who are on hard times are treated in your area and how an arrest can really alter the course of someone’s life. Thank you. Darcy and Eddie.

Now, as with many of the police encounters we unpack on this show, there is always more to comprehend than just the questionable actions of an overly aggressive cop, motives and imperatives so to speak, that need to be fully understood so that we can get to the root cause of what makes such questionable police behavior possible. Now, one aspect of police power we witnessed in this arrest that is critical to the broader mission of law enforcement is how the officer was able to control space. In other words, as you watch the arrest, you notice the officer has the ability to set arbitrary boundaries and use them to put it mildly to entrap Darcy.

Now when I say entrap, I use that word for a reason because as you witnessed on the video, the officer didn’t care about what was a public sidewalk versus what was private property and he wasn’t the least bit interested in what constituted a public roadway versus what was the private purview of the 7-Eleven, the nuances of space were not of concern, instead, he became the arbiter of it. While this fact may seem trivial, it is not because all of the consequences of policing that we have covered on this show, this arbitrary control of space, is the most essential aspect of what makes excessive law enforcement a threat to our civil liberties. It is the malleable ability to deem a person occupying space to be illegal that gives cops one of the most severe holds over our lives. I mean, think about it. There’s a reason the right to peaceably assemble is part of the First Amendment, not the 10th.

There is an important underlying intention to forcefully stating that the people have the right to redress their government in public space that goes beyond the legal text and into the realm of the truly profound. And what makes it profound is that in effect, those several dozen words preclude just the sort of policing we witnessed in that video. It should at least in theory, make it impossible for an officer to simply determine that anyone standing anywhere could be construed as a criminal simply because they say it is so. Now, imagine for a moment if those words did not exist, imagine for just a second what police could do if the text of the First Amendment had somehow been different. Well, in a sense we live in that reality because as Stephen just told us police had the power to intimidate. Ms. Layton pleaded guilty despite the fact she did not commit a crime.

Cops could literally fashion a crime that does not legally exist just to deny Darcy her right to peaceably assemble. It’s hard to see this type of policing as anything but punishing someone for simply appearing to be homeless. This is a specific expansion of police power that has come under scrutiny by an innovative thinker who is warned the consequences of allowing it to grow unchecked. His name is Mark Neocleous and he is the author of the book called The Fabrication of Social Order, A Critical Theory of Police Power. Now it sounds complicated, but I promise it really isn’t because what the book concludes about police power simply exposes the imperative that drives arrests like we saw today. The book’s thesis is that policing in our modern capitalist society is more about order than it is law enforcement, that police play a critical role in maintaining the order of society based upon profit.

In fact, the primary purpose of police is to in fact fabricate an order that would not otherwise exist to create a world where labor is at the mercy of a capitalist elite, and power is a tool of inequality warriors armed with guns and badges. Neocleous argues that the fabrication of order and the resulting influence of police power start with the types of arbitrary power we have just witnessed. In other words, while Darcy’s arrest might seem trivial and insignificant in the broader story of the battle of America’s flawed law enforcement industrial complex, it’s actually where this entire story starts. That’s because the power has to be at its essence, arbitrary. In other words, it has to be applied solely at the discretion of authority. It can’t be precluded or prescribed by law. It simply cannot be limited or curtailed by a set of amendments outlined in the Constitution.

It has to be random, chaotic, and most of all indiscriminate. And what I mean is that in order for this type of police power that Neocleous envisions to proliferate, it must be random, unknowable and infallible. It must be indiscriminate, contradictory, and most of all unfair. And it must embody all of these seemingly contradictory concepts to adhere to the underlying principle that drives it, to sow chaos in the lives of people who can least afford it, to create and fabricate crises in the lives of working-class people that seemingly strip us of our rights and thus our political power. I mean the biggest fear of the elites that run this country is the working class rising up and opposing the political order that currently profits off a record level of wealth inequality. They really don’t want us to figure out that their catastrophic greed is in fact a problem, not us.

Now having a small handful of people living like kings plundering on natural resources and flying private jets is not what ails us, but it is in fact the result of the underlying chaos caused by intractable poverty that is actually making our beautiful planet uninhabitable. In other words, it’s you, not us, who are the problem. And that’s the point of the policing we watched earlier. It’s overarching control over what should be public space is the most potent facet of bad law enforcement because as the officer manipulated space so too did he manipulate Darcy. As he was able to turn a public sidewalk into an illegal no-go zone. So too was he able to put Darcy in handcuffs, and as he was able to deem the otherwise legally protected actions of Darcy into a crime worthy of the use of force, he was also able to wipe away her civil rights and turn her into a menace to society.

And it is worth noting as Stephen reported from the charging documents and as Darcy related to us, that there was no legal code or law violation recounted in the charging documents. I mean, the officer didn’t even try to cite a law to justify her nine-day incarceration. The only accusation he did make was the unsubstantiated claim that she bit him, an allegation the body worn camera certainly calls into question and as I said, she told me and Eddie that she didn’t even have her dentures in the morning the alleged bite occurred. My point is this is exactly why the growth of police power seems, in essence, to be antithetical to our constitutional rights, why processes like civil asset forfeiture continue to grow unabated as our entire legal system sits by and watches. All of this is the result of police power that has been allowed, or perhaps I should say, encouraged to become as indiscriminate as possible.

It’s just a result of a system expanding its influence through illogic that rather than create a law enforcement system that is rational, predictable, and fair, what we have is a set of protocols that are intended to be exactly the opposite, irrational, unpredictable, and most importantly indifferent to the notion of justice. In this sense, what we have is policing that does not in fact fabricate order, but instead manufactures disorder. What I mean is that police aren’t the gatekeepers of civilized society as some cop-agandists like to argue, but instead, agents of chaos. They literally wreak havoc in our lives like they did with Darcy. And in doing so, only make difficult problems worse for the people who are already suffering. It’s an update on the aforementioned theory of police power and how this power unchecked, moves to our lives. We have to recognize it for what it is and what it is to keep it in check. And when we see it like we did in Darcy’s case, we have to call it out and reveal it as a real threat to civilized society.

We have to let the powers that be known that we see what you are doing and we know what you want to diminish our civil liberties, and we have to be clear that you can’t have them because we are willing to fight to not just keep them but expand them, bad policing or not. We know we deserve better and we will not compromise until we get it.

I want to thank our guests, Darcy and Eddie for reaching out to us. We really do wish you both the best and I hope that by shining a light on your experience, certain officers will be a bit kinder. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R for their support, thank you Noli D. And a very special thanks to our accountability report, Patreons, we appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every single one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R, David K, Louis P, and Lucita Garcia, and our super friends, Shane B, Kenneth K, Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly at Tayasbaltimore on Twitter and Facebook. And please like and comment, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have the Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Speaker 9:

Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories and struggles that you care about most and we need your help to keep doing this work so please, tap your screen now, subscribe and donate to the Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

The Holguin family’s troubles with the El Paso Police Department began in 2022, when Adzari Holguin, then a high school senior, was asked by relative to film the police while they responded to a call about a domestic dispute. After police became aggressive once they noticed Adzari was recording, her father, Eddie Holguin, stepped in to escort his daughter home. That’s when police staged an illegal raid on the Holguin residence and arrested Eddie and Adzari. After the raid, the Holguins filed a lawsuit to demand justice. Now, they say the El Paso police are deliberately targeting their family. Police Accountability Report examines the evidence, and what this case tells us about cops in America today, who in many places not only operate with virtual legal impunity, but also conduct themselves more like a mafia than like law enforcement.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

Today we will achieve that goal by showing you this video of how El Paso police planned and plotted to retaliate against a family that had sued them over an illegal arrest, a disturbing move by police that ended in yet another questionable set of charges and even more pain for the family that has to endure it.

But before I get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you.

Please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out, and it can really help our guests. You know I read your comments and appreciate them, and I even write back. You see those hearts down there, I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and show what a great community we have.

All right. We’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as we’ve discussed repeatedly on this show, the greatest obstacle to holding police accountable is their power to retaliate. That is, police are afforded unusual latitude and discretion to use the law against their critics. No case better illustrates this idea than the video I’m showing you right now. It depicts the El Paso Police Department surveilling a family they had illegally arrested before, a previous violation of their rights that led to a lawsuit against the department. But after the lawsuit was filed, the police began a protracted investigation into the family. A possible case of harassment that proves our point about how police can target and terrorize the people who push back against them.

The story actually starts in 2022, that’s when high school senior and El Paso resident, Adzari Holguin had been asked to phone police at the request of a relative who had called them because of a domestic disturbance. The relative wanted the interaction recorded to ensure her rights were respected, but when Adzari started to film, the police reacted. Take a look.

Adzari Holguin:

You just grabbed my phone out of my hand and physically assaulted me. Recording is within my full right.

Officer 1:

[inaudible 00:02:25]-

Adzari Holguin:

You cannot have to-

Officer 1:

… just stand back.

Adzari Holguin:

Can I get your name and badge number, please?

Officer 1:

It’s [inaudible 00:02:29].

Adzari Holguin:

No. Can I have your name? If Pinera, okay, but there’s no reason for her to get physical with me.

Officer 2:

If you don’t want to go for interference I suggest you take off. Now. You want to be arrested for interference or take off? Your choice.

Adzari Holguin:

Interference with what?

Officer 2:

My investigation.

Adzari Holguin:

Investigation of what?

Officer 2:

Family violence.

Adzari Holguin:

But what am I doing? Why are you doing this? What am I doing?

Officer 2:

Investigation, ma’am.

Adzari Holguin:

You have to do that.

Officer 2:

Do you want to go in for interference or can you leave please?

Adzari Holguin:

Interference of what? For what am I? How am I interfering?

Officer 2:

I’m give you one last chance.

Adzari Holguin:

How am I interfering?

Officer 2:

Do you want to be under arrest for interference or do you want to take off?

Adzari Holguin:

There is no reason for you to arrest me. Why are you touching her? You cannot touch her.

Speaker 14:

I will not hit you, but `do not touch me.

Officer 2:

All right?

Speaker 14:

I will not [inaudible 00:03:17]

Officer 2:

I want to get you both for interference.

Taya Graham:

After Adzari’s father, Eddie, intervened and escorted his daughter home. El Paso police decided that leaving the premises was not enough. Instead, they raided the family home, cuffed and arrested both Adzari and her father. Just watch.

Eddie Holguin:

Leave us alone. Get the fuck out of here. She [inaudible 00:03:46]

Taya Graham:

Now after this troubling arrest, the family fought back. The charges of resisting and evading police were dropped and they filed a lawsuit alleging the department violated their civil rights. And that case is still being adjudicated.

But roughly one year later, Adzari was home one day when to her shock, she spotted police surveilling her driveway. Concerned, she grabbed her camera to document their actions. Let’s take a look.

Adzari Holguin:

I’m here. [foreign language 00:04:29] I think they took your license plate.

Taya Graham:

The police soon scattered. But the video footage shows what appears to be the officers writing down the license plate number of her father’s work van. Azar confronts them and they refuse to answer her questions. See for yourself.

Officer 3:

[inaudible 00:04:57]

Taya Graham:

Police leave without explaining the intrusion, but that’s not where the story ends. Not hardly. Because roughly one month after they surveilled his van, detectives show up the family residence again.

Adzari Holguin:

Can you call my dad real quick and him know that there’s some cops here? Can you call my dad real quick? Let him know that there’s some cops here. May I ask for your name and badge number, sir?

Det. Armendariz:

Detective Armendariz, number 2720.

Adzari Holguin:

And you, sir?

Detective 2:

Detective [inaudible 00:05:27] 2425.

Adzari Holguin:

Okay, thank you so much. May I ask what you’re doing here?

Det. Armendariz:

Your dad’s an adult, we got to explain to him over here.

Adzari Holguin:

I’m in a adult as well and he’s not here at the moment, so I’d appreciate if you explain it to me. Cause I also live here. Okay.

Det. Armendariz:

Is he here or not?

Taya Graham:

Can I ask what you’re doing here, sir?

Det. Armendariz:

Okay. Easy. I’ll just drop it off with you and give it to him please. Thank you.

Taya Graham:

Can I ask what you’re doing here sir?

Detective 2:

Investigation ma’am, it’s an investigation.

Det. Armendariz:

Criminal investigation.

Adzari Holguin:

For?

Det. Armendariz:

Don’t worry, he’s an adult.

Adzari Holguin:

I’m worrying about it and I’d appreciate it as my public servant if you answered my questions.

Detective 2:

Have a good day.

Det. Armendariz:

Have a good day ma’am.

Detective 2:

Thank you.

Det. Armendariz:

A lovely day outside, isn’t it?

Adzari Holguin:

It would be lovelier if you explained what you were doing here.

Det. Armendariz:

It’s a criminal investigation.

Detective 2:

The department is hiring just in case you’re interested.

Adzari Holguin:

How professional. So professional of servants to not explain their reasons here.

Detective 2:

Have a good day ma’am.

Taya Graham:

Now, Adzari calmly asked them what crime they’re investigating. The detectives again refuse to answer. Why they refuse to justify their apparent secrecy is unclear. It’s a Kafka-esque moment that only raises more suspicions about what police are actually up to.

But the police are not done. Just a month later, they pull over Eddie and Adzari and claim the insurance and registration on his van have expired. Take a look.

Eddie Holguin:

Hey, why right now?

Officer 4:

How’s it going? Officer Burrow El Paso Police Department, sure your insurance, your registration’s expired.

Eddie Holguin:

It shouldn’t be.

Officer 4:

No.

Eddie Holguin:

I’s not. I have insurance and everything.

Officer 4:

No. Okay. My partner’s coming on the other side.

Eddie Holguin:

It’s a goddamn, the accountant. He’s the one that takes care of that not me.

Officer 4:

Yeah. Your work truck, do you work here?

Eddie Holguin:

I’m looking at an address. I live over there.

Officer 4:

Oh, you live over here?

Eddie Holguin:

Yeah, but I’m looking for an address right here.

Taya Graham:

Now Eddie pushes back, but soon police change tactics. First without explaining why, they ask him to step out of the vehicle. Notice that Eddie is nursing an injured arm. And why? Because the last time they arrested him, police pulled him up from the ground as he was handcuffed, wrenching his shoulder and wrist. And now, and you’ll learn more about this later, he shares with us that he can’t fully control his arm or make fine motor movements with his hand. But again, the police don’t seem to care.

Officer 4:

Slowly. Okay, I’m going to see your hands, okay?

Eddie Holguin:

That hurts a lot.

Officer 4:

You put your stuff down, okay sir? You don’t have anything on you, all right? Ahead.

Adzari Holguin:

He’s hurt. He’s hurt.

Officer 4:

Can you step out of the vehicle?

Adzari Holguin:

Don’t hurt him. Please.

Officer 5:

So listen, you have a criminal warrant, okay? That’s why we’re taking you in.

Taya Graham:

A criminal warrant? For what?

Officer 4:

Turn around. Turn around.

Officer 5:

I don’t have the details yet, but they advised that he has a criminal warrant.

If you want to put two handcuffs, we’re going to put two handcuffs is that cool?

Eddie Holguin:

[inaudible 00:08:22] with my hand bro.

Adzari Holguin:

Be careful with his hands.

Officer 4:

Face the van please.

Adzari Holguin:

Please don’t.

Officer 4:

We will take it off. we’ll take it off.

Taya Graham:

Now suddenly police reveal that Eddie has a warrant. What the warrant is for. They don’t initially say, but they commence to arrest him anyway, just watch.

Officer 5:

Don’t reach. Don’t reach.

Officer 4:

Stay in the car.

Adzari Holguin:

I’m, okay.

Officer 5:

She’s in the car.

Adzari Holguin:

I’m in the car. I’m in the car.

Officer 5:

If you want to record that’s fine.

Adzari Holguin:

Let me just have, please.

Officer 5:

What do you need?

Adzari Holguin:

I need his [inaudible 00:08:55] and I need, can I go get it? I don’t want you to hurt me. I’m just,

Speaker 7:

I’ll give it to you right now.

Adzari Holguin:

Can I have his wallet?

Taya Graham:

And now Adzari concerned about her father’s wellbeing. Asked the police the one question they should always be able to answer. Why did they put him in handcuffs? And their answers are revealing. Let’s listen to their responses.

Adzari Holguin:

Wallet.

Officer 5:

I’ll give it to you right now. Give me a minute, okay?

Adzari Holguin:

Okay.

Officer 5:

I’ll give you his wallet and his [inaudible 00:09:20] .

Adzari Holguin:

Why are you arresting him?

Officer 5:

He is a criminal.

Adzari Holguin:

For what? He hasn’t done anything. He doesn’t even leave the house.

Officer 5:

I don’t know about the details. I just know he has a criminal warrant.

Taya Graham:

Okay, so no details, not a single justification for putting someone in handcuffs. Not one iota of evidence, but fortunately for Eddie, his daughter Adzari does not relent. In fact, she demonstrates clear resolve and personal courage that perhaps the officers could learn from because Adzari does not back down, which prompts the officer to pepper her with questions or face losing her family’s van. Let’s see what happens next.

Officer 5:

How old are you?

Adzari Holguin:

I don’t answer questions.

Officer 5:

I’m asking, so you, do you want to take this car or do you want me to impound it?

Adzari Holguin:

No, don’t impound it.

Officer 5:

That’s why I’m asking. How old are you? Do you have a driver’s license so you can take the car?

Adzari Holguin:

I don’t answer questions.

Officer 5:

Okay, just step out of the vehicle for me. If you don’t have a driver’s license, I can’t let you take the van. Okay?

Adzari Holguin:

Let me call someone here please.

Officer 5:

Who are you going to call?

Adzari Holguin:

My neighbor. Let me just.

Officer 5:

How old are you?

Adzari Holguin:

Let me just figure out a way to get this home. We don’t have, just please don’t impound it. I’ll get someone to bring it, drive it home and I’ll sit in the passenger seat.

Officer 5:

It could only be you. Do you have a driver license with you?

Adzari Holguin:

Why does it have to be me?

Officer 5:

I’m not going to ask somebody else. That’s me. Do you have a driver’s license, girl, yes or no?

Adzari Holguin:

But why does it have to be me?

Officer 5:

Because you’re the passenger.

Adzari Holguin:

And? I have a neighbor, I have family, I have friends.

Now, besides the fact that Adzari does not have to answer any questions because she’s in fact a passenger, the officer here is also taking part in what we like to call policing and the inequality divide. That’s because this entire confrontation with Adzari takes place over the disposition of her father’s work van. Basically his entire livelihood hangs in the balance and now the officer is threatening to confiscate her ID and perhaps entangle her in the same web, now closing in on her dad.

Now bear in mind, Eddie has not been accused of a traffic violation. And bear in mind that the notion that the passenger has to drive the truck home is entirely a fiction. Still, the officer continues to threaten to take the van and to extract personal information from Adzari. Just watch.

Officer 5:

All right, can you just step out and you can go wherever you want.

Adzari Holguin:

Wait, let me, because let me just call real quick.

Officer 5:

I’m asking nicely. Can you step out of the vehicle and then call whoever you want?

Adzari Holguin:

Okay?

Officer 5:

Yes. Thank you ma’am.

You’re good to see home?

Can you get a tow truck for.

Adzari Holguin:

Don’t get a tow truck. We don’t need a tow truck.

Officer 5:

So do you have a driver’s license? I’ll be glad to give it to you. Do you have one with you?

Adzari Holguin:

I don’t answer questions. I’m waiting for someone to come pick it up.

Officer 5:

Okay, then we’ll impound it. Ma’am, I’m giving you an opportunity.

Adzari Holguin:

Oh my god, people are insufferable. You get a kick out of being a pig, don’t you? You love making people’s lives miserable. Well, I need to get my things out of the vehicle before you impound it. What do you mean no?

Officer 5:

You can’t do that.

Adzari Holguin:

Yes, I’m getting my.

Taya Graham:

Now this is not where their story ends because there is so much more going on behind the scenes, including the shaky evidence behind the questionable charges, what the family is doing to fight them and why they think the police are targeting them. And these details will be explored when we speak to Adzari and her father Eddie.

But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been reaching out to police and investigating the case. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So first, are the police saying anything about Eddie’s arrest? How are they justifying the charges?

Stephen Janis:

Well Taya, like many police departments that I have tried to press for answers on troubling cases there, huge communications department seems to be disproportionate to what they will say about it. I have asked them, I will continue to press them, but no, they haven’t said anything and they don’t seem like they want to talk even though a lot of people are getting paid to answer questions.

Taya Graham:

So the officer said that the passenger has to drive the vehicle. Is that actually true? And what eventually happened to the van?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, this is for Pinocchios here, Taya. There is no law in Texas as a passenger has to drive away a car that has been either impounded or stopped by police. It is absolutely untrue. It’s totally false. It’s one of those things cops like to do, I think in these situations to suit their purposes, make up laws on the fly. Totally untrue. Totally. Really. I’m obviously disturbingly untrue, but I’ll keep looking. Maybe I can find something, but I really, really doubt it.

Taya Graham:

As we watched the video, I mentioned that this arrest was a perfect example of how law enforcement plays a critical role in our current unequal system. Maybe you could talk a little bit about that.

Stephen Janis:

Well, what’s amazing to me is how police departments want to show us that this is actually true. This has been a theory of ours and we’ve had plenty of examples, but it’s amazing to me how police will go out and say, yeah, I’m going to actually show you how this works. I’m going to take this guy’s van, I’m going to arrest him for something, a crime he didn’t commit. I’m going to put his picture up on TV and make him a scary criminal, who no one’s going to want to hire. So they’re really cooperating and proving our theory. It is unfortunate, it is tragic, it is horrible, but it is the truth. And I think this particular arrest shows exactly what we mean when we say that.

Taya Graham:

And now for more on their protracted ordeal and their suspicions about the motivations driving the El Paso Police Department, I’m joined by Adzari and Eddie Holguin. Thank you both so much for joining me.

Adzari Holguin:

Thank you so much for having us.

Taya Graham:

So my first question for you essentially is to help people understand the video. You and your father were just working on a job, when your car was pulled over. What was the reason that the police officers said they were pulling you over?

Eddie Holguin:

They said that my inspection sticker was expired.

Taya Graham:

Now how does it go from an inspection sticker being expired to you being placed in handcuffs? How does that happen?

Eddie Holguin:

Well, that’s what they told me, but it was kind of weird the way they were acting. They were stalling or telling me to wait and then they’d be going back and forth, back and forth. But what they were doing is waiting for more of them to show up. Because you know how they are that one or two can’t do nothing. They need more than four or five, six of them. They won’t do anything by themselves. They’re too scared.

I guess I can’t really walk real good and my hands all messed up so I can’t really do anything. But then they said that I had a warrant for my arrest for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Taya Graham:

So Eddie, let me follow up with you here. What is this aggravated assault with a deadly weapon that created this warrant? What were these officers describing? What was the alleged incident?

Eddie Holguin:

Two detectives came down here in May 30th looking for me and I wasn’t here, Adzari was here. They asked her but, I think you have the video of that because I wasn’t here. I was working. So when she went to where I was working, she said this cops went to go look for you. Here’s a card.

So I got the card and looked at it and he told me to tell you to call him. Well you know that ain’t going to work. I don’t call him. I got no business calling him. But the next day he called me and then he called me when I answered, he says, “Mr. Holguin?” And I said, “yeah”. He says, “This is Detective Armendariz. And I said, “Yeah”. He says, “You want to give me a statement?” I said “A statement of what?” They said, “Well you know.”, I don’t know.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. He said, “Well, what happened?” I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t know what happened. Tell you, tell me. He said, “Well, they said that you shot somebody with a BB gun.” I don’t have a BB gun, I don’t have a pellet gun. I have no kind of guns. The only thing I was doing was cutting the grass. That’s it. That’s all I know. I never saw anybody out there.

And then he says, I got up to go forward. I told him, that’s it. You’re trying to make chicken soup out of chicken shit. You’re lying. And I hung up. And then on Friday, the next day, that’s when we were coming back from work and that’s when I got pulled over. That they said it was for a sticker. For an inspection sticker, but that’s not what it was. They’re already looking for me. Well, but they know where I live.

Taya Graham:

So let me turn to you, Adzari. During the traffic stop, we are seeing your father being put into handcuffs. What is your understanding of this? What’s going through your mind when this is happening?

Adzari Holguin:

I was so scared. It was like my nightmares were coming true. When they started grabbing at him and then hurting him and arresting him, I didn’t know what was going on.

Eddie Holguin:

That’s why you were recording?

Adzari Holguin:

I was recording for that reason, I felt it in my gut that I needed to record because you can never not record around them. Something bad always happens when it comes to cops. And it did and my mind was so all over the place. I couldn’t think. My only thing that I could think of was to make sure that I kept my dad on camera because I didn’t want them to do anything to him off camera.

Taya Graham:

So you actually shared a photo with me of your father’s arm and wrist being swollen. Eddie, do you want to talk about what happened to your arm and what the injury is and if it was re-injured during that arrest?

Eddie Holguin:

Yeah. Well I have my wrist, it’s all swollen. I can’t use my thumb and this finger. These two fingers? I can’t use them. I can’t move them hardly because it hurts a lot. This is where they hurt me the first time.

When they came three years ago, Gonzalez, that officer or whatever, Gonzalez, she’s the one that pulled me out of the car, started banging me on the car and then she pulled the handcuffs up and messed up my two shoulders and my wrists. I heard something pop in my wrist and it got really bad because they left me handcuffed for 12 hours on that bench over there at the substation.

They’re supposed to only leave me there for two. They left me there 12 before they took me to the jail and took off the handcuffs. And now with this time they left me handcuffed another 12 hours. So it got even worse. I got more swollen and then I had gone to some of the therapy. The next week I went to therapy and they saw my wrist and they said, what happened to you? So I told him, he said, I don’t know. We can’t do therapy, you can’t even move them. Before you started to move them, now you can’t move them anymore.

Taya Graham:

Can you tell me what kind of charges, if any, that you are currently facing?

Eddie Holguin:

I’m facing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Adzari Holguin:

It’s a second degree felony that they’re trying to put on my dad.

Taya Graham:

And I just have to make this clear for everyone to understand. I was absolutely shocked when I was told that you were considered a fugitive. So you’re facing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and you’re considered a fugitive. Can you just explain to me where this accusation came from?

Eddie Holguin:

When they arrested me on Friday, I got out on Saturday about 2:30 in the morning. Then I came home and Saturday in the evening they put on the TV that they couldn’t locate these people and I came out there. But they have already been here in my house. I don’t know how many times. They don’t know where I live? I know they do. They already came two or three times just for this case.

Adzari Holguin:

My dad had been arrested earlier that day on Friday around two in the afternoon. And by the time he got out he was already a wanted fugitive and they were saying that they can’t find him and he came out on the KTSM website and he came out on Channel 10 news. Until this day, it’s still coming up, you can look it up on the website, he’s still listed as a wanted fugitive even though he is already been arrested and he’s already out. It was funny when I saw that, I was like, what? Turn around. He’s right behind you. It was ridiculous.

Taya Graham:

Thank you both for your answers and I really appreciate that you explained to me that even though he had already been in jail and they had already processed him and given him charges, he was still listed as a fugitive. And I think that’s very important for people to know how this can damage your professional reputation or your personal reputation to be listed this way. So I think it’s really important to clear the air here.

Eddie Holguin:

I already lost two jobs because of this. I went to the other one and they told me that they didn’t need my services anymore, because they saw that on the TV. And then the other one, they called me and said that they would call me at a later date to go do some work. So I already lost two jobs. And now I haven’t had any work for over a month. Nothing.

Taya Graham:

So a very significant aspect of this case is that you and your father were suing the El Paso Police Department already for another incident of police misconduct and brutality. I understand you might not be able to talk about the lawsuit in detail, but in your opinion, do you think this warrant and arrest was perhaps a form of intimidation or even retaliation for your family filing a lawsuit?

Eddie Holguin:

That’s what I believe because why would somebody come and say that I did something when I haven’t even been out there? Shooting somebody with a BB gun at 2:30 in the afternoon? I don’t have a BB gun or a pellet gun. Like I said, we were back there taking the blankets off the sweat lodge. Then I came out here to start cutting the grass and that happens. Then two months later, this detective comes and ask me questions, if I want to give a statement. Two months later, but I don’t know anything. Like I told him the first time, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Tells me two months later, I still don’t know what they’re talking about.

I didn’t do anything to nobody. I don’t know where they got somebody to say something about me or how they did it. I believe this has to do with that lawsuit. That’s what I believe. I don’t know for a fact, but sure looks that way.

They don’t have no evidence against me. There’s nothing. That’s why the cops left. And then two months later, what is he doing for two months? Trying to get somebody to sign something to arrest me? Because he has no evidence? Something’s really bad, smells bad.

Taya Graham:

Adzari, one of the things I was so amazed by is that you were barely 18 years old and you handled that situation so well. You started recording, you asked for name and badge number. How did you know how important filming the police is? How did you learn how to do that?

Adzari Holguin:

It’s all thanks to my dad. I had a really good teacher these past few years. If it weren’t for him, always watching the Real News Network, Direct D James Freeman, Audit the Audit, Watch the Watchdog, all of them. We watch them on a daily basis and you kind of pick some of these things up over the years. If it weren’t for that education that I got from my dad, I wouldn’t have known because I didn’t know before. They don’t teach you this stuff in school.

Eddie Holguin:

And I’ve always told my kids, “Don’t call cops. If you see them, don’t get near them. Don’t talk to them. Turn around, walk away. Just keep away from them.” Because those people are no good. They’re really not. And they have, I don’t know what kind of training? Four months of training? Four months! A child walking around with guns.

Taya Graham:

I know this is a difficult question, but I have to ask you, Eddie, how are you coping with this? I mean whether financially or physically or even emotionally, how are you coping with the assault and injury that you had with police three years ago and then this new encounter, which must have been very intimidating?

Eddie Holguin:

It was really hard because, first of all of that happened three years ago. I don’t go out hardly nowhere. Only if I got to go to work and come right back. I don’t go to Walmart because they got cops there. Anytime they have cops anywhere, I will not go there.

I don’t go anywhere. I don’t even go to the store because I’m afraid of those cops. I go out of the house and I’m going down the roads. I see a cop, I’ll turn around and come right back to the house. I’m not even going to the store. Adzari has to go on her bike because we don’t have another car and she doesn’t drive the van. It’s too big for her. So she has to go on her bike to get groceries because I won’t go. I will not go. I’ll just stay home.

And it’s so difficult staying in this house for so long and I had cops coming down here after one year after my mom had passed. I started having problems with cops. They kept coming down here. They had already accused me of other things, but they always go away because I didn’t do anything. I don’t leave the house, I just sit here.

Only time I go outside to the front is to cut the grass. I don’t like to be in the front because a cop passes by, I’m afraid they’re going to stop. The day I cut the grass, I was out there at five o’clock, five 30 in the morning cutting the grass. While it’s still, the sun’s barely coming up because at that time I go out and pray. But after I prayed and I start the lawnmower, because I’m afraid to be out there when there’s people out there because I’m afraid they’re going to show up again. I can’t do this anymore. I hate it here so much. I want to leave, but I can’t. Then they don’t let me work now.

Taya Graham:

I know that was difficult to share and I really appreciate it. My last question is this, if you could speak to the police department in El Paso, Texas, if you could speak to them directly right now and you knew they were listening, what would you want to tell them? Adzari, what would you want to ask of them?

Adzari Holguin:

How dare you? How dare you live with yourself, eat breakfast in the morning, be happy, enjoy your life and sleep comfortably, knowing that what you did to us on a daily basis, to everyone around here? How dare you walk these streets thinking that you’re above us and how dare you believe that you own me and you can tell me what to do and I have to bow down and listen to you? You do not have the right, you do not have the knowledge that I have. How dare you.

Taya Graham:

And Eddie, what would you want to tell the El Paso Texas Police Department?

Eddie Holguin:

Just leave me the fuck alone. Go do whatever you want. Just leave me alone. I do not like them. I can’t stand them. I see them. I want to run away. I start shaking. Why? Because I know how they are. They have a sign on the side of the car that says, serve and protect. Serve and protect who? Yourselves! You sure as hell don’t serve and protect us.

Taya Graham:

Thank you both so much for being open with us and coming forward to share what happened. We really appreciate you.

Now, I think the case we just reviewed is indicative of a phenomenon that plagues this country today and does not get the attention it deserves. It’s sort of an institutional malaise, which I believe leads to the type of police behavior we just witnessed, especially the efforts of cops to silence their critics.

In part it’s simply the cruelty that arises when people are given indiscriminate power they can use to settle personal scores like it appears police did in this case. But it’s also a structural problem that I think arises from a system that cannot care for the people who actually do the work to make it work.

To explain what I mean, I will start with an example. This is a site the El Paso police use to inform the public about dangerous fugitives. It’s supposed to make residents aware of violent criminals who are a threat to the community and are still at large. But as you can see here, the El Paso Police Department also decided to feature someone who seems a little out of place, namely Eddie Holguin.

That’s right! The man we just interviewed, a hardworking contractor, who runs his own business, and has been raising his wonderful daughters, was such an imminent threat to society that the police had to broadcast his image to the world. A man who has worked his entire life to support his family and contribute to society was now apparently an irredeemable criminal.

It is truly shocking to say the least for a variety of reasons. The first one being that it seems based upon the videos we showed you, police actually knew where Eddie was when they posted his photo. I mean, they had his address, apparently. And even if he wasn’t home all the time, it’s not like there was any evidence that Eddie was engaged in some sort of effort to evade them.

And that’s the point I’m trying to make. An aspect of the broader unjust system boiled down into the life of a single man. Because the fact that the El Paso police have thrust Eddie into the spotlight is indicative of how the system itself processes the cruelty that defines it.

In other words, what we’re really witnessing in the case of Eddie and Adzari is how the system that is based upon injustice perpetuates that same injustice in the lives of the people who are forced to endure it. So what do I mean?

Well, think about it after you watch the interview. Is there any logical reason to humiliate Eddie by publicly announcing him to be a menace to society? From what you’ve learned about his life, is there any plausible justification for turning him into public enemy number one? So then why do it? Why turn his life upside down?

Well, think about how I described the criminal justice system just a few moments ago. Imagine what that really means. The idea that there is something else going on inside this process of policing that has nothing to do with law enforcement or public safety.

Think of it as a new form of symbolic exchange. And okay, before you start saying Taya, what the heck are you talking about? Please, give me a moment to explain. Symbolic exchange was an idea postulated by French cultural theorist, Jean Baudrillard. If you’re not familiar with him, he’s a postmodern thinker who coined the term “hyperreality”. For example, a digitally conjured reality with no meaningful anchor or authenticity in the tactile world.

But Baudrillard also thought a lot about capitalism and his theory of symbolic exchange was part of it. In it he argued that symbolic exchange was the process of conferring a benefit on someone beyond a physical good or possession. Meaning a benefit that is not material, but perhaps spiritual or metaphysical, a gift that is enriched through passion and meaning, rather than price.

He argued that capitalism and the material world it creates erodes the value of symbolic exchange, which is one reason he thought contemporary capitalism defined by goods and services was also personally alienating.

But I think his theory could be applied to the present, especially to what we’ve seen in the behavior of law enforcement that we have demonstrated again and again on this show. Because honestly, so much of what law enforcement does in cases like Eddie’s is symbolic, like the most wanted picture. And that symbolism is not only impactful, it can be defining.

And of course I can hear you now commenting in the video saying, Taya, why are you talking about this? I mean, I know you’ve taken some discursions before, but seriously, a French philosopher? Cultural theory? Are you serious? Please just give me another minute to hear me out.

I think if you really drill down into the current state of American society, you can see that the glue that holds our unfair system of inequality together is largely symbolic. And by shaping and controlling the flow of signs, the dominant powers that be can influence perceptions, behaviors, and ideologies.

I mean, how else can anyone explain a system that facilitates private equity firms buying up doctor’s practices and then slamming patients with surprise medical bills that bankrupt them? How else can you justify a country where the top 1% holds $38.7 trillion in wealth more than the combined wealth of the country’s squeezed middle class, which possesses just 26% of it?

How do you explain a country that has seen its economy grow exponentially over the past few decades and still has roughly the same amount of people living in poverty since the 1970s?

It doesn’t sound rational does it? It doesn’t even seem logical. And yet I think it explains quite a bit about how this system works and perhaps how it doesn’t. And why when it does, it swallows the lives of people like Eddie with unquestionable cruelty because the system that rewards unjustifiable wealth can only be justified by something other than logic.

When a reality simply doesn’t make sense, we as human beings often make sense of things through symbolism. Think about how we ascribe so much meaning and import to concepts like love without truly understanding it. But boy, we do represent it through songs and lyrics and what we can’t deduce through logic, we explain through symbols or art or concoctions of poetry, what we can’t justify through numbers or data we explore through imagery and metaphor and art. It’s just the way we’re wired.

But with all human expressions comes the duality of light and dark. This means that when we want to perpetuate an injustice that defies logic, symbolism often makes it work. And in this sense, policing and law enforcement are the purveyors of a symbolic war on the working class all at the behest of the elite. What they can’t justify by the logic of economics, they facilitate with the image of the arrest.

When the persistence of poverty calls into question the system that created it, law enforcement steps in to make the poor unworthy through over-policing and unwarranted charges.

That’s why El Paso police have gone to such extreme lengths to make the lives of Eddie and young Adzari a living hell. Because when us, the people, fight back, we puncture the symbolic logic of late stage capitalism. When cop watchers turn their cameras on cops who harass them, we reverse the symbolic exchange and reveal the true imperative that drives excessive policing. When we make symbols that contravene theirs, they simply don’t know what to do.

Well to make sure they can’t turn our guests into symbols of scorn, I’m going to leave you with this symbol. It’s a picture of Adzari and her father Eddie, two human beings who just want to live a normal unencumbered life. Not criminals, not threats to society, just two shining examples of humanity. And we don’t want the El Paso Police to forget it.

Again, I want to thank Eddie and Adzari Holguin for coming forward to share their experience. I know it was difficult and on a personal note, I wish I was as well-informed and brave as Adzari was at her age. She stood on her rights to protect her family, and I think we can all appreciate that courage.Thank you both and I have to thank Stephen Janis for his writing, research and editing for this piece. Thank you so much, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D. and Lacy R. for their support. Thank you! And a very special thanks to our Accountability Reports Patreons, we appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every single one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R., David K., Louis P., and Lucita Garcia, and our super friends, Shane B, Kenneth K, Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at PAR@therealnews.com and share your evidence. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter and Facebook.

And please like and comment, I read your comments and appreciate them and we will have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Two years ago, Michigan-based cannabis entrepreneur Coty Cecil’s camper van broke down in Milton, West Virginia. As he was awaiting repairs, Cecil was confronted by Milton police at his door. Despite appearing without a warrant, police demanded entry into the camper van. During the subsequent raid, police smashed Cecil’s window and confiscated eight hemp plants. Cecil now faces a 10-year sentence. Meanwhile, Cabell County, which Milton is located in has a development deal with the billion-dollar cannabis company Trulieve, which is expected to build a grow facility in the planned HADCO Business Park, an economic initiative being funded by millions in local taxpayer money. Trulieve was quietly benefitting from tax payer funded subsidies while Cody was sitting in jail. Thanks to previous reporting from Police Accountability Report and the support of viewers, Cecil was able to get his bail reduced and return home. Cecil now returns again to Police Accountability Report to discuss his fight against the 10-year prison sentence looming over him. Police Accountability Report has previously investigated use of public funds in Milton.

Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Taya Graham:  Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. 

As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today we’re going to show you this shocking footage of an illegal raid by police in West Virginia that has turned into something even worse for the person whose rights were violated. A problematic case, to say the least, that threatens to imprison a man for years for doing something that has been decriminalized across the country but that a local judge may decide warrants separating a young man from his family for years.

But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com, or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you.

And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And you know I appreciate your comments. I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you all how much I appreciate your thoughts and what a great community we have. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, two years ago we told you a harrowing story about a young man named Coty Cecil. In December of 2022 he got stuck in the small town of Milton, West Virginia, after his camper broke down, so Coty had been paying to stay at a campsite while a faulty brake line was being repaired. But one morning, he awoke to police inexplicably banging on his door. At that moment, despite police surrounding his camper, Coty started live-streaming. Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Coty Cecil:  Well, there’s cops all around the RV beating on my door, and I don’t know what for, so they’re going to have to come in and get me. So I figured I’d just lay back and smoke a cigarette and let this progress. A bunch of unmarked cars out there. I’m not answering the door. They can get a warrant and come get me.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, as you will learn later, Coty has struggled with addiction nearly his entire life, and only when he discovered the benefits of marijuana was he able to break the cycle. And that prompted him to start a growing business in Michigan where pot is legal.

Because of all this he became an evangelist, so to speak, for the benefits of it, which is why I think it’s interesting that Coty takes such a courageous attitude towards the looming police presence outside his door. Let’s listen for a moment as he asked the police why they’re trying to break down his door.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Coty Cecil:  What is going on?

Police Officer:  Open the fucking door now.

Coty Cecil:  I was back there asleep. What is going on?

Police Officer:  We have a search warrant. Open the door.

Coty Cecil:  I just want to know what is going on.

Police Officer:  Open the door [inaudible 00:02:58] …Now or we’re going to pop it.

Coty Cecil:  I have no arms or anything. You guys got me scared for my life. Why should I open the door?

Police Officer:  Open the door.

Coty Cecil:  I’m not doing anything wrong. I’ve been asleep all morning. What’s going on?

Police Officer:  [Inaudible 00:03:09] door.

Coty Cecil:  I just want to know why.

Police Officer:  We’ve got a search warrant.

Coty Cecil:  For what?

Police Officer:  Open the door.

Coty Cecil:  Can I see it?

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, Coty demanded a warrant, which was his right. That’s because while police can search a motor vehicle while it’s being operated on a public road with just probable cause, they need a warrant if it’s on private property.

Still, despite the law affirming his request, police continue to demand he opened the door without one. Let’s watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Coty Cecil:  I will open the door if I can get a copy of my warrant.

Police Officer:  We’ll give you one. Open the door.

Coty Cecil:  So you’re going to break my stuff violently anyway?

Police Officer:  You’re going to get a copy of the warrant. Yeah. Open the door.

Coty Cecil:  Look, my hands are right here. All I’m doing is recording this. That’s it.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, unable to produce the warrant, the police decided to become even more aggressive. Ignoring the law, they upped the ante by resorting to force. Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Police Officer:  Open the door.

Coty Cecil:  I just don’t understand why and what’s going on.

Police Officer:  [Inaudible 00:04:04] the door.

Coty Cecil:  I need to have a lawyer present.

Police Officer:  You don’t have a lawyer present for a search warrant.

Coty Cecil:  For a warrant, why not? This can be done completely peacefully. I just need to see a warrant first. Why are you guys breaking my stuff?

Police Officer:  You won’t open the door.

Coty Cecil:  I haven’t seen a warrant yet. Right now I look like I’m surrounded by a bunch of wolves trying to attack me.

Police Officer:  [Inaudible 00:04:30].

Coty Cecil:  Okay, so as soon as I get a warrant, I’ll open the door. What’s the issue? Whoa, whoa.

Police Officer:  Open the door.

Coty Cecil:  I don’t understand why you guys are being so violent towards me. That’s all.

Police Officer:  We’re not being violent.

Coty Cecil:  Yes you are. You just smashed my whole window in.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  That’s right. Police begin breaking the window of Coty’s camper, literally destroying the property that is an invaluable asset for him.

Now, we have a copy of the undated search warrant, which was later given to Coty. It was included in discovery related to the eventual charges against him, and Stephen will have more on that for us later.

But a review of the warrant shows that the entire reason that half of the Milton West Virginia Police Department was pounding on his door was not for drug dealing or some sort of theft or other serious crime, but rather in the pursuit of nature. That is, of eight immature pot plants. A fact that Coty points out.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Coty Cecil:  All right. Well here we go. This is what they’re after. Just so people know the real truth.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  But even as Coty continues to ask for a warrant, police respond with more force.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Police Officer:  We are effecting a search.

Coty Cecil:  What kind of a search? Can I get any response at all?

Police Officer:  The hell do you got in [inaudible 00:05:57]?

Coty Cecil:  It’s a deadbolt. I’ll unlock it.

Police Officer:  Unlock it. Unlock it.

Coty Cecil:  I want to see a warrant.

Police Officer:  Unlock [inaudible 00:06:03] —

Coty Cecil:  I want a warrant first. This is my constitutional right to see that I am being searched with a warrant.

Police Officer:  You are being searched with a warrant as soon as it gets here.

Coty Cecil:  Then I will be sitting right here, not doing anything, trying to comply with the police that are breaking into my home for no apparent reason.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, Coty decides, I think understandably, to take some edibles to help with the stress of the situation. I mean, the police have yet to answer his request for a warrant and are still trying to break down his door, so he decides again to partake in a natural plant that is legal to consume in 26 states. See for yourself.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Coty Cecil:  Eat some edibles.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now I just want to pause here and comment briefly on something I think we as Americans overlook when we watch videos like this. That is, despite the protections of the Constitution, the laws of our country have been construed to allow police to use violence over a plant, a thing that grows from the ground as freely and naturally as a weed. Something that is now legal in more than half the country, as I noted, but is still apparently dangerous enough to allow police to break into private property.

It literally makes no sense, and it’s this bizarre legal standard, I think, that causes what happens next. Legal empowerment has obviously affected the police who have been granted it, as we can hear when they reply to Coty’s repeated request for a warrant.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Coty Cecil:  Why? It sounds like a pride issue. I just want to see a warrant, that’s it, and I will come out. I don’t have nothing in here. I don’t have nothing to hide, but you just beat my door down and you’re trying to make me look like a straight criminal. I don’t know what I did wrong. I’ve been sleeping in my RV since last night. What did I do wrong, officer? Can you explain it?

Police Officer:  We’ll explain everything as soon as you open this door.

Coty Cecil:  I need a warrant.

Police Officer:  I know what you need.

Coty Cecil:  See what I’m saying? Why isn’t that my constitutional right?

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  “I know what you need.” Seriously, you, a law enforcement officer tasked with upholding the Constitution, are mocking someone who invokes their rights? Is it funny to you that someone’s home and worldly possessions, basically his entire business, is about to be trashed, seized, and otherwise disposed of? But it actually gets worse, much worse.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Police Officer:  It is your constitutional right, and we will give you the warrant as soon as it gets here.

Coty Cecil:  So you had to break in my door before you gave me it?

Police Officer:  The judge has signed it and it is on the way.

Coty Cecil:  Okay, so why did you have to break my stuff before I could come out?

Police Officer:  ‘Cause you won’t open the door asshole!

Coty Cecil:  Because I haven’t seen a warrant.

Police Officer:  Fine.

Coty Cecil:  I will come out peacefully. My hands are right in your face. I promise I’m doing nothing. I just want to see why and see that this is justified, what you just did to my house.

Police Officer:  Just open the door.

Coty Cecil:  This is outrageous. I will open the door as soon as I get the warrant. I don’t understand any of this. I’ve been asleep in here since last night. What is the issue? What did I do that caused you guys just so much turmoil to come here and smash my house in? Seriously. What? So you can arrest me and beat my ass for not unlocking the door? No, thank you. I’ve been in this spot before.

Police Officer:  You either open it or I’ll smash every fucking window there is.

Coty Cecil:  I know, that’s right.

Police Officer:  We’re going to get in.

I don’t care if you’re recording. Open it. I got a search warrant to get in there.

Coty Cecil:  For what? What did I do? Can I have my warrant and I’ll come out.

Police Officer:  This is not Tennessee, son. Open –

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  “This isn’t Tennessee, son.” I mean, what does that even mean? Is West Virginia post-Constitution? I do think the exchange is revealing, beyond the officer sets. It seems to me that the police are not just mocking his request to protect his rights, but they are using ominous language to intimidate him into opening the door by suggesting that they are not law enforcers, but actually privateers enabled to do just about anything.

Finally, realizing he had little choice, Coty opens the door and the police pounce. Not just one cop, but multiple officers all in pursuit of a couple of plants. Not a violent criminal, not someone who had robbed someone, stolen a car or committed an act of violence. Just a young man using a plant to enrich his life. See for yourself.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Coty Cecil:  I don’t understand what I did wrong. I feel like you guys are going to hurt me for no reason.

Police Officer:  We’re not going to hurt you.

Coty Cecil:  Then why have I been in here asleep since last night and now you guys are here to attack me?

Police Officer:  Not here to —

Coty Cecil:  I haven’t been doing anything wrong. What am I doing wrong?

Police Officer:  Open the door.

Coty Cecil:  What am I doing wrong?

Police Officer:  We’re coming in, asshole.

Coty Cecil:  I’m coming out.

Police Officer:  Right now.

Coty Cecil:  Okay, you guys got me scared for my life, dude.

Police Officer:  Right now, unlock the door.

[Inaudible 00:10:55] window.

Coty Cecil:  I’m trying to come out. You guys got me scared for my life. Here, I’m coming out. I’m coming out, guys.

Police Officer:  Put your cigarette down, let me see that —

Coty Cecil:  Okay.

Police Officer:  …You understand me?

Coty Cecil:  It’s the other way, guys. The other way.

Police Officer:  Comes this way.

Coty Cecil:  Please. I’ll help you. Don’t break my house. This is all I own.

Police Officer:  There’s supposed to be another guy in here.

If there’s anybody else in here, make yourself known.

Coty Cecil:  It’s just me. I’m by myself.

Police Officer:  Where’s your partner [inaudible 00:11:21].

Coty Cecil:  My partner? Who are you talking about?

Police Officer:  That’s what he’s doing, he’s in here eating all this shit.

Coty Cecil:  What are you talking about?

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  That’s right. Cops pick through Coty’s belongings, buoyed by their top-notch investigative skills, behaving like a bunch of unrepentant frat boys basking in the glow of their mercenary bounty. Of course, eventually this collection of Sherlock Holmeses realizes there’s a cell phone running, which prompts him to act. Let’s take a close look at these few moments.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Coty Cecil:  Big issue dude?

Police Officer:  [Inaudible 00:11:49] in here —

Coty Cecil:  [Inaudible 00:11:49] Because you guys didn’t even show probable cause or a warrant. [inaudible 00:11:56].

Police Officer:  You get all these, dude?

Here we go.

That’s what he was doing. He was in there eating this shit.

Yeah, he was eating edibles is what he was fucking doing, see.

[Inaudible 00:12:07]

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, I can’t read lips, but I think that officer was again expressing his contempt for both Coty and the law. And it’s not really surprising, given what we’ve learned about this police department throughout our investigations over the past few years. It is a fraught set of facts because since then, rather than acknowledging the futility of the raid, prosecutors and police have doubled down.

And for more on what that means and how it will affect his family, we will be joined by Coty and his mom soon. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been reaching out to prosecutors for comment and looking into the case itself. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  Now first, you’ve reviewed the warrant and the case file. What are your thoughts?

Stephen Janis:  Well, basically it looked like a yard sale sponsored by police, where they’re going to go and just take everything out of your home and load it into the car and drive away with it. They confiscated a vehicle. They confiscated the camper. They confiscated grow materials. They confiscated books, they confiscated checkbooks, they confiscated deposit stamps. It was insane. It was just like they went in there and just took whatever they wanted, and the whole justification was eight plants.

Now, they also confiscated a gun that actually didn’t belong to Coty because he did not own this camper. But they took everything he had all on the basis of eight marijuana plants and a so-called chemical smell. It is one of the worst statements of probable cause I’ve ever read. The warrant, as far as I could see, should have been rejected.

Taya Graham:  Now we’ve done a lot of reporting on the Milton West Virginia Police Department. Can you provide some of the background on this department and the problems they’ve had?

Stephen Janis:  Well Taya, Milton is a perfect example of over focusing on policing creates bad policy. The Milton Police Department has almost doubled in size in terms of budget over the past four or five years. Meanwhile, they’ve doubled ticket writing and ratcheted up fines. So it really shows you that they’ve incentivized policing in a bad way.

Meanwhile, the town gave a tip or tax increment, finance tax break to Jeff Hoops, who is a failed coal baron who actually took money out of miners paychecks when Blackjewel coal went bankrupt and then gave himself money. It was a terrible, terrible mess.

But meanwhile, he gets a tax cut plus 170 acres in free land that we’re giving him for $20 that belonged to the city. So really these two things go hand in hand, and that’s why the arrest of Coty, the seizing of his property, is really, really suspect.

Taya Graham:  Stephen, you’ve reached out to prosecutors and the judge. What are they saying about the case and what sort of prison time is Coty facing?

Stephen Janis:  Well, Taya, this is what’s most alarming about the case. Eight pot plants could be 10 years. I’m not kidding. I know you think I’m making this up, but just eight pot plants could be 10 years because this judge apparently is sentencing Coty under Schedule I for marijuana, meaning it’s a very dangerous substance, after the federal government has reduced it to Schedule III.

Now just really set aside for a moment that they’ve been giving a big tax break to a legal grower and this young man could be facing two sentences, which could be served consecutively, not concurrently, meaning at the same time, and be in jail for 10 years for what you saw on camera. Tell me what the crime is. It is really a travesty of justice, and I think everyone has a right to be concerned.

Taya Graham:  And now to get a sense of the toll this ordeal has taken on Coty, the risks he is facing out of sentencing, and some of the questionable courtroom statements by the judge, I’m joined by Coty Cecil.

Coty, I just want to say thank you so much for joining me again on the Police Accountability Report. We really appreciate you being here.

Coty Cecil:  Absolutely, Taya. I appreciate you guys and everybody at The Real News Network for all the support and all the help.

Taya Graham:  So can you just describe for me what we’re seeing in your camper? Suddenly there’s pounding on the door and you pull out your cell phone camera. Can you describe to us what we’re seeing on that cell phone video and what you were thinking at the time?

Coty Cecil:  Yeah, so I woke up that morning with loud, aggressive knocks on the door. So then I peeked out my bedroom window and I seen that it was a couple of cops and I thought, well, I don’t feel like answering this. I’m just waking up, so I’m just going to ignore the morning intrusion for the day.

Well, the knocks started getting more aggressive and they weren’t going away. So at this point I took out my phone and I went live, ’cause I was just confused as to why they were there. So the phone and me recording was really just for my self-defense.

Taya Graham:  Now, something I noticed in the video was that you were very wise to ask for a warrant before allowing police into your home, your camper. What happened when you asked for that warrant?

Coty Cecil:  Well, I was persistent in asking for the warrant. And after about 20 or 30 failed attempts of asking, just show me a warrant and I’ll let you in, and this can be done completely differently. I just want to understand what’s going on. Finally, after about the 30th time or so that I’ve asked, he said, you’ll get a warrant when it gets here.

Taya Graham:  So we see the officers break into your camper, they break in and they start to drag you out. Did you even understand what was happening at that time? Did you have any idea of what they were doing? Did they explain anything to you?

Coty Cecil:  No, not at all really. Even I didn’t get explained anything to me until I got basically to the police station. And I was just in complete shock, not understanding what was going on. Yeah, I had no clue.

And that’s really all I kept asking for was just a little bit of information on why they’re here and what’s going on. Because at the time I was, after so many times of asking for a warrant and certain things, I was starting to honestly believe if they were even really cops or not. I was trying to do my best to de-escalate the situation and keep everybody calm, and as these guys are just getting more and more aggressive, it just felt completely off.

Taya Graham:  So they forcefully drag you out and take you into jail. When the police took you in, what was your bail and what were the charges that they told you at that time?

Coty Cecil:  So when I finally got there, they gave me obstruction of justice for recording with my phone, cultivation, distribution with intent, and bringing substances across the state line. And they gave me a cash bond of $100,000.

Taya Graham:  So I first learned about your troubles in West Virginia when your mom contacted me. She said, my son was just put in jail for two days before Christmas. He’s been there for a month. And her heart was breaking. What was that like, and what were you thinking during that time in that cell?

Coty Cecil:  To be honest, just the way that they were acting like I was a cold-blooded killer, basically. It was such a high bond and I thought everything was over. I didn’t know if I was ever going to make it home.

Taya Graham:  Also, let’s take a moment to hear from Coty’s mom, Joni.

Joni:  We know that Coty made some bad choices and that he needs to stand accountable for what he did. But I don’t understand. The judge gave him the max sentence on a Schedule I charge.

Taya Graham:  It’s okay, take your time. I understand.

Joni:  To take him away from his whole family for five years. My mom will probably die while he’s in there. She’s 70-something years old, and that’s her baby.

Taya Graham:  Now, we ran your story, and fortunately our community reached out and your bail was lowered, but the past two years you’ve had this hanging over you. What have you done for the past two years? Have you had to travel for court? Has there been any sort of impact on you during the past two years while this has been hanging over your head?

Coty Cecil:  So when you guys came in and actually wanted to shed light on the case and the tyranny that was happening, then they decided to actually give me a bond reduction, which wasn’t happening until everything went public thanks to The Real News Network. So they dropped it down to $20,000.

But part of my bond stipulations was I was banned from the state. I was only allowed in the state for court. But upon doing so, when I got released, I got taken immediately up north back home and I didn’t have the resources to go grab the RV. It was broken down. So my RV, my house, my home got taken away and impounded.

By the time after the couple months that I did spend in jail waiting on bond and everything to change, they tried to say it was $6,000, $7,000, $8,000 to get my RV back, which I did not have nothing. I was completely… They took most of my legal business stuff, my legal seeds, my laptop, everything that I owned of value, and completely took me back down to absolutely nothing. I was absolutely nothing, square one.

And so the last couple years have literally just been me rebuilding my bond with my sons. ‘Cause they were upset that I was gone for a couple months, ’cause I was already gone a month prior to that for work. So at that time it was going on four or five months before I could see my sons and then… So it’s been a lot.

I had to rebuild from scratch the last couple years, then going back and forth to court and everything else has just been… It definitely hasn’t been the easiest. So they knew what they were doing when they banned me from the state. I’ll say that.

Taya Graham:  One of the charges was cultivation, but you work for a legal marijuana company and you have a medical card. And the federal government has moved marijuana from Schedule I drugs, like heroin, to Schedule III. And West Virginia has had medical marijuana since 2018, and now is even giving millions of dollars in tax breaks to cultivators. Do you have any idea why they’re coming down so hard on you?

Coty Cecil:  Well, and I’m just going to say that this is my personal opinion, ’cause I know we all have in the cannabis community, we all have our regards towards officials and their position and role they play. But in my professional opinion, I truly believe it’s because I’m not buying sets of golf clubs for these officials, and I’m not pushing my funds towards their political agenda, and I’m not donating to their political parties, and I’m not buying lunches and pizzas and everything else.

I don’t have the big bank accounts backing me, which would in turn back them, so therefore I’m null and void. Which honestly, in more retrospect from a business standpoint, I’m in the way.

Taya Graham:  Now, I just want to make sure people realize this. Some seem to think you were there possibly to distribute seven or eight little hemp plants and 10 to 15 grams of bud, but you actually had no interest in being in West Virginia. You were just traveling through.

Coty Cecil:  So after the couple years and rebuilding and everything and the publicity that came to the case, I know that Milton had some troubles after me with the way that the police force was working thanks to The Real News Network shedding light on another case. And they were allowing me to stay out of state.

And then the public defenders, which I was using throughout this, trying to save resources for the fam and still rebuilding resources of my own, I had to use the public defenders. They was more leaning towards the fact that they just want to get through this as much as I do, that the state just wants to make sure that, in my opinion — Again, this is in my opinion — That they just want to make sure some charges stick so that I have no chances of suing the state and going back after them, but also keep it to where they can put me on probation and send me home.

And they dropped a couple charges, and they were just the charges of cultivation and the charges of possession with intent to deliver. And I was under the impression, because the leniency that he showed allowing me to be free and home, that I was going to ultimately end up possibly more than likely with probation at home so that I could definitely showcase that I’m not a bad person and not doing these things, but still get the case onward and out of their dockets. And so it’s one to five [years] on each.

And I went back to court, and like I said, I guess I was naive in the fact of thinking they’re just wanting to get through this as much as I was and just get it over with and move on with their lives. And that wasn’t the case.

He completely disregarded the rest of the possible sentencing guidelines and he gave me the most severe, and he gave me one to five in prison on the cultivation. I go back July 2, 9:00 AM for the final sentencing and the other charges sentencing, the possession with intent to deliver, and that is possibly up to another one to five. So he has to decide if I’m going to get one to five on each and run them concurrently or consecutively on the next sentencing.

Taya Graham:  I have to admit, I just don’t understand why a judge would want to pursue this. I see a young man who has been clean for years, who has a family, two children with special needs, and he actually wants to help people with medical marijuana because you believe in it as a real healing medicine. Does this judge see you as some kind of dealer? Does he see the fact that you believe in marijuana as a medical drug as lack of remorse? What has this judge said to you? What have you heard?

Coty Cecil:  Yeah, at the time of this, Virginia was just becoming recreationally legal and legal in their own rights. And my family I had in Virginia was looking for consulting and help in agricultural realms and help producing their own medicine and becoming sustainable in their own medicine.

So I was down in Virginia and I was trying to help — Not trying to, I was starting legal businesses and consulting and trying to navigate my way into legality through Virginia, as I’ve already been in Michigan. So I was down there for about a month and a half helping people and getting public relations started and certain things.

And then about a month and a half into that, I was like, okay, I got to go home and visit my family and visit my sons. So I was driving back up to Michigan through West Virginia and my brake lines blew, so I pulled over and got a campground. And when I got the campground, that happened about a week or so later. I truly don’t believe this would’ve happened if my RV wouldn’t have broke down.

Taya Graham:  Now something that I think is very important is how your family is dealing with what you’re facing and how you are handling it. Whether or not this is concurrent time or consecutive, this is a lot of time, especially to be away from small children. And it’s potentially so much time for a crime that is not a crime in the rest of the country. How is your family handling this?

Coty Cecil:  Well, I think that we were a little naive in the fact that we were thinking that the country was going to be a little bit more, the judge or anybody in the country would be a little bit more understanding towards the cannabis thing. And I was absolutely thinking, yes, he’s going to make me go home and be on probation. I want to see that he’s doing good and he’s wanting to do the right things, but I don’t think that my family realized how severe the outcome could possibly be.

And so we went to court and then all these things came out on his end and he let his views be known on how he feels about the cannabis space. I just don’t think that he’s pro-cannabis at all. He told me, he said, you don’t think there’s anything wrong in what you do and what you’re doing? He said, you’re just going to go back home and continue to grow cannabis and do what you’re doing up there and think that nothing you’re doing is wrong and okay?

And then he went a little further and he said, I’ve read a lot of character letters from you, and others might see you as a good man, but our views on what a good man is are completely different.

Taya Graham:  I want to do something a little different today. Usually I use the example of a bad arrest to make a point about a broader problem with policing that affects the entire country. But in this case, what is happening in Milton is just such a perfect example of the essence of the idea that bad policing leads to other government miscues.

So I want to drill down into the story still unfolding in the small West Virginia community to make a point, and I want to start with a press release from HADCO, or the Huntington Area Development Council. This organization touts itself as the driving force behind the economic growth in the area surrounding Milton. In a press release, the organization touts the finalizing of a deal between Cabell County, where Coty was arrested, and a cannabis growing company called Trulieve. The deal would allow the firm to build a grow facility there.

The deal includes the use of land and facilities of the so-called Hadco Business Park. What is the Hadco Business Park? Well, it’s a taxpayer-funded facility designed to lure businesses to West Virginia. What they will be doing at the grow site, according to the same press release, is exactly what Coty was arrested for: growing marijuana for medical use.

And Hadco was not just celebrating this fact, it was touting their commitment to medical cannabis and putting it at the forefront of a new economy. Let me just read a quote: “This project will provide good paying jobs for our residents and will place Huntington West Virginia at the forefront of a rapidly growing cannabis industry in West Virginia.”

Okay, I’m really trying to unpack this idea. Why is pot a godsend for the county and legally supported with actual government tax breaks for one set of people and totally illegal and warranting jail time for another? What makes it okay for a huge corporation to grow pot for profit while the cops can seize the property of another growing company and never return it? Would you like to take a guess?

But let’s not stop there at assessing the idea of what makes a criminal in Cabell County versus a hero of capitalism. Now, remember Stephen mentioning the deal to build the Grand Petition Hotel in Milton? As he pointed out, the recipient of the communal largess was one Jeff Hoops.

Hoops is the notorious failed coal baron who clawed back the paychecks of miners around the country. The ensuing economic calamity caused incalculable pain for working people and left a trail of environmental devastation for which he has not been held accountable. Even the company he bankrupted, Blackjewel coal, sued him for fraudulent transfers for allegedly shifting millions of dollars, equipment, property, mining permits, inventory, and assets into his own family belongings.

But that didn’t stop Cabell County from awarding the aforementioned $15 million TIF to Hoops to build the Grand Petition Hotel. And — Wait for it — In 2018, the project, as Stephen noted, was supposed to be an expansive and economic boon to the area, so much so that the city of Milton turned over 170 acres of city-owned land for just $20. The hotel itself was projected to be opened in 2020. However, as this video we found on YouTube shows, the structure itself hardly seems close to being finished.

But of course, a big question I’m sure you’re asking is, Taya, how does this all fit together? What does a hotel, and ganja growing, and a cannabis crusader say about the state of American law enforcement and the role it plays in working-class communities across rural America?

Well, think of it this way. As Socrates noted in Plato’s seminal work, Republic, one of the most important questions facing any society or civil government is the fundamental notion of justice. Or in short, can a society be just, and if so, what constitutes a just society?

In other words, is the government fair to people who are governed? And does this fairness equate to better lives, open opportunity, and the type of social equilibrium in which anyone can thrive?

This is, of course, a vexing question bereft of easy answers. It would literally be oversimplifying the entire concept if I said I could answer what this looks like and how it could be implemented in the world we live in now.

However, I think pretty clearly I know what does not constitute a just society. And I think that rendering can be found in Cabell County. Let me lay it out in simple terms. Growing eight plants in your private camper is a crime punishable by 10 years in prison. Asking taxpayers to fund your billion-dollar business to exploit a plant derived from nature and yet restricted by law for some is heroic.

Trying to cure your addictions by spreading your love for a plant that some would say has practically magical healing powers? Oh, that’s a crime that requires the seizing of all your hard-earned assets, cleaning out the bank accounts of innocent coal miners while you pay yourself millions — Which, incidentally, was alleged in a series of lawsuits against Jeff Hoops.

Well, that noteworthy behavior will earn you free land and millions in taxpayer assistance. Sitting in your camper, minding your own business, waiting for it to be fixed warrants a full-on raid by law enforcement. Not building a hotel or explaining why it’s taking so long to do so even with mounting taxpayer assistance — Well, that’s just great business.

And if you’re interested if the hotel will open anytime soon, take another look at this video of the state of construction posted last month. Doesn’t look great at the moment.

The point is, as we have witnessed time and time again on the show, the difference in this country between criminals and upstanding citizens is not always measured by their deeds. Rather, it seems we equate personal morality with the weight of their bank accounts. Too often what dictates a crime is not the impact it has on all of us, but rather the social, capital, and political connections of the perpetrator.

How else can you explain the county of Cabell, West Virginia, where a giant corporation can grow all the weed it wants while Coty is being stripped of his last dollar and his rights for a few plants? How else are they supposed to accept the legal justification for giving free public land to a disgraced coal magnate versus seizing the property of a man who grew eight plants for his own use?

Truthfully, the case, as it has unfolded, proves an unfortunate and troubling point about both our laws and how they’re enforced: They protect the powerful and afflict the powerless. They bolster the rich and burden the poor. They shower the already wealthy with largess and strip the struggling of their meager wealth. They bolster the riches of the richest while caging the working class for trying to better themselves.

It’s a social imbalance that I think fully answers Socrates’s simple question: is a society just? Well in Cabell County, if Coty Cecil goes to prison, I think we all know the answer.

I’d like to thank my guest, Coty Cecil, for speaking with us, and we wish him and his family the very best during this difficult time. Thank you so much, Coty. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you. And a very special thanks to our Accountability Report Patreons. We appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers John E.R., David K, Louis P, Lucia, Garcia, and my super friends, Shane B, Kenneth K, Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook.

And please like and comment, I do read your comments and appreciate them, and you know I give out those little hearts down there. And we have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

My name is Taya Graham, and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Maximillian Alvarez:  Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most. And we need your help to keep doing this work, so please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to The Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

Jennifer Kretschman, a Sacramento school district social worker, was wrapping up her workday when she received a sudden, frantic call from her 17-year-old daughter. Kretschman’s daughter informed her that a black SUV with tinted windows was following her and her stepfather, Kretschman’s fiancé, Jacob Palkovic, on their drive home from school. Kretschman instructed her daughter and Palkovic to come meet her at her workplace, but it was too late. Shortly after the call ended, the unmarked SUV swerved in front of Palkovic’s car. Armed men poured out of the vehicle and pointed their guns at Palkovic and his stepdaughter. Tearing the two family members out of the car, the men failed to announce themselves as members of the Sacramento Sheriff’s Office’s Gang Suppression Unit. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report speak with Kretschman to uncover why her family was arrested, and explore the myriad problems that come from specialized police units and the police culture that makes them so dangerous.

Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops, instead we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing one of the most disturbing videos of police overreach I have ever seen, a violent traffic stop by a gang unit that ensnared a teenage girl and her innocent father. A rare glimpse into the threat that militarized policing poses to our basic constitutional rights, which we are going to break down into all of its problematic pieces.

But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter at tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. Now of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them, you see those hearts I give out down there. And I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what an amazing community we have. And we also have a Patreon called accountabilityreports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated.

All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as host of a show focused on police accountability, I have watched and reported on a variety of horrible arrests and horrifying body camera video. However, the video I’m showing you right now is one of the most problematic I’ve ever seen. Not just because of the aggressive tactics and sheer indifference to the Constitution it picks, but the ugliness it reveals about the state of American law enforcement, a deeply upsetting callousness towards the citizenry that must be witnessed to be believed.

The story starts in Sacramento, California, in September of 2023. There a man named Jacob Palkovic was driving his 17-year-old stepdaughter home from school. As he was driving, he noticed a black SUV with tinted windows following him. Concerned, his daughter called his fiancee, Jennifer Kretschman. She instructed him to drive to her workplace, a local school, for their safety. But before they could arrive, the unmarked truck drove in front of them and a terrifying encounter with a group of plainclothes officers ensued. Take a look.

Jacob Palkovic:

I’m trying to pull into my wife’s work right here, man.

Speaker 3:

What part of stop don’t you understand?

Jacob Palkovic:

Hey Officer, I’m trying to pull into-

Speaker 3:

Get out of the car.

Jacob Palkovic:

I got the car in drive.

Speaker 3:

Get out of the… put it in park.

Jacob Palkovic:

I got the car in drive.

CJ Kretschman:

I’m a minor, I’m a minor, I’m a minor.

Speaker 3:

Get out of the car.

Jacob Palkovic:

Yes sir, I’m coming out. What the fuck? What do I do man? I just trying to turn in my wife’s work-

Speaker 3:

Put your hands on your back.

Jacob Palkovic:

I can’t. I got a bad back.

Speaker 5:

Put your hands behind your back.

Jacob Palkovic:

I got a bad back man. What the fuck?

Taya Graham:

That’s right. A bunch of men exit an unmarked vehicle with guns drawn, pointed at Jacob. There are no police markings on their car and they didn’t even announce that they’re police officers. Instead, they drag him to the ground and proceed to execute a painful and terrifying arrest. Just watch.

Speaker 3:

Don’t resist.

Jacob Palkovic:

Yes sir. What am I doing? I just wanted to get to my wife’s work.

Speaker 5:

Well that was stupid. That was fucking stupid.

Jacob Palkovic:

Dude. I’m not… I [inaudible 00:03:18].

Speaker 5:

That was fucking dumb.

Jacob Palkovic:

I can’t breathe man.

Speaker 3:

All right, he’s good.

Jacob Palkovic:

I can’t get up-

Speaker 3:

Turn around, turn around. Stand up. Turn around and stand up.

Jacob Palkovic:

[inaudible 00:03:33].

Taya Graham:

Now let’s take a second to acknowledge the utter lawlessness of what we’re seeing here and what it means. And I will allege for this particular video, these police officers have not explained to Jacob why he’s on the ground, in obvious pain, being handcuffed. They have not spoken to him at all, they have not articulated a crime or probable cause for violently removing him from the car. Instead, they’ve used force without any foreseeable provocation. An indiscriminate use of police powers that only escalates when they arrest a seventeen-year-old girl. Just look.

Jacob Palkovic:

What the fuck are you guys doing to my daughter?

Speaker 5:

Is this your wife or your daughter?

Jacob Palkovic:

She’s 17 years old man.

Speaker 5:

Well then stop acting like an idiot.

Jacob Palkovic:

Doing it by I’m coming to my wife’s work.

Speaker 5:

Now you’re going to jail.

Jacob Palkovic:

She’s 17 years old, man.

Speaker 5:

Now you’re going to jail. Now you’re going to jail.

Jacob Palkovic:

Why would you do that to a seventeen-year-old? [inaudible 00:04:25].

Taya Graham:

Now, even though police have already handcuffed a man for no alleged crime along with his seventeen-year-old stepdaughter, they are not done showing what can only be described as sheer contempt for the law. That’s because the teen’s mother, Jennifer Kretschman, watches the arrest as it unfolds and demands an explanation, as is her right, but the police are having none of it. Watch how the officers respond and tell me, and I do not say this lightly, are these the heroes that we’re supposed to back without question? Just watch.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Hey, you better get your fucking hands off my daughter.

Speaker 7:

You’re going to stay right there.

Jennifer Kretschman:

If you ever touch my daughter again-

Speaker 7:

You’re going to go into handcuffs too. You’re going to go into handcuffs too if you do not back up.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Name and badge number?

Speaker 7:

Davis-167. Please back up. Please back up.

Jennifer Kretschman:

That is my daughter. Don’t touch me.

Speaker 7:

Please back up, or you’re going to go into cuffs too.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Do not touch me.

Speaker 8:

Let me tell you what’s happening, do you want me to tell you?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Please do buddy.

Speaker 8:

You’re not going to the car.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I would like to check on my child.

Speaker 8:

She’s fine. Let’s go over here.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I just watched her get yanked out-

Speaker 8:

Okay, listen-

Jennifer Kretschman:

17. She’ll be 18 in December. She goes to the Met.

Speaker 8:

So listen, listen. They’re conducting a traffic stop on the car. The car was not stopping for probably the last two miles.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Traffic… Why?

Speaker 8:

I don’t know.

Taya Graham:

So again, the officers on the scene use the threat of handcuffs to suppress dissent. They literally threaten to jail a mother whose only crime is to demand an explanation. No statement of probable cause, no articulation of reasonable suspicion. Only the allegation he had not stopped for two miles, for an unmarked vehicle with tinted windows. But it gets worse, much worse. See for yourself.

Jennifer Kretschman:

They have no right to be in my car.

Speaker 5:

Don’t talk to me, I’ll talk to you. What you need?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Who are you?

Speaker 5:

I’m the supervisor right now. Who are you?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Okay, what’s your name and badge number?

Speaker 5:

I’m Johnson-272. So your car is going to get towed today.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I’m sorry, say that again.

Speaker 5:

Your car’s going to get towed today.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Why?

Speaker 5:

And your daughter and your husband are going to jail. What else do you want know?

Jennifer Kretschman:

My daughter is 17.

Speaker 5:

I don’t care.

Jennifer Kretschman:

You don’t have a right to take her to jail.

Speaker 5:

She resisted arrest and she’s going to go to jail for arrest.

Jennifer Kretschman:

You can’t-

Speaker 5:

I absolutely can. I absolutely can.

Jennifer Kretschman:

No. Why would would you arrest her?

Speaker 5:

Why would I not? She resisted arrest.

Jennifer Kretschman:

She’s 17. You must have a reason to arrest her, a lawful reason to arrest her.

Speaker 5:

Do you understand your husband and your daughter just ran from police for the last seven miles.

Jennifer Kretschman:

They did not.

Speaker 5:

They didn’t?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Run?

Speaker 5:

So the camera wouldn’t lie?

Jennifer Kretschman:

What do you mean run? I just watched you pull my child-

Speaker 5:

We haven’t… Lighted them up, conducting a traffic stop for the last seven miles. They did not pull over.

Jennifer Kretschman:

What? For seven miles? Why did he say two? So get your story straight.

Speaker 5:

Talk to me, I’m the one that pulled her over.

Taya Graham:

Now I want to stop the video right here. Besides the fact that the story has completely changed, her fiance has driven seven miles instead of two as the officer previously stated, the sheriff refuses to answer a fundamental question. What is his probable cause for searching the car in the first place? While it’s true, due to a Supreme Court ruling officers can search cars without warrants if it is on a public street. They cannot do so without probable cause. Just listen again as the officer is asked this question and see if he answers it.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Why did he say two?

Speaker 5:

I don’t know.

Jennifer Kretschman:

So get your story straight.

Speaker 5:

Talk to me. I’m the one that pulled her over, so talk to me.

Jennifer Kretschman:

No, you weren’t. I watched this dude with the beard, pull her out of the car.

Speaker 5:

Which is in my vehicle. So get your facts straight if you’re going to talk about it.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I watched the dude with the beard, okay.

Speaker 5:

Perfect, he’s with me.

Jennifer Kretschman:

That’s the facts and that’s what I saw.

Speaker 5:

Okay. So your daughter is going to go to jail.

Jennifer Kretschman:

My daughter’s 17. Do not touch her.

Speaker 5:

17 year olds can go to jail.

Jennifer Kretschman:

For what?

Speaker 5:

For resisting.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Resisting what? You had no reason to grab her out of the car.

Speaker 5:

Okay.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I know my rights and I know her rights.

Speaker 5:

We’ll discuss… okay-

Jennifer Kretschman:

We can discuss whatever you want, but you’re wrong or you know it.

Speaker 5:

No I’m not.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Yes you are and you know it.

Speaker 5:

So again, again. Again, thank you. Thank you.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Because this is a complaint against you for touching… who is driving my car?

Speaker 5:

Your husband.

Jennifer Kretschman:

What is happening right now?

Speaker 5:

That’s getting towed, that’s leaving.

Jennifer Kretschman:

My car is? Why?

Speaker 5:

Well, if you want to tell me how the law goes, you should already know why.

Jennifer Kretschman:

I don’t have any understanding. I only know my daughter says there’s a bunch of cops-

Speaker 5:

You want to come over here and address us in regards to what we’re doing.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Yeah, because I watched you rip my daughter out of the car.

Speaker 5:

You watched me?

Jennifer Kretschman:

I watched the gentleman with the beard, and you know what I’m talking about.

Speaker 5:

Okay, okay.

Jennifer Kretschman:

But you talking to me this way. You’re here to protect and serve. I’m here working. I get a phone call from my daughter.

Speaker 5:

You should have a good conversation with your husband then.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Okay, I can have a conversation-

Speaker 5:

Driving the way that he’s driving with your daughter in the car, if that’s what you’re concerned about.

Jennifer Kretschman:

What is the driving like? I don’t even know.

Speaker 5:

We have literally been trying to pull him over for the last seven miles. He is not pulling over. It’s called a pursuit. He’s running from officers.

Jennifer Kretschman:

What happened with my daughter though?

Speaker 5:

She resisted getting out of the vehicle. Did you see guns pointed at your vehicle? Did you see guns pointed at your vehicle?

Jennifer Kretschman:

I couldn’t. I was too far away.

Speaker 5:

Okay, so you didn’t see the whole thing going down, correct?

Jennifer Kretschman:

No, but my child’s out here.

Speaker 5:

So are you showing up late the game? Can we make that clear?

Jennifer Kretschman:

I want you to stop talking to me like I’m an idiot, because I’m not.

Speaker 5:

Okay, I’m done here.

Taya Graham:

So that’s not really an answer, is it? What does that mean? What law does that invoke? What exactly does that have to do with meeting the legal threshold to seize and search of vehicle? I am genuinely confused. But now with legal sufficiency cast aside, what do the officers do next? They search the car. No, search is too mild a word, they ransack it. Observe.

Speaker 7:

A bunch of lock boxes. There’s one in the back too.

Speaker 3:

Narcan. She might have dope on her. You might’ve had her stuff the dope somewhere.

Taya Graham:

She might have dope on her. So I think that’s a revealing comment. That’s because the police at this moment know they did not have a legal reason to drag two people from a motor vehicle and put them in handcuffs. It appears they’re looking for a post-hoc justification because it’s revealing what has not been articulated at this point. They didn’t accuse him of speeding, they didn’t claim he was driving erratically, they did not cite expired tags or some other technical violation. Because of their silence, I think it’s safe to infer they saw someone they didn’t like the looks of, and without evidence, arrested them. And as you will see, they turn to a playbook that police used for decades to incriminate otherwise innocent people when they screw up; the war on drugs. See for yourself.

Speaker 3:

I’ll get under that dash on that side real good because you could see that she was moving around, making those furtive movements under here.

Speaker 7:

Oh, a hundred percent.

Speaker 8:

You guys want me to… [inaudible 00:10:58] back to my car.

Taya Graham:

So I just want to stop here for a second. Not to make some caustic comment, but just to read something to remind all of us why this matters. A founding principle, so to speak, that is often ignored or forgotten. The text of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which most definitely applies here. Call it a notification from the constitutional rights emergency broadcast system, if you wonder why I’m doing this. All right, here it goes. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. Now, watch the rest of the search and decide if these officers have ever read this.

Speaker 9:

Are they rulers?

Speaker 7:

Probably not.

Speaker 3:

Can we pop the trunk? Is there a female coming so we can search here?

Speaker 5:

Do you get bus?

Speaker 7:

I got a bunch of burnt foil and then white powder falling out.

Speaker 3:

Where?

Speaker 7:

Right here.

Speaker 3:

Under the dash? Yeah.

Speaker 7:

No, it came out of this. So all that just fell out of here.

Speaker 3:

That was what was shoved between the seat. Yeah, it’s in that envelope.

Speaker 7:

All the dopes in the envelope?

Speaker 3:

Yeah.

Speaker 5:

What is it?

Speaker 3:

Looks like Fetty.

Speaker 5:

Is it.

Speaker 3:

Or Coke?

Speaker 7:

Probably.

Speaker 5:

All right, so both of you real quick [inaudible 00:12:46].

Speaker 9:

All right. She didn’t have nothing on her, I just searched her.

Speaker 3:

Huh?

Speaker 9:

I just searched her, she got nothing on her.

Speaker 3:

Okay. He was trying to hide this then.

Speaker 9:

All right, you want me to close [inaudible 00:12:55]?

Speaker 5:

Into the back.

Speaker 3:

Oh yeah. It’s wrapped up in one of these pieces of paper.

Taya Graham:

Mm. So it looks like Fenty or Coke. Interestingly, the officer who has just discovered drugs does not actually show to the camera what he has supposedly discovered. They don’t even seem concerned about preserving the evidence, something that will make sense later as this story unfolds. They don’t even put on gloves or take precautions to protect themselves from these dangerous drugs. But for now, they continue to pull apart the car amid innuendos that there are drugs. A process that includes a male officer physically searching a seventeen-year-old girl. Take a look.

Speaker 5:

All right, so both of you can go back here then.

Speaker 9:

All right. She didn’t have nothing on her. I just searched her.

Speaker 3:

Huh?

Speaker 9:

I just searched her. She got nothing on her.

Speaker 3:

Okay. Looks like Xanax.

Here look under this seat on this side again under though, because he shoved this notebook, was helluva shoved all the way down.

Speaker 5:

In there?

Speaker 3:

On that side, driver’s side.

Speaker 5:

You’ve already found it over here?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I already pulled it out. Looks like it might be Xanax.

Speaker 7:

Crushed out Xanax?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, if you look, there’s zanie bars in there too. It’s wrapped up in that yellow notepad paper.

Speaker 7:

[inaudible 00:14:14].

Speaker 3:

Did you see anything there?

Speaker 5:

Is he on status or anything? Olson?

Speaker 9:

They haven’t ID’d him [inaudible 00:14:34] .

Speaker 5:

Well what the fuck are they doing?

Speaker 7:

You’re getting her ID? She’s not [inaudible 00:14:34].

Taya Graham:

I want to freeze this frame right here and look at the documents the police had seized. A voter registration form. Now what makes this worth noting is something we have argued on the show over and over and over. Bad policing is meant to discourage civic participation. Corrupt cops erode our political efficacy. And as you will hear later, that’s exactly what happens. But even with intrusive searches yielding nothing, police continue, seemingly fixated on punishing the family. Just watch.

Speaker 7:

Somebody moved it on top of this seat. So where did this notepad come from originally?

Speaker 3:

Stuffed in the side.

Speaker 5:

Driver’s side.

Speaker 3:

Driver’s side. It was stuffed in between the seat and this center island.

Run these two names. Jacob Palkovic.

Speaker 9:

That’s the driver.

Speaker 7:

DJ?

Speaker 5:

What?

Speaker 7:

He’s got mail in his name inside of here.

Speaker 5:

Okay.

Speaker 7:

Put it on my camera.

Speaker 3:

And foil.

Speaker 7:

And burnt foils.

Speaker 3:

Did you open that up, were they zanie bars?

Speaker 7:

They looked like zanie bars. I opened it up maybe more than you did now.

Taya Graham:

Well, I’m so glad the officers found this whole thing funny. Truly. I’m glad that terrorizing two innocent people and then tearing apart their personal possessions is humorous to them. I think we can clearly see how police regard us, the public. How little they take into account their harmful actions can literally turn our lives upside down. But one thing they are aware of is the body camera. And now amid a fruitless search, the supervisor asks an interesting question. Are you still on? And after he asks it, the officer turns off his camera. Just watch one more time.

Speaker 3:

I’m on.

Speaker 5:

[inaudible 00:16:18]

Speaker 3:

I’m finished searching.

Taya Graham:

Now the supervising officer says something we can’t hear and the officer turns off his camera. I wonder why. But there is much more to this story than what you just witnessed on the body camera. And that’s because after all the invasive searching and aggressive tactics, I think you’ll be surprised, or perhaps even shocked, at how police charged this case. And for more on that, we will be joined by Jacob’s fiance and the mother of the teenager swept up in this arrest, Jennifer Kretschman. But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been looking into the case and reaching out to the sheriff’s office and researching the law. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So first, what were the charges and what is the sheriff’s department saying about the case?

Stephen Janis:

Well Taya, the charges are really questionable in this case. They charged him with evading, simply not stopping for a police vehicle, which as you can see in the actual video, there’s a lot of questions about that, which I’ll get to later. But in terms of the sheriff’s comments, we sent them an email, they have not responded yet. But really I think on this scene, the sheriffs made clear what their comment was about this arrest, which is contempt for the public. It was pretty clear they didn’t want to answer questions… Actually scratch that, they were just basically defiant, saying we don’t have to explain what we’re doing to the people on the scene. So there’s your comment. If I get anything more, I’ll mention it in the chat.

Taya Graham:

Now that seems like something that would be a secondary offense, right? Doesn’t there need to be an underlying crime to justify that?

Stephen Janis:

You know Taya, it’s really interesting because basically evading is a crime of intent. So what are the components of intent? The components are that you’re being pulled over by marked police car with officers in police uniforms. And if they’re not, one of the defenses is you can say, “Hey, I didn’t know it was a cop car.” And I think in this case, with the evidence that we’ve seen on video, I think that defense could hold up. In fact, I think it’s preposterous that they charged them with evading, when they clearly weren’t dressed like police officers. They were just randomly touting guns, jumping out at people. In this era when we have a lot of road rage and crazy stuff happening, how can you blame someone for being scared and not wanting to pull over? So really I think intent is a big question here, and I don’t think these charges will hold up anywhere.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, we’ve reported extensively about the destructiveness of specialized units and militarized policing. What is your take on this in the context of aggressive policing and its impact on communities across the country?

Stephen Janis:

Well Taya, let me quote the famous Frank Serpico who uncovered police corruption in New York City police department in the 1970s, said, “There’s no such thing as a crooked cop, just crooks and cops.” Well, I will say this about specialized units, people in jeans and T-shirts running around randomly pulling people over, pointing guns, are not law enforcement. They’re not enforcing law, they are lawless. And this is the problem with specialized units. They inherently, aesthetically, are lawless and they do things that endanger people. They don’t help us with public safety, and I’ve covered so many of them, I can’t even count. It is a bad way to police, it is destructive for the community and it needs to end.

Taya Graham:

And now to learn how she has been fighting back against police overreach and how it’s impacted her family, and what she plans to do to hold police accountable, I’m joined by Jennifer Kretschman. Jennifer, thank you so much for joining me.

Jennifer Kretschman:

Thank you for having me.

Taya Graham:

So let’s just start at the very beginning so we can help people understand what happened here. You were at work and you received a frantic phone call from your daughter. What did she say?

Jennifer Kretschman:

I’m sitting at work. I get the phone call and I’m like, “Where are you guys?” Ready to just tell them… because they’ve probably stopped and done something. And she’s like, “Mom, mom, we’re being chased,” or followed, I don’t remember the exact verbiage. But I’m like, “Slow down, tell me what’s going on.” I can’t really understand her because it’s like muffled, like arguing or something. I learned it wasn’t arguing, it was just like, “What’s going on? Turn around.” And I could hear him telling her to look and see, “Look at them, tell me are those cops? What’s going on?” She’s like, “Mom, I think that we’re being pulled over.” I’m like, “What do you mean you think?” I wasn’t understanding. “What do you mean you think, is there a car behind you? Is it a cop car? Does it have lights on it?” And well, she’s like, “I can see lights in the window, but I don’t think it’s a cop car.” And I’m like, “Well, you have to be able to see the sides of the car.” And she was like, “Jacob, go to the side.”

And she’s trying to tell him to get over a lane and he wouldn’t get over a lane. He was just at that point was just focused on going straight, figuring out what’s going on and trying to get to my work. And I said, “Where are you?” And she’s looking around for identifying landmarks and she said, “We’re almost to your work.” “I’m going to head towards parking lot right now, and you guys just pull into my work.” And I’m thinking that either if it’s a cop, they’ll just slowly pull into the parking lot behind my work and that’s the biggest thing I’m going to have to deal with. If it’s someone trying to carjack them, when they turn into a busy parking lot they’re probably just going to speed ahead.

And then as I’m approaching, and I’ve lost track of where CJ went, which is my daughter, and I can see a scuffle on the other side. And I see other vehicles, actual police vehicles coming onto the scene now. So I’m really confused because what went from, “We might be getting pulled over,” it went to this huge police scene in a matter of less than a minute. And so when I get there, I was not the calmest, I will say that. I see men in my car digging through stuff. I see a guy with her pink backpack in his hand and he’s going through it. He has a baseball cap on. I’m assuming he’s some type of undercover person at this point because there’s multiple police cars. And I said something probably not very appropriate, but get your hands off my daughter with some foul language in there. And then he threatened to arrest me, pushed me backwards, and I’m like, “Okay, I just need to get to my daughter.”

Taya Graham:

Something I think that’s really important to explain is how your family perceived the car following them. The police described their driving to a safe place, the parking lot of your workplace as evasion. So I would assume your husband was driving the speed limit and obeying traffic rules as he drove roughly one and a half or two miles to your workplace. Tell me, how did your family perceive the men in the car?

Jennifer Kretschman:

From what I understand, Jacob started noticing this black SUV with guys in baseball caps. I want to say some had them forward and some had them backward and he swears he could see the barrel of a gun. And so then she’s like, “I’m calling mom.” And so these men, there’s no badges, no uniforms, they have on baseball hats, sunglasses, what they learned later were bulletproof vests. In the police report it says, it says Sac Sheriff in big yellow lettering on the front and back. That was not true. You could see a Sac Sheriff in black lettering kind of from behind, and I have multiple videos of that as well. When they got out of the car and I could see them, they were wearing jeans and Converse tennis shoes. One guy had on khaki cargo pants… nothing would’ve told me they were law enforcement.

Taya Graham:

Why did your fiance respond this way to the men in the car? I could understand him thinking maybe it was a road rage incident or even a carjacking.

Jennifer Kretschman:

So Jacob is from South Phoenix. He has had a history. He has had many experiences with law enforcement. He has tattoos on his neck and on his arms and on his body, so he knows what it’s like to be profiled. So he knows law enforcement side, he knows if it’s gang members, he knows that in no scenario is this a good scenario when you have a group of men that don’t look like law enforcement asking you to pull over, because they’re nudging and he can see them all doing like this, or something like that. And so that’s why CJ was so scared and confused because she’s like, “If it’s law enforcement and you don’t pull over, this is bad. If it’s a gang and you don’t pull over, we’re going to get shot.” The first man said they were in a high-speed chase pursuit for two or more miles, which that’s not even possible, but I was like, “Okay.” And then Johnson, the driver of the vehicle, said they had been chasing him for seven miles. When the police report actually came out, it said one mile, 1.1 miles or something like that. According to CJ and Jacob, it was about a mile.

Taya Graham:

So your family wasn’t actually accused of any traffic violations, right? What traffic violation did your fiance commit to get pulled over? What was the crime that led to these charges of resisting arrest?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Taya, that is such a wonderful question. One that I asked many times throughout the entire incident that was never answered. In fact, when it was answered, it was they resisted arrest. “No, no, no. I want to know why they were being pulled over.” “Because he wouldn’t pull over.” “No, no, no. Why was he being…” Not one time… hold on, let me clarify. At one point in time he goes, “Well, he doesn’t even have a driver’s license.” And I said, “He has two. He has one in Arizona and one in California. I know when we went from one state to the other that he got… I remember I was there. So, no.” And that was the end of it as far as them attempting to tell me a reason for the traffic stop initially. I got nothing else.

Taya Graham:

There are so many things that I found problematic with the arrest and the treatment of your family, but the way you were treated was, let’s say less than courteous. How did the officers respond to your questions and your concern about your daughter who was a minor, and would you say the officers were being professional?

Jennifer Kretschman:

Well, there was a lack of professionalism, but they responded as though I was the criminal. They responded as though my daughter and my fiancee were criminals, and… well, they told me they were. They told me they were, I would say 10 plus times, they’re going to jail. Your daughter, your husband, they’re going to jail. And every time I said why I got no response. I was told to stand back, stand in the shade, stand under the tree, get out. I was told I was interfering with the investigation. But literally when Detective Johnson came up, and he was the supervisor on scene, I said, “What is your name and badge number?” And then told me I didn’t know the law, I’m coming late on the scene, I didn’t have my facts straight, and then proceeded to tell me that they drove seven miles in pursuit. They just treated me horribly. I would never want them to treat anyone this way. They searched my car illegally and then they towed it, towed my car. It was just like the icing on the cake. They had gone through this whole scenario and in the very end were like, “And we’re going to cost you a thousand dollars just because we effed up.” And I think it was just to make it look like they did something legitimate.

Taya Graham:

I assume your car was being searched without your consent. And when you reviewed the body camera footage, were you surprised by the things that the police said? For example, they said they found Xanax bars in a piece of paper and tin foil that was burned and white powder residue, and yet none of this evidence was ever shown on camera. And you and your family were not charged with drug possession. Surely if there were drugs in that car, they would’ve charged you as the owner.

Jennifer Kretschman:

No, there were no drugs in our car. There were no tin foils in our car. We had lock boxes in our car. And this is… I should have mentioned this when you asked about the treatment of us. We do Turo, I don’t know if you’re familiar with that, it is like Airbnb for cars. And so basically it’s people can come and rent your car, and they pay you just like Airbnb if they came and rented your house. And so we have two or three cars that we have done this for just as a little side income. And so they have a lock box when people come to come rent your car, they get the key out of it and drive away.

Well, they came over and when he’s telling me all of this about the drug paraphernalia, I’m like, “What? What?” And then he asked about the lock boxes and I think he thinks that that’s some sort of drug hiding place, or I don’t know what he thought it was. But I’m like, “No, we Turo our cars.” And so then when I watched… they had a piece of body cam footage where they’re talking about us and I could hear it in the background. He goes, “Do you think they’re realtors?” “No.” And they’re laughing about us. We’re not good enough to be realtors or something.

Taya Graham:

So interestingly, I thought I heard an officer say to you, “If you keep asking questions, you can go to jail too.” Did I hear that right? What did he actually say to you?

Jennifer Kretschman:

You did hear that correctly. That was, I believe, Masterson. Yes, you heard that correctly. And the way I gauged it, he really looked up to this Gang Suppression Unit, like they were the cool guys. And so he was repeating all the stuff they were saying to him. And it was so maddening and I was nowhere near… well, there was no scene. Anyways. And that’s the thing, you had asked earlier too, when I saw them searching my car, I literally said to them, I’m like, “Stop searching my car. Get out of my car. I do not give you permission to search my car.” And that’s when they told me there were multiple reasons that they could be searching my car right now.

Taya Graham:

I heard the police officer say something interesting. He said, when you were concerned about the way your daughter was yanked out of the car, he said, “I wouldn’t be mad at the police, I would be mad at your daughter.” And they also made fun of your daughter saying that she was a minor. How did their discussion of your daughter and their treatment of her make you feel?

Jennifer Kretschman:

To be honest, I had never even heard what you just said. I didn’t hear them making fun of her like that. I saw it and I saw them not caring about me getting to her, and evidently she was asking to see me the whole time too. She could hear me asking for her and she was crying and they wouldn’t take her to me. And so I literally told them about her trauma too from when she was a child, and how I needed… I just wanted to be with her even if it meant I had to stand outside of the car. Because in the beginning I didn’t know, I knew she didn’t do anything wrong but I didn’t know. And for them to make fun of her…

What’s horrible too is there’s not one snippet of body cam footage with her being arrested… anything that happened to her. And I’m assuming that was intentional because in the court case they said only one of the arresting officers was wearing their body camera, which wasn’t true. They had not one image of her body camera, of an officer arresting her. And I’m worried that they’re going to see that or the public’s going to see that, and think badly of her and have opinions about her, and not consider the fact that she’s still a 17-year-old who’s being manhandled by these large grown men. They called her the B-word, and that’s what she told me, as they were arresting her. And they told her she was going to jail, there was no question about it.

And then they put her in the back of a police car, drove that police car away from me to the parking lot, and they allowed a male officer by himself, behind a door, to search her, physically search her. And that’s where her abuse is. They kept saying she must’ve stuffed the drugs somewhere. They threw her in the back of a police car and left her there and had some uniformed officer check in on her once or twice. And every time they promised that she was going to be taken to me and she wasn’t brought to me until the very, very end, which was probably close to an hour later. I know she has PTSD and I know that she needs me right then.

Taya Graham:

I’m so sorry. It is so terrible to hear about your child being spoken about like that. How long was this whole process and were any of your family taken to jail and what were the charges?

Jennifer Kretschman:

So from the time I got the phone call, which was about 16:40-ish, until the very end of the incident when my whole family was returned to me, was how I see it, was about an hour. No one was taken to jail. An ambulance came for Jacob because he couldn’t breathe. He was in the midst of a panic attack and he had injuries from when he was 18. They searched him again. They walked to the back of the… I think he was going from the police car to the EMTs and they searched him again, searched very well, because they were so insistent that they had to have something. Of course, I have nothing.

And then when they walked over, at the very end Jacob comes walking to me, he’s a mess. CJ is just frazzled and just like, “I want to go home. I want to go home.” They say, “You can’t take your car. Your car is being towed.” And then of course I said, “Why?” But then I just stopped because I was so grateful that I had my family with me, I didn’t care what they did with my car at that point in time. And I didn’t want to say anything that would jeopardize anyone going to jail. And he was charged with evading a police officer, failing to yield to a police officer and resisting arrest.

Taya Graham:

So how did you handle the charges?

Jennifer Kretschman:

He went to court in December. They wanted to see what he wanted to do and he said I wanted to fight it, and he would not agree to a guilty plea. And so we met with the public defender who said absolutely, and tried to get the body cam that she couldn’t get it the first round, they wouldn’t release it to her. The second round they only sent over some of the uniformed officers. And so evidently at some point in time she was able to get some other body cam. And on the day of his court case, she called and said that the district attorney had watched the video footage and said that the cop’s behavior was insane and that the charges were all dropped.

Taya Graham:

How much has this cost your family financially or emotionally? What has the personal cost been? I know this has been traumatic for your daughter.

Jennifer Kretschman:

There’s all sorts of costs to this. One, it’s emotional and psychological. And I don’t even know if that’s the right word for it, but at work I feel like everyone looks at me differently, treats me differently. No one even confronts me about it. And I didn’t even take it back to my office and show anyone until the charges were dropped, because I was so afraid that they wouldn’t believe me because they probably wouldn’t. Law enforcement’s never wrong. So it’s cost me… For me personally, there’s no amount of money that I could say because that’s my reputation and my livelihood and it’s my work.

It’s cost my daughter her graduation with her peers, her friends. She honestly just totally withdrew the whole first semester. And she wouldn’t blame it on this because kids I don’t think can correlate the dates, see how things happened, but it was so obviously that anyway. So the whole last five months of her life have been in disarray.

The tow and the actual costs were about probably $1,200 in the end when the four or five days without the car. So in October I was like, “I don’t know why I am feeling so stressed and I can’t seem to focus at work and all of this stuff.” And so then I started seeing a therapist, CJ went back into therapy and Jacob started seeing a chiropractor and all of that. There’s all of those things too.

Taya Graham:

When we were talking earlier, your request from the police was just so small. You just said it would be fair for your family to be reimbursed for the money you lost due to your car being impounded, but honestly, I think you deserve an apology from the department. What would you want to say to the officers if you knew they were listening to you right now and what would you want from the department?

Jennifer Kretschman:

I would want to tell them that when they went into law enforcement, their goal was to truly protect their community and serve their community, then they were not meeting their goals. I would want them to think about if it were their mother or their daughter or their sister or their brother, that was just coming home from school, drinking a mango smoothie and to be attacked and harassed by a group of men. My daughter had a gun pointed at her head and so did my fiance. It’s like they had real life guns that could kill them pointed at their heads. I don’t know the fear that that brings because that hasn’t happened to me, but I can imagine that they will never feel safe again, especially because these are the people that are supposed to be protecting you. So it would’ve been better if they weren’t law enforcement and they were a gang because at least we would be able to feel safe in our community afterwards.

Taya Graham:

We noticed that the police picked up a voter ID card in the body camera footage. And what is such a coincidence to me is that when people are arrested or harassed by police, they lose their political efficacy and they feel like they don’t have any impact on government and their voice doesn’t matter, and so they stop participating. And it’s actually something I wanted to discuss.

Jennifer Kretschman:

This is the first time I haven’t voted. What does it matter anyways? That’s literally how I feel now. I used to be so one-sided and now I just don’t even care. And I’m not to say anything against all the work that you guys do, I know that… And that’s why I’m putting this out there. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of me or my family, things have to change. They just treated us like we were trash. And I don’t know, like we were criminals, but I don’t even think criminals should be treated that way. We’re just all human beings trying to get by in this world, but these are not the people I want protecting my community. That’s all I can say.

Taya Graham:

Now, I have so many thoughts on the actions of police that we just dissected for you, I barely know where to start. It is so hard to really put into words how troubling it is to witness police perpetuate this injustice against two innocent people. But since it’s part of my job and the promise we make at the beginning of the show to do so, I’m going to try.

So the first point I want to make is fairly straightforward. There is no explanation or excuse for what we just watched on the body worn camera. There is no justification that law enforcement can conjure to burst out of a car with guns drawn in plain clothes to terrify this family. So let’s just dispense with any pretext or police propaganda for the moment.

What I really want to parse here has nothing to do with weighing the police explanation versus the extensive interviews and reporting on this story. Instead, I want to talk about the idea of cruelty. Now, I know that sounds odd. What does the concept of cruelty have to do with a flawed, if not illegal, traffic stop? I mean Taya, this isn’t a philosophy class. Well, let me explain. When I watched these videos and spoke to the family, I was struck by how casually these officers deflected the concerns about their lawlessness, their disregard for how disruptive their actions were for the people on the receiving end was just stunning. But what hits me even harder is the outright contempt the cops had for the people in that car, that even after they had screwed up, they continued to double down and became, for lack of a better word, meaner. Simply put, they became cruel.

It was a glimpse into a reality we all know about. But it was so stark and transparent that it left me with another alarming concern. That this example of overly aggressive policing, so easily dismissed by the people who execute it, is as much a threat to our way of life as the crime it purports to stop. Just consider the words of Jennifer, our guest, when she said, “We’re all human beings trying to get by in this world.” It’s an important sentiment echoed by the 19th century German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, who wrote a book called Human, All Too Human. It’s a collection of aphorisms that touches on all aspects of simply being human. And in it is a quote that I think is applicable to the ordeal we have reported on today. Nietzsche wrote, “The mother of excess is not joy, but joylessness.”

And that’s what we witnessed on the body worn camera, the excessive use of police power and the joylessness that ensues from it. The trauma, the economic harm, the psychological duress are all the result of excess law enforcement. The fear, the terror, the civic paralysis rooted in the act of police overreach. It’s a collection of social ills, so disturbing, that I think the question actually is, do we really understand how this aggressive form of law enforcement affects us in ways both less obvious and sometimes completely unacknowledged? Because while I don’t truly know how effective or even useful this style of policing is, I do know it is clearly and unequivocally dehumanizing. It is, put simply, not an instrument of justice or process of public safety, but a strategy to turn citizens of a democracy into supplicants of a police-driven autocracy. That’s right, because any civil society where police can do that to innocent people is simply not as free or as fair as advertised.

Now, don’t get me wrong, we live in a democracy. Our voices matter. Our rights matter. What we do matters. But democracy is fragile and it can easily be eroded by bad actors who don’t respect its principles or believe in its importance. Therefore, all I can conclude from what I’ve watched, is that these officers could care less about it. They seem to me completely devoid of respect for the law, comprehension of the constitution, and more importantly, why it all matters. And even more troubling is that they are the agents of excess that drain our lives of the joys of freedom. They simply seem disconnected from the truisms and the beliefs that tie us all together, our humanity. They seem to believe that the law is predicated upon vengeance, violence and cruelty, not the idea that we are all presumed innocent. It’s a tool to harass, terrorize or otherwise menace people that you don’t like, instead of a shared set of rules that govern all our lives. Not negotiable boundaries that can be crossed just because you have a gun and a badge. That’s not how this social contract is supposed to work.

I know this is strong language, but watching those cops is like seeing a collection of fascists within our midst. Not law enforcement officers, but rather inequality warriors who only want to divide us, cage us, enrage us and conquer us. And as our guest told us, she was so shocked and demoralized by the behavior, she didn’t even vote. Now, how’s that for backing the blue?

But at the same time, we should also take another lesson from this disheartening example of police abuse. We must remember that we have the tools to fight back against this roving oppression. We, the people, can counter the cops who think by illegally putting us in handcuffs, they have defeated us. Well, let me be clear. They have not, they cannot, they will not. And how do I know? Because I am here telling you this story. Because even if these officers feel they can freely violate the Fourth Amendment, there is still a First Amendment that stands in defiance of them. And it lives here on this show and on this channel, and it lives in Stephen and it lives in me, and it’s in our hearts and our minds that we are determined to use it to inform you. We can ensure that the actions of these officers are not kept secret from the public. We can produce this show, highlight the evidence, expose the wrongdoing, and otherwise inform the people who matter; you, our viewers, our community, the people who believe our rights matter.

I know all of this might seem underwhelming when pushing back against men with guns and badges and a decidedly bad attitude. Maybe that the power of the pen might seem somewhat insignificant against the cowardly bravado of four plainclothes cops in a tinted SUV, but don’t underestimate that power. As one of the people who wrote the Constitution intended to preserve our rights noted, the pen is indeed mightier, and let’s show the powers that be how that works.

I want to thank Jennifer for coming forward and bravely sharing her experience with us. Thank you, Jennifer. I wish you, Jacob and CJ the very best in receiving the apology your family deserves. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you Stephen. And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you Noli D. And a very special thank you to our Accountability Reports Patreons, we appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R, David K, Louis P, Lucida Garcia, and our super fans, Shane B, Kenneth, K, Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly at tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment, I do read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have our Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountabilityreports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Jose Palomares, an off-duty cop, was moonlighting as a security guard at a homeless services center in Fort Worth when a dispute arose over $20. Officer Palomares chose to intervene—immediately accusing the man who believed he’d had $20 stolen from him of being a drug dealer. After calling in the drug dogs and conducting an illegal search, Palomares failed to find sufficient drugs to justify his accusation. Instead of letting the man go, Palomares then decided to pressure his arrestee into becoming an informant. Police Accountability Report discusses the shocking footage and what it tells us about the ways police wield their power against the poor.

Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you, not telling you, why police need to be watched, because the shocking video you are seeing now reveals how police abuse their power to harass the poor, and when confronted about their overreach, turn to arrest to shut down dissent.

It even depicts how police can turn the power of law enforcement to recruit the downtrodden into a weapon against others. All of this we will break down for you of this harrowing encounter caught on body worn camera, but before we get started, I want you to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com, or reach out to me directly on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you, and please like share and comment on our videos.

It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests, and of course you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there, and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. And of course, we have a Patreon Accountability Report. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, I’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, quite often when we receive body camera footage from a viewer, it depicts a dynamic that is overlooked by both the mainstream media and even some body camera channels that simply post it without comments.

And that is the pernicious power imbalance between cops and the rest of us, an expansive sense of their influence over our lives that cops often display in seemingly routine encounters that is not fully understood and requires more examination. And no arrest embodies this idea more than the body camera footage I’m showing you right now. It depicts a cop hired by a community center detaining a man after a dispute over $20, but it also shows how police can quash dissent through an illegal arrest, coerce the impoverished to become a carceral tool, and deploy unlimited resources against the powerless to further the reach of the law enforcement industrial complex with often destructive consequences.

This story starts in Fort Worth, Texas in June of 2022. There, an off-duty Fort Worth cop named Jose Palomares was moonlighting for a Texas mission, a provider of services for homeless people when a dispute erupted over $20. That’s right, 20 bucks. The officer who cited drug use at the facility for his subsequent actions decided to turn the conflict into an opportunity, detaining the man accused of wanting his money back and trying to force him to consent to a search. Let’s watch.

Officer Palomares:

So, basically I’ve just been informed that you’re the local drug dealer up here in Dillon Doe.

Speaker 3:

No, I’m not.

Officer Palomares:

So, it doesn’t matter what you tell me. I’m going to do my job, okay?

Speaker 3:

Am I being arrested?

Officer Palomares:

No, not right now.

Speaker 3:

I haven’t done anything.

Officer Palomares:

So now, do you have any drugs on you?

Speaker 3:

No.

Officer Palomares:

Okay.

Speaker 3:

I just come down here to get my mail at the [inaudible 00:03:18].

Officer Palomares:

So again-

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:03:20].

Officer Palomares:

I don’t think you’re listening to me. You can tell me you ain’t got nothing all day long, but now I’ve already had… And I already know that you’re the guy for selling drugs and methamphetamines and we don’t tolerate that.

Speaker 3:

I am not. I don’t even do that.

Officer Palomares:

So, it doesn’t matter what you tell me, sir. I’m just letting you know what I know.

Taya Graham:

Now, I want you to remember what the cop says at this point for reference later. He states, “I already know you’re selling meth or a drug dealer.” He doesn’t provide evidence or actual proof. He merely makes the declaration to coerce the person he detained into relinquishing his constitutional rights, a push he continues to make without evidence. Take another look.

Officer Palomares:

And I’m going to get a drug dog to come up here and check, okay? Just so you know. All right, so I’m going to do my job. I’m going to check.

Speaker 3:

I haven’t done anything, sir.

Officer Palomares:

Okay. All right, sir. Are you on probation or parole?

Speaker 3:

No.

Officer Palomares:

Do you have any warrants?

Speaker 4:

[inaudible 00:04:13].

Speaker 3:

I’m clean. I haven’t done anything, sir.

Speaker 4:

[inaudible 00:04:18].

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:04:19] he stole $20 from me. He’s going to say anything.

Taya Graham:

Now, the person in question does not give in. So, the officer ups the stakes, using a casual movement as a pretext for creating what I would best call a narrative of escalation. What that means is because the man is refusing the search, the officer overstates the facts to force compliance. Watch.

Officer Palomares:

Robert 336. Have a seat. Sit your butt down.

Speaker 3:

I was going to show you here what I got.

Speaker 5:

[inaudible 00:04:44].

Speaker 3:

I haven’t done anything, sir.

Officer Palomares:

I don’t care what you say.

Speaker 5:

[inaudible 00:04:48].

Officer Palomares:

What are you trying to get up for when I ask you to sit down?

Speaker 3:

I was going to show you, because [inaudible 00:04:53]-

Officer Palomares:

I don’t trust you, sir. No, you’re not going to stand up and try to fight me and take off running and try to hurt me and hurt yourself. I don’t know you. I don’t know you, sir.

Speaker 3:

I’ve never caused any problems [inaudible 00:05:00]-

Officer Palomares:

And I’ve asked you to have a seat. Why? For your safety and for my safety.

Taya Graham:

Now, one fact worth highlighting at this point of the encounter is the faulty premise of this officer’s fact finding. At this point, the officer can cite no direct evidence that the man was stealing. There’s also no evidence that he committed an assault, just an alleged threat. There are no injuries, no witnesses to an assault, no witnesses have seen the man sell a single gram of meth. But still, listening to the officer, you would think he already had an airtight case, which is why his next move is even more troubling. He threatens the man with a drug-sniffing dog.

Officer Palomares:

Well, you’re up for dealing narcotics, that is not going to be tolerated.

Speaker 3:

I’m not. I haven’t done [inaudible 00:05:37]-

Officer Palomares:

That’s okay, I got a drug dog coming. That’s okay. I’m going to have a drug dog coming. So, I’ve already asked for your permission to let me check. You said no, we’re going to go another route. That’s all there is to it.

Speaker 3:

You can search me fine, but the thing is, I don’t understand why. Tell me the reason why.

Officer Palomares:

Are you going to tell me why when I just told you why?

Speaker 3:

That’s not a reason. I haven’t done anything. That’s going on [inaudible 00:05:58]-

Officer Palomares:

I just told you why. So, what part of why-

Speaker 3:

What makes you [inaudible 00:06:01]-

Officer Palomares:

Okay, you ask me one more time and I’m going to tell you the same thing. Ask me why again. Why? Because somebody says you’re dealing drugs out here, that’s why.

Taya Graham:

So, I want to point out something here that does warrant more attention, a fact that will become more disturbing as this video unfolds. Simply put, the amount of time and resources dedicated to an incident that was neither violent, nor a truly brazen crime is stunning. In fact, crime statistics show for example, in just three months in 2024, Fort Worth had over 900 burglaries and 18 homicides, serious crimes that should be the focus of police attention, but that constant jump rate of crime fails to halt the officer’s apparent need to find a way to put this man in jail. Efforts that include, let’s say exaggerating the facts to make his case. Check it out.

Speaker 5:

10-4, item 217 is running code. Do you need him to continue code?

Officer Palomares:

No, ma’am. You can have him reduce. He sat back down and he was just trying to take off on me and call for help. Dealing drugs is illegal. Do you not understand that?

Speaker 3:

I’m not dealing any drugs.

Officer Palomares:

So, somebody tells me you’re dealing drugs, I have to come and investigate.

Speaker 3:

He wasn’t standing there talking to me [inaudible 00:07:02]-

Officer Palomares:

Sir, what are you doing? Sir, what are you doing? You’re not making any sense. You’re not making any sense whatsoever.

Speaker 3:

This guy’s here. [inaudible 00:07:10]-

Officer Palomares:

It doesn’t matter what you say, sir. It doesn’t matter.

Speaker 3:

Why?

Officer Palomares:

It doesn’t matter what you say.

Speaker 3:

Why?

Officer Palomares:

I’m going to do my job.

Speaker 3:

I didn’t do anything.

Officer Palomares:

You’re just getting aggressive with me, that’s all you’re doing.

Speaker 3:

No, I’m not.

Officer Palomares:

Yeah, you are.

Speaker 3:

I have not gotten aggressive with you [inaudible 00:07:21]-

Taya Graham:

Seriously? Did the man who’s been sitting against the wall try to take off? Is the officer so unsure of his case that he had to stretch the facts? But now the second officer decides to join in and escalate the efforts to smear the detainee by accusing him of having, wait for it, having cold beer. Take a look.

Officer Palomares:

He’s a local drug dealer over here, apparently. He sells meth.

Speaker 3:

I’m not a drug dealer.

Officer Palomares:

He’s got meth on him. He don’t want anybody to check his stuff.

Speaker 3:

The guy owes $20.

Officer Palomares:

So, I want a K-9 to come up here. We’ve been having a problem with meth up here.

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:07:49] drug dealer.

Officer Palomares:

Say again?

Speaker 6:

Did you already find something?

Officer Palomares:

No, but he’s got it right here… Dude, they’ve already dimed him out inside that he’s out here.

Speaker 3:

One guy.

Officer Palomares:

Sir, close your mouth. Sir, close your mouth. So, apparently he’s threatened one guy [inaudible 00:08:01]-

Speaker 6:

It’s too early for beer, too.

Officer Palomares:

So, there was a guy that he just threatened-

Speaker 6:

It’s too early for that.

Speaker 3:

I just come over here and eat breakfast, that’s all. What did he tell you?

Officer Palomares:

Hey, ma’am, this is Robert 336. Do you have a K-9 available that can make my location?

Speaker 5:

Can I get a visual [inaudible 00:08:14]?

Officer Palomares:

Yes, ma’am, drug dog.

Speaker 3:

But there’s no reason to call a dog, that’s crazy.

Officer Palomares:

Sir, yes there is. You’re not going to tell me what I’m not going to do, sir.

Speaker 3:

I’m not trying to tell you, but I’m just saying [inaudible 00:08:24]-

Officer Palomares:

If you take off and get off running-

Speaker 3:

It’s not going to be-

Officer Palomares:

You’re going to be evading detention. You’re going to be arrested.

Speaker 3:

I’m not running.

Taya Graham:

Just a note, drug-sniffing dogs are notoriously inaccurate. Statistical analysis puts their accuracy rate somewhere between 40 and 60%, an error that would give pause to anyone subject to it, especially because if the dog makes a mistake, you may have to go to jail and wait for your day in court to prove your innocence. Still, at this point, the officer’s inability to intimidate the man into consenting to a search boiled over. That’s because despite his outwardly calm demeanor, the officer again paints a decidedly false picture, just watch.

Officer Palomares:

Okay, I’m having them get ahold of a drug dog. So yeah, he’s putting up a fight. I’m going to get that guy’s information real fast.

Speaker 6:

Okay.

Officer Palomares:

So if he tries to take off, just hit me on the radio, and I’ll run out here real quick, because he already tried that once already apparently.

Taya Graham:

Now, this is a point where things get really interesting. That’s because without the benefit of due process, the officer has the man criminally trespassed, meaning he cannot enter or be near the premises again, a move that seemingly makes the officer angry.

Speaker 5:

I’m on my way.

Officer Palomares:

So, Dora’s going to come out here and advise you that you can’t come up anymore. So, you’re going to be criminally trespassed.

Speaker 3:

What? I didn’t do anything.

Officer Palomares:

And you’re still detained, and I got a drug dog coming up here.

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:09:45].

Officer Palomares:

If I were you, the second you try to get up and be slick, and so if I were you, don’t-

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:09:50].

Officer Palomares:

Listen to me very carefully, sir, because ain’t nobody playing games with you.

Speaker 3:

Why are you yelling at me?

Officer Palomares:

Because you’re interrupting me and talking over me, that’s why I have to get louder with you, because you don’t listen very well. At this point, if you take off, jump up, take off running, and fight, you will have additional charges. Do you understand me sir?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I haven’t [inaudible 00:10:08]-

Officer Palomares:

Okay, so if you take off, it will be evading detention.

Speaker 3:

I haven’t even tried [inaudible 00:10:11]-

Officer Palomares:

I just want to be clear with you. I’m being very clear with you since the time we started talking. I’m not playing any games with you. I’ve been very direct with you and very straight-up with you.

Speaker 3:

Why are you yelling?

Officer Palomares:

The only one playing games is you.

Speaker 3:

I didn’t do anything.

Officer Palomares:

And doing illegal activity, sir.

Speaker 3:

I didn’t do any illegal activity.

Officer Palomares:

It doesn’t matter, sir. I got a drug dog coming up here. We have the right to do that. The police has the right to investigate. That’s what we do.

Taya Graham:

Then, something unexpected happens, an incident that perhaps is more revealing than it would seem on the surface. A cop watcher arrives, specifically Manuel Mata. And in this case, not just a cop watcher, but an independent observer, someone who turns the focus around onto the police and puts them under scrutiny for their actions. Mind you, not with a drug dog or threat of arrest, but with a simple cell phone camera. Take a look and notice how police respond when the spotlight turns on them.

Officer Palomares:

Sir, we got a guy with drugs here, sir. Sir, you cannot be here in the spot. You can record over there. Sir, you got to record over there.

Manuel Mata:

What’s your name and your badge number?

Officer Palomares:

Sir, you’re going to be arrested for interfering.

Manuel Mata:

What is your name and your badge number? If you touch me, you will lose qualified immunity. I’m on the public sidewalk.

Officer Palomares:

Stand on that side over there, sir.

Manuel Mata:

No, I don’t have to.

Officer Palomares:

So, you’re interfering.

Manuel Mata:

No. Call your supervisor. If you’re going to put your hands on me, call your supervisor, because this is the sidewalk.

Officer Palomares:

I’ve already asked you to move.

Manuel Mata:

Nah, I’m not trying to hear that. You have to understand people’s rights.

Officer Palomares:

I’ve already asked you to move, sir.

Manuel Mata:

Nah, go ahead, do your thing.

Officer Palomares:

I’ve already asked you to move.

Manuel Mata:

Call your supervisor.

Officer Palomares:

I’ve already asked you to move.

Manuel Mata:

Call your supervisor. I don’t listen to unlawful and illegal orders.

Officer Palomares:

You’re going to step over here-

Manuel Mata:

Call your supervisor. You just threatened me with arrest.

Officer Palomares:

Sir, you cannot step over here.

Manuel Mata:

No, call your supervisor.

Officer Palomares:

Put your hands behind your back.

Manuel Mata:

No, don’t touch me.

Officer Palomares:

Put your hands behind your back.

Manuel Mata:

Don’t touch me.

Officer Palomares:

Put your hands behind your back. Put your hands [inaudible 00:11:53]-

Manuel Mata:

[inaudible 00:11:53].

Officer Palomares:

Put your hands behind back.

Manuel Mata:

Go ahead.

Officer Palomares:

I got to stop doing what I’m doing, because you’re interfering, you’re going to be handcuffed.

Manuel Mata:

I’m First Amendment protected [inaudible 00:12:02]-

Officer Palomares:

I understand that, you can record, but if I have to stop to do what I’m doing-

Manuel Mata:

Call supervisor.

Officer Palomares:

… To take care of you.

Manuel Mata:

Call your supervisor.

Officer Palomares:

Come over and have a seat.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not sitting down nowhere.

Taya Graham:

That’s right, the cops respond with an arrest, never mind that Mata was exercising his First Amendment rights by holding the officers accountable for their actions and forget that Mata was documenting their use or possibly abuse of power by trying to coerce a man to give up his constitutional rights. No, Mata’s camera was the real problem. Forget about the ineffective use of law enforcement powers, and boy, do these cops punish him again, falsifying the circumstances in real-time to threaten Mata, just watch.

Manuel Mata:

Don’t worry, man. I’m not moving nowhere, man. You’re hurting my fucking hand, dog.

Officer Palomares:

Stop pulling away from me, sir.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not. I am not pulling away.

Officer Palomares:

Stop pulling away from pulling away from me.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not, stop lying.

Officer Palomares:

Stop escalating-

Manuel Mata:

Stop lying, I’m not escalating.

Officer Palomares:

Stop escalating.

Manuel Mata:

The only one who escalated anything was you.

Officer Palomares:

Stop escalating.

Manuel Mata:

You escalated everything by putting your hands on me [inaudible 00:13:03]-

Officer Palomares:

Stop fighting.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not fighting.

Officer Palomares:

Stop fighting.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not fighting, dude.

Officer Palomares:

Stop fighting.

Manuel Mata:

Stop being aggressive.

Officer Palomares:

Stop fighting.

Manuel Mata:

Stop being aggressive. I’m sitting right here on the floor where you illegally threw me on the ground. I’m not violent, I’m not aggressive, that’s you. You’re the one that’s aggressive and violent. You’re the one that doesn’t understand the law. You did it based on your feelings and your camera… Stop doing that with my hands.

Officer Palomares:

Stop fighting, sir.

Manuel Mata:

I’m not moving.

Officer Palomares:

Stop pulling away.

Manuel Mata:

Stop hurting my hands. And this officer that failed to render me aid, you’re all wrong. Hey, can you get this motherfucker off me, man? What is he doing? I need you all supervisor right now.

Officer Palomares:

I got a narcotics investigation going on.

Manuel Mata:

I need your supervisor right now.

Officer Palomares:

So, he’s trying to interfere.

Manuel Mata:

No, I’m not.

Officer Palomares:

[inaudible 00:13:51].

Manuel Mata:

It’s not illegal to film you, dog.

Officer Palomares:

He’s going to keep yelling.

Manuel Mata:

And I need the ambulance.

Speaker 8:

I know [inaudible 00:13:55].

Officer Palomares:

I appreciate that.

Manuel Mata:

I need the ambulance.

Taya Graham:

And now, finally after all of these protracted efforts to get this man to consent to a search, including the threat of a possibly inaccurate drug-sniffing dog, arrest, criminal trespassing, unsustained accusations of drug dealing, and violence, the arrest of a cop watcher, and some would say violent use of force, after all of this, what are the results? What is the outcome of this extensive and protracted investigation? What finally happens? Well, simply put, nothing. Nothing at all. And you just take a listen if you don’t believe me.

Officer Palomares:

The front door Ring, they added that Ring. They added cameras all around, just this side doesn’t have one. I’m going to tell her to add one here.

Speaker 9:

It’s maybe a gram.

Officer Palomares:

Okay.

Speaker 9:

And that’s like personal use. I don’t think he’s… He might be splitting his personal use with somebody, but I doubt he’s dealing it out. What we’re probably going to do is we’re going to suspect case him, see if it’s going to work a little bit.

Officer Palomares:

Cool, yeah.

Speaker 9:

[inaudible 00:14:55] cut the warrant, he’ll get a possession case after that, but he probably has some good information about what’s going on. He just didn’t want talk in front of everybody.

Officer Palomares:

Whatever you all can do, I appreciate it, man.

Speaker 9:

So, what we do need to probably do is [inaudible 00:15:07] transporting him to jail, but take him over to the [inaudible 00:15:12] sector and we’ll try and do an interview with him out there.

Officer Palomares:

Okay, I appreciate you. Thank you.

Taya Graham:

That’s right, the alleged drug dealer does not have enough in his possession to actually deal. So, instead of charging him for being a drug dealer, the cops resort to taking him to the station as if he were under arrest to try to glean some more information from him about, you guessed it, drug dealing. In other words, convert him to a criminal informant. And for the record, creating a criminal informant is a very unregulated and opaque process, and becoming one is an incredibly dangerous occupation to be forced into. If you want to learn more, start by researching Rachel’s Law.

But there is so much more to this story than a failed attempt to turn a small-time drug user into a criminal informant, behind the scenes details that turn this case of bad policing into an example of law enforcement malfeasance. And for more on that, I will be talking to cop watcher Manuel Mata, who was arrested at the scene and has been fighting the case ever since, but first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been reaching out to police for comment and investigating the details of the case and the circumstances surrounding it. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So, what are Fort Worth Police saying about the arrest of Mata and the detention of the man for suspicion of drug dealing?

Stephen Janis:

Well, they’re not saying much to us. We sent an email with a couple of questions. One being, how do they approach cop watchers? How do they approach major drug investigations? Although, we did overhear on the body camera that there’s a lot of talk about cop watchers. There’s audio that we did not put in this particular show about how they were aware of Mata, how they’re aware of other cop watchers, how they’re like, “I can deal with it,” and how they talked about in roll call of ways of suppressing cop watching. So, very disturbing that First Amendment activists are on police radar in such a significant way.

Taya Graham:

Now, this community shelter provides food and household items for people who are unhoused. What can you tell me about it and why were they hiring police officers?

Stephen Janis:

Well, this is exactly what we talk about in the show all the time, using police to solve complex social problems, which is a result of massive inequality. People there are unhoused, they have drug addiction problems, they have all the problems that come along with being impoverished in this country. And yet, what do they do? They hire a police officer. I think it’s an antithetical to the cause of helping people overcome these problems rather than arresting them. As we can see in this case, that’s exactly what occurred.

Taya Graham:

This prolonged investigation and subsequent arrest by police are symbolic of the concept, you have termed, blanket criminality. Can you talk about that idea and how it applies here?

Stephen Janis:

Well, as you see, this investigation took multiple officers, took an hour, they tried to call a drug-sniffing dog. They made every effort they could to criminalize the behavior of a single person and then spread it out through the community by involving other people in this. So, really it was like saying, “This whole place is a crime scene and we’re going to sit there and kind of work through it with our police. More police are going to show up, more cop cars. We’re going to arrest a cop watcher, we’re going to detain a man, then take him down to the station for no reason and try to get him to become a criminal informant.” What could be a better example of the criminalization of working class people? It’s why this country has the problems it has, and it’s why police are the worst answer or antidote to this kind of problem, Taya.

Taya Graham:

And now to talk about his arrest, the events leading up to it, and what he has learned since, I’m joined by Manuel Mata himself. Manuel, thank you so much for joining us again. We appreciate it.

Manuel Mata:

Thank you. I’m glad to be here again, to bring you another story of corrupt officials.

Taya Graham:

So, can you describe for us the officer’s interaction with him before you arrived? It seems like the man was detained for nearly 50 minutes. Can you describe a little bit of that interaction at the very beginning?

Manuel Mata:

Yeah, well, when I pulled up, I actually seen a police officer, to me it looked like harassing two people at a shelter. So when I pulled up, I didn’t know what was going on, and I didn’t ask them. I just wanted to film. So, it turns out that the guy in the blue shirt was the one that the cop decided was the drug dealer, which he wasn’t, and the debt wasn’t over drugs. He owed him 20 bucks, because he let him borrow it to buy cigarettes and food. So, that’s what he asked him for it. The actual drug dealer was right next to him. And as soon as the cop comes, he tells the drug dealer to leave. So, that’s what I walked up on and they were trying to search his stuff and I never got to see how it ended, only in body camera in trial.

Taya Graham:

So, although the man said he was getting his mail at the mission and just asking for the $20 owed him, Officer Palomares questioned him and insisted he was going to bring a K-9 to sniff him. And the man said, “You know there’s no probable cause. I haven’t done anything wrong.” And the officer said, “I don’t care. Someone told me you’re a drug dealer, sit down, and show me your pockets.” Now, I know you’re not a lawyer, but when you look at this interaction, what do you see? How do you see his rights being violated?

Manuel Mata:

Yeah, and being detained. And see, I didn’t know how long he was sitting there, because to me, I just saw it. I didn’t know the total extent until I got the actual body camera. He had him detained for like 40, 45 minutes, almost an hour before I even got there. So, to me it looked like he was being held against his will. That’s what it looked like to me. And he kept telling him, “Hey, sir, this, that.” And he kept telling him…

Because when I pulled up, he was telling him, “You can search me, but not my stuff.” And then that’s when it all went sideways, when I stood right there, because to me how it seems is like if you don’t want to pay someone, just call the cops, and they’ll take care of it for you. That’s what it looked like to me, because the actual drug dealer, he told him to leave. So, now you’re messing with a guy that the complainant states, “I did not buy drugs from him. I do not do drugs.” But then you hear the officer, “Oh, but you know he sells drugs.” And I’m like, “Wow, that’s all…” Everything looks so wrong the way the guy was looking and how the situation was, and I just tried to capture it on camera and I failed at that.

Taya Graham:

I think you’re being hard on yourself. I don’t think you failed, but one thing I noticed is that the officer says to the man, “You’re getting aggressive with me,” so I’m just going to play a little bit of the video where the officer’s talking to the man saying, “You’re being aggressive.”

Officer Palomares:

So, they dimed him out basically. So, I come in here and talk to him, “Hey, man, look, straight-up, I’m Officer Palomares, blah, blah, blah.” I said, “Why are you talking to me?” I said, “Have a seat.” He tried to get a little aggressive. I said, “Hey, look, I’m talking to you, because you’ve been identified as a guy that’s selling drugs. If you’re not, let me know who you are.” I said, “It’s not going to be tolerated.”

Taya Graham:

So, when I look at this video, and I want your opinion, does this look like aggressive behavior to you?

Manuel Mata:

How do you try to talk to one, “Hey, sir. Hey, sir,” and then just to resort to aggression, violence, and I have to control you. None of it made sense to me. I don’t understand how someone walking up… And then like the guy was, he was asserting his rights to be safe and secure in his property and papers, and it’s like the cop wasn’t trying to hear it, because in his mind, he caught a big drug dealer, and that’s all he cared about. He didn’t care about his rights or the process of criminal procedures. It just went out the window, because this officer had it in his mind that he created a good enough story, and I just totally disagreed.

Taya Graham:

Just to clarify, I want your thoughts on the accusation that this man was a drug dealer, considering that this information was provided by people in the mission who can be telling the truth, or they could have been trying to settle a personal score over owing money or they could have even been referring to a different person as a dealer. Does this concern you that someone could just point a finger at you and bring down the police on you without any evidence?

Manuel Mata:

Yes, but you know what was the most troubling to me when I saw it was the fact that them two people did not identify the man in the blue shirt as the drug dealer. The man said it was the other guy in the white shirt, same thing as the woman. She said, “It’s the other guy in the white shirt.” And even the officer afterwards, he kept trying to explain to the drug investigators, “He’s the drug dealer, and there’s another one right there with the white shirt.” So, I’m confused as to what your job and what you’re doing, because this man’s telling you, “I barely have $5 to my name. I’m on a bike.” He has a cooler and he has a BB gun for rats, because he lives outdoors. Not only that, he’s at a homeless shelter trying to get assistance. Now, that is not a drug dealer.

Taya Graham:

So, another thing that stood out to me is that the officers talk to the woman who’s running the mission, and he says to her that even if he doesn’t find drugs on him, and even if the K-9 doesn’t sniff anything, he’s still a dealer and should still be trespassed. Do you think it’s fair that this man who needs the services of a Christian mission should be denied them due to suspicion that hasn’t even been validated or adjudicated?

Manuel Mata:

No, because that’s not what those places are designed for. And then plus, this cop has no authority to trespass anyone. And what the problem is here is what was exposed in the 97-page report that was done on the Fort Worth Police Department where relationships: husband, wife, boyfriend and girlfriend. This is one of those scenarios where he is dating a woman that’s working there, and this is the constant harassment that these two do to innocent people, because all he has to say, “I don’t want him here.” The girlfriend said, “Okay, babe.” He trespassed me, and I wasn’t never on the property. I never set foot on the property. I was on the public sidewalk the whole time, and he convinced a lady to trespass me. So, this is the problem we’re facing. When you hurt someone’s feelings and you’re in a position of power, you should lose it, because you’re dealing with a people with emotions, not the law, not human decency. And basically above all, not Christian-like, because that place is funded through God’s money. So, for him not to even understand what it means to help others, not hurt them.

Taya Graham:

So, I was watching the video and about 50 minutes into this man’s detention, you arrive and you ask the officer to identify himself. He refuses and immediately says, “You’re interfering with the investigation,” and barely one minute into the conversation you were in cuffs. Were you surprised by this?

Manuel Mata:

Actually surprised, no. But kind of disappointed? Yes, because at that point I had thought I made it clear about what my intent were, because my intent is never to harass, interfere, disrupt, or impede anything. And the fact that they’re able to say that, because you’re recording and you take my attention away, which is not in the penal code, it doesn’t state, they took my attention away, and this is what is frustrating because all I’m doing is holding a camera.

Taya Graham:

So I was wondering, do you feel you were treated differently, because you’re a known cop watcher and activist, as opposed to someone else who might’ve been standing there filming? I witnessed how you were singled out at the trial of Aaron Dean while you were there supporting the family of Atatiana Jefferson. So, I’m wondering if you feel you were treated differently, and what rights of yours you feel were violated.

Manuel Mata:

Since I’ve been doing this, I know for a fact that automatically I’m going to be treated differently, looked at differently, and even it’s just a whole different vibe that I get from these officers, because during roll call, you hear them. Whenever I hear a cop say that he was mentioned at roll call, they always explain this, “He harasses and films us.” And then I’ll give you a quote from a Homeland Security report that was done on me by a South Division police officer sergeant, that they know that I film and that I go and film trying to get officers to violate my rights. So, if this is something you all are assuming, wouldn’t it be something that makes you all and not even participate in what you’re all witnessing on this video? But it doesn’t stop them, it encourages them, because they want to be the one that says, “I got him.”

Taya Graham:

So, it looks like the officer, when he’s putting his cuffs on you, it seems like you’re being thrown to the ground. I hear you saying, “Stop pulling all my hands.” And it looks like he was getting rough with you, but it’s kind of hard to see. Can you tell me what we were missing?

Manuel Mata:

See, what happened was he wanted me to sit down and I told him, “No, I’m not going to. We’re just going to stand here, whatever.” And he stated that I was getting aggressive with him by telling him, “No, we’re just going to stand right here.” I never pulled away from him, I never ran, I never did anything. And when he grabbed me by my shoulder, he yanked me down and he literally pulled me off of my feet and I landed butt first on the ground, and then that’s why I told him, I’m going to stand back up. See? And what made me mad is the officer that’s on duty turned around, so it wouldn’t be caught what he just did to me on his body camera. And if you look behind him, that’s what you’re going to see. He’s turned around to the guy in front of him the whole time.

Taya Graham:

I believe I hear you request medical, but I know you were taken to the jail instead. Can you tell me how you were treated and if you received any medical treatments?

Manuel Mata:

Yeah, because the whole thing was that whenever he threw me on the ground, he kept doing this. You know how the two cuffs are like this and it has them two little links right here? Well, he was grabbing it right there and doing this. And if you have noticed, my hands are already messed up. So, this whole thing was swollen after… And I told him, “I need medical.” And they were trying to put me in a car. I wasn’t resisting the transport, because they weren’t taking me nowhere. They had to wait for the ambulance to get there and check me. And then when he did, he said, “He’s cleared to go to jail.” When I get to jail, when they take the handcuffs off, my hand is so swollen that I tell the guard, “Look at my stuff.” And they’re like, “What?” So, they take pictures and they send me to the hospital. I go to the hospital, I get treated. They say something about break of skin. I don’t remember what it was, because I didn’t get it.

Taya Graham:

Now, I have to ask you this, but it’s because I know there are going to be some people who will say, you were provocative, you used foul language, and you raised your voice with the officer, and maybe they’ll say that they feel that you were being aggressive or that you were trying to provoke them. How would you respond to someone who would say that?

Manuel Mata:

It is not only our right, it is our obligation to check and balance when someone steps out of their box of control. Now, they used force, they used violence to gain control. I used my words and the tone of my voice to do the same and it’s protected. And second part, if they’re trained to deal with high stressful situations where guns are being pointed at them, a car is flying at them, you mean to tell me that you all passed that type of training where it doesn’t break a sweat to where you all can say me saying a bad word, vulgar, raw, loud is enough to make you all come out of you all skin?

Something’s not adding up right. So to me, why not? Why not cuss at them? Because to me, I’ve been in an environment where I couldn’t let these people disrespect me, because I wouldn’t be able to live in this environment. The way I do it now is like I’m punching them with words. I’m defending myself with the right to say this and that, and I remind them, Houston v. Hill, Glik v. Cummings, Turner v. Driver, all of these cases involve speech that is protected and the most protected speech isn’t favorable. It’s the one that makes people mad and upset. It creates tension.

Taya Graham:

So, I saw there was a conversation between two officers who had conflicting statements on the amount of illegal substances found on the man. One officer said he saw roughly over a gram, maybe just enough for personal use, and then the other officer speaks to the woman and said he had enough for over 100 hits on him? What are these conflicting statements? What am I even seeing here?

Manuel Mata:

See, what happened is the Palomares thinks he’s a drug investigator. So when the real ones get there, they’re not understanding why they were even called in the first place, because they know an addict, they know a buyer when they see one. So they’re left with, okay, this is their only choice, because he’s not a drug dealer. “Why don’t you go ahead and tell us who you bought the product from? Help us help you. You don’t have to just help us. Help you by telling us where you purchased your product from.” And that’s what the man agreed to, because he did not want to go to jail. It was easier for him to tell on someone than go to jail, and that’s exactly what happened, because when the real investigators show up, the real detectives, they seen that this was straight garbage.

Taya Graham:

But something I noticed and really wanted to pay attention to is I heard an officer not in uniform say, “Let’s just make it look like you’re arresting him, that he might get possession, and then we’re going to take him and see if we can get some information out of him.” So, it looks to me like they were trying to turn him into an informant and they were cutting him off from resources where he could get help at the same time, so basically cutting him off from resources and possibly his freedom. This seems to me like targeting a vulnerable person to become a CI. What do you think?

Manuel Mata:

That’s exactly what happened, because they knew that this guy was just a regular street person, and majority of those don’t want to be in jail, so it’s easier to manipulate and influence him to tell. And sad to say, that’s exactly what happened here. They put him in a car, they drove him down the street to where the police station was on Hempfield and Magnolia, and they let him out. And the cops, while they’re letting him out, they’re like, “You’re just going to go in here and talk to these detectives. You don’t have to tell them nothing, but to help yourself, just go ahead and tell them.”

Taya Graham:

So, what were your charges? From my understanding, just last week you were supposed to report for 180 days in jail. Can you tell me what you were charged with and what you’re facing and what happened?

Manuel Mata:

Well, I got charged with interfering with public duties and resisting arrest. Not only was I charged, I went to trial and I was found guilty on both of those cases, and I received 180 days and I appealed it. And yes, yesterday I was supposed to turn myself in and the strangest thing happened. I did not have a warrant to turn myself in. What happened is I was given a court date for another sentencing hearing. Now, I don’t know what’s going on, and I don’t know what’s going to happen, but all I do know is I don’t care because I know one thing, when I chose to believe in something stronger than myself, I don’t need to be afraid. I don’t need to be worried. I don’t need to understand evil people anymore, because I know two things. This too shall pass and lean not on my own under understanding. Those two things I keep to my heart, and I remember this is selfless, so I can’t lose. The only I’m doing is I’ve made the world notice Fort Worth Police Department and their awful, awful tactics and their culture of torture. That’s it.

Taya Graham:

Okay, let’s take a second to break down what we just saw and examine it through the prism of a concept that I think does not get the attention it deserves, namely the ever expansive and destructive growth of police power in the service of some nebulous notion that if we consent to it, we’ll all be safer. Well, I, for one, am skeptical, and there is plenty of evidence to prove that that skepticism is warranted. First, it’s important to note that many categories of crime have gone down this year, especially some of the most violent and serious crimes, which have fallen since they rose dramatically during the pandemic. In most major cities, that has meant roughly a 20% drop in murders. In my hometown Baltimore, the drop has been even more precipitous, with homicides roughly 30% below their peak, but all of this good news came with a bit of a confounding asterisk.

It happened amid a nationwide shortage of police officers. Numerous reports have accounted how difficult it’s been for police departments to maintain staffing levels. In our hometown of Baltimore, we’re short a record 678 positions. It’s been called a crisis by the mainstream media, a shortage of officers on the street that threatens public safety, and law and order, and the future of civilization, and yet that’s not what occurred at all. Instead, we experienced one of the steepest drops in violence in recent history, all of which occurred in the timeframe when there are simply less officers on the street and fewer cops making fewer arrests. But here’s a question, how on earth could that happen? More cops equals more safety, right? More law enforcement means more law and order, right? A gun and badge are the best way to ensure that chaos and crime are kept under control, right?

According to police partisans, this drop in crime could in no way be due to the lessening of social isolation and economic stressors at the end of the pandemic. Of course not, it couldn’t be due to the revival of in-person social programs that scientists say are the most effective form of violence reduction strategies, over and above aggressive policing, never. It couldn’t be in Baltimore due to the group violence reduction strategy that tries to intervene in the lives of people most likely to commit a murder with jobs and support, rather than handcuffs and bars. Absolutely no way. It just couldn’t be any of those programs that mitigate poverty, uplift communities, and generally work with people as if they’re human beings, not human chattel to be arrested, caged, and locked away until the end of time. It’s just not possible, right? There’s only one solution to violence.

There’s only one way to get results, right? Give cops more power, give them more guns, form more SWAT teams and specialized units, and discard those pesky constitutional rights that keep on getting in the way of effective crime fighting. That’s what we should do if we want to stay safe, correct? And of course, despite relinquishing our constitutional rights, police will treat us fairly, protect the innocent, and not steal from us, right? Oh, okay, that last statement might’ve gone a bit too far, but just consider a recent decision by our illustrious Supreme Court, which seems to relish in retracting our rights, not expanding them. The court was asked to consider the request of two people who have been victimized by overly aggressive civil asset forfeiture, or as this article in The Nation describes it, When Cops Steal Your Stuff. The plaintiffs had asked the court to rule on a seemingly modest request that when police confiscate property, they should have a prompt hearing on if the seizure was legal.

Now, first you have to remember that despite our Fourth Amendment protection from unwarranted searches or seizures, police in this country can pretty much take our property, even if we’re not criminally charged. And worse yet, if you want that property back, you have to file a civil suit and prove that it doesn’t belong to the police in the first place. That question came to a head before the highest court in the land when it was asked to consider the petition of two plaintiffs who had lost their automobiles to police, both had never been accused of a crime. Instead, a person who was caught with drugs in both cases had borrowed their cars, which police subsequently seized. To get their property back, the burden was on the plaintiffs. They had to file civil cases and argue the seizures were unwarranted. They wanted the courts to instead require police departments to have a preliminary hearing to justify the taking of property.

But in a 6-3 decision, the court said no. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor noted that 80% of asset forfeiture cases are civil, meaning they are not directly tied to a criminal case. This means that most property seized by police is not linked to direct criminal behavior, but rather is simply proximate to a crime, like the aforementioned case I just recounted. What this means in real life is that if someone dumps a couple grams of weed on your property, in the right state, police can seize your car and other properties and make you fight to get it back. And what’s even more stunning is that it’s not even clear what connects all the seizures to the original idea used to justify it. Namely, seizing assets is supposed to deprive major criminals of the resources they need to commit more crimes. It’s an idea that was touted by police by pointing to the threat of major drug dealers.

But like most policies based on fear, it has turned into a cash machine for police departments. In the case before the Supreme Court, these kingpins had simply lent their cars to the wrong people. All the cops accomplished was depriving innocent people of using their cars for work, transporting kids, and generally taking care of themselves, and their family. But of course, the underlying premise is the same fallacy I cited at the beginning of this rant. The more power we give cops, the safer we will be. The more we relinquish our constitutional rights, the less crime will occur, or the more we diminish ourselves, the more cops will protect us. Well, let me ask you, is that what’s really happened? Are we safe because we gave up our rights? Are we more productive because police can seize our assets? Is our country happier and healthier because law enforcement has taken the Constitution and used it like old newspaper for puppy training?

Well, I don’t think so. Instead, we have a destructive, ultimately Faustian bargain that I think we all need to reconsider, because as you can see, once we give up our rights, the powers that be are determined to never give them back. And fighting to get those rights is surely history we don’t want to repeat. I want to thank Manuel Mata for speaking with us and keeping us updated on policing in Fort Worth, Texas. Thank you, Manuel. And of course, I have to thank intrepid investigative reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen. And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R. for their support. Thanks, Noli D.

And a very special thanks to our Accountability Report Patreons, we appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R., David K., Louie P., Lucida Garcia, and super friends, Shane B., Kenneth K., Pineapple Girl Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com, and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook, and please like and comment. You know I read the comments and appreciate them, and we do have the Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.

Taya Graham and Stephen Janis commemorate five years of the Police Accountability Report with this special livestream panel featuring legendary cop watchers James Freeman, LackLuster, The Battousai, Tom Zebra, Laura Shark, and Otto The Watchdog. In this extended livestream, Graham and Janis host a timely discussion about the possibility of police reform, the importance and impact of cop watching, and why it’s vital that we all find ways to keep fighting for change.

Pre-Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham, David Hebden
Studio Production: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya:

Hello, this is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report five-year anniversary live stream. That’s right, you heard me correctly. It’s been five years of reporting on police malfeasance across the country, and boy, do we have a lot to talk about. Not just about policing, but the community that has grown around the idea that holding police accountable is a serious task that requires all of us to participate. And honestly, that is one of the most important things I’ve learned in my five years of hosting the show, that there are people who care, not just about law enforcement, but how the government in general executes policies more than the mainstream media would have us believe. Meaning, the idea that there is a mass movement of indifference and apathy simply ignores the truth that I have witnessed firsthand because, over these past five years, I spoke to people all across the country who care about our rights and our communities. People who are willing to stand up, point a camera, risk an arrest, and come forward and talk to us.

It’s an amazing community of people who have something in common, the belief that we not only can control our destiny, but we can actually improve the lives of our fellow citizens by doing so. And to help me unpack these ideas, I’m joined by an all-star cast of copwatchers and First Amendment activists that have become literal legends in the world of holding police accountable and government accountable, a group whose passion and commitment to reporting on and documenting police malfeasance is unquestioned.

And so, just to give you an idea of what’s to come, let me give you a quick rundown of the people who will be joining us tonight. So first, we have the often comedic, but also serious copwatcher, James Freeman, whose onscreen antics have made him one of the most creative and formidable copwatchers on YouTube.

Next is another legend, a YouTuber known as Lackluster. Lackluster has built a YouTube channel with over 1.5 million subscribers with top-notch investigative reporting on police malfeasance across the country. And then, of course, one of our favorites, Otto The Watchdog, will join the discussion. Otto is another YouTuber who has used comedic and often unorthodox tactics to illuminate just how absurd policing can be in this country.

We will also be joined by the renowned copwatcher known as The Battousai, who has actually made case law when he was arrested for filming police in Texas. And finally, we’ll be speaking to two activists whose work can be best described as hardcore and unrelenting. I’m talking about Tom Zebra and Laura Shark, the incredible duo that has single-handedly hold the LA County Sheriff’s Office and Police Department accountable. And for the record, there were many other copwatchers we wanted to include, but unless we are going to do a ten-hour livestream, we’re just going to have to wait for them to join us next time.

And it’s quite a lineup, so I’m anxious to get started, but please remember, this is a live show. There may be some technical difficulties and I will also be looking down in the chat and trying to put your questions and comments on screen. And if possible, have some of our copwatchers respond to them as well. But please give me a little bit of grace because I’m trying to do quite a few things here at the same time.

But you know what, I have to find Stephen, I have to get him in here so I can start the show. Now, I know you’re thinking why isn’t Stephen here now? Doesn’t he know about the livestream? Don’t you guys plan for this? Well, to be fair, I’m going to ask our studio manager, Dave, to put Stephen’s Google calendar on the screen so people can see it. Notice how mostly his time is spent outside. The only event on his otherwise meager schedule is this livestream, which is clearly marked by me. So this constant absenteeism is not my fault. But wait, hold on, Dave. I think Dave has located Stephen. Hold on one second.

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. There’s a livestream. Stephen, there’s a livestream. That’s what’s going on.

Yes, Stephen. Stephen, please. Please. Stephen, you’re not some journalistic Keith Richards. Get in here. Seriously. That was not meant to be a compliment. Please get in here. Please just get in here. Please, please, Stephen, please just get in here. This is a livestream. You need to be here in live, in person to do it. Right now. Oh, jeez, please get inside.

Hi, pardon us. Much like that cat you saw behind him. He’s like a stray cat and he has to be encouraged to come indoors. So while I wait for Stephen to find his way in here, I want to delve a little deeper into the theme I discussed at the beginning of the show, namely community. It was something I’ve been thinking about quite a bit as I was preparing for this show. When I first started the Police Accountability Report with Stephen, I had no idea I would still be hosting it five years later. And in many ways the time has flown by and there are stories that I’m so proud of, and instances when we help people assert their lives.

But when I’ve cherished the most from the past five years are the relationships we’ve built with this unique community. And I’m not just talking about our guests, our incredible mods, Noli D and Lacy R. Hi, Noli D. I’m talking about all of you, the people who comment and offer a fresh perspective on our work and sometimes even pushback. And most importantly, the victims of police malfeasance and brutality, who contact us and have the courage to tell their stories to us.

And, of course, I include in this community, the people who gather for our live streams and join our premieres to discuss and learn from, and share it with all of us. I thank you for being here because it’s one of the aspects of independent YouTube journalism that I think our mainstream media counterparts and their pundits don’t understand. On YouTube, you don’t have an audience, you have a community. You have people who participate and people who expect you to do more than pose for the camera. They expect you to be active, respond, and be responsive beyond the confines of the story. And that is what’s so special about what I do. And seriously, it’s not just about me, it’s all of us. And I will say more about that later. But finally, one critical part of that community has finally decided to join us, Stephen, so kind of you to go out of your way to be here. We certainly appreciate it.

Stephen:

Taya, thank you so much. I was just wondering, did you like my song? Do you think… I thought it was pretty good, and I think maybe you have a new… I love the-

Taya:

Maybe you could save that for later and we could discuss it.

Stephen:

Okay.

Taya:

Maybe a little later.

Stephen:

You did call me Keith Richards and I was pretty pumped up about that.

Taya:

That’s not what I meant.

Stephen:

Okay. It wasn’t a compliment.

Taya:

That’s not what I meant.

Stephen:

Okay, well that’s fine. All right. I’m willing to accept that. But thank you for having me here. I’m glad to be here. I’m glad to be with this community and all these special people. And what a lineup, that’s an incredible lineup.

Taya:

I know. I’m so proud of the cast that we have.

Stephen:

That is Copwatcher All-Star Hall of Fame, whatever you want to call it.

Taya:

I completely agree.

Stephen:

I am totally pumped to hear what these people have to say about policing in America.

Taya:

Well, Stephen, before you arrived, we were talking about community. And one person who was part of this very interesting community is Colorado copwatcher, Eric Grant. And Eric is what one could fairly characterize as colorful. He has filed and won multiple lawsuits against various police departments, which has led to, among other things, First Amendment training and body cameras for those same departments. And he was also part of a landmark civil rights lawsuit that established the right to record police in the Tenth Federal Circuit. But Eric has also faced legal challenges. He pled guilty to threatening three federal judges and was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2021. Now, lately, due to his good behavior, Eric was set up to be transferred to a halfway house, literally his last stop on his way to freedom, but then law enforcement stopped back. And for more on the rest of the story, I will turn to Stephen, who’s been looking into breaking developments regarding Eric. Stephen, can you share some of what you’ve learned with us?

Stephen:

Yeah, just recently over the summer, it’s interesting, a federal grand jury in Louisiana in the Southern District of Louisiana indicted Eric on account of harassment, interstate harassment. In other words, calling and harassing a law enforcement officer from Colorado to Louisiana. What was really questionable about this entire ordeal is the fact that he was indicted when he was pretty much ready to be released from his current situation in Colorado where he was going to be transferred to a halfway house. He’d already been put in a minimum security prison. And this indictment occurred over the summer, and then they just issued a writ of habeas corpus for it. They did not lay out what the charges were, like what particular incident.

There is a video we found where James Freeman was being harassed in a park when he had camped there with his children by a park ranger. And Eric had called and supposedly, allegedly, and we’ll say allegedly at this point, made some threats. But it really is a questionable and curious timing because of how Eric… He’d been serving out a twelve-year sentence for threatening three judges in Denver and had had such good behavior that he was on the precipice of having some freedom at that point.

And so it seems that some of the people he spoke to, like Abidy, Liberty Freak, feels like this was time to keep Eric in prison because the case, the incident date, goes back to 2019, in the summer of 2019, so this case is almost five years old. So the question is, why is this happening? It happened. They charge him right within the statute of limitations, the charges themselves, there’s one charge, there’s one count, can add another five years to Eric’s sentence. So, it really is a very difficult situation. And I think you’re going to talk a little bit about what happened when he finally ended up in prison down in Louisiana.

Taya:

Yes. Before I go on and share something from Eric, I wanted to say hello to Manuel Mata. He’s a copwatcher that we’re very fortunate to have with us. Manuel was going to turn himself in, but fortunately, they gave him time served, and maybe Manuel will be able to share a little bit more about what happened. We were very worried that he was going to be incarcerated for 180 days. So, we want to welcome Manuel Mata.

Stephen:

Yeah, welcome.

Taya:

Welcome back. And also of course to say hi to HBO Matt out there. Good to see you.

Stephen:

Oh, HBO Matt.

Taya:

Yeah, he’s out there.

Stephen:

Is he driving somewhere, or is he…

Taya:

Almost every time I’ve spoken to HBO Matt, he’s been in a car.

Stephen:

Every time you talk to that man, he’s driving.

Taya:

Seriously, he’s driving.

Stephen:

Pretty amazing.

Taya:

Yeah. So I’m going to share something now. I think it’s pretty obvious that in our prison happy society, we often forget how much of a toll incarceration can take on someone.

Stephen:

Absolutely.

Taya:

And this is particularly true for Eric, who as I said, through good behavior, had earned a degree of autonomy. And all of this was taken away when he was transferred to a state facility in Louisiana. So first, I want to read a letter from Eric describing the conditions in jail. And I want to thank, you Lacy R, for providing us this letter to share.

Stephen:

Yes, thank you Lacy.

Taya:

“In one word, this is horrid. I’m in my place now, it’s awful. There are 76 bunks stacked close in a big open room, just like Auschwitz concentration camp. The toilets are open along the wall, no privacy, showers the same. No curtain, no library, no books, no physical mail. It’s all scanned to the kiosk computer. In fact, the Monroe address is the right one. They scan it there. No law library. I’m literally the only white guy on my pod. For the first time in my life, I was deloused. It was mandatory. I guess that’s an issue here. They do not even provide underwear or socks. We have to buy them from the commissary. Can you believe that? Tablets suck, and cost is $1 per hour to use. Oh my God, Lacy, six months to two years, I am officially in hell. I might plead guilty just to get out of here. I’ll call you in a bit. Love from the Gulag. Vladimir Putin would be proud.”

Stephen:

Wow.

Taya:

That’s pretty powerful. Sounds terrible conditions. That’s St. Tammany Parish Jail I believe he was calling from. I mean writing from, excuse me.

Stephen:

Right. One of the things, we have this presumption of innocence, but when you’re put in basically a torture chamber, the presumption of innocence just literally evaporates. Because, as Eric said in his own letter, he’s like, “I’m going to plead guilty just to get out of here.” And I think that pretty much undermines the idea of justice, particularly in his case. And in many cases, he’s not the only person who suffers this way in prison. And I think prison is probably an important component of undermining the idea of presumption of innocence and the fact that you can fight back against the system of justice because if you are incarcerated like that already in what sounds like unbearable conditions…

Taya:

Absolutely.

Stephen:

… we see here why so many people plead guilty, and don’t really have the right to a trial. And the idea that you have a right to a trial is ephemeral when you’re sitting in jail like that. That is a very deserving-

Taya:

Something that I think is beyond anecdotal evidence is that prosecutors often stack charges in the hopes that you will plead guilty, prosecutors do want to win cases. And I’ve heard, and this is somewhat anecdotal evidence, but that people get punished if they try to take it to trial. If they fight for their innocence, then they’re doubly punished when it comes to sentencing if they dare do that.

Stephen:

This is my question, and this is an important question about this. Why five years later do they bring these charges? This is not a complicated case.

Taya:

Yes. This was a 2019 incident.

Stephen:

So if you’re investigating a murder or some sort of complex case with all sorts of trails of evidence, that’s not the case with this. This was a single phone call as far as we know. Now, we don’t know all the details of the case.

Taya:

We don’t know all of them.

Stephen:

But from what we know, it was one or two phone calls and some joking behavior by Eric because there’s that aspect of him. But why five years? Why did it take five years to investigate a phone call? And that’s what raises really troubling questions about this because Eric has spent a lot of time in prison. He has certainly done what everyone would want, someone who has to in some way make amends for his behavior if you judge it to be wrong. And he obviously, there’s a lot of discussion about that. But why, five years later, does Louisiana, does the federal system, suddenly indict this man, drag him out of Colorado down there, and put him in what would be abject conditions?

Taya:

Absolutely.

Stephen:

It does seem rather strange to me. It doesn’t seem like a case that would’ve taken five years to bring to trial.

Taya:

And in our conversations with Eric, because we’ve stayed in touch with him, he was working with some of the other inmates to create care packages and Thanksgiving for people. They were doing work for people outside of the prison. He started a men’s group. They were doing positive things.

Stephen:

I don’t want to necessarily have an opinion on this, but I think Eric has served his time at this point. If you agree that Eric’s behavior was wrong, he has served his time. To bring this up now, five years later, is to me, very questionable.

Taya:

Yes. And yes, Cajun Randy, he was in St. Tammany, and now he’s in Plaquemines. Yes.

Stephen:

Yeah, Plaquemines.

Taya:

We were also speaking to Eric from jail, as we mentioned earlier, and we asked him if there was anything he wanted to say to everyone. So, we’re going to play that clip now. Remember, we had been on the phone with him for 15 minutes, so we only had a few moments left, but I said, “Is there anything you want to say to people?” So maybe we can play that clip now.

So, Stephen, I think Eric is a perfect example of both the benefits and pitfalls of cop-watching. But he’s also a unique character too, someone who had his own style, someone one could say was unorthodox, but he was also ingenious in the way he approached the process of YouTube activism. And that’s another part of YouTube journalism that I have grown to understand and embrace. It is completely creative.

Stephen:

Absolutely.

Taya:

We make the rules, so to speak. And I understand this from my own experience. And Stephen, I know when we were developing the show, it was both an organic process, but also collaborative. We took so many suggestions and ideas from you folks out there, like you Noli D, and translated them into reality. Stephen, it was almost like inventing a new form of journalism, and not to give ourselves too much credit, but…

Stephen:

Here’s the thing. This is very important to remember. We talk a lot about David Graeber, the noted anthropologist, and he always said that a bureaucracy of violence causes a dead zone of imagination. So, how do you respond to that in journalism? With journalism, you have to be creative. And that means that you have to turn on the creative juices to make it work. You can’t hold police accountable through the normal standard practices of journalism. When we were creating the Police Accountability Report, we had to turn everything on its head and say, “Look, we can’t approach this. We’re talking about a huge, massive, indifferent bureaucracy that really in places where it takes root, places like our own city, we see how it affects the psychology of the community.” And in that case, we had to respond in kind.

We had to be where we create this so-called Dead Zone, as David Graeber said, we had to create a zone of creativity where we take a show and formulate it and say, “We’re not going to do the traditional journalism. I’m going to stand outside like a real…” Well, what am I going to say? I’m going to stand outside a lot, and I’m going to develop a persona around that. You are going to have your rants where you provide context, but also emotion because this is emotional for people. A lot of people love Eric. And it’s not just a simple thing we’re just reporting. We are engaged to the point where we feel the emotion, people. And I think one of my favorite things about the show is your rant at the end, which you’ll be doing today, which you have a great one coming up.

Taya:

Thank you.

Stephen:

Which no other person I ever know in journalists can do the way you do it, but you connect to the emotions of this problem. The people that we talk to, like Eric, their lives are turned upside down. And let’s remember that Eric started his protests against the mistreatment of homeless people in Denver.

Taya:

Yes.

Stephen:

So, we’ve responded in a way that I think we match. We want to be more creative than the people that are doing the bad deeds and the bad governance. Bad governance makes you less creative, but we’re going to be more creative. And that’s where this show came from, was like a fountain of creativity between me and you, and our audience, and Noli D and Lacy R, and Tom, and Laura, and people, all these people. Eric, Otto…

Taya:

And all the people that we met along the way, Otto, and Blind Justice, and so many others.

Stephen:

It’s a tradition in all movements of social justice to be more creative and to think of ways and new ways to fight power that is entrenched, and otherwise, it’s anti-creative. There’s nothing more anti-creative than policing in America the way it’s constituted. And in many ways, it seems to respond to complex social problems with simplified forms of bureaucratic violence. Well, we responded to that, and that’s where the Police Accountability Report came from.

Taya:

And I think that’s actually a perfect segue as I’m putting up some little comments up here.

Stephen:

Cool.

Taya:

A perfect segue to start rolling out our guests.

Stephen:

Please do.

Taya:

And I am so excited about this particular group because, as I said before, they are collection of independent YouTube activists, copwatchers, First Amendment activists, or whatever you want to call those who have simply made a difference, and not just a difference in my life or our show, but the people they have helped by telling their stories. Stephen, we often describe our show as the reverse cops.

Stephen:

Yes.

Taya:

And I’m sure you all know that that’s the infamous Fox show that tells of American law enforcement’s absolute fixation on the working class from the perspective of cops exclusively. And I would say we try to do the opposite. And I would say all our guests do the opposite. They center the victim, not turn people into victims like a show like COPS does.

But let’s get started with our first guest and just one more housekeeping note, our hope for this, our hope for our celebration of our fifth year, we’re going to thank all of our patrons at the end, patrons past, present, and future, we’re going to thank them all, and I hope you’ll bear with me, to hear me thank you personally at the end.

Now, we are going to stick to five questions per guest to make sure that they’re not trapped with us till one o’clock in the morning East Coast time. So we’re going to start, I hope you’re ready, and if you have questions, I will try to bring up one for the guest. I won’t be able to bring up a question for every single person in the chat, but I’ll at least try to get one for the guest. Okay. So first up is the most eclectic, an idiosyncratic YouTuber out there who has used humor as a tool and absurdity as a trope. His name is Otto The Watchdog and his battles with Royse Texas Police Department are truly epic. Take a look at this confrontation with Royse Texas Police.

Stephen:

You okay?

So, that’s a totally lapsed time, right? Okay…

PART 1 OF 5 ENDS [00:29:04]

Taya:

Okay. I’m not going to lie.

Stephen:

That is one of my favorite clips of a cop watcher.

Taya:

It’s a [inaudible 00:29:20] weird because I laugh every single time I watch that clip. I’m sorry.

Stephen:

It’s so understandable.

Taya:

Seriously, when he starts kowtowing to the police, it’s just that one police officer literally looks like he doesn’t know what to do, and he kind of like wanders away from Otto.

Stephen:

The thing about that clip to me that’s really interesting is Otto is really laying out the absurdity of police control over our space, how they try to police our geography. And he’s just showing them how literally absurd they are. And the funny thing is the way they reacted, they don’t know how to handle it. They don’t understand what’s being communicated. But I don’t want to go into that. I can talk about this for hours. Let’s get to Otto because-

Taya:

Right. So one of the reasons why we’re having him go first is that he also happens to be a good friend of Eric Brant. So we wanted to welcome Otto. Thank you so much for joining us.

Otto:

Hey, I’m happy to be here. Thank you.

Taya:

It’s great to see you. Now, I’m sorry to start on a somewhat sad note, but first we’d like to know your thoughts on Eric’s recent charges and whether or not the timing concerns you.

Otto:

Oh, the timing, yeah, that’s concerning. I think, like you said, the original phone call was like 2019, and here we are just now getting the charges, so they can file a charge and then just sit on it, so the statute of limitations doesn’t… Once they file it, the statute of limitations stops, and they can bring it up pretty much whenever they want to. And yeah, he was about to go in for a parole hearing and this guy is basically the mayor of the jail at this point.

Stephen:

Wow.

Otto:

So he had a really good chance of getting out. He was already in the process of relinquishing his authority within the inmate administration of the jail that he was in. So that’s pretty disheartening and it should be terrifying to everybody.

Stephen:

Yeah. Otto, I was wondering, I mean, Eric is resilient. I mean, we all know, he’s like one of the most resilient people I’ve ever met. But how do you think this is affecting him? Are you worried about him at all? I’m just wondering.

Otto:

Eric is pretty, he’s a tough guy and he’s been through a lot of stuff just like everybody else has, but everyone does have a breaking point. And if you don’t believe that you have one, just most people will get a speeding ticket and they will go and they’re like, “Oh, I’m going to fight it.” And then they find out that their court case was rescheduled and they end up just paying the ticket, because it’s too much of an inconvenience at that point. Okay? So if you’re willing to give up something that you know is wrong over a ticket, a small thing like that, eventually you will get beaten down. And that’s pretty much the goal. It’s not a bug of the system, it is in fact the goal of the system. That’s the whole point.

Taya:

Someone in the chat asked about you whether or not some of the cases that you had were resolved and if things had been resolved in relation to some of the difficulties the police had caused for you and your family. So maybe you could just give us an update on the status of your lawsuits against the police, who continued to pursue cases against you. Can you let us know if they’ve been dropped? Just give us an update.

Otto:

Yeah. If you were following my story, I was arrested a lot, a lot. I had a lot of charges. And for somebody who was arrested a lot and had a lot of charges, I have no convictions. Everything was dismissed. Of course, there’s always threats of imprisonment and plea deals and all of this and that. And like Eric said, he was thinking about pleading guilty just to make it stop. Well, that actually doesn’t work. You think it does, and then they slam you with something else, and that’s after, they can do enough things to you that you’ll want to plead guilty. And the hardest thing for an innocent person to do is to not take an easy way out and make a plea. Because they will make it sweet. But I have no convictions and all the lawsuits that I filed were successful, and we have settled out of court on all of my lawsuits against Rockwall, specifically. Some of my cases, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, which we absolutely should overturn, because you and I would not be entitled to not knowing. You know what I mean?

Stephen:

Yeah. I mean that was in the fifth circuit and that they’re pretty pro-police. Well, let me ask you a question because what do you think the status of cop watching is now? Because you had to go through a lot of arrests and then you kind of turned to cop watching as a way to put it back on them. But where does that leave cop watching? I mean, we’ve reported on a lot of places where they are trying different types of arresting for ridiculous things like corners news, arresting for organized crime. Where does cop watching stand now in terms of what police are doing to fight against it?

Otto:

So they’re passing a lot of laws, trying to make active cop watching, following traffic stops as dangerous as possible without making it illegal. So now they’re putting distance requirements and things of that sort. So some of them are 10 feet as a guide and some of them are 10 feet as rule. And now Florida, I hear it once 25 feet, nobody’s carrying around a tape measure, so it’s all kind of subjective, right?

Stephen:

Right.

Otto:

And then it’s, “Hey, fight it in court.” And as we go back to my previous statement about getting a hundred dollars ticket, then it’s like, “Okay, well I’m just going to plead guilty to it because it’s easy enough to get out of this endless torment.” So they’re trying-

Stephen:

That subjective part really scares me.

Otto:

Everything’s subjective, Stephen, everything’s subjective.

Stephen:

True, true.

Otto:

If you’ve watched even five minutes of any one of these people that you’re going to have on your show today’s channel, you’ll know that you can be the most dangerous thing that the police can find in your car is that you’re innocent. That’s guaranteeing that you’re going to get a ticket. You know what I mean? You’re going to jail, buddy.

Taya:

Very well said. Very well said. You know what, I have a question for you, but first I just have to shout out, we’ve got some great cop watchers down here showing some love and support for the other cop watchers. Guess who’s down there.

Stephen:

Who?

Taya:

Munkay 83.

Stephen:

Oh.

Taya:

Munkay 83. Somebody down there, I think they said, “[inaudible 00:36:20] is not the same without you.” I think we might even have Joe Cool down there.

Stephen:

Joe Cool is legendary.

Taya:

Legend. So just shouting out some of the great people down there. And I think I saw Lady Liberty Press as well.

Stephen:

Oh. Awesome.

Taya:

Just wanted to make sure to say hello to you kind folks. You see some cop watchers in there, you might want to find out more about what they do in the live chat. You might want to go follow them and click on their channel after we’re done. But before I go any further about some of the wonderful things in the chat, Otto, I have to ask you a question that may seem kind of serious, but I was kind of wondering, after all you’ve been through fighting back against police and it’s really they were nuisance charges, but they made your life miserable, making you drive all the way across country to go to court and just putting all the stress in your life and the cost of money. So I’m just asking, was it worth it? Was this fight to hold police accountable worth it?

Stephen:

That’s a great question.

Otto:

Oh, that’s a loaded question. Was it worth it? Was it worth it to me personally as an individual? No. Absolutely not. I would not recommend anybody to go through that intentionally on purpose for yourself. But I do think, and as ridiculous as this might sound, I do think it was worth it for you. And for my kids eventually one day, I think it’ll be worth it to them. We don’t lose our freedoms in one fell swoop. We lose them in tiny little increments.

Apparently we’re losing them about 10 feet at a time. And Florida just made it 15. So eventually it will be 50, and then it will be a hundred, and then it’ll be audio recordings are not allowed, and they’re going continue put restrictions on it. And I know that not because I’m Nostradamus or have a special book or a Magic 8-ball, because that’s what they do with every single thing else, we’re going to limit just a little bit. And then before you know it, you can literally, no shit, you can go to federal prison for the rest of your life over some things you bought on Amazon.

Taya:

That’s incredible.

Stephen:

[inaudible 00:38:37].

Otto:

Some things you buy on Amazon.

Stephen:

Otto, was Nostradamus, was he a cop watcher?

Taya:

16th century.

Otto:

Yes.

Stephen:

Oh, he was?

Otto:

Yeah. I mean, he-

Stephen:

I just wasn’t sure.

Otto:

He rubbed the government wrong. And that’s a common theme.

Stephen:

Nostradamus would’ve made a hell of a cop watcher. Just saying.

Taya:

Well, Otto-

Otto:

Well, generally, actually, we are kind lucky to be able to do what we’re doing-

Stephen:

True.

Otto:

… with as much as we’ve gone through individually and as a group, we are kind of lucky that at least we’re not actively being shot every day on the street, but a lot of men did get shot in the street so that we could do this. And if we don’t continue to stand up and push back against the encroachments, then we’re not going to have the ability at all.

Stephen:

I think that’s great.

Taya:

Otto, I think you’re absolutely right, and like you, I would never suggest to someone that they put their freedom on the line like that, especially if they have family that they’re concerned about. But I understand how important it is to stand up for your rights. And there’s a certain point where if we don’t make the individual decision to stand up, no one else is going to do it for us. So I’m really, it’s amazing that you led by example in that way.

Stephen:

Let me say this, Otto, we appreciate and we are grateful that we’ve been able to cover you and allow us to tell your story. So we want to thank you for that.

Taya:

Thank you. We do.

Stephen:

Because that is a wonderful thing that you’ve been willing to share all of this, so people can understand what’s at stake and why it’s important. And without your story and other people’s stories, we would not be able to tell that story. So I just want to say thank you as a reporter. I appreciate it.

Otto:

Hey, I want to say thank you guys for everything you do, for telling the stories, because if nobody tells the stories, then there was no story to have.

Taya:

They’re very true. And I think finally some of the folks in the mainstream media have realized that cop watchers exist. So that’s a nice change of pace. We were a little ahead of the curve, maybe by five years.

Stephen:

Five years.

Taya:

About five years, we were a little ahead of the curve.

Stephen:

That’s why we’re here. That’s what we’re here for.

Otto:

For sure.

Stephen:

[inaudible 00:40:53].

Otto:

In the [inaudible 00:40:55] of things, cop watchers won because now everybody, the first thing that happens is everybody pulls out their phone.

Stephen:

Very true.

Taya:

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Otto:

We won.

Stephen:

Without fear.

Taya:

Beautiful.

Otto:

Without fear, right. Everybody knows their IDs now. Y’all have to show you my ID. Everybody knows to record their traffic stops.

Taya:

Yes.

Otto:

Everybody knows what to do with it, and the cops do too, right? We’re going to record that shit and put it on TikTok or YouTube.

Taya:

Beautiful. And what a perfect and inspiring way to end your segment, Otto, I wish we could keep you on this whole time, but we have some other awesome people waiting in the wings, so I just want to thank you for joining us-

Stephen:

Thank you, Otto.

Taya:

… for our fifth year anniversary, and just we appreciate you so much, Otto.

Stephen:

Thank you. Thank you.

Otto:

You have a good one.

Stephen:

You too.

Taya:

Take care.

You know what, that was Otto. Fascinating and really insightful as always.

Stephen:

Yeah. As always. He’s great guest.

Taya:

Now our next guest truly needs no introduction. As I said before, he has built one of the largest cop watcher channels, reporting on police abuse across the country, and he has done it with his own distinct style and voice. And his videos get millions of views. You might recognize him. Take a look.

Stephen:

Oh. Sorry, sorry. Thank you.

Taya:

Don’t forget to check that screen to make sure you’re not on it before you.

Stephen:

Yes. Okay.

How’s the chat?

Taya:

Looking good.

Stephen:

Do we call him Dale? Do we call him Dale?

Taya:

I’ll ask. So without further ado, we would like to welcome LackLuster to the channel. LackLuster, thank you for joining us. Should we call you Dale or should we call you LackLuster? How should we-

Dale:

Either way is fine.

Taya:

Either way is fine.

Stephen:

Wait, I just have to ask you, did you sample that body camera sound, the [inaudible 00:43:53]?

Dale:

Yeah. Actually it’s probably one of the worst samples I could have picked up.

Stephen:

That is brilliant.

Dale:

I know Stephen loves that.

Stephen:

As someone who’s watched a lot of body camera footage, when I heard it, I was like, I know that sound, that sound. I wonder-

Dale:

Every commercial has a little jingle or something like [inaudible 00:44:10] at the end, [inaudible 00:44:11] the body cam was pretty distinct.

Stephen:

Is that meant to tell cops that they’re on camera? Is it to remind them or why did the body camera have that? I don’t even know.

Dale:

As far as I know, I am not a hundred percent sure, but as far as I know, yes, it’s just a reminder in case they forget to leave it on, [inaudible 00:44:31] turn it off.

Taya:

I was going to say something a little saucy, but I’ll keep that to myself. So first I’m just curious from your perspective, are police changing their behavior or are you getting just as many calls for help as before? What are you seeing?

Dale:

Yeah, it is kind of difficult. I’ve personally seen a large shift in the behavior of various law enforcement agencies across the country. I’ve had insurance companies that represent those companies reach out to me for tips on how to keep their guys out of the litigation. Things like that are happening, but it’s one of those occupations where there’s a high rate of attrition, so people are always coming in, getting kicked out or just bouncing around to different departments. So I think we’re always going to see new people that don’t understand what’s really happening out there. And unfortunately, most of these new guys are 20-year-olds and nothing, no offense to any of the audience out there that’s still very young, but when you’re 20, you don’t know shit. Excuse me-

Stephen:

Good point.

Dale:

… and then you have all this responsibility and power, and that corrupts the best of [inaudible 00:46:01] and I know I certainly wasn’t at my best in my 20s, so.

Taya:

Neither side of [inaudible 00:46:08]-

Stephen:

I kind of wonder if you’re driving you pulled over and you say, “Well, if you do something wrong, you’re going to be on LackLuster channel.” Do you think cops are aware of it now, where they’re like, “Oh God, I don’t want to end up on LackLuster channel”? I mean, because you’ve gotten so big.

Taya:

Seriously.

Stephen:

Do you think there’s behavioral adjustments going on out in the field because of what you’re doing?

Taya:

I know, I hope there are.

Stephen:

I think so.

Dale:

Yeah. There’s a couple of videos on the channel where people have made mention of the channel like, “Hey, this is going to end up on LackLuster,” so that’s [inaudible 00:46:38]-

Taya:

That’s awesome.

Dale:

… fun for me, of course. But I don’t know if it’s going to affect any. It might even make them worse, might make them perform for the camera, if you will.

Stephen:

Well, you say people would shout “World Star” before they do a video, now-

Taya:

Oh, that’s right.

Stephen:

… like if a cop comes, I’m just going to shout, LackLuster.

Taya:

LackLuster.

Dale:

[inaudible 00:46:58].

Stephen:

Just a thought.

Taya:

Oh my Gosh.

Dale:

We also see too. I’ve never asked my audience to do anything with their time. Well, maybe to speak their mind or something like that, but never anything specific, never any direction on where to go with, where to speak their mind. But I do post Facebook links in the description of my videos and Twitter sometimes if they have it. And I’ll see often in those comment sections, they’ll say, “You got LackLuster,” because they’re just [inaudible 00:47:35].

Taya:

That’s excellent.

Stephen:

That’s cool.

Taya:

That’s so excellent. Something I wanted to ask you about that I saw is this project that you seem to be working on, I think it’s with Long Island Audit. It seems like you’re trying to give people a way to literally have a lawyer in their pocket. Do you want to talk a little bit about that?

Dale:

Yeah, sure. Attorney Shield, it’s up, it’s running. It’s on iOS and Android.

Taya:

That’s great.

Dale:

We kind of did a little soft rollout because apps are extremely difficult to build and we’re not using any APIs at all. We built all the software, I mean, I had nothing to do with building a software. I don’t know how to do any of that. But we’re making everything our own, so that when we need to do something, nobody can shut us down first off, that’s number one. Amazon can’t shut us down or whoever else. Nobody can shut us down. And anytime we want to build, we know the code inside and out. So that’s great. But with that, that makes it a lot harder to build.

So we did kind of like a quiet, soft launch. So the people watching right now obviously will know that it’s actually up and running. But we’re waiting. And we’ve had a few interactions. Some have gone very well, some have not. And not like they’ve gone bad for the person because they’re using the app or anything, but we’re working with some of them. Most of them want to remain anonymous because that’s most people don’t want to be on the internet. But hopefully we’ll be able to share some of those interactions pretty soon and show you guys how the app works, because it’s pretty awesome if you ask me.

Taya:

Oh, you know what, I just have one more question before, I know you want to jump in, but I have one more question for you, Dale. So this is something that we discussed prior to the show, but you were telling me that people are already using AI to duplicate your work. Can you just talk a little bit about that and what you’re doing to fight back? Because there’s so many different ways that AI is going to be affecting the future of people who are trying to put out content, whether you’re a cop watcher or any other type of content creator. But I think it’s especially dangerous for cop watcher.

And one of the things I’ve noticed is that there’ve been some body camera channels that have popped up, and I’ll say allegedly, or one could say that they look like they are fed directly by police departments as a form of propaganda to kind of counter the narrative that we’re seeing when people actually hold their cell phones up and have real life encounters with police. So it does seem like they might be somewhat cherry-picking these encounters. So I just want to know how you’re handling AI, how it makes you feel, what you’re trying to do to fight back, anything along those lines.

Dale:

Sure. Well, the biggest push I’ve seen so far, it isn’t necessarily AI all the way. I’m seeing a big push from foreign countries blasting out YouTube channels with police interactions. And a lot of times they’re just taking my video, my script. They’re transcribing my script and running it through an AI voice, and then running basically somebody else’s voice over my editing and blurring out my logos. So that’s all over the internet, and there’s very little I can do about it. I can copyright strike it, but I’m still a one-man team, I have no employees. I need an editor, but it would be a full-time job to try to track down all the people doing this. But my biggest concern with it isn’t really for me or the channel because the channel’s going to be fine.

Stephen:

Okay. Sorry.

Dale:

My biggest concern is that the channels that are doing this aren’t even from the United States. So they really have no stake in the game. They don’t care what happens to the victims. They don’t care what happens with the police forces. I mean, maybe they might in some relative way or something, but because they’re not living in America, they don’t care. It doesn’t affect them. They’re for money. It’s a pure grift, a hundred percent. And that’s kind of bothersome because I think my work has, I don’t know, terminated, suspended dozens and dozens of cops, raised hundreds of thousands of dollars through GoFundMe for victims, things like that. That’s something you’ll never see from the foreign agencies making these videos. So I don’t know. It’s interesting.

Stephen:

Speaking of that, and that is absolutely terrifying and distressing that foreign countries are using this to some sort of entertainment fodder to get YouTube revenue basically, I’m assuming. But where do you see cop watching now as a practice and art form, whatever, where do you see it headed at this point and what’s happening to it? Where do you see it now?

Dale:

I don’t know. It could be very interesting. We got Trump talking about pushing more qualified immunity and getting rid of… I think he said something about people filming the cops recently, and I can’t recall it.

Stephen:

Really, he specifically. Wow.

Dale:

I know he said something about qualified immunity and making it, increasing it.

Stephen:

That’s true. That’s true.

Dale:

Yeah. I think it’ll be very interesting. We live in unprecedented times. This is truly an amazing period that we get to live through. And I don’t know, I mean, AI could ruin everything we’ve worked for or it could-

Taya:

So true.

Dale:

… make it 10 times better depending on who’s working on it and [inaudible 00:53:41] working on it. So it’ll be very interesting to see.

Stephen:

It’s a weird thing to think about because 10 years ago, you probably couldn’t have done what you’ve done and had the impact and the influence that you had. That’s been a benefit of algorithm [inaudible 00:53:53] technology. But then on the other hand, AI is a really sort of treacherous path there, and it might not be the same thing. It’s weird to think about in that sense.

Taya:

Actually, I’ve been spending every other night working on this piece that I’ve been writing and writing and writing about my experience at this journalism conference when I said, “Oh, why don’t you try all these wonderful AI tools?” And so I’m looking at these AI tools and I’m like, well, some of them are interesting, but some of the ones that I was being given for free, I was like, wait a second. They just want to learn how my brain works. They just want to learn what I know so that they can replace me so that a newsroom that would normally have a hundred people in it now are only going to have 15 miserable souls running around in circles, prompting the AI and trying to find out whether or not the latest social media video is a deep fake or not. And it’s just going to be like a hamster wheel nightmare.

So my concern isn’t that AI couldn’t be used for good and couldn’t be used to benefit creators. But if I know anything about the current system that we’re in, those with immense wealth, these technocrats are going to grab ahold of it and they’re going to use it to extract even more wealth from us, even more wealth from our society. These technocrats already ignore legal norms. They already exploit the working class, and it’s actually going to diminish the power that we have as laborers to come together. I’m actually a union steward, so if you eliminate all the laborers, then we don’t have any power against these folks, against these corporations. And so what I’ve noticed is what they’re most likely going to do is use it to replace human beings and to make labor as cheap as possible. And there’s just going to be a wide swath of people that are losing their jobs all over the place. Because what I’ve noticed with AI is that it’s replacing the things we love to do. Stephen loves making music. No comment on his music. He loves making-

Stephen:

That was [inaudible 00:55:48].

Taya:

It was a great song.

Stephen:

Thank you.

Taya:

He loves making music.

Stephen:

[inaudible 00:55:51].

Taya:

He loves writing. I like writing. We like making videos. I love doing voiceover work. I love doing narration. That’s all stuff that’s being replaced by AI. People who do art, hand drawing things, come up with cool styles, that stuff, the computers are doing all the stuff we actually like doing. Even actors, the people who are doing the behind the… They’re the ones in the background. People who spend like 20 years like playing zombies in the background of the movie because they love doing it-

Stephen:

You’re worried about zombies now, you bring zombies in this.

Taya:

I’m worried about the zombie actors, Steven.

Stephen:

Okay. Ask him the question.

Taya:

I think I started ranting.

Stephen:

Yeah. This is not the rant part. This is the part where you ask our guest questions so they can-

Dale:

No, it’s [inaudible 00:56:32].

Taya:

I’m sorry. The question is, Dale, do you see a horrifying dystopian future where we’re all going to have to ask the-

Stephen:

It’s very loaded question. That is not an objective question.

Dale:

No, absolutely. I don’t know if you guys watch what Nvidia puts out. They make all the microchips and GPUs and all that fun stuff, but technology advances. They used to say anyway a thousand times per year, and now he’s saying the CEO of Nvidia saying with whatever they just created, that it’s going to be more like a million times per year.

Stephen:

Moore’s law. Moore’s Law used to be the capacity-

Taya:

Oh, yeah. That’s right.

Stephen:

… of a chip with double every two years. And now, yeah, can you be more exponential? I think it is more exponential, yeah.

Taya:

Yeah. It’s absolutely horrifying. Can you say one last thing about AI?

Stephen:

No.

Taya:

Please.

Dale:

Yeah.

Stephen:

Yeah. That’s Dale. He’s the guest. He’s gonna-

Taya:

Dale, may I say one last thing about AI please?

Dale:

Absolutely.

Taya:

Okay. So what I’m concerned about is my one hope was that this AI was going to be self-limiting because at a certain point, there’s just not going to be enough energy and not enough storage for all this AI to work. And that’s why it worries me that former CEO or current CEO Sam Altman is walking around hat in hand to all these petrol companies to make sure that there’s going to be an endless supply of energy for AI. So the one hope that it might be self-limiting, he’s absolutely trying to destroy, despite the fact that he had gone on record saying, “Gee, I’m kind of worried what we might’ve unleashed out of Pandora’s box.” And then he goes around and he’s like, “Let’s make sure it can never be turned off.”

PART 2 OF 5 ENDS [00:58:04]

Taya:

… Pandora’s box, and then he goes around and he’s like, “Let’s make sure it can never be turned off.” He’s trying to build Skynet, as far as I’m concerned. Okay. Last thing I’ll say about it>

Stephen:

Well, and we talked about this with my editor. Dale, do you think RoboCop is the next step on policing? Are one day we going to get pulled over by a robot, and you’re going to have to turn your channel into a RoboCop channel, I guess?

Dale:

Yeah, absolutely. LAPD is already working on some robot that deploys from a police cruiser, and comes to your window, and then connects through Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, or whatever. You don’t even go face to face with a human anymore. You’ll be a little R2D2 thing, and a screen.

Stephen:

That’s just-

Dale:

Probably, it’s supposed to be a human on the other side, but-

Taya:

Oh, my God.

Dale:

… how long that lasts.

Stephen:

Wow.

Taya:

I think in New York they were getting the robot AI dogs, and then they had something that looked like a little trash can.

Stephen:

Right. Dale, thank you

Taya:

Dale, I have been given the signal that I definitely should let some of our other guests come on, and I need to stop talking about AI.

Dale:

Yeah, sorry to the production team. I was clicking buttons, and I didn’t know what some of them did, and I think I-

Taya:

You popped up a two-cipher. It’s all good. We were happy to see you.

Stephen:

Yep.

Dale:

All right.

Stephen:

Dale, thank you so much-

Taya:

Thank you so much for joining us.

Stephen:

… and congratulations on all your amazing work and-

Taya:

We love it.

Stephen:

… the success of your channel. It’s inspiring, to say the least.

Taya:

Absolutely. Thank you for what you do to help educate people. Because you do a terrific job-

Stephen:

You do.

Taya:

… adding the law to it. A lot of people, myself included, don’t realize the legality, some of the finer points of these police stops. You’re really helping educated people, me included, so thank you.

Stephen:

Thank you, and thank you for coming on.

Dale:

[inaudible 00:59:37] time, I appreciate it.

Taya:

All right, you take care.

Stephen:

Take care.

Taya:

Wow. I’m so glad we got to talk to him. We’re about to have someone very special coming up.

Stephen:

Mm-hmm.

Taya:

We’re about to be joined by a true original, a man, whose blend of satire, critique, and sometimes even absurd antics, makes him an impossible act to imitate. Take a look. Whoops. I did not need to put that up there. This man is a committed, independent journalist, who’s recently focused on the courts, to expand his efforts to hold police accountable. I’m, of course, talking about the man, the myth, the legend, James Freeman. James, thank you so much for joining us.

Stephen:

Thank you, James.

James Freeman:

Oh, I had it muted. Sorry. Hey guys, thanks for having me on the show.

Stephen:

I mean, those are such fascinating videos you do-

Taya:

Yes.

Stephen:

… because it exposes the absurdity of how police control space. Every time I watch them, I learn something new about them.

Taya:

I love it.

Stephen:

Just because when you juxtapose those roles, it reveals how those rules really operate on us, in ways psychologically we don’t think about. Every time I watch them, I’m like, “Wow, this is really like… this should be… I once read a book about 20th century theory of police power. James has actually explained it in a better way than reading a 200-page book. I just should have watched your videos, instead of reading certain things.” It really, it’s pretty phenomenal.

Taya:

I completely agree.

James Freeman:

Thank you.

Stephen:

Yeah.

Taya:

James, first to start off on something a little less fun first, I wanted to get your reaction to Eric’s latest indictment. I know you know him well, you’re friends. If you don’t mind sharing with us what your reaction is.

James Freeman:

It’s sad, it’s disappointing. Honestly, I still continue to get shocked by these people. I continually say, “I think I’ve seen everything.” This is what we can expect from them though, they’re terrorists, and that’s what they do is they terrorize people. Especially people like Eric Grant, he is still a very strong voice, whether he’s outside of the cage, or inside of the cage. Like you guys talked about, he’s been very successful at continuing to help other people, while he’s in. Eric has never been a threat to anybody. The reason that he’s in jail is because he allegedly made threats, allegedly made threats of violence. Eric isn’t dangerous, because he would violently attack someone. Eric is dangerous to the government, because he tells the truth, and he shows the truth.

Taya:

Well said.

James Freeman:

There’s nothing more dangerous than that, to them.

Stephen:

You make a really good point, because allegedly Eric was in Colorado when he is making these threats. But again, I want to ask this question again, because this is a very important question. Does the timing of this indictment-

Taya:

Yes.

Stephen:

… raise any questions for you?

James Freeman:

It looks like they had it planned all along.

Taya:

Wow.

James Freeman:

I mean, he was about to get out, and they knew it. That’s, again, this is sadistic. This is plotted out. I guess we would call it premeditated even. I don’t see it as shock. I mean, they continue to shock me actually.

Stephen:

Wow.

James Freeman:

I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all. I think they had it all planned out and said, “You know what? Let’s get him to where he’s got a glimpse of hope, and then let’s crush him.”

Stephen:

That’s really-

Taya:

Absolutely. First, let me just say thank you to some of the new subscribers we see here, and some of the great live chat donations. We really appreciate those super chats.

Stephen:

Absolutely.

Taya:

Hi to Matter of Rights, who’s one of my Patreons. We appreciate our Patreons, so hi, Matter of Rights. Okay. I had to make sure to do that.

Stephen:

Okay.

Taya:

I have another question. I’m multitasking.

Stephen:

Okay, fair enough.

Taya:

I had another question about Eric’s style. Some people feel that Eric’s style, just as doing his protests. Some people would say they were performance art. Some people would say they’re very creative. Other people would say it’s overly aggressive, loud, intrusive. How would you characterize it, and how would you defend it, if you would choose to defend it?

James Freeman:

Oh, that’s an excellent question, because early on when I had started my channel, there were lots of people who commented both on my channel and on Eric’s, and said, “James would never work with Eric, because of the way he acts.” I made a special point to go out of my way to travel, to work with Eric, and told people, “Look, just because I don’t do things the exact way somebody else does, we need all different types. What Eric is doing is very important, and to be quite frank, I don’t want to do it.” I’m glad he was. He mentioned to me, when I went out there, he said, “I’ve done activism for so many years, and I never got any attention on anything that I was doing, until I started using that four letter word that starts with F, and all of a sudden everybody’s paying attention to my stuff.” I mean, he was effective at doing what he wanted to do.

Taya:

Well said.

Stephen:

I mean, it’s so fascinating, because we interviewed him about that, and he was talking about how many years he tried to break through the noise.

Taya:

Yes.

Stephen:

Then once he did, it’s a fascinating tale, because really he was calling attention to a grave injustice that homeless people were being abused, that the criminal justice system, that judges had serious problems, and conflicts of interest, and no one paid attention. Then when he finally got people to pay attention, suddenly they start indicting him. I will say that what he said in some cases, was offensive to me. But there are people that make threats like that all the time, and it’s not uncommon. It seems like, I think there’s a lot to what you say. Could you expand on that? Because really, was it the threats, or the threat of Eric’s truth that was the problem?

James Freeman:

I really don’t even think that what he said was a threat. I even articulated to people, I was quite disgusted by it too, but I don’t believe it was a threat. His wording specifically, I don’t think-

Stephen:

Thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers.

James Freeman:

Right, and if you know him, he’s atheist-

Stephen:

Right.

James Freeman:

… so prayers to who?

Stephen:

It’s really fascinating, because he would say thoughts and prayers, so in a way… because Eric’s uncannily brilliant on things. Look, we’re doing a documentary, a very long form piece.

Taya:

Yes.

Stephen:

I have gotten to know him, and when he was doing, he’s commenting on that idea of thoughts and prayers, when people get shot, and someone says, “My thoughts and prayers,” and I feel he’s at the same time satirizing, as he is criticizing.

Taya:

Yes.

Stephen:

Am I getting this right, you think?

James Freeman:

I think you’re right, and his genius is beyond what I think a lot of people comprehend. Yeah, I think you nailed it.

Stephen:

Yeah. I mean, look, he is complex as they come, and there are many different ways to look at him, but sometimes when I sit down, and I was listening to some of those, because I had listened to them reading the recording, and thoughts and prayers, I’m like, “Well, Eric’s also making a commentary within this, that is quite brilliant in many ways, because it’s an empty phrase.” Right?

Taya:

Absolutely.

James Freeman:

Yes.

Stephen:

It’s an empty phrase. We’re saying, “We’re not going to solve a problem. But we’re going to share our empty thoughts and prayers.”

Taya:

Absolutely.

Stephen:

Eric was couching in that, and I’m like,” “Wow. You’ve really got to be careful of making quick judgments about Eric’s behavior, or what he says, because there’s always layers to it.” I’m sure that you found that out too, James. But let me just move on to one thing, because the courts-

Taya:

Yes.

Stephen:

… you know, you have spent a lot of time holding courts accountable. Why is that important, and why do people ignore it, at their peril?

James Freeman:

I think the courts are far more out of control than the police. When I first started my channel, that was where I actually put a good amount of attention. Then I realized that it was such an uphill battle, that I was going to win absolutely nothing on, that I stepped away from it. I don’t think the people were ready for it. But I want cameras in every courtroom, the way that cameras should be on every police interaction. To be quite honest, I don’t really care how it gets done. There are courts now, like the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, for example, has their own YouTube channel. They live stream almost all, if not all of their hearings. These things are supposed to be public.

Stephen:

Agreed.

James Freeman:

They’ve always been supposed to be public. Back in the day, the whole point of a court recorder, the guy who sits there and writes, or types what’s going on is because nothing that’s going on in there is supposed to be a secret. It’s all supposed… and so basically to me, they’re just behind on the times. We have far more advanced technology than a freaking typewriter, to document what’s going on in the courts.

Stephen:

Are you sure?

Taya:

Well said.

Stephen:

Than a freaking typewriter.

Taya:

Right, right, or having a courtroom sketch artist.

Stephen:

Oh, God.

Taya:

I mean, something that absolutely drives me crazy in our Maryland courts is that we can’t record. I mean, it’s terrible.

Stephen:

You know what’s a perfect example of that? James, is that you were broadcasting Eric’s sentencing-

Taya:

Oh, that’s right.

Stephen:

… and that judge went down some passive illogic, that had just still astounds me to this day, when I listened to that. Had you not done that, it would not be out there-

Taya:

That’s right.

Stephen:

… accessible to people to hear the audacity and the absurdity of his logic, when it came to sentencing Eric. You know? I appreciate that.

James Freeman:

Yeah.

Taya:

Absolutely. It was really important, in particular, because that judge, Judge Hoffman, who also wrote a book called The Punisher’s Brain-

Stephen:

That was just bizarre.

Taya:

… who went into this entire speech about how there’s four different types of justice. There’s retributive justice, and all this, rehabilitative justice. Then he says, he’s talking about it, and he’s talking about how he doesn’t want to give retributive justice, and then he immediately gives vengeful retributive justice. It was astonishing to me.

Stephen:

Right, on top of that, the whole thing is on Zoom, and then he’s like, “But don’t publish it. Don’t let anyone hear it,” even though it’s already on freaking Zoom. Which to your point, James, is the lack of… the actual cognitive dissonance of the legal system and judges. Yeah, I’m on Zoom where anyone can join, but God forbid you put it on YouTube, so the general public can hear it? That makes no sense.

James Freeman:

I think what it is too, is it comes down to controlling the narrative.

Stephen:

Yes.

James Freeman:

I can publish it on my channel, but you can’t publish it on yours.

Stephen:

Right.

James Freeman:

It’s about controlling the narrative, I think.

Stephen:

It is so much about controlling the narrative. It is so much about self-justification, and I think Eric and James had brought up, we focus on police accountability. But my God, the judiciary operates, as you said, and you’ve already said this, so I’m repeating it, but I want to say, with emphasis, that I’ve witnessed so many things in courtrooms, that are far worse than a traffic stop. You know what I mean? I’ve seen judges put people in jail for absolutely nothing.

Taya:

You’ve seen drunk judges on the bench.

Stephen:

I’ve seen drunk…. all sorts of stuff. It’s shameful, because judges are just so empowered, and are so imperious when you’re in court. I think, James, you’re right, but it’s a much harder branch of government to fight, because they really have archaic methods. You can’t have a camera in a courtroom. I’ve literally been almost arrested for opening my cell phone, when I’m trying to report on a case.

Taya:

Right.

Stephen:

The judge is like, “What are you doing with that cell phone?” The bailiff comes over, and they’re all so pleased with themselves that they’re controlling you, to the point where you can’t really cover what they’re doing.

Taya:

Yeah.

James Freeman:

Yeah, and I think, I usually don’t… actually, I really never like looking at government for a solution to a problem. But I think the problem though is that the legislature has essentially granted the court’s power to make their own rules in their courtroom, but it’s gone too far. I think it’s going to need to come down to the legislature writing something, saying, “No, these are some things that you can’t restrict, in setting some boundaries.”

Stephen:

I agree.

James Freeman:

I mean, I thought that was the whole point of a system of checks and balances, that the different didn’t work together, but quite literally worked against each other, and said, “Wait a second. You’re wrong. We’re going to step in and kick you in the butt.”

Stephen:

I mean, I agree, because usually an administrative judge can say… as you know, in your fight with New Mexico courts, the administrative judge has all this power to do all sorts of crazy stuff, that without proper oversight, or checks and balances, can just get out of control.

Taya:

Yes. Absolutely. James, I had another question for you, and I know it’s somewhat broad, but I wanted to know what you’ve learned about American policing, over your years of covering it from your viewpoint, your unique viewpoint, what stands out to you? What are the lessons James Freeman learned from covering police, in the unique way that you have? I know it’s a big, a broad question. I’m sorry.

Stephen:

Yeah. Sorry.

Taya:

I’m sorry.

Stephen:

Sorry, we’re putting you on.

James Freeman:

No, no, no. That’s all right. I’m trying to think. I think that some of my best videos that have exposed, to other people as well as myself, how police really are, is that it seems that once a man is told that he has power or authority over other men, that he just does things that are completely unnatural. That video that you showed, for my intro, of me walking up to this guy, I don’t know who he is. I’ve never met him in my life. I’ve got no reason to interact with him, at all. If I do, as a normal human, I should just say, “Hey, hello, how’re you doing?” But to walk up to another man, and just start demanding things, and trying to take control over that person, it’s sick, it’s wrong. But these people have been told that… they’ve got it in their head, that they literally have a right. They have the authority to just arbitrarily control everyone around them.

The whole point of asking someone to disarm themselves, or trying to disarm someone, it’s all about gaining power, being the most powerful person in the room, and establishing that dominance over everybody, the moment you walk in. In doing it, honestly, it’s a character that I play, but man, I’ve gone back, after doing it going, “That is sick.” I was even disturbed by the fact that this cop let me do it. Most of the people in the comments are like, “Man, this is the nicest cop ever.” No human should tolerate that from another human. It’s wrong.

Stephen:

That is profound. That is truly profound. I think, I mean, because James, what you point out is we take police power for granted, and we pretty much have all been indoctrinated into accepting the fact that an individual can walk up to us and say, “Stand over here.”

Taya:

Absolutely.

Stephen:

“Tell me this. Give me your ID,” that kind of stuff. I think that’s why your videos are so important, and vital, in many ways, because you really do bring that… there’s not many people who have been able to so starkly illustrate the effect of police power, and especially police overreach. We appreciate you, and thank you for coming on.

James Freeman:

Thank you.

Taya:

Yeah, absolutely. I just wanted to make sure, James… do we have to go to our next guest?

Stephen:

We really do.

Taya:

We do. James, I hate letting you go, because I want to pick your brain, and especially you know me, I really want to have a follow-up conversation with you. When you say you don’t like to look to government for a solution, I really want to have a follow-up conversation with you about alternative solutions.

Stephen:

That would be for-

Taya:

We’re going to have to have that conversation sometime.

Stephen:

Yes, we will.

Taya:

Okay?

Stephen:

But we appreciate it. Thank you for coming on and celebrating our fifth anniversary with us.

Taya:

Yes, we appreciate it so much.

James Freeman:

Thank you guys, and congratulations, and thank you for everything you’ve done for this five years. I’m happy for your guys’ anniversary. Thanks.

Stephen:

Thanks.

Taya:

Thank you.

Stephen:

Thanks.

Taya:

We really appreciate that. Oh, that’s great. It’s always good to see.

Stephen:

Absolutely.

Taya:

Now our next epic cop watcher, our guests are continuing one, by one, by one.

Stephen:

This is amazing, that we’ve talked to, and we have still legends to come.

Taya:

I know. We have more to come, more legends to come, you guys.

Stephen:

We’ve talked to legends. It’s amazing to me, it really is.

Taya:

Now, our guests, honestly, they really don’t need an introduction. In a world where cop watching can sometimes become almost too over the top, the Battousai stands out for his measured, and almost understated approach, but is one that sure gets results. Let’s take a look. Okay. Hey, Philip, best known as the Battousai. Thank you so much for joining us.

Stephen:

Thanks for being here.

Otto:

Hi. Thank you for having me.

Taya:

We really appreciate it, and I know you’re always asked this question, but I just want to make sure, for the people who might not be familiar with you. One of the reasons why you are so well respected in this community, is because you have actually made case law to protect people’s right to record, to actually protect people’s First Amendment rights. It was a decision that’s known as Turner v Driver, I believe a cop arrested you. I think for maybe trying to film a police station. We know what the decision is, but can you just talk a little bit about it, and how you’ve had to keep fighting to protect that right?

Otto:

This all started when I was actually in college. I was in college, worked a part-time job, and I learned about my rights. They don’t teach you this stuff in high school, of course, they don’t want to teach you this in public systems. But I actually ended up learning this, because the State of Texas made it mandatory, that in order to get your degree, you needed to take US government, and Texas local state government. Over the summer when I took those classes, I learned how to pretty much stand up for your rights, exercise, those rights. One book, in particular, really pushed me over the edge, and it was called Convicting the Innocent. I had to do a book report on that for my US government class, and that really stood out to me.

I started digging, digging, digging on YouTube, and then that’s when I discovered the whole cop watching room. This is where I came across channels like Tom Zebra, Jeff Gray, PINAC News, like Sean Thomas. These are some of the guys that’s been doing it for a long time. I’ve been watching and just learning from these guys, and I’ve decided that, you know what? I want to do this same cop watching activity in my city. Before I knew it, things just took off.

Stephen:

Well, one of the things we had talked about, when we had you on the show before, was that even though you got this ruling, you still… police didn’t really seem to abide by it. Is that my understanding, that they created laws that didn’t totally go to the heart, or the letter of the decision that was made, that you won? I mean, is that right, in some way?

Otto:

Well, not in Texas. Texas, I think they’re being very careful here. They’re saying you can record, but you’ve got to do it from back over there. There’s some things that you can do to test the limits here. Most times they’ll tell you to stand back, but I guarantee you, if you put the camera there, and you take a step back, they’ll be like, “You can’t leave your camera there. It’s interfering.” It’s just those type of things that you have to think of on the fly, things to improvise the situation. For instance, even though Turner v Driver has established a right to report police officers in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, I do believe that there are officers who are undermining that. They get away with things by shining the light in your camera, blocking your view by positioning themselves in front of your camera, and the action that’s going on, or playing copyrighted music, to try to see if they can get your videos taken down, so you can’t monetize it.

Stephen:

Oh, my gosh, so devious.

Otto:

There’s different steps that officers are doing, and if only they put this much effort into doing their job correctly, they wouldn’t have to worry about the camera, in the first place.

Stephen:

That’s a really good point. I mean, and that does make me question though, for example… one thing I wanted to ask you is, the Fifth Circuit has a reputation… which is Texas. The Fifth Circuit has a reputation for being very pro-cop. How did you even win that case? I’ve been meaning to ask you this question, because I’ve had people who we’ve reported on, they say, well, they go to a lawyer, and they say, “Well, you can’t win in the Fifth Circuit, so I can’t sue on your behalf.” How did you actually win, in the Fifth Circuit?

Otto:

This is what I try to tell a lot of people, and this is what makes me a little successful, is because you’ve got to study the game. Unfortunately, it’s just all one big game. Once you learn how to play the game, you can use the rules against them. That’s pretty much how I stepped into the scene, because once you realize what to do, and how to do it, there’s a lot you can do, going forward, to get things established, and get things set, right away. One of my philosophies is, “Give the officer the shovel, let them dig themselves a hole.” Ask the right questions, record it, and you never know how far that video’s going to go. I try to do it from a professional standpoint, but I love the different styles of cop watching out there. I think there’s a lot to learn from everyone. That’s what I enjoy watching a lot of people.

But unfortunately, when you’re dealing with the courts, you have to play the game, and then you have to beat them with their own rules. That’s something that I have to live with my life, even before cop watching, it’s just growing up. You’ve got to learn how to play within the rules, and then use the rules to get your way. You know what I mean?

Taya:

You know, Battousai, I just wanted you to know there was this great comment that said that you could survive a bear attack, cool as a cucumber. Michael Willis, hi Michael Willis, we appreciate you, said, “This guy’s awesome. He’s doing it the right way, to my taste, making case law in the process. You guys want change? This guy has the combination to unlock change.” Just to let you know, you are very much appreciated. The way that you have fought for our right to record, and our first amendment rights, is really appreciated.

But to go towards what Stephen was talking about, in relation to the Fifth Circuit, even here in Maryland, attorneys have shared with me that it’s very difficult to sue, because the judges are so pro-cop. There are people I’ve spoken to, across the country, who can’t even find a civil rights attorney who’s even willing to help them sue, because they know that they’re just going to get slapped down by the judge, or the attorney is worried about alienating themselves from the larger judicial community. I mean, have you found this to be the case? Have you found it, that attorneys have said that it’s difficult to sue, or that judges are particularly pro-cop?

Otto:

Yes. Yes. I remember this very well, even when I first started recording. Just trying to… I think I talked to at least maybe 10 to 15 attorneys to take my cases to begin with, and it was just an uphill battle. Most of the times, attorneys would not take my cases, because there was no damages. There was nothing there to make money off of. In fact, it was just more of, “If I can’t make a decent chunk of change out of this, then I’m not interested. It’s not worth my time.” I’ve heard that from many attorneys. Then that’s when I met Kervyn Altaffer and I met Kervyn Altaffer through Brett Sanders. When I spoke with Kervyn Altaffer, we talked for about two hours, the first time we met. From within those first two hours, I mean, we became really close. He took all my cases, and I think after that, I believe TML started putting me on their radar, because we were just suing, getting settlement checks.

Then as soon as our case went to the Fifth Circuit, those settlement checks were used to fund Turner v Driver. It wasn’t just a, “Oh, he’s settling to get money.” But keep in mind, when I was doing all this, I was in college, part-time. Where am I going to get 35K to fund an appeal? You know what I mean?

Stephen:

Yeah.

Otto:

From my settlements, I used that to fund that, and even though the officers got qualified immunity, the overall battle was lost, but the war was won, when we got Turner v Driver. Because a lot of people were able to use that case law to prove that it’s been established, so these officers don’t get qualified immunity. I think yes, it’s a win, but I think now you have to position yourself as in, “Okay, now you get to the point to where judges are super pro-police, and that pretty much any ruling, or any situation that gets presented in front of a judge, are going to side with the police.”

Well, whenever you think about it, you have to think that… you’ve got to try to make the officer look bad, and you just look like an angel. Just to put it in a nutshell, that’s just how it’s going to be.

Stephen:

That’s interesting.

Otto:

Unfortunately, it has to be like that, in order to get any movement in a court. Otherwise, even if you’re on the same level as a cop, if the cop’s being rude, and you’re being rude, they’re going to side with the cop, because he’s a cop. But if the cop’s being rude, and you’re just being as nice as a 76-year-old lady, who just came from a Sunday night service in the church, they’re probably going to side with the lady.

Stephen:

Okay.

Otto:

But it’s unfortunate that you have to go that far, to that link, just to get any movement with the courts, to be honest.

Stephen:

I thought it makes you a master of the cop-watching universe, that you thought, stylistically, how your style would translate into a court setting, into a higher court setting, into an entire process. That’s pretty freaking amazing, to think that far ahead-

Taya:

I know.

Stephen:

… and say, “Hey, I have to look sympathetic, if I’m going to win legal precedent-

PART 3 OF 5 ENDS [01:27:04]

Stephen:

Hey, I have to look sympathetic if I’m going to win legal precedent. I’m impressed.

Taya:

I mean, I have to ask. I mean, you’re noted for your deliberate style, how you do not allow yourself to get ruffled, how you don’t slip into profanity. Because you’re thinking long game, you’re playing chess. But are you still sticking with that formula? I have to wonder sometimes, don’t you just want to get loud? Don’t you just want to put that bird?

Otto:

You have no idea. Oh, man. You have no idea. There’s been so many times I have been test, I have been pushed to my limits. But I just like, “You know what? This is pretty much what they want.” And it’s like, I can’t do that. There’s a bigger picture here at play, and I have to stick to my convictions, and I have to keep pushing forward.

And there was one thing that I do want to say because this was part of the clip that you played with Corrigan, where they had the illegal signs posted on the side of the building? Well, we went to mediation for that. So, during the mediation we had a retired federal judge, and we can’t really talk about what happened during the mediation process, but what happened afterwards was something that really shocked me.

Because as soon as we were leaving, the retired judge, she shook all of our hands. But then whenever she shook my hand, she’s like, “Hang on, Mr. Turner. I read a lot about you, and I’m very impressed, and I’m very proud of you.” And it’s like, “You have no idea how many people actually support some of the things you guys are doing.”

So that kind of just hit a light switch for me. It was like, “Yes, we are actually making a positive impact.” And even though that there are judges that are pro-police, there are judges who are pro-Constitution.

Taya:

That’s so good to hear.

Stephen:

That’s an amazing story.

Taya:

That’s so heartening.

Stephen:

Wow.

Taya:

That’s a beautiful story. That helps renew my hope. It really does.

Stephen:

Truthfully.

Otto:

Yeah. It’s going to be uphill battle. And I don’t know if you knew, but that Corrigan situation, I got them to sign the signs that they took down from the building. I got all the defendants to sign the back of it.

Taya:

Wait, you got the defendants to sign the back of it? Was that part of the-

Stephen:

Whoa, really?

Otto:

Yeah. It was part of the settlement.

Stephen:

That was part of the settlement. I love it.

Otto:

Yeah. So, we told them, “You know those signs that you had on the building? Can you take them down and have all the defendants sign it?” And then they agreed to it, and we were surprised that they agreed to it. So, I kind of got it up there on the back wall. I don’t know if you can see it.

Taya:

That’s diabolical. I love that for you.

Otto:

I’m going to [inaudible 01:29:33] with you real quick. Give me a second.

Taya:

I love that for you. Yes, please let us see it. I love that.

Stephen:

I mean, the thing that’s amazing, just talking to Battousai, James Freeman and… Think of all the change that these individuals, just working on their own, no newsrooms, no-

Otto:

So this is the sign here. I know if you can see it. Oh,

Taya:

That’s incredible.

Otto:

And they signed the back of it, so it was no joke. And then one thing I did find out later on, because I did some open records requests, I think whenever they wrote me the citation for filming when they dismissed it two days later, TML, which is like the insurance for the city, required the officers to take constitutional law.

Taya:

That’s wonderful.

Otto:

Yeah. So it was two days after, so they knew the lawsuit was coming.

Stephen:

Wow. Which begs the question is why they hadn’t done that before they became police officers or-

Taya:

That’s an excellent point-

Stephen:

Out in the streets.

Otto:

It was probably more just like a revisit.

Taya:

Maybe a refresher course.

Stephen:

Yeah, of course.

Taya:

Hopefully.

Stephen:

It’s always good to brush up.

Taya:

Except Steven, didn’t you have a particular experience on what you saw? You knew that was written in a police academy Blackboard, about the Fourth Amendment?

Stephen:

Yeah, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to us. We got a picture from a group of cops called VICD, Violent Impact Crimes Division, and they were doing training retraining on the amendments the fourth, fifth, and sixth. And they wrote on the Blackboard, fourth Amendment does not apply to us. And of course a lot of those guys-

Taya:

In the academy, in the academy on the Blackboard.

Stephen:

Just to show you how important Battousai work is, a lot of those officers ended up being part of the Gun Trace Task Force, which was a group of 6, 7, 8 officers who robbed residents, stole over time and-

Taya:

And dealt drugs in our city.

Stephen:

Dealt drugs. Congrats to you because that’s great to hear because if we can at least teach police officers that their whole occupation relies upon the constitution and those rights are important, that’s a victory.

Taya:

Absolutely.

Otto:

I think if people found a real reason why the police are here, I think everybody would blow their lids. And people are like, “Oh no, that’s not true.” But police are here to serve their masters. That’s pretty much all it is. They’re there to serve the wealthy and the people in position of power. That’s their true purpose.

Taya:

Yes, well said.

Otto:

And we should not forget that.

Taya:

And we can never forget that.

Stephen:

It’s an important thing to remember.

Taya:

Absolutely. They are the front line to protect the interest of capital. Corporatists, those oligarchs who are corrupting our society and corrupting our government process. They’re corrupting our democracy. Crony capitalism, I believe it’s called.

Stephen:

Go ahead. You say it, thank you.

Taya:

Well, I just wanted to ask, are there any new ongoing fights with the police departments or is there anything that you want to share with us? Any new legal front that you’re ready to share? I know sometimes you can’t always share something that you’re working on, and if you can’t, I totally understand that. But is there anything else coming up?

Otto:

Oh, I’ll say, so I had a couple of people respond to, email me, saying, “Hey, we didn’t know you were the guy for Turner V Driver.” And I was like, “Yeah, I guess it’s been some time. I haven’t been really active.” And then I had a couple of people from, Martha [inaudible 01:32:52] was actually one of them. He said, “I think it’s time for you to return to Fort Worth.” And I said, “Why do you say that?” And they said, “Oh, the Turner V. Driver case. They’re pretty much saying that, oh, that means nothing. And yeah, that white guy is not going to come back here anymore.” And I said, “Wait a minute, white guy?”

“Oh yeah, yeah. I didn’t tell you? They think the guy from Turner V. Driver was white.” And I was like, “Really?” I said, “Okay, yeah, I guess I already got a good disguise, so I’m going to go back up there.”

Taya:

You can be totally undercover now. They’re going to be looking for the wrong guy. That’s some bad police work.

Stephen:

That’s some very bad detective work, absolutely.

Taya:

That’s pretty sloppy.

Stephen:

We really appreciate you coming on the show for our fifth anniversary. So kind of you to take the time to join us.

Taya:

I really, really, really wish I could keep you for longer, but I promised everyone I would do five questions to make sure that I don’t trap our friends in the studio here all night. But would you please agree to come back and spend some more time with us? I think we just need to give the Battousai his whole hour. I mean, I think that’s what has to happen. You just need your own hour. Would you be able to come back?

Otto:

Oh, I got a lot of fun stories for you. Yes, I’ll come back. But I got a lot of fun stories for you guys.

Taya:

Okay. All right. I’m looking forward to them. Thank you so much for joining us and there is a lot of love in the chat for you, as I’m sure you’ll see.

Otto:

Thank you for having me and happy anniversary.

Stephen:

Thank you, Battousai. We really appreciate it.

Taya:

Thank you so much. It’s so great to see him.

Stephen:

It’s amazing. I was just saying, you think about all the changes that have been effectuated by the people that we’ve had in our show who had done this all on their own initiative. It gives you hope.

Taya:

It really does.

Stephen:

It gives you hope in democracy.

Taya:

It really does.

Stephen:

I know the internet is fueled by cynicism, but this is not a place for it, because if there are individuals willing to go out there and risk their neck and get arrested or just confront cops or create videos or tell people’s stories just on their own with no prompting, I can’t be a cynic all the time.

Taya:

All the time.

Stephen:

All the time. This is nice. I feel it’s pretty nice.

Taya:

You feel warm and fuzzy, aren’t you?

Stephen:

It’s a great gift for our fifth anniversary to really talk to people who have made a difference. You can make a difference.

Taya:

Absolutely. Because I have to admit, when I first started working with Steven, and he was a bit cynical and understandably because he had been a lone voice.

Stephen:

Oh, I cynical?

Taya:

He was a lone voice pushing back against police misconduct that he saw, violations of civil rights of community members, deaths that were being under investigated and literally covered up. He saw this, he listened to the community and reported on it, and he received retaliation from the police department. He had people from the medical examiner’s office call to try to get him fired. As a matter of fact, they tried to get me fired too, which is sort of ironic because at the time we were doing a podcast that we weren’t getting paid for. But just all these different forms of retaliation that you experienced. So you were getting a little cynical. So to see people do this, I really think makes a difference to you.

Stephen:

After I got laid off from my newspaper, I worked for a couple years on my own website, and then I got a job at a TV station. The first thing that happened was a police spokesman sent an email to my boss saying, “Steven Janis is a jerk, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Fire him.” That man actually-

Taya:

And a cop hitter, and a cop-hater-

Stephen:

That man right now is actually the head spokesman for the Secret Service. So yeah, Anthony Guglielmi, I think his name is, yeah. And so he decided that the best thing to do was take a reporter who had lost his job when his newspaper closed, because he had provided honest coverage of the police department-

Taya:

Exactly, all of it is honest-

Stephen:

And try to take away his job and his health benefits, because I hadn’t seen a doctor in three and a half years. So really wonderful people. I really have a lot to say about their character.

Taya:

You have some not-friends in some very high places.

Stephen:

But think about it. Think about, this was in 2011. This is four years before Freddie Gray and five years before. So was I right? Or was I wrong?

Taya:

You were right.

Stephen:

I was right about the Baltimore Freaking Police Department.

Taya:

Yes, you were.

Stephen:

But they tried to take my freaking job.

Taya:

That is absolutely right.

Stephen:

I’m sorry.

Taya:

And that’s why I thought you should share that. So when he says it affects him and makes him feel hopeful, this man had all the reason in the world for cynicism. So it means something when he says that.

Stephen:

Well, I’m very thankful that there are people who are willing to go out there and do this difficult work and all on their own. And it just gives me a lot. It makes me feel good. But anyway, that’s what I’ll say, but we’ve got to get to the next guest.

Taya:

Okay. Yes. So I’m just, thank you for letting me have you share that. So, our last guests are actually kind of a duo, and they have been unrelenting in their coverage of some of the most vexing police departments in the country. They’re a special team that have been involved in high profile cases that have led to a major settlement with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs, all due to the footage caught on their cameras. They also include one of the, so-called OGs of Cop watching, Tom Zebra. Tom’s uncompromising coverage of cops in LA has made him a legend in the world of YouTube activists. Also, the fact, I think he’s been doing it for almost 20 years. I think some of his early cop watches are actually on VHS. That’s how long Tom Zebra has been doing this. And they also made one of my favorite clips ever where they did a bit of an imitation of a show that I’m kind of fond of. Maybe we could just take a little peek at it. A little peek.

Stephen:

Okay.

Taya:

Good to know.

Stephen:

Thank you.

Taya:

I’ll tell people that.

Stephen:

Okay. I got to say something. Oh, Taya, just let me say something, that is good reporting because knowing that the Coke price was low or a good price, that’s the kind of detail, that separates the regular reporter from the top-notch investigative reporter.

Taya:

That lets you know that reporter hit the streets. And that’s what we respect around here.

Stephen:

I mean, I’ve been doing Stand-ups for five years, but Tom just knocked me right out of the park.

Taya:

He did. He knocked you out of the box on that one.

Stephen:

I’ve never had that kind of detail in my reporting, mad respect.

Taya:

Also, his sweatshirt was cool.

Stephen:

Mad respect for that man.

Taya:

And I liked Laura’s Bookshelf. And before we get started, that sounds really familiar. I’m not sure why it sounds so familiar.

Stephen:

I told Laura she needed more books though.

Taya:

She needed more books on her shelf. She even had the glasses. It was so awesome. Okay, just for any folks that are here, they did a version of the show we do. And we thought it was basically the best thing that we’ve ever seen.

Stephen:

We did.

Taya:

So you should go check it out on our channel, because it’s kind of great. And it also has really good reporting in it. So, I have to welcome Tom Zebra and Laura Sharp.

Stephen:

Hello.

Taya:

Thank you so much for joining us.

Stephen:

Thank you for being here.

Laura Sharp:

Bye. That’s, [inaudible 01:40:20].

Taya:

We appreciate you.

Laura Sharp:

My four books. It was like one of those last things. I’m like, “Oh, I need books.”

Stephen:

Tay and I have plenty of books. If you need something, we can ship them out to you.

Taya:

That’s right, we can ship them out to you.

Laura Sharp:

No, actually I have a lot. And if you notice, I don’t know what the… I don’t know. It was so random. I was like, “Oh no.” I just grabbed Egyptian books or something. I do have books.

Taya:

We just wanted to also say that Thomas has been having a little bit of an issue with his video. So at some point we might have the technical difficulty of just having his audio instead of his visual. So just to let you know, we’re not doing it on purpose. It’s just one of those technicalities.

So, to both of you, first, I just wanted to give you guys both a chance to comment on Eric’s recent indictment. You were there when we were out in Colorado spending time with Eric, checking in-

Stephen:

Prior to sentencing-

Taya:

To what was happening. Excuse me, we were there prior to sentencing. So we certainly know that you Eric well. I just thought maybe you’d like to have a chance to comment on his recent indictment and any concerns that you might have about it. And either one of you can take this question first.

Tom Zebra:

I’ll go, hopefully you can hear me okay.

Stephen:

We can.

Tom Zebra:

Everything you guys said is true. It’s not surprising in the least bit that they’ve retaliated against him and they’re going to do everything they can to keep him in jail. And if you think about it, I think that’s probably why Eric Brandt is the person he is anyways. It’s because of how unfair they are and the fact that that’s what they do every chance they get. They retaliate against people they don’t like instead of doing their job. So it’s not surprising to me one bit, but hopefully that’s going to light a fire under his butt. And when he gets out here, hopefully he’ll go right back to cop watching.

Stephen:

I hope so too.

Taya:

I hope so too. But I have a feeling he may retire to a quiet life-

Laura Sharp:

He might be taking a break.

Stephen:

I think, yeah… I think Eric is ready to retire.

Laura Sharp:

For his own mental health.

Taya:

Laura, did you want to comment on Eric’s recent indictment?

Laura Sharp:

He definitely covered everything. We talked about it at length and I mean, honestly, it just breaks my heart. Just there’s a lot that you risk when you do what we do. I mean, especially him. I’m almost at loss of words, just how that turned out.

Taya:

No, understandably.

Tom Zebra:

If I can add, I’d like to say something about the Judge Morris Hoffman.

Taya:

Please do.

Tom Zebra:

I know a lot of people have criticism about him. But one of the interviews I watched, he was explaining how if you are in the shoes of the defendant, if anybody else would’ve done what they would’ve done, then that’s not a crime at all. And I don’t think very many of us have been in the shoes of Eric Brandt, where he spent so much time in jail as an innocent person. And I mean, he’s got how many laws are in his name? He set precedent repeatedly. So, in the overall scheme of things, he’s the one that is righteous. And the judge said elsewhere, if any other person would’ve done those things, like in Eric Brandt’s shoes, and I think anyone else would have, I can’t imagine being locked up for so long as an innocent person.

Stephen:

I mean, Eric-

Tom Zebra:

At the very least, under those circumstances, of course, you’re going to say something that isn’t nice about the judge.

Taya:

Yeah, absolutely.

Stephen:

Yeah, and it’s true. Eric had set precedent in the 10th Circuit for filming police.

Taya:

Yes. With Liberty Freak, Irizarry.

Stephen:

Liberty Freak Irizarry. So that is very true. Among other things that he’s done-

Taya:

Among other things-

Stephen:

There’s many other lawsuits he won.

Taya:

I just meant, right… Also, there was a lawsuit that he participated in that resulted in the Englewood Police Department receiving body cameras about 18 months before any of the other police departments as well as guaranteeing them, certain retraining as well, certain constitutional retraining, which is good for everybody. I even want constitutional training.

Stephen:

So Laura, let me ask you, what’s it like out on the streets now? How are cops behaving? Are they responding to your work? How are things going up? How’s cop watching?

Taya:

Are they like, “Oh no, it’s Laura Sharp.”

Laura Sharp:

They’re running. They run from the camera.

Stephen:

They run from the camera?

Laura Sharp:

We go out. Yeah, no, no… We go out quite a bit and as soon as we get out or walk up, it’s like suddenly it’s over. It’s like, wow.

Stephen:

Really?

Laura Sharp:

Yeah, no, it’s almost annoying. It’s like, “Come on guys, please.”

Stephen:

So they’re ruining your videos. You can’t even make a video.

Laura Sharp:

We’re having to chase them to the department, their little substation or the… Come on please.

Taya:

That’s so funny.

Laura Sharp:

I mean, they’re basically [inaudible 01:45:24].

Taya:

But honestly though, in a way that’s great because what you’re doing in that process is there’s someone who might’ve been harassed, who might’ve been having an unconstitutional arrest or having their rights violated, and the officers decide, you know what? It’s not worth it.

Laura Sharp:

They’re still doing it.

Taya:

They’re still doing it?

Laura Sharp:

They’re still doing it. It’s just a matter of… It’s just a matter of there’s a new crop. I kind of see it as they obviously… I mean, they have so many departments like Sheriff for instance, and they have new rookies coming in. And at certain points there’s, right now I feel like there’s a brand new one for the last year that we haven’t figured out their places yet. Their path, the way that they get to each location kind of a thing. We don’t got that down the way we had prior. We could find the same guys in the same places mostly, but not anymore. And a lot of them, they’ve made a name for themselves. Sabatine has had a whole thing because I think he threatened the rapper. He said he was going to put one in his chest just like a whole… And I miss them, I don’t know. It was a little entertaining. Now these guys literally just don’t say anything. I’m like, this is no good.

Taya:

Let me ask you something. Because there’s a case that you worked on that really stood out to me and was absolutely life-changing. And this was the case of Christopher Bailey. You recorded some of the… I mean, I’ve witnessed a lot of police brutality, but this was truly terrible. And you were there live on the scene. And can you just talk a little bit about how your video footage helped him and the lawsuit that followed, and maybe even some information about the officers or detectives who were involved, if you don’t mind?

Laura Sharp:

Okay. So I mean, to make a really long story short, I mean, we did show up in the aftermath. We were directly after it. I mean, they must have just done their last strike on him or something. And initially when we arrived, I didn’t see him. And we did hear a deputy involved in a fight. So I was aware, I’ve come to these scenes before and maybe they have, they’re a little roughed up and they’re getting in an ambulance or something. But when we first got there, we didn’t see him. We could kind of see where the deputies were around. And then we heard him and he said, “I want to live.” And it was like, “Wait a minute. Oh, they have him on the ground.” And it was just this whole, it was in slow motion after that where it was like, we recognize all these, most of the deputies, and at this point, we know them all now.

But it was almost like, I don’t know. I could say I was shocked. I was not expecting when they sat him up and the condition of his face, it was horrific. And it really just could not bother, just even the most critical person of what we do. It was horrific. And so for almost a year to the day, I did not know this man’s name. And I started to resolve to the fact that I probably never would, because a lot of the times we don’t see, I mean most of the time, sorry, we don’t see these individuals again after they have their contact with law enforcement.

So I had almost become like, I had to accept that. And his lawyer made a comment on the video. I mean, she quickly took it off. But just that contact, and I have to say what we saw was pretty bad. But hearing it in detail, to the extent that what they did to him, it was almost, I don’t want to say it was worse, but it was just as horrific to hear the details of how many times they struck him or hit him and kneed him. And I mean, his injuries were his eye socket or his eyeball was dislocated from his orbital bone. They fractured his orbital bone. I mean, what we saw was just what looked like, he didn’t even look human. It was just something that I kept saying in the video. And they played a news clip, and you can hear me say, “He doesn’t even look human.” I mean he didn’t. And I think they referred to me as a bystander with a cell phone or something. And I was probably offended.

But Daniel and I just, Daniel has, we both have our own way of responding to these situations. And he had currently had a situation with a deputy that he was kind of asking about. But everything that we thought in the moment was very true. Daniel was calling it, before we knew the facts. And it sucks to be right. And I mean, we met him over Zoom. He is still, to this day, afraid to set foot in California. He took off to Texas as soon as he was medically able, because he was hospitalized for quite a bit after that. He still was, he’s still getting surgeries because he’s, he’s basically blind in his left eye. There was a clip from Eric’s trial where the judge said, “Who in the world thinks that that’s okay?” And literally, I could not have put that perfectly in this instance. But that one, it didn’t feel, that wasn’t even with Eric, it didn’t fit, but with this, it’s like, who in the world thinks this is okay? It’s just not.

Stephen:

Well, thank you for sharing that.

Laura Sharp:

I don’t know, you want to add something?

Stephen:

And I wanted to ask Tom, not just about this situation, but Tom, you’ve been out on the streets for 20 years. How have things changed for you and with your relationship? Have police changed at all in the 20 years you’ve been doing this? I’m just kind of curious.

Taya:

Good question.

Tom Zebra:

I’m going to say since I started having more people helping me, like Laura joined me, Jody Kat joined me. There was a few of us in the same area that I was working regularly. And as far as how things changed, the police don’t even come out of the station anymore. Like the Lawndale sheriffs, any of the areas, those productive feeding grounds, if it was like fishing, those were the areas that I would go because there was plenty of police instances to record.

Well, now I could drive through these areas every night all night long, and you won’t find a cop unless they’re responding to a call. They stay inside the station, they respond to a call and they go straight back to the station.

I don’t know how many millions people spent to put these police on the street, but for free, I come back off the street and put them in the station with the help of my associates. And to be honest, if anything, the crime rate has probably gone down because it seems to me like the most serious crimes are committed by the police, at least the ones that I see.

Taya:

Wow.

Stephen:

Well, yeah, it’s true. The crime has gone down over the past year from the pandemic highs. And that has been amid a police officer shortage.

Taya:

Exactly… Exactly.

Stephen:

Difficult to explain when you say the police are the key to public safety. But currently right now we have a really record drop in violent crime and also record low employment in many police departments, including ours in Baltimore, where we’ve had a 20% drop in homicides and we’re pretty much record low staffing. So really difficult conundrum for police partisans who want to say…

Taya:

It’s interesting you should say that, Steven, because it’s almost as if you two are drawing the conclusion that policing doesn’t necessarily stop crime, that’s a cleanup crew. By any chance, are you familiar with a book called You Can’t Stop Murder? Are you familiar with that book?

Stephen:

Yes, I wrote that book. I wrote that book.

Taya:

Yes, that’s right. And you actually… It’s interesting…

Stephen:

That was the thesis of the book, that proactive policing does not reduce crime and it only causes more, as to Tom’s point, causes more problems than it solves. And that is, I think borne out in Baltimore and I think in Los Angeles too as well, because as Tom and Laura were covering it, there was that report by the ACLU about the Los Angeles County Sheriff, and it was insane what they concluded. You guys remember that report, right?

Taya:

Incredible.

Laura Sharp:

Yeah, there was actually the investigation that they had put out is what I sent my video of Christopher Bailey. I sent my video in with several others, and that’s what I think the lawyer said that the district attorney said that she, that’s how she found out or something for their investigation.

Taya:

Let me just respond to MSTAR Media.

Tom Zebra:

Oh, I think-

Taya:

Oh, I’m sorry, Tom, go ahead. I don’t want to interrupt you.

Tom Zebra:

I think if I’m correct, you guys were talking about the investigation where like 90% of their time is spent on traffic stops, right? Is that what you’re referring to?

Taya:

Yes.

Stephen:

Yes.

Tom Zebra:

And our videos not only prove exactly that, but probably 90% of those traffic stops are fake traffic stops. They’re profiling where the person did nothing wrong, and at the end of the search, the police can’t even come up with the reason why they made that stop in the first place. And if you take that all into consideration, we’re wasting $4 billion to be pulled over for no reason. And I’ll let you get back to what you were, I just want to make that point.

Taya:

No, Tom, I’m so glad you’re making that point.

Stephen:

No, it’s a good point. Thank you for making that point.

Taya:

It’s really important. No, I just wanted to mention to MSTAR Media, and I really appreciate you bringing it up. She said, what are we getting our stats from about crime going down? Just in my case-

Stephen:

Well, the New York Times, FBI UCR.

Taya:

Well, just very specifically, the Uniform Crime Report is where various police agencies send in their data. Unfortunately, not all the police agencies do, but that’s where they’re supposed to send in their data about whether homicide, murders, et cetera, carjackings, theft, all the different varieties of crime. Something that we saw in particular in our city, Baltimore, is that although carjackings are up quite a bit, one of the things that we’re most concerned about is homicide in our city and shootings. And very fortunately this year, we’ve seen a precipitous drop despite the fact that we’re, what, maybe like 600 police officers short?

Stephen:

Yeah, 600 or something.

Taya:

And so there are other cities that are also experiencing this. If you have a chance, you can, the data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report is actually accessible. You can also get it through-

Stephen:

Go online, just look it up.

Taya:

Get it through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There are a couple of different ways to access it.

Stephen:

It’s all broken down by locale. By municipality.

Taya:

Right, so you can take a look. And so we are speaking from our personal experiences in the areas that we’re in, but-

PART 4 OF 5 ENDS [01:56:04]

Taya:

So we are speaking from our personal experiences in the areas that we’re in, but there have been journalists who’ve done really solid work to show that this is an overall national trend. So it may be in relation to specific crime that we’re very concerned about like homicide, and it may be like in our city, things like carjackings are high, so maybe you’re looking at a particular crime stat and we’re looking at another, so maybe that’s where the disconnect is happening.

Stephen:

Well, let’s ask one last question because we’re almost at two hours. So we have got to-

Taya:

Can I please ask about the cannabis.

Stephen:

Yes.

Taya:

Oh, okay.

Stephen:

Go ahead.

Taya:

All right, so-

Stephen:

Last question.

Taya:

Tom and Laura, I loved this piece that you did and because to me, in every aspect of it showed how important a cop watcher is. So Tom and Laura arrive on the scene, a young man and his girlfriend, his girlfriend’s a passenger,

Laura Sharp:

Darius Dandy.

Taya:

Say the name again, [inaudible 01:56:51].

Laura Sharp:

Darius Dandy.

Taya:

Darius. So Darius is driving, they’re pulled over, they’re harassed. I think it’s originally about window tint, and they see that they have some legally purchased marijuana. And so they start recording this and Laura can talk a little bit about what a strange DUI test they gave. But what really jumped out to me, which just touched my heart so much, is that the police, after taking away her boyfriend and taking away the car, just left the passenger standing on the road without her phone, without ID, without-

Laura Sharp:

No, they took her.

Taya:

They took her too. I thought they’d left her on the side of the road.

Laura Sharp:

So they took her too to the station. Essentially did. They took her phone, everything that she had in the car. When they towed the car, they took all her [inaudible 01:57:38]. And I was repeating to them like, “Are you going to let her get any of these things?” These are the obvious things that you’d need to be able to carry on with your evening while the car’s… Yeah. No, they took her back to the station. She actually refused to get out of the car.

Taya:

So you actually went to the station with them to help? Which is wonderful.

Laura Sharp:

Yeah, so we followed them to the station, and then they basically set her on her own. But luckily we were there and I offered to give her a ride to the impound lot. Mind you, mind you though. Sorry. The show that it was after that is just, it was raining. So technically if we weren’t there, she would’ve had to walk, what was it, Daniel? The miles to the tow.

Tom Zebra:

It would’ve been a couple hour walk to get to her stuff, but then without a release, they tried to send her without a release. She would’ve had to walk all the way back and then-

Laura Sharp:

And then it was after hours-

Tom Zebra:

… for her to have so. She would’ve had to walk for eight hours and she would’ve never accomplished getting her wallet, her keys, anything.

Laura Sharp:

Yeah, she had to pay, well, she didn’t even have the money because she didn’t have her wallet or anything. So I loaned her money so that she could pay the after hours cost to be able to get these most obvious items of her. Okay, so the worst part of this is that they did the, what was it, Daniel, that they, it was under the, what was it? It was like a DUI investigation, he claimed.

Tom Zebra:

Yes. The whole thing was just a charade because apparently we caught him too many times. They’re trying to not admit or let on when we catch him doing illegal searches. So they just were framing the guy for a marijuana DUI. And I think you know about marijuana DUIs, they’re bogus on their face.

Stephen:

Wow.

Taya:

Excellent.

Stephen:

Well, I think-

Taya:

Excellent.

Stephen:

We appreciate you guys. I think Tay, we are almost up to two hours.

Taya:

I don’t want to let them go. We barely even got the chance to really talk to them.

Stephen:

I know. But we’ll have them back. We’ll have them back.

Laura Sharp:

We love you congratulations.

Taya:

Can I at least-

Tom Zebra:

Let me just say, I want to congratulate you guys. I have a ton more things to talk about, but we’ll save that for another time. It was a great show. I enjoyed watching it and I hope to see you guys soon.

Stephen:

Absolutely.

Taya:

All right. I will defer to my partners. No, you’re right. I’m sorry. It’s so rare to have Tom and Laura at the same time, and between the two of them, they have amazing stories and just so much to share.

Stephen:

Could you guys keep making fake police accountability reports, oh please? Because we like to watch it.

Laura Sharp:

We’re actually working on another one I was telling you about earlier this week, but I didn’t have time to-

Taya:

I would love that.

Laura Sharp:

Oh yeah, for sure. For sure.

Taya:

At least by the 6th.

Stephen:

Yeah. No, they’re working on one now.

Laura Sharp:

No, no, no. For sure. I’m working on it now, so yeah.

Taya:

Okay. Awesome.

Laura Sharp:

I was hoping to have it ready.

Stephen:

Thank you so much.

Taya:

We appreciate you so much.

Tom Zebra:

Good night everybody.

Taya:

Thank you so much.

Laura Sharp:

Love you too.

Taya:

Bye Laura. Bye Tom Zebra.

Laura Sharp:

Bye.

Taya:

Hey, if you guys haven’t already subscribed to their channel, that’s Laura Shark CW, you’re seeing right there. That’s how you find her channel. You might not realize this, but the world of cop watchers, there aren’t a lot of females out there, so please make sure to support them like Laura Shark CW, and of course you’ve got to honor the OG Tom Zebra, so make sure to go check out his channel as well. And all the other wonderful cop watchers that we’ve had here tonight. I think most of them already knew [inaudible 02:01:03] streaming in like [inaudible 02:01:04] and out of the watch dog. But please make sure you go.

Laura Sharp:

It’s great to see.

Taya:

Sub to Laura’s channel for me.

Stephen:

Isn’t it amazing that the cops are afraid to come out because Tom’s out there.

Taya:

I know. I love that.

Stephen:

Just a guy with a cell phone and a-

Taya:

I know.

Stephen:

… camera on his head-

Taya:

… that they’ve done that to him. I have to ask. Okay, I won’t. Can I just have one little question of Laura? One little question.

Stephen:

One more question quickly.

Taya:

One more. Okay. Laura, while you’re still here because you’re not done yet, I have to ask. Okay. You guys have gotten a lot of attention on YouTube question. You’ve had a lot of impact. Do the police treat you differently? When you show up are they like, “Oh no, it’s Laura, oh no, it’s Tom Zebra.” Or do they just act like they don’t see you? What happens when the cops see you?

Laura Sharp:

I [inaudible 02:01:42] know Daniel, what do you think?

Tom Zebra:

Definitely. I think a lot of them are, they’re scared of Laura it seems like, or if she asked more serious questions. I’m more likely to put things off and just say hello and be social. She’s not as nice to them. So there’s a lot of them that try to-

Laura Sharp:

[inaudible 02:02:03]. I’m just factual. I’m just real. I have passion. And he says a lot more in his own, when he posts videos, he gets to the point in that [inaudible 02:02:13]. But me, I am quite like, “No, no, no, I know what you did.” Or, “Wait, wait, wait, come back.” No.

Taya:

That’s great.

Tom Zebra:

If I could add one last thing. I know we’re ending the show, but after working with these guys for so many years, it’s hard to not become friends with them. So despite the awful…

Stephen:

Oh, I think we just lost him.

Taya:

Oh, no.

Laura Sharp:

Oh, no, no, no. He says he’s friends with us. I don’t claim such just silly thing. That’s so ridiculous. Good night.

Stephen:

Good night. Good night.

Taya:

Good night.

Stephen:

Thank you so much.

Taya:

It was great to have you both. And we definitely want to see you again soon. Thank you so much.

Stephen:

Cool.

Taya:

Okay.

Stephen:

That was amazing.

Taya:

Absolutely amazing. I love the idea that they’re scared of her like she’s mean to the cops. I’ve met Laura in person, she’s not-

Stephen:

We met Laura in person. She’s the kindest person.

Taya:

She’s a petite person. She’s not intimidating in any way. So to imagine her being mean and standing up in that way is amazing.

Stephen:

Absolutely.

Taya:

And I just have to thank all of our guests, for just their insight, being willing to spend their time with us and just for your patience to stick with us and talk to us individually. And I want to thank all of you for the amazing work that you do. You each have your own styles, you have your own way. And what’s even better is that you always find a way to somehow support and help each other. You’ve created an amazing community and I’m so glad to be at least a small part of it. So Stephen, I have a question for you. As I was talking about the theme of the show, I mentioned a phrase that is very familiar to you, a community that has something in common, but it’s actually a play on words on a book by a philosopher, Alphonso Lingis who wrote a book called A Community with Nothing in Common. So you spoke to this philosopher, you wrote about him. Can you talk a little bit about that book in relation to cop watchers?

Stephen:

Well, and to be really quick, because we don’t have a lot of time, but you brought up something that really struck me. Really, it almost made me upset because I was reminded of things that happened to me when I started covering police 15 years ago. And we were in the midst of zero tolerance and things police were crazy and they were shooting people in the back and all these horrible things were happening and I was trying to cover it, report out and in truth. And they tried to destroy my life basically. They pulled me over like 40 times. They would always harass me. My editor said I was a cop hater. The things that would happen to me were really horrible. And there was other things they did wrote about me as if I was some sort of crazy freak.

But then in 2016, when the federal government comes in and says unconstitutional, racist policing and all this stuff, it was even more painful for me because in many ways the damage had been done. But it affected me deeply. It made me a paranoid person and a person who doesn’t trust people much and a person who feels isolated. But the whole wonderful thing about talking to these people, the whole amazing thing is all these people who I really have very little in common with on a regular basis, that I don’t even live in the same cities I do, make me feel like I’m not alone in this effort to hold power accountable. And as painful as it was for me, when I know the people like Otto have gone through so much, James Freeman, I know Eric Brandt is in prison right now. I know all these people have suffered.

And so I feel like I have some connection to something that in many ways makes it all worthwhile. Because truthfully, I’ll tell you this, you can write all these things about police and about how bad policing was in Baltimore, but when the Justice Department comes around and no one says, “Hey, you did a good job. We appreciate what you did. We understand you suffered.” People like Anthony Guglielmi, don’t apologize to you for calling you Jerk, or some of the other stuff they did to me. I could just go on and on, on what happened to me. Dragging me into a trial board and screaming at me and subpoenaed me all the time to go into court, all these really things when all I was doing was writing. I wasn’t dealing drugs, I was just writing the truth. And so I feel connected to the people that we report on because they have been through this too.

And I understand the impulse. The people who we talk to, but [inaudible 02:06:53], these people aren’t doing it. Even though people say, “Well, it’s all about YouTube clicks,” or something. They are doing it, because they believe in this process of holding power accountable. And so in that sense, we have nothing in common and everything in common. And it’s helping me a lot personally because I just feel angry sometimes when you bring that up. I just don’t understand it really. I don’t understand. But I think I read once about, I think it was a woman who was a reporter, I can’t remember her name, but she said, “You think when you cover the truth and you say the truth, that everyone’s going to come running and say, ‘It’s the truth.’ That’s not what happens.” And as one of our guests pointed out, police don’t really serve the public, so to speak. They do, they serve this great inequality machine. And that’s part of the reason. Anyway,

Taya:

Yes. No, well said.

Stephen:

Anyway, thank you.

Taya:

No, very well said.

Stephen:

I just wanted to say that.

Taya:

No, and you should say that. And what’s interesting, someone said, “Does Stephen know former Baltimore cop Michael Wood?” I remember him from-

Stephen:

Yes, I do.

Taya:

Yes. We both interviewed Michael Wood and he went on to do some-

Stephen:

What happened to him?

Taya:

He went on to do some interesting things like, like rob veterans of campaign, allegedly.

Stephen:

Allegedly.

Taya:

Allegedly mismanaged some donations.

Stephen:

Let’s put it this way. Initially, he was very revealing in talking a lot of truth but then he became muddled in controversy. But yes.

Taya:

I’m sorry.

Stephen:

We are aware of it.

Taya:

Allegedly.

Stephen:

Allegedly.

Taya:

Allegedly mismanaged these funds. Let me be clear. So just once again, I want to thank all of the wonderful cop watchers and activists who joined us tonight, both on the channel and in the live chat. I’ve seen you, I might not have been able to put up everyone’s comment, but I really did try to at least put up some of them and read them. And thank you. Thank you, Russell. You’re my favorite too. Thank you. That’s a very sweet comment. So I just wanted you to know I was looking at all these great comments. I’m going to be in the comment section. Excuse me, in the chat, I’m going to be in the comment section later.

As always, I do a PAR comment of the week and I try to pick out a comment. So I’ll be doing that later as well. So I just wanted to say thank you for everyone who is participating, and I just want you to know how lucky we feel to be able to cover this vibrant and eclectic and fascinating community. And it is a thought-provoking collection of people to say the least. And we are so grateful to have been able to tell their stories. Stephen, I’m about to give my 5th year anniversary rant.

Stephen:

Happy anniversary.

Taya:

Happy anniversary to you too.

Stephen:

Thank you.

Taya:

You were a member of the mainstream media and now you’re in a very different world.

Stephen:

Yes, I am. But I wouldn’t be anywhere else, then here next to you, as Jay-Z said, “You could have been anywhere else in the world but here.”

Taya:

Oh, that’s great.

Stephen:

Yeah.

Taya:

Nice quote with Jay-Z.

Stephen:

Yeah. Thank you.

Taya:

Well done. You’re in a different world. Is there anything you want to share about covering this phenomena or?

Stephen:

Well, as I said before, I feel kindred spirits here, and it’s been a great 5th anniversary gift for me to hear from people who have struggled with the same things I have. And it makes me feel good that we are together in some ways, a community though not together in the same space, but by the same ideals. And that feels good. So I’ll say that.

Taya:

That’s beautifully said.

Stephen:

Thank you.

Taya:

Okay, now it’s my turn. As I’ve discussed at the beginning of the show, all of our work on the police accountability report is driven by a community, people who care enough to watch and share and comment, and even film cops. It’s driven by something we would call an audience, but I would characterize it more accurately as a collective of people focused on a single idea. Self-governance requires participation and good governance requires even more active involvement. And what I mean is that what I see is I report on the variety of people who watch or simply watch us, is a movement tied to more than an ideology. That is, it’s a group of people acting within their individual capacities to facilitate something more important than their own needs. A collective good, a common good. Think about it, when a person appears on our show to discuss an encounter with police, it’s more than simply an opportunity to tell their story. It’s an affirmation that standing up and pushing back and participating is more than what philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre would call a useless passion.

It is, at its core, an acknowledgement that democracy freedom and our essential rights require work to maintain them. Meaning if we don’t fight each and every day for self-governance, we will lose it. And that’s what this show, my show, Stephen’s show, your show has taught me. It has forced me to look beyond the past implications of a dystopian future where our personal agency has been rendered impotent. And it has inspired me to comprehend the real meaning of a single individual coming forward and standing up for themselves when police and the mainstream media would brand them as criminals. And it tells me that despite the cynicism that pervades social media and the apathy of the internet, there are people who believe that fighting back really matters.

Is there anything really as profound as an average citizen whose rights have been trampled by police bravely coming forward on a Zoom call to tell their story? Is there anything more inspiring than the premise of a single person story, a story that can be painful, and even embarrassing to tell can actually change all of our lives. But this is exactly what I’ve witnessed, and I’ve literally watched it unfold in real time. This community and the people who are part of it, you are changing the world for the better. And you who are watching the live stream who are in this live chat right now are part of it too. How do I know? Well, let me count the ways, so to speak. Let me tell you now and show you what I mean. Let me just go back five years to one of our early guest, Michelle Lucas.

Michelle had been forced to plead guilty to a crime she didn’t commit, namely passing a counterfeit bill. The fake money was given to her by a fellow employee to purchase liquor at the store, but the police didn’t believe her. And while she was awaiting sentencing, she told her story to us. After our story was published, which exposed the flaws of the case, the head public defender stepped in and withdrew her plea and dropped the charges. And I want you to know it is nearly unheard of for someone to have pled guilty and then have the public defender’s office step in to have it overturned. And then there’s a story of an Ohio car driver named Lufty Salim. Mr. Salim was parked outside of a pharmacy during the pandemic when an off-duty cop approached him, told him to move. And when Mr. Salim tried to explain that he was waiting for a patient, he started to drag Lufty out of the car and then tasered him multiple times. After telling his story, Lufty sued and a court tossed his suit due to, you guessed it, qualified immunity.

But Mr. Salim persisted. And just recently a circuit court panel overturned the decision, giving him another chance to fight to hold police accountable. Or I could talk about Caleb Dial. Caleb was charged with resisting arrest and felony escape by Milton police. They posted his mugshot on Facebook and hinted that he had been involved in domestic violence, all of which was untrue. After telling his story and showing the ring camera video that proved the officer was lying, Caleb obtained a lawyer, sued and won a major settlement from the Milton West Virginia Police Department. Or I could tell the story of one of our very first guests, Erica Hamlett, whose sixteen-year-old son was confronted by an off-duty Baltimore cop who pointed a gun at the teenager while he was waiting for a bus. The officer was never charged, but Hamlett fought both the department and the city to hold them accountable.

And just a few weeks ago, a jury awarded the family $250.000. These are just a few of the stories that we have been told over the past five years. Tales of malfeasance that all started with a simple idea you, meaning you, the people will not tolerate the diminishment of our rights or government that feels free to violate them. And this is what it’s really about. It’s not just police, or law enforcement, or laws, or legal precedents. What this battle really amounts to is to fight to preserve the most precious right we have, the right to self-governance. What we’re really witnessing when we report on these stories is a collective act of faith. That these rights not only matter, but are worth fighting to maintain that the phrase, “We the people,” means something tangible. And that to live in a free nation governed by equality and respect for the voice of the citizenry, means we have to speak up.

And speaking up comes with risks, and speaking out is often met with retaliation. Just consider how much jail time Eric Brandt is serving for doing so, even though what he said was offensive. His goals, his objective are not only worth considering, but debating so we can understand the limits of free speech and the price of imposing constraints upon it. So I guess what the show has taught me is that courage lies with the people who take the risk to stand up. Why else would Eric, and Abidy, and Monkey 83 stage protests around Denver over the rights of the homeless, get arrested for it, and then win settlement after settlement with the city of Denver? Why else would James Freeman turn his attention to the court system of New Mexico? And what other motivation could Otto have in mind to continue to fight the system that tried to force him to plead guilty and denied him the right to see his children?

It’s all an act premised on the idea that our world can be made better, that our rights are worth protecting, and that our freedom is non-negotiable. Believe me there days when I despair, moments when even I have doubts. But what always inspire me to double down and keep moving forward is you, the people who care. The people who not only want better, but demand better. The community that uplifts us all and the community that I’m so proud to be a part of. And it’s a community that most definitely has something in common, and it’s our humanity and our love of our constitutional rights. So I would like to thank all of you again, and I want to make sure-

Stephen:

[inaudible 02:17:19] applaud your 5th anniversary. You need applause for that. Was quite [inaudible 02:17:23]. That was-

Taya:

I don’t know if I deserve applause.

Stephen:

Sorry, I didn’t mean to interject there, but I was stunned. I was moved.

Taya:

Oh, well thank you Stephen. I hope other folks, oh, someone said, this is not the comment of the week. I just want to make sure to thank the amazing folks who helped make the show special. First, my dear friend and my very first moderator, Noli D. Hi, Noli D. and my second moderator, but no less appreciated, the kind-hearted Lacey Ard. And I have to thank the gentlemen behind the scenes who helped make the show possible tonight. Cameron Grandino and David Hebden. Thank you, gentlemen.

Stephen:

Thank you so much you guys.

Taya:

And hats off to our editor in chief who’s a great supporter of our work. Max, thank you.

Stephen:

Thank you Max.

Taya:

And I have to thank each and every one of you who shows up to our live streams. We appreciate you and I hope that you know it because we did this crazy live stream for you. That’s why we did it so we could interact with you and you guys when we don’t have the Thursday night live chat. I really do miss you. I honestly do. I hope you miss me too. Okay, so just to let everyone know, this is the time when I think my amazing patrons. Okay. I saw a Matter Of Rights down here. Okay, so this is when I thank them. So please make sure to listen up for your name. Please forgive me if I stumble or mispronounce something. And I just want to say thank you so much for your support. Are you ready for the Patreons?

Stephen:

Yes.

Taya:

Patron Patreons?

Stephen:

Yes.

Taya:

Okay. So first, for our PR patrons, first coming up, our amazing, loyal, and exceptionally intelligent associate producers, Lucida Garcia, David Keeley, John ER, Louis P, and then of course our wonderful PR super friends who are so generous and help us fight for justice with their donations and their moral support Matter Of Rights, Chris R, Kenneth Lawrence K, Pineapple Girl, Shane B and Angela True. And of course, people with wonderful and great taste in YouTube videos are official patrons. And I’m only saying the first letter of the last name because I don’t accidentally want to reveal too much information about someone. So Gary H, Michael W. Joseph P Dur Devil, Nope. Patty, Kemi, XXXX, Libit, Dante, Kipi S, John M, Joe Six. Six Estate AZ, Kyle R, Calvin M, Stephen D, Rod B, Celeste Dupy S, PT, Just M 2 Cents. Talia B, Tamara A, John K, True Tube Live.

Liz S, Gary T, and last but not least, are loyal, kind, and most certainly good-looking friends of PAR. Are you ready?

Stephen:

Mm-hmm.

Taya:

Okay. Ryan Pantilla, Sean B, Ronald H, Hugo F, Social Nationalist, Marcia E, Tim R, Justin P, Conrad B, Wingate B, Bill Ding, Ninding N, David W, Regina O, Jodes, Frank FK, Mary M, Mike D, Linda Or, and Linda, I got your card. I love that picture of Alaska you sent me. That was so sweet. You’re an absolute sweetheart. I’ve saved your letter. You’re awesome. Chris M, Dean C, Shannon P, Cameron J, Farmer Jane USA. Marbin G, Kimmy Cat P, Kurt A, Daniel W, William TG, DBMC, John K, Pot Shot, Stephen B, Cindy. K, Seskel S, Keith Bernard M, John M, Janet K, Mark William L, Noli D, Guy B, Ron F, Alan J, Trey P, Julius Geyser, Omar O, Umesh H, John P, Ryan, Lacey R, Douglas P, Andrea JO, Siggy Young, Stephen J, Michael Stephen L, Default Urine, Peter J, Joel A.

Larry L, Artemis LA. Jimmy Touchdown. He was our very first patron. Kenny G, David B, [inaudible 02:21:24], I’m A Lot To Unpack, Marlin, Cool Raul 07, Soulja, the Self-Care Maven Cat, Negrita, Gary B, Dan F, Eric G, Lorelai, W, Luis, S, Thomas C, Arvin N, Steve MC, Carson W, Twila M, Brad W, Cynthia Corrine, D, Mike K, Loretta S, Marciana, Brian M, Glen R, Mike K, I Is Circle of the Quantum Note, Philonius Punk, Betty R, Byron M, Graham Brigg W, Zira M, and RBMH. That’s it. Those are our beautiful Patreons. Those are our beautiful patrons. And I want to thank everyone that spent time with us in the live chat tonight. Like I said, I’m going to be in the comments for a little while later so you can say hi to me, share what you thought of the show.

And of course, I’m going to be looking for my PAR comment of the week. So if that’s something that you’re interested in, I’ll be taking little snapshots and putting some aside so I can have some nice comments of the week for this week and next. We’re not going to be back for two weeks, but we are working on one heck of a report for you, and it’s going to have in it a cop watcher that you know well. You might’ve seen him in the comment section today. He was fortunate to not be incarcerated this week. His name is Manuel Mata, and he’s going to help elucidate some of the larger problems with policing in this country. So I want to thank everyone. And of course, if you have any tips that you want to share with us, please reach out to us at PAR at therealnews.com. And of course, you can always reach out to me directly @TayasBaltimore on Facebook and Twitter. Stephen, is there anything I should allow you to say before I go?

Stephen:

Happy anniversary.

Taya:

All right, happy anniversary to you too.

Stephen:

Take us with your…

Taya:

Okay, and happy anniversary to my awesome mods, Noli D and Lacey R, and to anyone who I didn’t get to say goodbye to, I’m sorry, but I’ll try to make it up to you everyone. Thanks for joining me, and please be safe out there.

A Wisconsin man making Doordash deliveries in the vicinity of Lake Superior had his world suddenly turned upside-down by a traffic stop gone terribly wrong. Body camera footage of the stop shows police officers barking contradictory orders at the driver, who does his best to comply, before mercilessly using a taser on him. The man, who was later charged with resisting arrest and driving the wrong way up a one-way street, says he was not informed about the reason for the stop before police brutalized him. Police Accountability Report examines the facts and unpacks what this case reveals about law enforcement’s broad powers to deploy force against civilians.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production, Stephen Janis, Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As we always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today, we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video. It depicts police using violent force against a DoorDash driver for turning onto a one-way street. But when you watch how this car stop unfolded and how dangerous the situation became, you’ll understand why we need to drill down into all the details and how and why this harrowing car stop happened. But before we get started, I want you watching to know that, if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at P-A-R @therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or X at tayasbaltimore. And we might be able to investigate for you.

And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out, and it can even help our guests. And you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there. And I’ve even started doing a Comment of the Week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. And we have a Patreon called Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, one of the most precarious powers we confer upon police is the discretion to use deadly force. It’s a truly terrifying idea to contemplate and something that can lead to irrevocable injury and suffering to the people subject to it. One of the problems with the ability of police to use violent force is how often it is deployed for what could best be described as questionable justifications.

This is why, today, we will be reviewing the video I am showing you now, and it’s an example of how little impetus police need to use it and how easy it is in a situation where force is deployed to completely spiral out of control. The story starts in Lake Superior, Wisconsin. There, a DoorDash driver named Ian Cuyper was en route to make a delivery. He was a bit confused, because he was navigating an unfamiliar neighborhood. And Ian took a wrong turn down a one-way street. Realizing his mistake, he immediately stopped his car, but before he could turn around and right his error, the police pounced. And inexplicably, without even speaking to Ian, they began to order him out of the vehicle. Take a look.

Police:

[inaudible 00:02:43] door. Do it now. With your left hand, grab the door handle, open the door, do it now.

Ian Cuypers:

Come on.

Police:

Unlock it. Keep your hands up. Slowly step out of the vehicle and face away from us.

Ian Cuypers:

What?

Police:

Face away.

Ian Cuypers:

[inaudible 00:03:08] happening.

Police:

Keep your hands up, face away from us. Right now.

Ian Cuypers:

[inaudible 00:03:16].

Police:

All right, put your hands behind your head and interlace your fingers.

Taya Graham:

Now, you’re probably wondering why police were so aggressive from the onset. So were we. So we obtained the officer’s report after the incident occurred. In it, the officer cited furtive movements as the reason for taking such extreme actions, seriously. I just want you to watch as the officers continue to bark orders at Ian and see if his movements are indeed furtive.

Police:

Just listen to his instructions. Move slowly backwards to sound of my voice. You understand? Start moving. Slow down. Keep forward. Keep on walking.

Taya Graham:

The officers continue to escalate, and as you can see, Ian becomes confused. First, I think the instructions are somewhat contradictory and difficult to interpret. And second, there are no less than four officers on the scene making this situation even more chaotic and stressful. Just watch.

Ian Cuypers:

I feel like I’m being assaulted.

Police:

Put your hands on top of your head. Put your hands on the top of your head [inaudible 00:04:25].

Ian Cuypers:

I feel like I’m being kind of…

Police:

Stop moving. Hold up. Let me take over for a second. Keep looking forward. Don’t do anything other than keep your hands on top of your head. That’s it. Put your hands on top of your head. Stop moving.

Ian Cuypers:

Guys, you have guns on me. I really do not feel like I’m being…

Police:

Follow our instructions.

Ian Cuypers:

What are these lasers?

Police:

I want you to get down on your left knee. Get down on your left knee.

Taya Graham:

Still, Ian tries to comply. He’s obviously terrified, but still trying to follow this police-conjured game of Twister. Unfortunately, one of the officers decides he’s not complying enough. Take a look.

Ian Cuypers:

Can I please get an explanation?

Police:

Do it now or you’re going to get tased. Get down on your left knee.

Ian Cuypers:

No.

Police:

Don’t move or you’re going to get tased again. [inaudible 00:05:31] Keep watching the vehicle. Yeah, get this guy dried back. Let’s get this vehicle out of here.

Taya Graham:

Here’s the question this video raises, what happened prior to deploying the taser, which necessitated using it? I asked this question, because as I said at the beginning of the show, the use of deadly force is a power that police have both the freedom to use and abuse. And it’s up to us to make sure the latter doesn’t happen. Still, as you can see, officers continue to use a taser to send thousands of bolts of electricity through Ian’s body.

Ian Cuypers:

I can’t feel my legs.

Police:

Okay. Do you need medical attention?

Ian Cuypers:

Do I? Fuck, is that going to cost me money?

Police:

Do you need medical attention?

Ian Cuypers:

What does that entail?

Police:

It entails an ambulance coming to look at you to make sure that you are medically okay.

Ian Cuypers:

Can I get some time to collect my thoughts?

Police:

We’re going to need you to stand up now or we are going to stand you up. You either do it yourself or we do it for you. Hands up.

Ian Cuypers:

You can stand me up. There’s one in the…

Police:

Who else is in the vehicle? How many people?

Ian Cuypers:

There’s no one in there. There’s no one else in the car.

Police:

Okay.

Ian Cuypers:

I have shirts in the back seat covering the windows, because I banged in there one time.

Police:

[Inaudible 00:06:49] hands off.

Ian Cuypers:

Look, there’s no one in there.

Police:

So we’re going to sit you up. Take your knees and bring them forward.

Ian Cuypers:

I didn’t think to use…

Police:

We’re trying to get him up and moving. Bring your knees to your chest. One, two, three.

Ian Cuypers:

I give you consent to just put me however you want.

Police:

Ready? One, two.

Ian Cuypers:

Thanks. Yeah.

Police:

Walk him back this way. You okay? We’ll get it. Just walking him back.

Taya Graham:

Now, usually, I would end the video review here. There’s no reason to show more than once the pain and suffering experienced by Ian. However, in this case, there is critical evidence that unfolds as the police effectuate the arrest. First, Ian asks why he was stopped, tasered, and what his charges are. Take a listen. Okay,

Ian Cuypers:

Is my car suspicious or something? I just really would like to know what’s happening.

Police:

Okay, we’ll explain what’s happening in a second. My partner pulled you over and called for more squads, and here we are. And then, we’re in this position, because you were not following our commands.

Ian Cuypers:

Well, I pulled over right away, and then, a bunch more cops showed up.

Police:

You were not following our commands. That is why we are in the position we are in.

Ian Cuypers:

I followed all your commands.

Police:

You sure didn’t.

Ian Cuypers:

What didn’t I do?

Police:

You sure did not follow…

Ian Cuypers:

What did I not do?

Police:

We can discuss that in a little bit.

Ian Cuypers:

Okay.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So nothing from the police that we hear appears to justify the use of force, but now, before I get to more of the evidence about this flimsy justification, I want you to watch something that is rarely witnessed by the public, the painful consequences of a taser, beyond the literal paralysis of your nervous system. I’m talking about removing the barbs that pierce the skin and create the current that electrocute your body. They have to be removed. Normally, that’s left up to a doctor or EMT or at least a medic to ensure less bleeding and that the puncture site is properly sterilized, but the cops in Superior decide they’re superior enough to do it themselves. Take a look.

Police:

[inaudible 00:08:44] the light. Yeah, hold the light. [inaudible 00:08:51] Lift your hands up for me, up. Like that.

Ian Cuypers:

It’s like a lot of commands [inaudible 00:09:02]

Police:

So I’m going to have to get this. I got them. Sorry. We’re just going to have to…

Ian Cuypers:

So am I under arrest?

Police:

At this point, you are not free to leave. You can talk with my partner more about that in a second. You want me to cut one of… Yeah, I want you to cut the wires. Hey, stay leaning against the vehicle. Otherwise, Jason, I know you have shears too. [inaudible 00:09:37] I know. I just don’t want you to fall over or move or any of that kind of stuff. Take a breath. Figure out what you got to do next.

Ian Cuypers:

Yeah.

Police:

[inaudible 00:09:53] Yeah.

Taya Graham:

And now, finally, more evidence of how questionable this use of force was. Unguarded moments captured on body camera. Just listen as the officers try to figure out what to charge Ian with.

Police:

Oh, I was under it. Oh, I don’t think… Do you want ask him if he wants his whole wallet or do you just want [inaudible 00:10:24]? He wants that too. So that’s why I was like, “Hey, need another squad.” We were doing our drug court. That’s what I figured. He was diving across the side of vehicle. I was like, “That’s super weird,” because he was like, [inaudible 00:10:39]. Because I pulled off at 28 from Tower and got behind him, because I was way behind him. But his tag light was out, so I started trying to catch up with him. He turns on 23rd, goes up Ogden, turns here, stops, and rolls the roadway. Cars go.

Then he eventually, a car is behind between us. [inaudible 00:10:58] makes a full stop and then he pulls up from here, and I lit him up. Well, he’s going the wrong way on a one way, first of all. Well, I know, but I was really going to… But all the other stuff too is a little bit weird. No, you made a good call. Then I’ll cite him for… Did you search his vehicle at all? Or are we leaving it? I think he wants us to just lock it up and leave it probably maybe try to gain his consent to turn it [inaudible 00:11:18] You can ask. Or is it okay to just leave it? I just don’t want to get towed.

Taya Graham:

So that’s it. End of story. The only other debate they had was whether they could deliver the DoorDash order he couldn’t complete.

Police:

Dang. Really? Yeah. Should we deliver their food for them? Is that what he was doing? DoorDashing. I’m down for doing that. He said he locks the food to just them just get refunded. Otherwise, we could leave it here, and that’s where I was going with that. He said, “I just want it to just get refunded.” So lock up the car and let it be where it is. Yeah. And I don’t think it’s blocking the alley, probably facing the wrong way, but I’m not actually that extremely worried about that. No, we know we’re not going to tow it, and you can put it in your report that you left it facing that way.

Taya Graham:

It’s really just troubling to hear how thoughtless and cavalier the officers are about what they just did, how little they question their own actions, and how casually they try to come up with some sort of charge for a young man who was, simply put, unjustly harmed. But there is much more about how this happened and the consequences which Ian will share with us later. Ian will discuss behind the scenes information about how the legal system is treating him, shortly. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been digging into the case and reaching out to police. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So what does the statement of probable cause say? How did the officers justify the arrest and their use of force?

Stephen Janis:

Taya, this is really kind of sketchy, because there’s not much information there. They talk about the furtive movements that you already mentioned. They talk about him driving down a one-way street, but they don’t talk about any other suspicious activity or anything else that would really, I think, justify the use of force. It’s really weird. I’ve seen police sort of not say anything in a statement of probable cause, but given what police did, given that they used a taser, there’s just not justification. There’s nothing in there that says the breaking and entering that you talk about, later on, when you ask about it. Nothing about that is in there. It’s really just he drove down a one-way street and then, very little explanation as to why this happened.

Taya Graham:

So you’ve reached out to the Superior Wisconsin Police Department. What are they saying about how the officers acted?

Stephen Janis:

Well, Taya, apparently, they’re too superior to get back to us, because we haven’t heard from them. But we asked them a lot of extensive questions about use of force, because I feel a lot of smaller rural departments or small town departments do not have the right guidelines. And in this case, we said, “Do you have a use of force report? What is your policy about use of force?” We heard nothing, but we’re going to keep on them. Because I think this is a really important oversight and lapse that needs to be addressed. Also, we got in touch with the public defender’s office in that county to ask them what their criteria is for offering services to people who are indigent or poor. Again, we have not heard back, but that’s another thing we’re going to pursue. Because it seems like this young man certainly qualified. We’re going to follow up on that. We’ll let you know what happened.

Taya Graham:

So tasers are technically known as less than lethal weapons, but you’ve reported on them extensively. What do you think?

Stephen Janis:

Well, Taya, from my reporting, they’re decidedly not less than lethal. I have reported on them being lethal in many situations. At least half a dozen cases during my reporting career in Baltimore, I have investigated and also written about, but one of the things that really stunned me about tasers was how the primary cause of death is ruled when a taser is used. You see, medical examiners are reluctant to rule a taser as being the primary cause of death, because, I was told, they will get sued by the manufacturer. And the manufacturer has made it very clear to the medical examiners across the country, “You make taser the primary cause of death, you will get sued.” Now, when you talk about something that shocks the electrical system and the body, it seems like there are a lot of things that can go wrong. And I have medical examiners tell me off the record, “Stephen, these are deadly weapons, and they should be classified as thus.” But again, in this country, corporate power and corporate money rule. And so, tasers are dangerous, but do we really know, because information is being concealed?

Taya Graham:

Okay. And now to learn about the events leading up to his arrest and how the police justified it to him and what the legal system has done to him since. I’m joined by Ian. Ian, thank you so much for joining me.

Ian Cuypers:

Oh yeah, thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk.

Taya Graham:

The incident that we witnessed on camera shows a great deal of force being used on you. Can you tell us how this began? This was a traffic stop, right?

Ian Cuypers:

Yeah, so what was happening is I was delivering for DoorDash. I’ve been up here in Minnesota for a couple of months and I’ve been mostly making money through DoorDash. I had to take a delivery from Duluth over to Superior, just right across the bridge. It was a Taco Bell delivery, and it was actually two orders. And it was just nighttime. I was sort of confused about where I was, because Superior was a new area. And there was a one-way street. It was dark. So I turned onto it, and right when I turned on, I saw that there was a one-way sign. So I was about to make a U-turn. And there was an officer behind me, I guess. He turned on his lights, and then, I pulled over pretty much right away.

And then, I was just looking for my insurance. And by the time I had my ID and everything ready, there were officers like a bunch of, I don’t know, two more squad cars pulled up, and there were a bunch of officers shouting at me to put my hands up. So I put my hands and my face out of my window to greet them and try to show them that I wasn’t a threat. And then, they told me that I had to open the door from the outside with my left hand, which was immediately just kind of distressing, because that’s a lot to take in all at once. And so, I was trying to open the door, and it was locked. And yeah, that’s how it started.

Taya Graham:

Did you follow the officer’s instructions during the traffic stop? The officer says to use your left hand, open the door, and leave the vehicle, which you did. They said to move backwards with your hands behind your head, which is difficult, but you did it. And you stopped when you were told, and then, the officer shouts for you to get down on your left knee. And you were still complying and only took a moment to ask a question, and in under a minute, you were tasered. Do you have any idea why the officers chose to use force, even though you have been compliant the entire time?

Ian Cuypers:

Well, no, I have no idea. I have no idea why they, in the first place, even told me to get out of my car. I especially was surprised when they tasered me. Even before that, I was really shocked when I just saw that there were laser sights everywhere. It was just mind-blowing to me.

Taya Graham:

I guess another thing I’m trying to understand is why so many officers were called to the scene. At no point in the video did I see you offer any resistance. Why do you think there were so many officers there?

Ian Cuypers:

No, because I pulled over right away. And so, the only reasonable situation that I can imagine is like, “Oh, if this guy is dangerous, maybe I should have someone here with me to see what’s going on.” But then, six people showed up, and they just immediately assumed I was armed and dangerous and started treating me like a criminal, which didn’t seem rational to me.

Taya Graham:

Well, I think it was because they suspected you of another crime, possibly a B&E. I listened to the dash camera footage very closely, and the initial conversation with dispatch mentioned a B&E, which might explain why he called for backup. And I think at least some criminal history could have been shown with your tags. It seems like they could have realized that you weren’t a real threat, but at the time, weren’t you actually working?

Ian Cuypers:

Yeah, I don’t want to override the conversation or anything, but it did seem to me, while it was happening, about halfway through, it was very surreal. But I do remember thinking to myself, “This really seems like, are they conducting an exercise on me or something? It seems like they’re just sort of ignoring the situation that’s actually at hand and just sort of doing something that they wanted to.”

Taya Graham:

So when did the officer decide to use force? Do you have any idea why she decided to use it? She gives you a brief warning, and then, in less than a minute, she’s tasering you. Do you have any idea why she thought this was necessary or why another officer had a gun trained on you?

Ian Cuypers:

See, like you were saying, I thought also to myself briefly that maybe they think maybe my car looks like the car of someone who’s recently done something terrible. And at that point, I was like, “Oh, okay, that sort of would explain what’s happening,” but I think they would tell me you’re under arrest or something like that. And so, the way they were treating me, it was confusing, because they were just giving me orders, and I didn’t know that I was under arrest until after they tased me. And I think I asked them a couple of times, and they didn’t give me a clear answer at first. And then, they did. But yeah, it was confusing.

Taya Graham:

It seems, from what you’ve described, they were quite relentless with the use of the taser. What kind of pain or injury did you suffer from it? Did they have to pull the barbs out of your skin? It sounded incredibly painful. Can you describe what it was like?

Ian Cuypers:

Just in case you think the officer that pulled me over is the one that tased me, he did not. It was one of the people who called for backup is the one that tased me. He was holding a gun, not a taser. I can explain how it felt by saying, I’ve explained this before, it’s like my body sort of turned into a vapor. It felt very painful, as though I exploded into a mist. That’s how it felt when I was electrocuted. And then, after that, I was just in shock and in so much pain. I think I was still being electrocuted when I hit the ground. But anyways, when I did hit the ground, my head hit pretty hard and I couldn’t even feel that, because of how much pain the rest of my body was in.

So I had some bruising on my chin. It was a pretty nasty bruise. I took a picture. And yeah, it hurt really bad. Also, I think it was six barbs went into my skin. And I don’t know if this is important right now, but they didn’t take pictures of the ones on my legs, even after I asked them to. They brought me into the station, I think, mostly for that reason. And then, when I asked, “Can we take the pictures for insurance purposes?” He was like, “No, we don’t have to do that.”

Taya Graham:

I’m pretty certain a medic is supposed to take those barbs out with sterile tools. That really doesn’t sound right, Ian. So you didn’t have access to your personal property. Did you consent to let them go and search your car or trunk? I believe you consented to them turning off the lights in your car, is that correct?

Ian Cuypers:

No.

Taya Graham:

So what happened next? Were you given medical treatment? Were you taken to a hospital? Or were you taken to jail? What happened?

Ian Cuypers:

Well, they asked me if I needed an ambulance, but I have heard things about ambulances and I didn’t have insurance at the time, so I said no to the ambulance. Because I didn’t want to get stuck with two grand of medical bills, that I have no way of figuring out how to pay. But then, yeah, after that, they didn’t really give me any time to think. I did ask them if I could just have a minute to breathe, which they didn’t give me a second to gather my thoughts or anything. They just said I had to get right up, and then, they ripped the probes out of my back.

Taya Graham:

That’s terrible.

Ian Cuypers:

She just yoinked them out, like she was starting a lawnmower or something, through my jeans.

Taya Graham:

So one aspect of this assault, an unjust arrest you endured, that really bothers me, is that, on camera, you can hear the officers realize that you were driving food delivery, and they laugh, joking that maybe they should finish the delivery for you. How does it make you feel when you hear that?

Ian Cuypers:

So when I got the USB drive with the footage and I was able to watch everything, it was, yeah, it really was a little bit gut wrenching to see the transition from they’re willing to annihilate someone to they’re chuckling about that same person who they’re about to do some things that they don’t even know how they’re affecting that person. The fines that they charged me with are more than I could imagine being able to afford with a month of what I do for work. And it’s probably not even that much money to them. I don’t know. Yeah, it’s just sad to me.

Taya Graham:

I can only imagine what was going through your mind. One moment you’re working, providing for yourself and maybe your loved ones, and then, you’re engaged in a simple traffic stop for going the wrong way, and the next, you’re being shouted out on the ground, surrounded by officers, being repeatedly tasered. How are you coping with that? Because honestly, this really does seem traumatizing. How has this impacted you physically, emotionally, or even financially?

Ian Cuypers:

I definitely don’t feel comfortable driving around the police anymore or for DoorDash. I’ve been getting, I don’t know if it’s tremors, but I’ve been getting shaky whenever I think about it. And my blood pressure, I went to the urgent care clinic four or five days after I got tasered, and they took some diagnostics, anyways, my blood pressure has been high. And they sent me to the emergency room right away after I told them that I got tased a couple of days earlier. They said that I should go to the emergency room, where it turned out my body is functioning properly, just under a lot of stress. But anyways, yeah, it’s been very distracting. I think about it during the day and at night, and I just think about if I could… At first, I was thinking a lot about if I could have done anything differently, because sure, if I would’ve just shut up and done everything they asked me to do, I don’t know.

In my head, I was thinking, “If I make a wrong move, I’m going to end up with bullets inside me.” So my fight or flight instinct kicked in, and I decided that the best thing to do would be to figure out what was actually happening and not just get myself ready to be shot. Because that’s what I felt like was about to happen. Yeah, that’s, I guess, it is pretty traumatizing. It’s difficult to talk about, because I haven’t been able to get a therapist or anything yet. So I guess, if this isn’t a very good explanation, I guess it is just still difficult to talk about, for sure, as far as explaining it properly.

Taya Graham:

Another thing that gets me is that, on the car ride, they try to justify your treatment. The officer says, “I pulled you over for going the wrong way up a one way.” And then, he says he called the other officers and gave you commands because you made furtive movements, which you explained to me you were just trying to get your insurance ready for them. Furtive movements have been used to excuse a great many tragedies of police violence. Does it make any sense to you that they responded with such aggression and force for a traffic stop like that?

Ian Cuypers:

It doesn’t. No. Even if I was armed or even if I was dangerous in some way, I don’t think that the way that they treated it was reasonable at all. I think, before you escalate to an immediately deadly situation, you need to have someone there to negotiate terms like, “Is this person about to do something dangerous? We’re here. You’re here. What’s about to happen?” before, “We’re telling you what’s going to happen, based on little to no evidence.”

Taya Graham:

So what was the end result of this interaction with police? What were you charged with? And what are your next steps? And what sort of financial costs are you looking at?

Ian Cuypers:

So I was charged with resisting arrest.

Taya Graham:

I can’t believe you were charged with resisting arrest.

Ian Cuypers:

With going the wrong way down a one way, which that one is fair, if he wants to be really picky. I just made the turn, and the street is designed in such a way, there’s a little passageway in between the two one-way streets, just in case somebody does make that wrong turn, I’m sure, is why that’s there. It’s immediately there, and I was about to correct myself. And I’m sure people do that all the time. But yeah, that’s a fair charge. I did turn the wrong way. Anyways, as far as costs for that, those fines were, it was $350 for resisting arrest. Or no, it was more than 350, it was $375 or something like that. And then, it was 170 something for going the wrong way down a one way. Altogether, it’s around $800, there’s 700 something dollars.

I don’t make that much in a month with what I do lately. And as far as other costs, I did have to go to the emergency room, but I got insurance recently. So I don’t know how much that’s going to be able to cover. And then, I’m going to, of course, have to try to hire a lawyer, because they won’t provide me one, which I thought they were supposed to. But they will not. I will have to buy a lawyer or figure that out somehow. And lawyers are expensive, but if I want to get a good civil lawyer, I have a GoFundMe that I just set up actually. And if I want to get a good civil lawyer, I don’t know, it’s probably like a couple thousand dollars at least.

Taya Graham:

Has this changed the way you perceive law enforcement? Or perhaps I should ask, how has this experience changed you?

Ian Cuypers:

So it’s actually a really interesting phenomenon, I guess. On the bridge on the way over to Wisconsin, I was thinking to myself, “Wisconsin cops are probably nice.” I thought to myself that while I was on my way there that night, and I proved myself wrong. I was like, “Small town areas, people know each other. Should be a friendly basis with the local law enforcement,” but it was not a friendly basis. So yeah, my worldview sort of did change a lot after that happened. I’d always heard about this sort of stuff happening and I knew that there were issues in the system that need to be looked at, at the very least, but yeah, definitely having it happen somewhere where I just assumed that it was safe and now, I know that it’s not safe. And looking into it, the Superior Police Department, I guess nobody likes them. They’re not friendly, I guess, and I didn’t know that.

Taya Graham:

Last thing, something that really disturbed me was the reaction to your compliance. They even blamed you, saying that your movements were furtive, that you searching for your insurance was a furtive movement, and therefore, somehow, the force was warranted and deserved. I recently reported that people who have an impairment or disability, like being hard of hearing or an intellectual or mental health challenge or being on the spectrum, are much more likely to experience police brutality, because of their stress response or inability to follow commands perfectly. And it really scares me, because I have family members with these issues. And I’m really fearful for them to have an encounter with police.

Ian Cuypers:

I tell you what, this is something else that went through my mind, and I do believe perhaps I was profiled a bit, because my car, I can’t afford a car wash. It’s covered in dirt. It looks dirty. Who’s to say maybe drug dealers drive dirty cars is what people think, but regardless, I can’t afford a car wash. So my car is dirty, even when I go to work. I work with disabled adults, and I drive them places. So if that scenario happened and I had one of my low functioning people with me, that went through my head, that that would’ve been absolutely, like they wouldn’t have taken a second to think about that.

Taya Graham:

I have to say that this really hits home with me, because the hidden minority that is most often the victim of police violence is a person with a disability. The estimates range from 33% to 50% of people killed by police have at least one disability. That’s just one of the reasons why these judgments of furtive movements can be so dangerous. Okay. Usually, during this part of the show, I focus on a broader theme that I connect to the incident we covered earlier in the program, something that links bad policing back to bad policy, so that we can ponder how both can be addressed. But today, I’m going to narrow it down a bit. In fact, I’m going to literally boil down my entire rant to the import of one single word, namely “furtive.” Okay. Now, before you start saying, “Taya, what is this some sort of PAR word game? How can you even boil down a rant on American law enforcement into a single term or phrase? How can you discuss the extremely pervasive overreach of law enforcement by playing YouTube Scrabble? Are you even serious, Taya?”

Again, I’m talking about furtive. Furtive, adjective, attempting to avoid notice or attention or being secretive. You know the term thrown about by cops and statements of probable cause used to characterize almost any movement or action by a supposed suspect, the word that sounds vaguely menacing and overly judgmental, that can be used to justify almost any action by police? In my hometown, it was the word used to excuse the killing of Edward Lamont Hunt. In 2008, Hunt was shot three times in the back after he walked away from an officer who had patted him down at least twice. The officer said he had the right to shoot the young man in the back, because he made so-called furtive movements. Mr. Hunt died. The officer was charged with murder, but was acquitted at trial.

And likewise here in Ian’s case, the police again used the completely vague idea of a furtive movement to justify the deployment of a taser and one I would note was used long after he had exited the vehicle and was clearly not a threat to anyone. But of course, the charging document used this highly charged word to justify a range of behavior that is as hard to understand as it is to rationalize. But that brings me back to the word itself. What does it mean? Why is it so potent when it comes to policing? Well, to understand it, I think perhaps we need to use a little bit of literary theory to unpack how this word became shorthand to describe behavior, to justify almost anything. So first, let’s just go back to the meaning of furtive.

It’s a technical definition, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, and it’s behaving secretly or dishonestly. But of course, that definition leaves much of the work to the beholder. In other words, it’s a purely subjective characterization, and I think that’s the point. Because the word imbues the person who uses it with the power to define the actions of the others in the most deleterious way possible. In other words, subjectively speaking, a furtive movement can be almost anything and in the end, almost always bad. Let me show you. If I lower my glasses, is this furtive? If I hold my hands together, is this furtive? If I look into the camera and then, quickly glance away, was that furtive? Well, how can you really know? And that’s my point. The word itself defines something normal as threatening. How can you really know what my intentions are?

How can you know, when I reach down to my pocket like this, that, somehow, this discreet movement actually portends something harmful? This shows, in an indirect way, the real, but less tangible, power of law enforcement. Literally, a cop can define reality with a simple word, that has a purely subjective meaning. And not only can an officer use this nebulous descriptor to imply criminality in the most innocuous behavior, but as we saw in the video we just watched, use it to justify deadly force. I want you to think about that, how utterly it is that we have constructed a law enforcement industrial complex that can take our lives by invoking a word with a definition that is as subjective as it is ill-defined, meaning the entirety of our existence can often sit upon the threshold of an officer’s personal and really non-objective assessment of behaviors that could be just as innocent as they could be menacing.

It’s really, in a way, frightening to contemplate that such a flimsy justification can be used literally to administer street justice. And I think it should give us all pause, because like police describing a motorist as nervous to justify dragging them out of a car or bystander’s actions being suspicious to initiate an arrest, how we treat this word has massive real world implications. I liken it to another less obvious word that our legal system uses regularly, but also deserves scrutiny. It’s so common we hardly think about it, yet it has equally devastating consequences when misapplied. “Crime,” that’s right, the most serious and commonly used word that describes an almost incomprehensibly wide variety of human behavior, a term that serves as an umbrella for so many different actions. It’s probably one of the most broadly defined terms in the English language. Think about it, what we define as a so-called crime has huge implications.

Some things that seem minor, like using a drug or failing to feed a parking meter, are crimes. Not mowing your lawn or rolling stop on red are technically crimes. But I want to focus on where it seems to come up short, activities that should be crimes that aren’t and how this speaks volumes about how our country uses and misuses law enforcement. I’m going to start with a story that should have been big news, but really didn’t get much attention. It starts with an obscure government body, that rarely makes headlines, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission or MEDPAC. Now, just to give a little bit of background, MEDPAC is a body authorized by Congress in 1997 to advise Congress on how to make Medicare, the program that provides healthcare to senior citizens, more efficient. Last week, that body released a report that got hardly any notice, but has huge implications.

In an extensive study, it found that Americans enrolled in private insurance companies through Medicare Advantage cost $83 billion a year more to the government, compared to the people directly enrolled in Medicare. So translated into percentages, each person who was covered by private insurance was 22% more expensive than a person who simply had Medicare directly. To put it simply, private insurers were charging significantly more for the same service and getting away with it. And this was no minor expense. $83 billion is just 20 billion shy of what the government spends on food assistance for poor families. And it’s roughly 30 times the budget of our entire national park system. But of course, has there been any mention of this by the mainstream media, which nightly recounts all the chaos and mayhem and fear generated by crime? Has the constant drumbeat of bad news, that’s supposed to make us feel unsafe in our homes and unsure of our future, been interrupted by news of an $83 billion overcharge for healthcare?

Now, I’m not downplaying the adverse effect of crime in my community or others. I’m not saying that theft or dealing drugs or even carjackings are something to be ignored, but there do seem to be actions that I would consider crimes, that are rarely reported on on the nightly news. What I’m pointing out is how our choice of words to describe actions does not always equate to the harm being described, meaning too often, the word does not fit the misdeed. Think about it, overcharging seniors for vital healthcare really isn’t a crime. It’s an accounting problem. Ripping off the taxpayers of this country does not make a company or a person a criminal. It makes you a savvy business person. It’s so interesting to me how these contrasting behaviors are characterized by words. Moving your hands when a cop has pulled you over is reaching for something. Literally absconding with $83 billion in government money is overcharging. Acting confused when a cop is pointing a gun at you can be described as furtive. Knowingly ripping off the federal government is simply good business.

The rights in the Constitution are malleable, debatable, a statement of probable cause, solid, true, and always accurate. You get my point. While we often think of the justice system as some sort of immutable paragon of reason, it is often defined by subjective interpretations of words and laws that can be bent, warped, twisted by those who control its meaning. Essentially, we are often subject to the whims of language constructed by the people who wield the power to define it. It’s a phenomena that I don’t think we acknowledge enough or really understand its potentially devastating implications, but it’s also at the root cause of much of the unequal treatment under the law that is so often the topic of this show. It’s why it’s important that you see the videos that we showed you today. It’s why it’s important that every encounter with police and every incident is viewed with the proper context, why every decision by police to use force needs to be scrutinized, and why every word police use to describe our behavior must be accounted for and must be fully examined and must be fully understood by all.

That’s why we do this show, why we painstakingly review every video, every charging doc, and every law to give the most accurate and most transparent rendering of the truth. That’s a promise I make to you each and every show. I want to thank my guest, Ian Cuyper, for coming forward to speak with us, and we hope that, by sharing his experience, he can help prevent this type of excessive force from happening again. Thank you, Ian. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Laci R for their support. Thank you both and a very special thanks to our accountability report Patreons. We appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon Associate Producers Johnny R, David K, Louis P, and super friends, Shane B, Pineapple Girl, Chris R, Matter of Rights, and Angela True. And I want you watching to know that, if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us, and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at P-A-R @therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct.

You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly at tayasbaltimore on X or Facebook. And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. Like I said, we don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham, and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Speaker 8:

Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most. And we need your help to keep doing this work. So please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to The Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

A controversial copwatcher—whose unorthodox tactics have garnered him a loyal following on YouTube, but have also embroiled him in legal troubles that eventually landed him in jail—has been indicted on new federal charges for making interstate threats.

Eric Brandt, a prolific filer of lawsuits and First Amendment rights advocate, as well as a former Navy submarine technician, has been charged by a federal grand jury in Louisiana with violating a federal law that prohibits interstate threats. A copy of the indictment, obtained by TRNN, lists the date of the offense as December 2019 but does not provide any additional details. 

The charges were filed in Louisiana Eastern District federal court in August of 2023.

Brandt is currently serving out the remainder of his 12-year sentence for threatening three Denver judges. He was recently moved to Delta Correctional Center, a minimum security facility in Colorado.  

Abade Irizarry, a fellow cop watcher known as Liberty Freak, said Brandt was moved to Delta due to his good behavior.

“Delta Correctional Facility is just before halfway house,” Irizarry told TRNN. “He said he has been treated with dignity and respect, they respect him there.”

Irizarry added that Brandt was on the verge of being released—a fact, he said, that is raising suspicions among Brandt’s supporters that the indictment was timed to keep him in jail. 

“He was two weeks away from a halfway house,” Irizarry said.

While authorities were not forthcoming with details about the incident that precipitated the charges, Irizarry said Brandt posted a video in December of 2019 in which he recounted calling St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, police and telling a person who answered the phone to shoot an officer.    

Brandt’s calls to St. Charles Parish police were in response to a livestream posted by fellow copwatcher James Freeman. 

Freeman was camping at a federal park when a ranger ordered him to move. The popular copwatcher said he would comply while filming the encounter. Police were called and Freeman was arrested. 

Authorities would not confirm if the video was related to the indictment.

Brandt is a  Navy veteran who became a YouTube personality by chronicling his often freewheeling and confrontational brand of activism. 

Brandt told TRNN he began challenging police after he voluntarily left his home to show solidarity with unhoused people who were being harassed by police. The first videos Brandt posted on YouTube, which prompted his ascent as a critical voice in the copwatching movement, depicted him confronting Denver cops for intentionally honking their horns to wake up people sleeping on the street. 

Denver has a chronically unhoused population, the result of skyrocketing rents and an uneven approach to building more affordable housing. A snapshot of the metro Denver region’s unhoused population in 2023 found roughly 9,000 people were living on the streets any given night. 

Brandt said the mistreatment of the unhoused by police prompted him to adopt more confrontational tactics. That included the use of what he called the “eight magic letters” or “fuck cops”), which he often displayed on colorful signs he touted on street corners or in front of city hall.

However, his use of outlandish and disruptive antics escalated, culminating in a series of death threats aimed at several Denver judges, which led to charges resulting in a 12-year sentence in April 2021. 

Brandt has been characterized by the mainstream media as an abrasive oddity whose rant-filled videos warranted criminal charges and jail time. But his supporters say his activism is more nuanced than these caricaturistic portrayals suggest, and for all the controversy his tactics have sparked, his efforts have led to substantive reforms.  

For instance, Brandt has been successful in forcing change within law enforcement. 

In 2018, he sued the Englewood police department after they arrested him for a tattoo that displayed a middle finger on his forearm, emblazoned with his signature “Fuck Cops” motto. 

Brandt’s pro se suit led to a $30,000 settlement for Brandt and First Amendment training for the Englewood police department and the early institution of body-worn cameras. 

“I call this my $30,000 tattoo,” Brandt told Police Accountability Report in an interview in 2021. 

Last November, Denver City Council agreed to pay Brandt $65,000 to settle a lawsuit over his 2018 arrest for shouting “No Justice? No Peace! Fuck the Denver police!” on the 16th Street Mall. 

He was also part of a groundbreaking lawsuit that established the right to film police in the federal 10th Circuit. Brandt and Irizarry filed the suit, which began with a straightforward cop watch of a DUI stop in Lakewood, Colorado, in 2020. 

The duo’s encounter was peaceful until another officer, who was not involved in the stop, arrived on the scene: Officer Yehia. Yehia purposely moved in front of their cameras, flashed a light into their faces, and then drove his car in Brandt’s direction while repeatedly using his car horn. 

Irizarry and Brandt filed a suit pro se, arguing that the officer’s actions interfered with their right to record. 

After a federal district court ruled the officer could not be held accountable due to qualified immunity, several advocacy groups joined the suit with the hope that it would be a test case to establish the right to film police. 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the US Department of Justice were among the organizations that filed amicus briefs on their behalf. Eventually, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the officer should have known the right to record was established and remanded the case back to the district court for a trial.  

The plaintiffs recently settled for $35,000.

The current federal charges against Brandt require him to appear before a federal magistrate by April 15, 2024. Brandt has since been placed on lockdown and is awaiting transport to Louisiana. According to the writ of habeas corpus reviewed by TRNN, Brandt will remain in federal custody until the case is resolved. 

Despite the setback for Brandt, Irizarry told TRNN he is confident the colorful activist and fellow copwatcher will prevail.

“He is tough,” Irizarry said, “he never negs out. He’s the one who boosts our spirits, and he’s in prison.”  

This story is part of TRNN’s ongoing coverage of the phenomenon known as cop watching—YouTube activists and citizen journalists who film police and push for law enforcement reform across the country. 

Former Baltimore Police Sgt. Ethan Newberg’s disgraceful downfall continues as new body camera footage reveals an incident in which the ex-cop made three illegal arrests, and then threatened to arrest entire block full of witnesses. Although they were initially responding to a neighborhood dispute, Newberg and his partner arrested a local resident who was not involved in the altercation almost immediately. When neighbors began to protest, Newberg escalated to arrest two more residents—and threatened to keep going until the whole neighborhood was in handcuffs. Police Accountability Report returns with exclusive footage of Sgt. Newberg’s outburst, and what it tells us about the state of policing in Baltimore and around the country.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report.

As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops, instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today, we will achieve that goal by showing you this video of a cop that made not one, not two, but three illegal arrests, all of which occurred during a dispute between neighbors that was unremarkable, to say the least. But it’s also an example of how bad policing can literally spiral out control to the extent that it changes the psychology of an entire community, which is why we will be showing it to you in exacting detail.

But, before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me directly on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there, I give those hearts out, and I’ve even started doing a PAR comment of the week to show you all how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. And we have a Patreon called Accountability Reports, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything can spare is truly appreciated.All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, one of the problems with the advent of body-worn cameras is that even when police are caught making bad or illegal arrests, the video is not always made public. Ironically, police departments, using transparency laws, have been able to hide their questionable behavior and thus circumvent the whole purpose of wearing body cameras in the first place.

And today we have a perfect example of that problem, video that the police did not want you to see, but we are showing you here for the very first time, despite having to battle the government for two and a half years to obtain it.

It depicts Baltimore police officer Sergeant Ethan Newberg, wreaking havoc on the community, an authoritarian style of policing that leads to multiple illegal arrests. It is in fact a stunning example of how easy it is to abuse police powers and the consequence when that abuse is hidden from the public.

Newberg was charged in 2019 with multiple counts of misconduct in office for making nine illegal arrests, 32 counts to be exact. The body camera remains secret until we won an appeal to have it released. And now in a series of shows, we are revealing it to you for the very first time.

This story starts in Baltimore, Maryland when a neighborhood dispute attracted the attention of the police. As you can see, Newberg arrives on the scene, and instead of talking to the residents or trying to understand their concerns, he immediately becomes combative. Notice that one of his fellow officers decides that talking in their own backyard was actually illegal.

Take a look.

Newberg:

What is going on?

Woman in Dispute:

First of all, I live here. I don’t know what the hell’s going on. I just got off work.

Newberg:

So nobody knows what’s going on.

Woman in Dispute:

No. Nobody.

Cop 2:

Who called us here? How about that?

Woman in Dispute:

I don’t know! One of the nosey-ass neighbors called!

Cop 2:

Is everything okay here?

Woman in Dispute:

Yes! Everything’s okay!

Cop 2:

Do you need us here?

Woman in Dispute:

No!

Second Woman in Dispute:

We live here. I live here. I got a son!

Cop 2:

Oh my God. Okay.

Newberg:

Hold on. Hold on. This is what’s not going to happen. We’re not going to have a group of people outside in the block screaming, and shouting, and yelling.

Taya Graham:

But one of the neighbors decided to push back. Take a listen.

Woman in Dispute:

She done left!

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

That’s a public street. I thought we can do what we want.

Newberg:

Hey, let me tell you something, big mouth.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

Excuse me?!

Newberg:

Leave! Leave! Leave!

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I am leaving.

Newberg:

That’s a great idea.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I know.

Newberg:

Let me see your ID.

Cop 2:

Is this your car right here?

Taya Graham:

That’s right. He says, “It’s a public street. I can do what I want.” That’s it. He didn’t shout ACAB, or F the police, or any other anti-police type of behavior. No, just an accurate rendering of his Constitutional rights. And what kind of response does the First Amendment right to free speech elicit? Handcuffs.

Newberg:

Illegally parked. Let me see your ID.

Cop 2:

Let’s see your ID.

Newberg:

You want to play these games, big man?

Cop 2:

There you go.

Newberg:

You’re so close to going. Don’t even think of it. Put your hands…

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

What?

Newberg:

Based off your actions right now, you’re going in handcuffs.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

Record. Record.

Newberg:

Yeah, please do.

Woman in Dispute:

Want me to take [inaudible 00:04:49]?

Cop 2:

No [inaudible 00:04:50] this vehicle.

Woman in Dispute:

Why?

Cop 2:

Why?

Woman in Dispute:

That’s my vehicle.

Newberg:

Okay, well right now it’s illegally parked.

Taya Graham:

So he left. He actually left, even though all he did was express himself, so to speak. His only crime invoking the right to peaceably assemble, but the police were not satisfied. Just watch.

Woman in Dispute:

And we can move it!

Newberg:

And based off your actions, you’re not following orders.

Cop 2:

Put him over here.

Newberg:

I hear nothing.

Cop 2:

Put him on the sidewalk.

Newberg:

Scoot back! Scoot back!

Taya Graham:

Okay, so let’s just review. The officer says, “Based on your actions right now, you have committed a crime.” Really? You mean speaking politely? Leaving when asked? And showing your ID? How and why does this add up to a crime? How is that illegal?

But it gets worse as Newberg decides to bully the rest of the neighborhood.

Cop 2:

You can laugh all you want. I’m giving you a lawful order. Scoot back! It’s off…

Woman in Dispute:

Okay, we’re back!

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You do what you do!

Woman in Dispute:

Babe!

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You do what you do. I’m scooting back. Look at that shit.

Newberg:

Y’all think y’all tough, huh?

Cop 2:

Put your hands behind your back. Put your hands behind your back.

Speaker 5:

We have another unit. 2200 Ashton street [inaudible 00:06:06] I don’t know what the problem is.

Taya Graham:

That’s right. Newberg makes another illegal arrest. Cuffing someone who was filming on a public street. We’ve seen some overreach by police, but this might actually just take the cake. What was the crime? What was he doing that justified handcuffs? But Newberg only ups the ante, threatening the remaining residents who are standing on a public street, just observing the police. They aren’t protesting, they aren’t yelling, but even if they were, it wouldn’t matter because that, again, is not illegal.

Just watch.

Cop 2:

Now you threaten me.

Newberg:

Scoot back! I will take everybody! Out the street! Out of the street!

Cop 2:

It’s a felony to threaten me.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I don’t fucking threaten you. I said don’t touch her of my baby. My baby…

Cop 2:

You said you ain’t shit without that badge or whatever.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

It was not a threat. I just said, you ain’t shit without that badge. That’s what the fuck I said. It wasn’t a threat.

Cop 2:

Negative. Hey!

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You got my hand on twisted up.

Cop 2:

30.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You hear me?

Taya Graham:

Okay.

The observation that Newberg is not, you know what, without that badge is that man’s truth. It’s not a felony. But that is what happens when law enforcement is allowed to operate with impunity. Speaking truth to power becomes a crime, and exercising your rights becomes an arrestable offense. And Newberg continues to embrace that form of policing. Take another look.

Cop 2:

Get another cage car up here on Longwood.

Woman in Dispute:

I don’t give a fuck!

Cop 2:

Get this crowd back! Get this crowd back! Hey, your car unlocked? I want this guy separated. Stand up.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

Hey babe, get this man’s badge number.

Cop 2:

Stop yelling in my ear.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I’m not. I can fucking yell if I want.

Newberg:

Scoot back!

Cop 2:

I got to get a search on him.

Newberg:

I got it.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You got nothing. I just got money and my ID. Can I give that money to my fiance?

Newberg:

No.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

Well, y’all better not talk about money, though.

Newberg:

Shut up, dude. You’re getting annoying.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I mean, y’all’s annoying.

Newberg:

Just take your charge.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I’m taking it.

Newberg:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

So as you heard there, the infamous Newberg credo, “Take your charge.” In other words, “Forget about your rights or if you’re innocent, just accept the fact that I am the law and you are subject to my whims.” But Newberg is not finished. Not hardly. Just see for yourself.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

My fucking arm! You got my arm all twisted!

Newberg:

Handcuffs are not made for comfort, sir. Put your feet in the vehicle.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

You put my hands straight.

Newberg:

Put your feet in the vehicle.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

Can you switch this cuff, please?

Newberg:

Put your feet…

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I just need to put my hands straightened and I’m good.

Newberg:

Okay, well the problem is you keep inciting the rest of the crowd. So you need to… No, you are, you’re inciting a riot. Get in the vehicle.

Taya Graham:

So I ask you, is he really inciting a riot? Can’t the police at least accommodate him so he’s not in pain? Apparently, not in this land of law enforcement run amuck. It seems to me that the police are trying to enforce silence, if not obedience. It’s a push for street supremacy that escalated when police tried to make yet another arrest.

Woman in Dispute:

All he said was you ain’t shit without that badge.

Newberg:

Get out of the street! You’ve been warned! I have units in route! Whoever does not live in this block will be going to jail! I’m giving you a lawful order! I don’t care! Until we clear this scene and make it safe! Everybody’s out of here!

Second Woman in Dispute:

Police [inaudible 00:09:41].

Newberg:

You talking to them. When these units get here, people are going to go in handcuffs. I can guarantee it. And, ma’am, you’re going to be the first one to go.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So now Newberg has basically threatened to arrest the entire block. Forget the fact that standing on the sidewalk does not require a residency test. Forget that the right to peaceably assemble prevents police from effectuating just a sort of arrest. Neither Newberg nor his fellow officers seem to care.

Newberg:

Say one word!

Woman in Dispute:

[inaudible 00:10:21]

Newberg:

Let me tell you something. You want to be a show off? You can join the other two that’s going to jail.

Second Woman in Dispute:

She needs to…

Newberg:

No, you need to mind your business! Don’t walk up here and run your mouth!

And if I do?

Try it! Do it! Go ahead. Go ahead. Yell at him. I dare you.

Second Woman in Dispute:

[inaudible 00:10:38]

Cop 2:

Take her.

What are you doing?

Newberg:

You’re making a fool of yourself.

Second Woman in Dispute:

I want to leave. Get up.

Newberg:

No, you’re going to jail.

Second Woman in Dispute:

Y’all are hurting…

Newberg:

You’re going to put your hands behind your back. Let her go. Let her go.

Second Woman in Dispute:

Don’t push me like that.

Newberg:

Then walk away while you still can! Take her out of here!

Speaker 9:

Come on. Come on, come on. Come on. You got your car…

Taya Graham:

Then, after failing to arrest the woman, who again was simply exercising her right to push back against the government, police arrest another woman for reaching into the police car to get her keys. All of this is due to the initial illegal arrest that put her in the predicament of having to retrieve her keys in the first place. A perfect example of the cascading effect of bad policing. Just take another look

Newberg:

Young! Well, hey, Cisco, do me a favor, let’s tow this truck out of here. It’s blocking the whole thing. What are we doing with her? What are we doing with her?

Cop 2:

I don’t know. She decided to reach in the car and not…

Newberg:

Oh, that’s lovely.

Cop 2:

It’s up to you.

Newberg:

No, you cannot! You can walk away!

Cop 2:

[inaudible 00:11:58] multiple times to go to the end of the block.

So you want me to order a tow for that?

Newberg:

Yes.

Cop 2:

Okay. Where are you going if those cuffs come off?

Second Woman in Dispute:

Home.

Newberg:

Where’s home?

Second Woman in Dispute:

Down the street.

Newberg:

So those cuffs come off, you’re walking down the street?

Second Woman in Dispute:

Well I planned on driving down the street.

Newberg:

No, well that’s off the table.

Cop 2:

That’s off the again.

Newberg:

So you have two choices, jail or walk away, which one you want?

Second Woman in Dispute:

I need my truck.

Cop 2:

Okay.

Newberg:

All right. So she needs to be transported then.

Cop 2:

Okay. All right.

Newberg:

To jail.

It’s your call. I mean, I can’t understand what’s happening here. They’re definitely going! Oh, they’re gone! Just few… They came up here to start trouble and now they’re going to jail.

Taya Graham:

And then Newberg decides that as a final insult to injury, he will continue to taunt that victim of his illegal arrest in jail. Just watch.

Newberg:

Okay.

Cop 2:

Hang on.

Newberg:

Search him.

Cop 2:

Hot Spot. Check [inaudible 00:13:19] Avenue.

Newberg:

Is your ID in here?

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

No. You got it.

Newberg:

Got it. All right. Well that’s a charge.

Cop 2:

Oh yeah, felony. It’s you said?

You said, “Yeah. Okay?”

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

I didn’t say nothing. I just said okay. [inaudible 00:13:52] Y’all had no reason to lock nobody up. Nobody did nothing.

Cop 2:

Y’all know each other?

Newberg:

Don’t explain anything to him. Just… It’s over.

Male Neighbor in Dispute:

It’s over for your badge. That’s all.

Newberg:

Stay on for the other one.

Taya Graham:

And that final video illustrates a point about a so-called “minor” arrest that I think is worth illuminating. In the end, that minor arrest leads to an innocent person being locked into a dirty, filthy, tiny cage. A moment without dignity that I believe the public must see to understand that there is nothing minor about an arrest, because it always ends up with someone, somewhere, locked in a cage.

So let’s watch that again and keep in mind that no arrest is inconsequential.

Newberg:

You got the ID on him?

Cop 2:

You want his ID, too?

Newberg:

Mm-hm.

Cop 2:

That’s his.

Taya Graham:

But there is more to this story than just the questionable actions of Ethan Newberg and his fellow cops, details that my reporting partner, Stephen Janis has been digging into during our ongoing investigation into what was going on behind the scenes and the possible motive police had for trying to keep this video secret.

Stephen, thank you so much for joining me,

Stephen Janis:

Tay, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

First, Stephen, we have been trying to get this video for over two years, but the state’s ombudsman, the official of last resort when the keeper of records, in this case the police department, refuses to release those records. So this ombudsman gave us some very troubling reasons for not releasing the body camera footage. Can you talk about it?

Stephen Janis:

It was almost like we were talking to the police department, which it turns out we were, because I did a little research. Now this ombudsman is, you said it’s supposed to be the person of last resort, you appeal to when your MPI request is turned down. But she ended up making the argument that releasing this body-worn camera before Newberg was sentenced would prejudice the judge.

Now this is evidence, so this is very strange. So I did a little background check and it turns out the ombudsman is actually under the auspices of our Attorney General. In other words, our ombudsman represents law enforcement, and that’s exactly what went down when we spoke to her.

Taya Graham:

So do you think the release of the video prior to sentencing would’ve affected that outcome that Newberg did not receive jail time?

Stephen Janis:

Okay, Tay, I’m going to be a bit of a skeptic and say the judge wouldn’t have done anything, but the public would’ve seen it, and perhaps that would’ve put pressure on the justice system to do its job in this case, which I think is to hand out a fair sentence based on the crimes committed, which were extensive. S.

O I think the judge had already decided he was not going to give Newberg anytime, which he didn’t. But I think if the public had seen it and there was public pressure, it would have made a big difference.

Taya Graham:

I thought the video was a good example of why there is really no such thing as a minor arrest. What’s your take?

Stephen Janis:

Well, it’s amazing because as you watch the video, and as we just showed it, there’s a young woman who’s trying to retrieve the keys for the truck from one of the young men he arrested, and then Newberg hassles that woman and threatens her with arrest. But the point is that he’s got his keys, they take his possessions, and then they’re going to tow the truck.

So a family, for an illegal arrest, is out of its transportation for who knows how long they have to pay to get it back. So as you can see, one arrest can sow chaos throughout an entire family and the community. I think this is a perfect example.

Taya Graham:

Interestingly, Baltimore has returned to a form of quality of life arrests. How is that working out?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I would call Zero Tolerance life. They’ve been writing summons for people supposedly who commit quality of life arrests like drinking on a sidewalk or spitting on a sidewalk. There haven’t been that many citations written. Almost none, actually. It’s just really performative and I think it shows again that law enforcement can’t solve complex social problems like poverty in Baltimore, or crime, or whatever. You need the community and the people.

Taya Graham:

The Baltimore Police Department has been rocked with a series of scandals, including the Gun Trace Task Force, which was eight officers who robbed residents, dealt drugs, and stole overtime money right out of the taxpayer’s wallets.

How does Newberg’s issues fit into the broader picture of a police department be set with such corruption? Well,

Stephen Janis:

Well, Tay, I think it’s really interesting because we talk about big corruption like dealing drugs by officers and things like that, but it’s like the minor corrupt culture of police that we see in Newberg’s videos that it’s important to recognize. 14 cops standing around and arresting a guy who has a drug problem, five or six cops around arresting a whole community that’s having a minor dispute, that’s the real corruption that we have unleashed policing in these communities that can least afford it and deal with it, and expect it to solve the problems of poverty, low wages, all sorts of other things. The fact that people can go broke when they get sick, all those things can’t be solved by policing, and when you send them in to do that, you get Ethan Newberg style of policing. And I think that’s why these videos are so important to watch and why we will continue to bring them to our viewers.

Taya Graham:

Okay, now I think there is quite a bit to unpack about the video we just watched. Truisms about American policing that are often overlooked during the debates over the role of police and the broader powers of law enforcement, which is a topic of our show today.

Generally speaking, when political parties spout tough on crime narratives, they miss a salient point, a hidden consequence of unleashing law enforcement on vulnerable communities that rarely sees the light of day. When law enforcers become lawbreakers, it undermines not just our belief in our rights, but the idea that we are entitled to equal protection elsewhere. In other words, what we often miss when we confront the examples of police abuse we witnessed is how the malfeasance affects our minds. And, to a certain extent, I feel like that oversight is intentional. That is the psychological effect of over policing is simply dismissed as a byproduct of law enforcement obsessed political establishment, but it’s also something that needs to be addressed because caging our minds can be just as bad as caging our bodies. So I’m going to address this idea right here, right now.

Let me start with a story. It’s about a Mississippi sheriff’s drug unit who, believe it or not, called themselves the Goon Squad. Now this particular unit was quite adept at something far field from policing. They were, in fact, practitioners of terrorism. How can I make this claim?

Well, consider some of the facts that have been recently exposed regarding how this unit operated. And I have to warn you, this is graphic. In their efforts to allegedly make drug arrests, this unit of sheriff’s deputies committed acts that would be more akin to a fascist’s torture. They choked an innocent man with a lamp cord and then waterboarded him. They tasered another man while he was stuck in a ditch full of water. They conducted illegal raids in the middle of the night, often handcuffed and interrogated innocent people, accusing them of holding or dealing drugs without evidence. Sometimes all of this unconstitutional intimidation was done while the victims were staring down the barrel of a gun.

Oh, and the man they tasered while he was submerged in a ditch full of water, eventually they shoved a stick down his throat until he coughed up blood. But here’s the kicker, this type of unacceptable behavior continued unabated for nearly 20 years. That’s right, for more than two decades, this group of so-called law enforcement officers pretty much acted like an extra judicial tribunal, meting out punishment and intimidation in violation of every precept of our legal system.

In fact, as the New York Times reported, this behavior would’ve gone on unchecked if not for a grizzly incident that occurred in 2019. And I do need to give you a warning that I will describe graphic violence.

2019, roughly five deputies stormed into the home of Michael Jenkins and Eddie Parker, falsely accusing them of dealing drugs. Deputy Hunter Elward then proceeded to unholster his gun and shove it into the mouth of Mr. Jenkins. He then inexplicably pulled the trigger, seriously wounding him. This all occurred after they were both forced to strip naked and were abused with sex toys. I’m serious. But, believe it or not, it actually gets worse.

That’s because the sheriff in charge of the so-called Goon Squad expressed disbelief that this type of abuse behavior was happening at all. Rankin County Sheriff Brian Bailey said, and I’m quoting, “Never in my life did I think this would happen in this department.” Never? In a department that has less than 50 employees, you had no idea? Turns out that this particular sheriff must have been managing a different department, because an investigation by the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting, along with the New York, Times found allegations of similar brutality going back to 2004. That’s right. For almost 20 years, the Goon Squad had been terrorizing the community while committing crimes all in the name of law and order.

Allegations that the so-called law enforcement community apparently knew nothing about. And I say “apparently” because this excuse that the people who are charged with administering justice simply did not know about a large unit of cops regularly committing crimes strains, not just credulity, but logic itself.

And you know what? That’s also because it’s so familiar. I’ve heard this line almost every time a scandal like this comes to light. And what I think this excuse reveals comes straight from the How To Use Law Enforcement to Sow Chaos in Communities playbook, a few pages from the operating manual they use to keep the engine humming for the American law enforcement mayhem machine.

So let me try to explain why this is an outright lie, and it’s more than just camouflaging the truth, and share what it says about the actual imperative that drives these units to commit crimes with often unfettered impunity.

First, we have to understand one aspect of the structure of law enforcement that often goes unexamined. A police department is essentially a military organization operating, technically, at the behest of a civilian hierarchy. That is, all police departments are structured around the command and control of a military style hierarchy with oversight by civilians.

That’s why officers are often designated for military ranks like sergeant, lieutenant, captain, et cetera. And that’s why civilian control of the police is considered such an important element of reform. It’s also how police departments are managed, by ranking officers who give orders which the rank and file are expected to obey, no questions asked. This means that regardless of circumstance, those same rank and file officers are acting under the orders of supervisors regardless of what the top brass says when things go awry.

So all of this begs the question, why would a top-down command structure be unaware of the actions of officers who are subject to direct orders? Why would an organization, allegedly under the auspices of military style management, be able to run amuck without anyone knowing?

Well, aside from the fact that often the people in charge are simply lying, I think there’s another factor that makes a continued drumbeat of specialized unit in scandal after scandal emerge from the apparent shroud of mystery that surrounds law enforcement leadership. It’s a factor that’s routinely underestimated with the mainstream media and political elites hand wringing over, “How could this have happened?” fairytale, they tell themselves, not us, when the news breaks about a veritable torture unit masquerading as police.

Put simply this unit targeted impoverished areas just like Sergeant Newberg, just like the notorious Gun Trace task force that robbed residents and dealt drugs in Baltimore, just like most of these cases, they all occur in places struggling or suffering from poverty. Whether it be the big city cases I just mentioned, or the rural community subject to the Goon Squad, bad policing is focused primarily on poor and working class neighborhoods. This is as true for Mississippi as it is for Baltimore. Meaning when it comes to unleashing the power of bad policing, the worst of it tends to trickle down.

Now that’s perhaps not such a surprising revelation. The idea that our political elites would seek to unjustly punish the working class is hardly breaking news. What’s perhaps less understood is why, and that’s what I’m going to break down for you here, and I’m going to do so by making a point about something that may seem tangential, but is actually part of the reasons cops like to cause chaos in communities that can least afford it. The topic is social security, the trust that is supposed to, in part, fund retirement for working people that is apparently on a path to run out of money? The meager benefit for people who work their whole lives that apparently over promises to workers and needs to be curtailed, or otherwise altered, to ensure that it has enough money to cover the benefits that were earned by hard, backbreaking work.

Well, guess what? One big reason social security is underwater is due to this, generous benefits to the rich. That’s right. Unlike other countries, like the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, which limit what the top earners can take from the system to keep it sustainable, the US grants benefits that, in some cases, exceed $117,000 per year for the highest earning couples. That’s three times what the same couple will receive in Britain, the contrast is so extreme that the Cato Institute, that’s right, the Cato Institute, which incidentally is no bastion of liberalism, called our Social security system, a “golden parachute for the rich.”

The point they make in the report is that the richest Americans, just like their counterparts in the UK, don’t need the extra money, which is why the cap exists in England. The point of this pension system, and supposedly ours, is to make sure every American who retires does not become impoverished. But our system actually does the opposite, it enriches the already rich.

And before you start saying, “Oh, Taya the rich pay more so they deserve more.” Just stop. It’s not true. That’s because our social security system has a cap, meaning you only pay into social security tax on a maximum of $168,000 in annual earnings. So a person who earns $50,000 a year pays multiple times more on social security tax on a person who makes $500,000 a year. Let me say this another way. The richer you are, the less you put in the system. Every dollar you make over $170,000 a year is not taxed. This also means that if the cap were lifted, and everyone was taxed at the same rate, rich or poor, the entire system would not just be solvent, but might even be overfunded.

But the reason I bring this up in a rant about law enforcement is simple, the elites are ripping us off and they don’t want us to know. They’re literally burdening us to pay welfare for the rich and they don’t want us to focus on just how bad a deal it is. Instead, they want us to focus on crime, how bad it is, how out of control it is, how many new punitive laws we need, how we need to pay cops more and more, and spend more money on law enforcement.

It’s a nice compact misdirection play. “Don’t look over here while we’re writing bills that tax you more than the filthy rich so they can retire in luxury while you go broke buying insulin or trying to afford an EpiPen. Don’t stop fixating on that crime because if you do, you might realize we’re being fleeced and call for change and more fairness in this system.” Now we wouldn’t want that, would we?

The point is, the powers that be want to keep us confused, off balance, and fighting for our rights instead of demanding more. They want us to be pleading for mercy from the militarized units that terrorize our communities rather than saying, “Wait a second, you want me to pay more taxes than a millionaire?”

I find it hard to believe they just didn’t know that deputy sheriffs were breaking the law on a daily basis. I think it was purposeful, willful ignorance, because that was the point, to have our rights degraded, and to make our minds pliable, and worn down and ultimately make us psychologically unable to demand better. In sum, they simply want to imprison our minds. That’s why videos like the ones you just watched need to be revealed. That’s what the so-called scandal in Mississippi, portends. That our ability to imagine something better is imperiled. That’s why we need to fight back for it because freedom, our freedoms, started with a thought, an idea, and we need our minds clear and our imaginations free to define these freedoms. We, the people, need to be the ones to define it, not a bunch of rogue cops.

I’d like to thank the Baltimore City Police Department for giving us the body camera footage that gave us such powerful insights into the culture of policing. And of course, I want to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods and Friends of the show, Noli D. and Lacey R. for their support. Thanks to you. And a very special thanks to our accountability report, Patreons, we appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, particularly Patreon Associate Producers; John E.R., David K., Louis P., Lucy Garcia, and super-friends Shane B., Kenneth K., Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us, and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment, I do read your comments and appreciate them. And we will have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do, because anything you can spare will truly appreciated.

My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.

Speaker 5:

Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories and struggles that you care about most and we need your help to keep doing this work. So please, tap your screen now, subscribe and donate to the Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

Like hundreds of thousands of other Texas motorists, Thomas Reader found himself in an unending debt spiral as a result of the state’s Drivers Responsibility Act. Due to the program’s surcharges and late fees, Reader owed $13,000 to the state—an amount he simply couldn’t pay until he was finally granted a form of amnesty. The occupational license, which was a direct result of this program, limited his ability to drive, and as a DoorDasher his increased time on the road only meant increased exposure to police looking to write tickets to secure revenue. When Reader, out of frustration, “flipped the bird” at a Texas Sheriff patrol car, officers conveniently claimed to have witnessed a traffic violation, pulling Reader over and arresting him. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report examine the footage in the case and its wider implications on the corrosive power of revenue-motivated policing, which is increasingly a factor in the behavior of law enforcement nationwide.

Studio Production: Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephe Janis, Adam Coley

Transcript

Taya Graham:  Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. To do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

Today, we’ll achieve that goal by showing you a video of a traffic stop that led to the questionable arrest of a man who had simply shown his dissatisfaction with police by giving them the finger. But it is the abuse of power that led to the encounter, a program designed to entrap motorists, which we will be breaking down in the show. It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of incentivizing law enforcement and what happens when fines and fees are motivating cops rather than upholding the law.

But before I get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com, or you can reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @TayasBaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see the little hearts I give out down there, and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you just how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have.

We do have a Patreon called Accountability Report, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is really appreciated. We always make sure to thank our patrons like Shane B., David K., John Rowe, Lucy Garcia, or Lucy P. Okay, now we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, one of the biggest problems with law enforcement in our country has nothing to do with enforcing the law or even the shortage of officers. What often makes American law enforcement so fraught is that it is structured around a word that seems far afield from investigating crimes, namely profit. That’s right, fees, fines, penalties, bail, you name it. It’s imperative to generate revenues that often prompt police to behave like bill collectors rather than public servants.

And no arrest embodies the bad consequences of treating cops like government-sponsored ATMs than the video I’m showing you now. It’s a cautionary tale of what happens when the government turns to law enforcement for revenue, and how that emphasis can often twist the law into a tool for financial oppression. The story starts in Kerrville, Texas last year. There, Thomas Reader was working as a delivery driver for DoorDash. The job was a lifeline to help him with a problem that had little to do with his willingness to work or his commitment to the job.

Instead, his financial woes were completely the result of a government-conjured burden. That’s because Thomas had been repetitively ticketed under a program called the Driver Responsibility Act. The policy incentivizes officers to write traffic tickets to fund highway construction and emergency rooms. The program has been controversial, as you’ll learn later, and it has been halted. But that was too little too late for Thomas because he was the recipient of numerous tickets from that program for minor traffic infractions.

And because the program added fees and surcharges when drivers had trouble paying, Thomas was put in debt. And that debt was an ever-growing tab with penalties that kept piling on top of the fines, to the point where he owed –  And I’m not kidding – $13,000. But Thomas wasn’t alone. For example, in January of 2018, 1.4 million Texans had suspended licenses for not paying surcharges, and all of this boiled over for Mr. Reader when Kerrville Police pulled him over last year.

That’s when, as I said, he was driving to make a delivery when police started to follow him. He had not committed a traffic infraction. No, they targeted him because that program limits your driving abilities when you can’t pay. But Thomas, already frustrated with the constant harassment that he believes is tied to the incentives I mentioned before, exercised his constitutional right and gave the cops the finger, and that’s when they pulled him over; Not initially for a traffic violation, but because the officer said the bird drew their attention, and they used his license restricted from the debt as an excuse to further investigate him. Let’s watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Vasquez:  Can I see your driver’s license?

Thomas Reader:  No. [Crosstalk] anything like that?

Officer Vasquez:  Okay. Go ahead and turn around for me.

Thomas Reader:  For what?

Officer Vasquez:  Go ahead.

Thomas Reader:  Sawyer, get your phone out. You pulled me over for no reason, man.

Officer Vasquez:  No, sir.

Thomas Reader:  Yeah, you can’t do this.

Officer Vasquez:  I know you’re not to have an eligible driver’s license.

Thomas Reader:  I do have an eligible driver’s license.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, you’ll also notice that the officer immediately accused him of driving without a proper license, and this turned out not to be true, but that didn’t stop them from slipping handcuffs on him. Let’s watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Thomas Reader:  You pulled me over for no reason, man.

Officer Vasquez:  No, sir.

Thomas Reader:  Yeah. You can’t do this.

Officer Vasquez:  I know you’re not to have an eligible driver’s license.

Thomas Reader:  I do have an eligible driver’s license. Do you want me to get it out?

Officer Vasquez:  Yeah. That’s why –

Thomas Reader:  You guys are making a huge mistake.

Officer Vasquez:  That’s why I asked you for your driver’s license.

Thomas Reader:  You’re making a huge mistake right now.

Officer Vasquez:  Here, step right over here real quick.

Thomas Reader:  Record, Sawyer.

Officer Vasquez:  She’s fine. She can record.

Thomas Reader:  [Crosstalk] You’re retaliating because I gave you the fucking finger. You can’t do this.

Officer Vasquez:  Just stand right here real quick.

Thomas Reader:  Man, you’re breaking every fucking law, man. You’re a piece of shit, dude. Y’all can’t do this. You are violating my rights. My license is valid. I have an occupational license.

Officer Vasquez:  Okay.

Thomas Reader:  We are DoorDash. Why am I in fucking handcuffs?

Officer Vasquez:  I just want to confirm that.

Thomas Reader:  No, you’re telling me [crosstalk]. You have no fucking [crosstalk].

Officer Vasquez:  1448-6640-1448-6640. Okay.

Thomas Reader:  Yeah. Why do you think you got the finger?

Officer Vasquez:  Do you have your occupational – Hey, do you have your occupational paperwork with you?

Thomas Reader:  It’s right there. No, I don’t. We’re DoorDashing right now and you can see we’re DoorDash.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, almost immediately, Mr. Reader pushes back on the officer’s assertions that he should not be driving and using, let’s say, colorful language. He did indeed have restrictions on his license due to the Driver Responsibility Act. But none of those restrictions precluded him from earning a living. Still, the police persisted.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Officer Vasquez:  Okay, but do you have your paperwork with you?

Thomas Reader:  I don’t know where my paperwork is. [Inaudible] in the car.

Officer Vasquez:  You have to have that paperwork with you.

Thomas Reader:  No. I have an occupational driver’s license.

Officer Graham:  You have to have paperwork with you.

Thomas Reader:  Y’all retaliate. You can do whatever you want.

Officer Graham:  No, sir. Do you have the paperwork?

Thomas Reader:  No, I don’t have it. I have it on my phone. I have it on my phone. I have it electronically on my phone. I already talked to the judge and he said it was okay.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Okay, as you can see, the police were simply uninterested in hearing his side of the story no matter how caustically he shared it. In fact, they kept insisting he was driving illegally. Take a listen.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Thomas Reader:  [Crosstalk] shit.

Officer Vasquez:  So you’re okay teaching your daughter to [crosstalk].

Thomas Reader:  Hell yeah. Her grandfather is a retired police officer.

Officer Vasquez:  Why don’t you do yourself a favor and just be quiet, okay? Until we get [crosstalk].

Thomas Reader:  I don’t have to be quiet.

Officer Graham:  [Talking to Sawyer] Do you have that?

Officer Vasquez:  You’re making it worse on yourself.

Thomas Reader:  I’m not making anything worse for myself. Freedom of speech, buddy. You can’t tell me to be quiet. You cannot tell me to be quiet.

Sawyer:  It’s still acting [crosstalk].

Thomas Reader:  I’m still talking. What are you going to do?

Officer Vasquez:  I’m just asking you to be quiet.

Thomas Reader:  And I refuse.

Officer Vasquez:  You have every right to refuse.

Thomas Reader:  Yeah, because you can’t tell me to be quiet. You can’t tell me what you do. I don’t have to [inaudible].

Sawyer:  [Talking to Officer Graham] I can’t get it to where you can see how many hours –

Thomas Reader:  Man, y’all are crooked, dude.

Officer Graham:  [Talking to Mr. Reader] That’s not how it works.

Thomas Reader:  Y’all messed up.

Officer Graham:  Okay.

Thomas Reader:  My license wasn’t suspended. Y’all keep harassing me, dude.

Sawyer:  [Talking to Officer Graham] One hour –

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Still, even after Mr. Reader showed the officer from his phone that he did indeed have the proper license to drive his car to earn a living, these cops would not relent and they still gave him a ticket. That’s right, a man who for years had suffered with $13,000 in debt from surcharges, was now just trying to earn a living, and he was hammered with another $210 ticket. Just look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Thomas Reader:  Did you get him recorded saying I gave him the finger and so they pulled me over?

Officer Graham:  No, sir. I actually pulled you over because you failed to signal into this parking lot. Also, I need your driver’s license for [crosstalk]. I also know that you didn’t have a good driver’s license.

Thomas Reader:  You’re retaliating because I gave you the finger.

Officer Graham:  No, sir.

Thomas Reader:  Bullshit. That’s what y’all do. That’s what you do, Graham. It’s Officer Graham and Officer Vasquez. What’s your badge number?

Officer Vasquez:  Right there.

Thomas Reader:  Let me tell the judge, asshole. It’s right there?

Officer Vasquez:  Yes, sir.

Thomas Reader:  You’re such a crooked cop man. How do you guys sleep at night when you do this shit? I gave you the finger and your egos just can’t take it, can they, bud? That’s why he put me in cuffs –

Officer Vasquez:  I don’t even know you, buddy.

Thomas Reader:  – Immediately.

Officer Vasquez:  I don’t even know you.

Thomas Reader:  That’s because you’re a piece of– I don’t [crosstalk] you’re a piece of shit, what you fucking did to me. You violate people’s rights on a daily basis. That’s what you do. You just did. “Let me see your driver’s license” and you fucking put me in cuffs immediately.

Officer Graham:  Yes, sir.

Thomas Reader:  What a piece of shit.

Officer Graham:  Is DoorDash your full-time job or do you do something else?

Thomas Reader:  Yeah, idiot. It’s not your business what I do, man.

Officer Graham:  Okay.

Thomas Reader:  Fucking pignorance is what it is. Pignorance.

Officer Graham:  [Laughs] That’s kind of good.

Thomas Reader:  You like that?

Officer Graham:  Yeah.

Thomas Reader:  I’m glad you like that, Graham. You got a little sense of humor, bitch.

Officer Graham:  Oh, you like my pig right here?

Thomas Reader:  Yeah. For my safety, I’m in fucking handcuffs, huh? Dummy. Fucking morons. Crooked ass shit. Sorry, they’re holding you up, ma’am. They don’t care about your time. Sorry ma’am. You guys don’t give a fuck about other people, do you? She’s innocent and look at you guys. You’re going to hold her fucking time up.

Officer Graham:  Who?

Thomas Reader:  Her. She’s waiting for you guys to fucking move.

Officer Graham:  If you want, your daughter could get your food delivered. If she has a driver’s license, license to drive.

Thomas Reader:  I’m talking about the lady right there in front of your car, you morons. Won’t even take these fucking cuffs for you to fucking sign shit.

Officer Graham:  Actually, are you going to sign it?

Thomas Reader:  Do I have to?

Officer Graham:  Yes, sir.

Thomas Reader:  Then I’ll fucking sign it.

Officer Graham:  Okay.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  And as a result, Mr. Reader now saddled with yet another fine after struggling with those fines and surcharges for years, decided to share his displeasure with the officers. Yes, he did use colorful language and yes, the cops listened, but in the end, they just added more to his financial woes, which is perhaps why he expressed his displeasure even as the officers decided not to take him to jail. Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Thomas Reader:  Hey, you know why I’m here? Because I prepaid for my electricity and I’m -$3.

Officer Graham:  I thought you were here to drop off food.

Thomas Reader:  I’m paying electricity too [inaudible] from DoorDash right there. I got to pay my electric bill. You want to give me another fucking ticket, asshole?

Officer Graham:  So then you’re not here for purposes of your DoorDash.

Thomas Reader:  We’re just DoorDashing that apartment. So while I’m by K-Pub, I got to pay my electricity. Tell the judge that. Tell the judge that.

Officer Graham:  Again, you’re in violation of your –

Thomas Reader:  We were still DoorDashing. We’re still active. But you pulled me over. My phone is still DoorDashing right now.

Officer Graham:  Okay, but you’re not delivering any food, right?

Thomas Reader:  I can still be working. This is a hotspot too. Nice try.

Sawyer:  [To Officer Graham] Is it this?

Officer Graham:  Yeah.

Thomas Reader:  Look at you guys trying to hem somebody up here. Fuck y’all, man. All y’all care about is [inaudible].

Officer Vasquez:  It’s the words that are coming out of your mouth that are getting you –

Thomas Reader:  No, they’re not against the law. It’s called freedom of speech. One thing you don’t know, Vasquez, is the law. And you’re law enforcement? So that’s a joke. You should study law.

Officer Vasquez:  Where did you get your degree?

Thomas Reader:  You don’t have to have a degree no more than your ass. Did you get your degree too in law? Where? Exactly. Don’t know where, do you?

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now we have been investigating this program and its burdensome use of fines and the impact it’s had on people like Mr. Reader. In fact, we will be speaking to him soon about what else was going on behind the scenes when those officers pulled him over. But first, I’m going to talk to my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who has been investigating the Texas ticket machine and why it was able to saddle motorists with insurmountable debt. Stephen, thank you so much for joining us.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  Stephen, you’ve been looking into this program. What have you learned? What happened and why did the governor finally discontinue it?

Stephen Janis:  Well, basically what happened is it was totally out of control. It became a vicious cycle for drivers in Texas where almost 1.5 million drivers lost their license. Because what happened is that you didn’t just have to pay the ticket, you had to have a fee on top of that ticket if you had too many tickets in a certain period of time.

And then, if you didn’t pay that extra fee in 105 days, you’d lose your license. A lot of people can’t afford to pay those fees so they keep driving because they have to go to work and then they get another fee. And before you know it, it compounded so much that millions of people couldn’t drive in Texas legally. It was really out of control.

Taya Graham:  So this is not an uncommon phenomenon – Law enforcement agencies ratcheting up fines. It seems to go beyond the need to ensure public safety. What do you think drives these policies?

Stephen Janis:  It’s interesting. There’s an untold story about this particular program. There’s a thing called the Municipal Service Bureau, which is a place that collects for Texas when people can’t pay. This company, this firm, is private. They’re a private firm. So all those millions in fees, they’re getting money to collect those fees. And it turns out there have been 60 lawsuits filed in federal court against them because they harass people so much.

So, oh yeah, this is a great program, we’re collecting money for the trauma center. But really what we’re doing is enriching private companies who can collect and done people because they haven’t paid their ticket fees, which is bad enough when you can’t even drive. It’s a way of enriching the private sector too, and we can’t forget that about these programs.

Taya Graham:  Now, these fine-driven programs tend to be focused on the working class and can have devastating impacts on the people who can least afford it. What does the research say?

Stephen Janis:  Well, the research lines up exactly with your question, Taya. It’s pretty freaking straightforward that the people who can least afford it, like people who are working people, living paycheck to paycheck, are the ones who end up losing their license. Just look at our guest; He had $10,000 he had paid in fines and he still had another $13,000 to pay. It was insane.

How can a man survive? How can a man pay his bills when he’s got to pay $10,000 just to get behind the wheel? This is truly a tax on the poor, the impoverished people who are working and struggling. It is not a beneficial program for society. It does not even help drivers because it turns out that only 12% of the people who lost their licenses were people who committed some sort of DUI or some sort of serious infraction. The other 88% were just people who were speeding or something.

It wasn’t getting to the root of the problem it was designed to solve. It’s a total and utter mess. Taya, let me just say this before I go. I want you to watch carefully. When this cop says he pulled him over for not turning on a signal, the cop was going in the opposite direction. But notice we’re showing you with arrows here, that he was indeed giving the finger, and then the cop turns around. There’s no way, from his perspective, unless he had a very, very, very good telescope-quality rearview mirror, he could have seen the man not signaling. This was about getting the finger from a man and trying to show, hey, we’re in charge. You can’t push back against us.

Taya Graham:  And now to learn how police have been targeting him and the impact this questionable overreach has had on his life, I’m joined by Mr. Reader. Thomas, thank you so much for joining me.

Thomas Reader:  Thank you for your time. I’m a big fan.

Taya Graham:  Well, thank you, Thomas. That’s very kind. First, please tell me why were you allegedly pulled over during the traffic stop we have been showing on the screen. What did the police say?

Thomas Reader:  Well, they allegedly said they pulled me over for driving while with a suspended license, although I have an occupational. Yes, ma’am, and I was working at the time.

Taya Graham:  Could you explain what an occupational license is?

Thomas Reader:  It means your license is still suspended but you can drive for essential purposes like going to and from work, picking your kids up from school, and medical reasons. I DoorDash for a living, so I drive all the time. That’s part of my work.

Taya Graham:  You said to the officer, you pulled me over because I flipped you the bird. What did he say in response and how did he react to that assertion?

Thomas Reader:  Well, Officer Vasquez is the one that said that got their attention and we have it recorded. And so I was glad we got that recorded. But he said that he pulled me over initially because he thought it was invalid, but he didn’t even mention the bird. Officer Graham wouldn’t mention that. Officer Vasquez was the one who mentioned that.

Taya Graham:  Were you surprised that you were put in cuffs for a traffic infraction?

Thomas Reader:  Yes, ma’am. First, I didn’t see any lights. All I saw was them do a U-turn and I was going to pay my electric bill, so I was already parked. I was getting out of the car to pay my electric bill and saw them behind me. All I did was get out of the car and put my hands in the air. I never advanced towards them or anything. He said give me your driver’s license. I said something like, what for? And immediately, I was put in handcuffs.

Taya Graham:  Now you seem pretty annoyed with the officers disrupting your workday for something petty like this. As you mentioned, your livelihood is tied to driving. Does it cost you money or time to unravel these tickets or can you explain why you were so upset? Was it the money or was it something else?

Thomas Reader:  Basically, it was for getting arrested out of my house for supposedly driving while invalid. Although, I never received a citation, or any notification by mail, nothing. The only notification I got was police knocking on my door telling me I had to come out or I’d be also arrested for resisting without violence. That’s why I started getting upset and started giving cops the bird just to let them know my displeasure with what they had done.

Taya Graham:  Okay, so you’re telling me the police pulled you out of your home, put you in a car, and took you to jail for an alleged traffic violation? What happened next? How did you feel and how long were you in jail for?

Thomas Reader:  About three and a half hours. I felt very helpless. I couldn’t believe they could come to my house for, first off, an invalid driver’s license, and secondly, I had never gotten a ticket for it, so I was stunned and wondering where this had come from.

Taya Graham:  Now, you were pulled over just a few days ago. Can you tell me exactly what happened?

Thomas Reader:  Yes, ma’am. I was working, I was DoorDashing. I was waiting at McDonald’s for an order because that’s a hotspot, and a police officer was across the street getting gas, instead of leaving, she pulled a U-turn and faced me across the street. I thought nothing of it. Ironically enough, I got a Burger King order where she was parked and went to get my order. When I pulled out I wanted to thank her for an officer that had done me a favor and she immediately tried to initiate a traffic stop saying I was driving while suspended.

Taya Graham:  That seems like overkill to me.

Thomas Reader:  She said there was no infraction. She said she just ran my tags because that’s what she does. There was no infraction except that I was operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway while suspended. Although, occupational does come up when she calls dispatch.

Taya Graham:  This shows me that once you’re pulled into the system, the system still keeps pulling you back in and taking money and time.

Thomas Reader:  Yeah, we don’t live in town anymore. We had to move seven miles out into the country because I didn’t want to live in Kerrville anymore. I did also find out that while I was pulled over, I was arrested out of my house for a driver’s license, I later found out it was because an officer had pulled me over two months prior for a headlight out, although my headlight was not out. We got it on video and that’s when he said I was suspended.

My daughter was in the car and I was like, I’m not suspended. He goes, yeah, you are. You had a failure to appear today. I was like, no I didn’t. I called and had it reset. I have the email right here. He would not look at it, but he insisted I was suspended, didn’t give me a ticket for it, just gave me a ticket for the failure to change my address of all things because my headlight was working. He was the one because at the end he goes, I’m going to give you a break this time.

I was like, oh my God, can I lick your boots? Please, please let me lick those boots. My daughter has it on video. He was very offended then, so after he let me go, he went to the county attorney and had her put in a warrant for my arrest for driving.

Taya Graham:  So it does seem that these officers were offended by the way you expressed your First Amendment rights. Something I have to ask you is, are you at all concerned that talking to me will make things more difficult for you and your relationship with the local police?

Thomas Reader:  Not at all. I just want to get them exposed. I just want somebody to hear my story. I’m sure it goes on all over Kerrville. People get pulled over for no signal all the time. Officer Graham has bragged about it in the courtroom. I have people that have told me. It’s a small town, so I have friends who work there and he jokes about it. If I can’t find something, I’m going to get you for no signal. We got him on dash cam lying about it, so we got it dismissed and then that’s when we filed our 1983.

Taya Graham:  Now let me ask you something. There are some people who are watching this that might ask, what if someone flipped you off while you were working? How would you feel or react? Personally, I have to say putting someone in handcuffs and threatening them with an arrest might be what you want to do to someone who hurt your feelings, but it’s probably not appropriate. How do you respond to someone who says, how would you feel if the role was reversed?

Thomas Reader:  Well, if I was just in my normal capacity DoorDashing, then I would probably give the bird right back. But if I’m a public servant, I’d be expected to have a standard professionalism that these guys need to have and they didn’t have it. They retaliate and it’s obvious, the retaliation.

Taya Graham:  You must believe that since you filed a 1983 lawsuit your constitutional rights were violated by these officers. What would you like to see result of this? Or for example, would you like the officers to go through retraining or maybe you’d even want an apology from the officers who cuffed you? What would you like to see happen?

Thomas Reader:  I would like an apology from Officer Graham. I know Officer Vasquez was involved in the stop also, but it was Officer Graham who whipped the U-turn and decided to put me in cuffs. I think Officer Vasquez was just… If you notice him in the video, he is trying to stay out of it, kind of. Even when I’m in cuffs, if you notice I’m kind of standing by myself in cuffs, and you’re supposed to be holding the prisoner or whatever, if I fall in custody… So they’re known to be close and Vasquez didn’t want no part of it. It was Officer Graham. I’d like an apology from him and I would definitely like retraining.

I’d like for police all over the nation to not hear when you pull a car full of people over, you need to get everybody’s ID. They’re told that every morning probably before they leave to go get their donuts that hey, you better get everybody’s ID. So they’re under pressure from their sergeant and you can tell when they pull someone over, it’s like crack. They want that ID so bad.

I even said it on the last video, that five-minute video when I got pulled over last week – It’s like crack you guys. You just can’t let it go. And so, I finally had enough and I want them to be retrained. I’d like to be compensated. I’ve lost a lot of money. We got evicted from our last house because I was afraid to drive because I’d go to jail and I can’t DoorDash. I’m a single dad of three kids.

Their mom has been absent for three years. They’ve seen her one time in three years. So it’s just me and the kids, that’s my livelihood. I try to work in DoorDash to make money and I couldn’t drive for a month and a half just in fear of being pulled over. So we got evicted and had to move seven miles out of the town, which I’m glad we did. That was voluntary, but thank God we found a house. My friend let us move into his house and everything’s been good since.

Taya Graham:  I’m really glad you mentioned your family because I think it’s important for officers to know that these arrests have an impact not just on you but the people who you put food on the table for. That this is not just a matter of a man’s pride, but these tickets and arrests interfere with your livelihood and your ability to be a provider and a father.

Now as we have recounted in both the interview with Mr. Reader and Stephen’s reporting on our nation’s traffic fine industrial complex, there is a trend in this country that is both troubling and on the rise. It’s a transformation of our public institutions from agents of public good to agencies premised on profit. In other words, governance that was intended to serve some greater purpose has ended up becoming cash machines to public coffers for pensions, luxury cop cars, and other forms of wasteful overspending.

It’s an evolution that often goes unnoticed, a transformation of the ethos of governance that explains the lack of faith Americans have in those same institutions. It’s a malaise that needs to be understood so that we can demand better and expect better. Just consider for a moment a slew of new legislations across the country, premised upon the concept of making bail less affordable. That is, new laws creating burdensome costs for people who are swept into a system through no fault of their own.

Let’s remember that, as many of our previous guests have explained on the show, bail often becomes the punishment inflicted upon the innocent. It’s a penalty without recourse assessed on people who are already struggling economically and do not get refunded even if the underlying arrest was illegal, unjust, or otherwise unnecessary. This imposition of fines upon the innocent is not a meager wealth extraction mechanism.

A study by the Prison Policy Initiative found that of 600,000 people locked up in local jails in 2016, nearly 70% were pretrial, meaning that they could not afford to pay the bail to be free until their case was adjudicated. This is a number that has barely nudged since. It points to a serious problem, which is this: Our constitutional right to be punished only after due process has a price tag and it’s quite steep.

In 2022, large insurance companies netted roughly $2.4 billion in profits, charging fees to make people pay bail payments. The same study shows that the money is extracted from people who can ill afford it. That’s because more than half of the people in jail awaiting trial earn in the bottom third percentile of income for all Americans. But there is a bright spot in this story.

Across the country, community activists have acted collectively to help people overcome the onerous bail imposed by the government and grassroots organizers who are trying to fight the corporate takeover of our justice system. Known as bail funds, the groups raise money to assist people who cannot make bail without assistance. They have sprung up across the country specifically to help protestors who are subject to arrest by police for exercising their constitutional rights and often find themselves subject to excessive bail, all designed to infringe upon their ability to dissent.

We spoke to one of the most active funds in the country when we traveled to Atlanta to cover the ongoing protests over the construction of Cop City. Cop City of course is the $90 million plan funded by Fortune 500 companies to tear down an old-growth forest outside Atlanta to construct a veritable ‘coptopia.’ The facility is planned to have a fake city to practice military-style training, classrooms, a club, an auditorium, and even onsite housing for law enforcement, which is ironic in a city that is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis it has not been able to solve.

Still, the protestors have continued to fight against the project, and law enforcement has effectively criminalized their efforts as a result, charging people with RICO and domestic terrorism. To fight back, the Atlanta Solidarity Fund has sought to help those who find themselves charged. In fact, we spoke to one of the key people involved in their efforts, Marlon Kautz, and he explained to us how they were using grassroots organizing to help activists overcome the system, which wants to silence them.

Marlon Kautz:  What they’re trying to do is very clearly establish a precedent which says that based on your political convictions and your beliefs, you could be considered a member of a criminal organization and charged for crimes which you had nothing to do with, aside from agreeing with the politics of a movement.

Taya Graham:  Several months after this interview, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation arrested Marlon and two other people who had run the fund. They were charged, wait for it, for using funds raised through an umbrella group dedicated to stopping Cop City, to pay for bail for jailed activists. The total sum in question? $5,000. That’s right, $5,000 to stop a $90 million corporate-funded training center for school police on how to use military-style tactics against civilians.

I’m not kidding, but it’s getting worse. Much worse. The efforts by the small band of Atlanta activists to fight the system armed with guns and badges and hundreds of millions of dollars have warranted even more action. The state government has stepped in too; Legislators are pushing to put an even steeper price tag on our constitutional rights that would pretty much make them an a la carte selection from an extremely expensive fascist-run restaurant.

That’s because the state senate in its infinite wisdom, has decided to impose even more punitive obstacles to obtaining bail. It has made cash bail mandatory for a variety of crimes including marijuana possession and unlawful assembly. Seriously, it’ll achieve these goals by making roughly 30 crimes eligible for no-money bail. What that means is that people charged with these crimes will not be able to use a bail bondsman, which is already usury enough. Instead, they’ll have to put up cash only to be freed before their trial.

What that means is that if a judge sets a $10,000 bail, you have to pay $10,000 cash upfront. What this legislation does is say to pay up or sit in a cell before you have your day in court. Isn’t that the opposite of innocent until proven guilty? Won’t that force people to endure the punishment before being convicted of the crime? The bill would also impose limits on bail funds to make bail less burdensome. It would prohibit them from bailing out no more than three people a year, effectively ending the ability of these same funds to operate. Georgia is not the only state trying to pass similar laws. Several other states, including Virginia, have bills that impose cash bail or severely limit the activity of bail funds.

It’s a countrywide effort that is gaining steam that will essentially put an increasingly expensive price tag on our basic right to petition the government. How many people will speak their minds and peaceably assemble and protest if they know it could cost them thousands or that they could sit in jail for months before getting a trial? That’s what disturbs me the most about the series of efforts to prohibit protest – What it says about the true state of civil rights in our country that was founded upon them.

It’s a state-sponsored pushback that is both dangerous and offensive. Because, like I noted at the beginning of this rant, government officials when faced with pushback from citizens like Mr. Reader and others, seem to turn to the same tool that allows them to diminish our rights without actually doing so directly. What I mean is that the powers that be have learned how to use a mechanism that makes the erosion of our ability to push back not only more difficult but nearly impossible for anyone other than the wealthy. They are doing so by charging us to exercise our rights. They want to make our rights prohibitively expensive. As I said before, they want to put a price tag on the rights enumerated in the Constitution that we simply cannot pay. They want to make being an American citizen as expensive as possible, an interesting idea in a country already accustomed to paying the highest prices for things like education and healthcare.

Let’s think of it as a civil rights toll system; Each time you try to exercise your right, you get charged. Just to note, they haven’t yet come up with an easy pass system that allows you to glide through and pay later. No, these excise taxes are all paid upfront. Can we foresee a future envisioned by science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, where all US citizens will have to sign a Terms of Service Agreement to access their rights to the Constitution? A dystopian society where, like his character in Ubik, ends up having to pay to use a door on an appliance and the door won’t let him open it until he pays a fee. When he refuses and tries to pry it open, the door threatens to sue him.

It’s a perfect metaphor for the world of fines, fees, bail, and other charges we are living in today. Is it that farfetched that this process of charging us to use our right only escalates, that politicians will continue to devise enough new levies that we will have to carry around a constitutional debit card that will be charged to us each time we show up to protest, seek a jury trial, or simply want to walk down a sidewalk and shout without interference from police?

Are we that far from a world of fee-for-service citizenship? I don’t think so. In a sense, we are already living in it, even without the bills I mentioned becoming law. Consider the guests we’ve had on the show; How many were innocent but had to pay bail, hire lawyers, and hand over fees and fines even though they had never committed a crime? How many ended up paying fees for the right of presumption of innocence?

I can’t even count the number of people who reach out to us who are struggling to fight back against law enforcement, whose biggest impediment is not the law, but their bank accounts. It’s a disturbing reality to contemplate. What is more ideally democratic than raising money to bail out people who’ve been wrongly incarcerated for protesting? What is less democratic than allowing the government to cage people for a fine?

To me, it’s another way our government has devised a way to restrict our agency. A frightening law imposed Cash App for our rights that allows them to dole them out, but charge us for the privilege. To me, there seems to be no limit to their greed and no checks, so to speak, on their rapacious desire to take what is rightfully ours and charge us to access our human rights.

Remember, we live in a country where despite the Fourth Amendment, the government can seize your property without charging you with a crime and make you prove in court that they should give it back. They can come onto your property, take your belongings, and make you pay for the honor of reclaiming what’s rightfully yours known under the benign title, Civil Asset Forfeiture.

When we see a man yelling at the cops, we have to remember that his frustration is more than the result of a ticket. It’s a consequence of turning law enforcement into profit extraction. It is the result of allowing cops to act as debt collectors, allowing them to infringe upon our freedom, and then charge us if we want it back. It’s like a pay-for-play democracy. The question is, how much are we willing to fork over before we finally say enough?

I want to thank Thomas Reader for coming forward and sharing his experience with us. Thank you, Thomas. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  I want to thank friends and mods of the show, Noli D. and Lacey R. for their support. Thank you. And a very special thanks to our Accountability Report Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon Associate Producers; John E.R., David K., Louis P., Lucy Garcia, and super-friends Shane B., Kenneth K., Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.

I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us @Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or @EyesOnPolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @TayasBaltimore on Twitter or Facebook.

Please like and comment. I really do read your comments and appreciate them. Of course, we have the Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Report. If you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Disgraced former Baltimore Police Sgt. Ethan Newberg has pled guilty to making at least nine illegal arrests during his time as an active police officer—and, despite damning video evidence, faces no jail time. Police Accountability Report returns to the case of Newberg with a look at two videos released as a result of the Baltimore District Attorney’s 32-count indictment against Newberg. The footage demonstrates not just Newberg’s capricious and often violent use of police power, but the culture of obedience and corruption within the police department that fosters and enables such behavior. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis discuss the wider implications of the Newberg case on not just the city of Baltimore but the question of police violence at a national level.

Production: Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing not one but two arrests by an officer who believed he could arrest someone without an underlying crime, an illegal use of police power that when you hear and see how this officer justified putting innocent people in handcuffs, I think you’ll just be stunned. It’s an example of just how dangerous the power of law enforcement can be when it goes unchecked. But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you.

And please like, share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there, and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts to show what a great community we have. And we do have a Patreon for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars. So anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, often on the show we focus on the video of a cop doing something inexplicable, jaw-dropping or just plain illegal, overreach through over-policing that needs to be exposed, but sometimes leaves us in the dark as to why it occurs at all. But now I’m happy to say that we have been able to obtain what could best be described as a video library of bad policing, a rare, and I mean rare glimpse into how unleashing unfettered police power on a community can be as poisonous as the social ills they purport to solve.

The videos themselves are the result of a 32 count indictment of Baltimore Police Sergeant Ethan Newberg. Newberg pleaded guilty to making nine illegal arrests, which were caught on body camera by the office of our former City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby. That’s why today I’m going to talk you through several videos that depict multiple arrests for simply standing on a sidewalk, talking back to an officer, and yes, allegedly running from him, which incidentally is not a crime, but it’s not just the unlawful detainment you’ll see as we review the evidence. Now, you’ll also witness, I think, with a profound clarity how bad policing works beyond the confines of a single corrupt cop. You’ll see a series of inexplicable decisions, bad faith actions, and outright illegal use of police power that will connect the dots in ways that, as I said, will pull back the curtain on how bad policing is designed to work, for lack of a better word.

Now, the first encounter begins in March of 2019. There a man had been placed on the sidewalk by police for reasons that remain mysterious. As the arrest unfolded, residents also happened to be on the sidewalk across the street, exercising their first amendment right to peaceably assemble. But shortly thereafter, Sergeant Ethan Newberg arrives on the scene and begins conversing with a fellow officer, and from there they make a fateful decision. Take a look.

Speaker 2:

This guy right here in the glasses.

Speaker 3:

Huh?

Speaker 2:

This guy in the glasses here. Remember him running from us that day?

Speaker 3:

I don’t think so.

Speaker 2:

Come on, take him.

[inaudible 00:03:48].

Taya Graham:

That’s right. Come on, take him. I mean, what does that even mean? The officers weren’t alleging the purported suspect was committing a crime or engaging in illegal behavior. In fact, the cop he talks to doesn’t even remember the so-called running crime that Newberg invokes. But they still continue without evidence. Just watch.

Speaker 2:

[inaudible 00:04:12].

Speaker 3:

Really?

Speaker 2:

Take him.

Speaker 3:

Put your hand behind your back, stop fighting.

Speaker 4:

I ain’t doing anything. I ain’t even [inaudible 00:04:38].

Speaker 2:

Disorderly.

Speaker 4:

Come on bro. You don’t got no right to lock me up, bro.

Speaker 2:

Well, that’s funny because I’m locking you up.

Taya Graham:

Now, I just want you to think about what you just witnessed, not just the act that despite the lack of evidence and multiple officers who participated in this illegal arrest, but something even more troubling. That a government, our government aided and abetted in the illegal caging of a human being, that this group of officers at the behest of a democratically elected government use the powers conferred upon them to illegally take a man’s freedom. Just look.

Speaker 4:

I think you don’t got nothing, bro. I’m just trying to… just chilling, bro.

Speaker 3:

You got nothing down here Keyshawn?

Speaker 4:

Come on, bro. I don’t got nothing, bro. I don’t know why I’m getting arrested, bro. Come on bro. I ain’t do nothing to this man.

Speaker 3:

Face me. Face me.

Speaker 4:

Ain’t do nothing to this man, bro.

Speaker 2:

Hey, you want to run him in?

Speaker 3:

Yeah.

Speaker 4:

No, wait.

Speaker 3:

Come on.

Speaker 4:

What the fuck, bro?

Speaker 3:

To the car, to your left. Where’s your car at?

Speaker 2:

You know me bud. You know better than that.

You got to show off? What happened?

Taya Graham:

Now remember, because this man that only Newberg recognized as a runner was never ID-ed, there is no confirmation that this is the same man. And again, simply running when you see a cop isn’t a crime. And you may have also noticed that the officers did not find anything illegal on his person. So now after illegally arresting one man, Newberg continues to threaten others. Just watch.

Speaker 2:

You guys going to walk? There’s plenty of room. Take a walk. Say something. I want you to.

Taya Graham:

And then of course Sergeant Newberg lied. And believe it or not, he did something even more troubling. Just look.

Speaker 4:

Can you tell me why I’m getting locked up?

Speaker 2:

I already told you why you’re getting locked up. Disorderly. You put my officer’s safety in jeopardy. You incited a crowd.

Speaker 4:

I’m over here, bro. Oh my God.

Speaker 2:

You incited a… you better take a walk. Okay, I’m going to treat you like a child on a count of three and then I’m going to put you in timeout.

Speaker 4:

Hey, yo.

Speaker 2:

Oh God.

Taya Graham:

Seriously? Time out? I’m going to treat you like a child? All of this, all of this, while he and the other officers laughed like this whole ordeal was funny, caging a man and twisting the law to suit their needs was just a lark, a fun story to tell the other officers at the water cooler later. But this is just the beginning of what I promised at the top of the show because just one month later, Newberg and his colleagues were at it again. This time in a different part of the city, both the exact same MO. Take a look.

Speaker 2:

He is. He’s going to bolt. Hey boss.

Hands behind your back. Put your…

Taya Graham:

Now notice that Sergeant Newberg does not ask the man to comply or says a single word about why he’s doing what he’s doing. He doesn’t announce or identify himself. Instead, he immediately turns to force as the arrest unfolds, grabbing the man by the shoulders without explanation. But that’s just the beginning of how this crime, and it literally was a crime, unfolds. Just look.

Speaker 5:

I am not going nowhere.

Speaker 3:

I see you guys, it’s fine.

Speaker 2:

Can you? Thank you.

Speaker 5:

[inaudible 00:08:51].

Speaker 2:

1032 is 2000 block of West Pratt. He’s in custody, 1032.

Taya Graham:

Now at this point, we have a man who at the time has committed no crime that we can see. And Officer Newberg and the other cops who violently took him to the ground seemed to have no idea exactly why they stopped him. But that didn’t prevent a massive show of force to effectuate the arrest.

Speaker 2:

It’s a warrant? Is it a warrant? What is it?

Speaker 5:

It’s nothing.

Speaker 2:

Negative.

Speaker 5:

What?

Speaker 2:

Get him ID-ed.

Taya Graham:

And then even though police had already made an illegal arrest, they decided to make another. A bystander who took issue with their illegal actions is arrested as well, a fellow resident of my city cuffed because he spoke up when he saw injustice. Just watch this.

Speaker 2:

[inaudible 00:09:49].

Taya Graham:

Now after making not one, but two illegal arrests, things get really interesting. That’s because when a supervisor comes to the scene, he asks a simple question, “Why did you arrest the man who is now forced to sit on the sidewalk?” And Newberg’s answer is stunning. Just listen.

Speaker 2:

With him? What’s that?

Speaker 6:

Casanso the primary? Who’s-

Speaker 2:

No, no, it was me and Valdez had it.

Speaker 6:

Okay, all right. All right. So y’all good? You okay?

Speaker 2:

He just fought us.

Speaker 6:

All right, so-

Speaker 2:

He fought us like he did the last time.

Speaker 6:

So we’ll get a car about… then we’ll clear this up. We’ll get car out to come do the UFF, if it’s one. What’s he wanted for?

Speaker 2:

He was the one these last couple of days ran from me and I saw him in the store. He was going to bolt again because the last time I had him stopped, he gave a bunch of different names and date of births that didn’t match. So that’s when he fought and ran last time. And I recognized him. I knew it was going to turn out… I knew he was going to fight. Stack, I guarantee nothing comes back on that info he gave you.

Speaker 3:

Yep, that’s all I’m waiting for them to come back down.

Taya Graham:

Okay, so let’s break down the crimes that prompted police to make a violent arrest. One, he allegedly ran from Newberg. But can you blame him? And two, he gave conflicting addresses and three… well, there was no three. But tell me this, what of any of this justifies a violent arrest? And why on earth would you need a dozen cops to put this man in cuffs? You saw the same man I did. Compliant, confused, just another person suffering the poverty and mental health issues in my city. Why would the supervisor simply accept the officer’s answer and not probe deeper, demanding details to justify the use of force in handcuffs and the exceptional waste of nearly 10 officers to control the scene? But again, there was no pushback at all. In fact, officer Newberg decides to light a cigarette and again, delight in the suffering of another Baltimore resident. He and the other officers are basically celebrating a useless, violent and illegal arrest.

Speaker 2:

What do you got? A warrant on you?

Speaker 5:

No, I don’t have a warrant on me.

Speaker 2:

So what’s your deal?

Speaker 5:

Because dude, I was down there, working in the corner for the people.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, but what about here? Did you started fighting here too? I don’t understand.

Speaker 5:

Because I didn’t really know what was going on and I see-

Speaker 2:

So I mean I guess that means you can fight the police.

Speaker 3:

I guess.

Speaker 2:

I don’t understand. What’s going on here?

Speaker 6:

Yeah. Unified police officers were enough for me.

Speaker 3:

People don’t run and carry on like that for no reason.

Speaker 2:

That’s what happened last time that we-

Speaker 3:

That’s not you. Nice try.

Speaker 2:

It’s the same thing when he fought me last week when he got away from me. How many times you rode from me during all this? Three times?

Speaker 6:

No. So his first thing-

Speaker 3:

Twice.

Speaker 2:

Twice? I told you he was going to fight.

Speaker 6:

Y’all want to switch now?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, that’s what I told him.

Speaker 6:

All right.

Speaker 2:

I told you. Hey, I tell you he was going to fight, bro. I told you.

Speaker 3:

He wasn’t going to get away. He wasn’t going to get away.

Speaker 6:

Dude, he wasn’t going anywhere. Dude, he was clogged up like a vice grip.

Speaker 2:

He was trying to fight in the beginning though. I got to give him credit, he was fighting.

Taya Graham:

So as I said at the beginning of the show, there is something unique about these videos when it comes to understanding policing and specifically how it goes wrong. Because what we just witnessed was a literal failings of cops executing crimeless arrests that have little to do with public safety. In fact, this is a textbook example of what happens when you trade the desire to be safe for basic constitutional protections, a policy that looks like it took half the police force to execute even as police partisans in our city and others argue we are desperately short of officers.

Seriously, I can’t even count how many cops it took to put this nonviolent man in a set of handcuffs. But there is much more to this story than just a couple problematic arrests, a history of how this policing came to be and how it affected the people who were subject to it, which we will be discussing shortly. But first, I need to speak to my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who has been delving into some of the important records regarding this case, which reveal even when police are charged with crimes, there are loopholes that allow them to evade punishment. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So Stephen, you’ve been digging into the payroll records for the Baltimore City Police Department. Tell me what you’ve uncovered.

Stephen Janis:

Well, it’s really interesting. Baltimore City has a database of employee salaries. It goes back years. So I looked into Ethan Newberg and he got paid in 2019 after he’s indicted. He got paid in 2020, over a hundred thousand dollars a year. He got paid in 2021 over a hundred thousand a year. So he’s charged with all these crimes, these offensive crimes that we’ve seen against people of the city and the city taxpayers were still funding his salary. I can’t think of anyone, any of us who had a job who did what he did would actually get paid for it. So yeah, he had two-

Taya Graham:

So wait a second. While this case was making its way through the legal system, he was being paid?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, yeah. I mean it’s kind of amazing. It’s right there in black and white. I’m showing you on the screen, roughly $200,000, this guy was making money. And I think what happened is in 2021, he might have retired. A lot of police do that. They get charged with something, they write it out until retirement, and then they take two thirds of their last salary so he could conceivably be making 60, $70,000 a year in a pension, which cannot be taken back because of criminal charges. So really he did quite well, thanks and courtesy of the taxpayers that he was arresting.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, as a reporter who’s covered policing in cities like Baltimore, what do you make of what you just saw and how does it jive with your reporting and your experience?

Stephen Janis:

Well, it’s funny because I think there we saw the total futility of this idea, that just unleashing police on a neighborhood would somehow tamp down crime. Because really when you leave police to their own devices in this situation, I think they picked the easiest target. And in that sense, I think we saw how they just bully someone, book a stat, put them in the back of the car and feel like they did some work, which really isn’t true. And I think that in a sense, like you said in the script, this was a glimpse into something that people have never seen before. For me it was like that, even though I’ve reported on it and written about it and written about tons of bad arrests. For me, it was kind of the first time I’ve seen how that mentality and the psychology of zero tolerance just makes people do bad policing. But I’m going to throw this one back at you Taya, because you actually lived in a neighborhood that was under that kind of policing. So why don’t you give us some sense of what that was like?

Taya Graham:

Stephen, that’s a really interesting question. Let me try to answer it, but I might have to leave my basement and my bookcase.

So for once, I’m the one outside. I’m here in my old neighborhood on Middle Street, just a block down from where I used to live on Mira. And as I would take the bus to work and walk home, I was often stopped by a police officer. I’d be asked to provide ID, I would be asked where I had come from and where I was going. And you would think this is really inappropriate to be asked these questions and provide papers. Well, it’s because of something known as zero tolerance. For about a decade in my city, people were stopped for crimes like loitering, for drinking an open container of beer on a stoop, not having ID or believe it or not, expectorating, which is spitting. Now these kinds of crimes which are considered quality of life crimes or low level crimes or nuisance crimes, they were used to try to stop more violent crime in our city and it resulted in over a hundred thousand people a year being arrested, people just like me.

Take a look around. Does this look better? Does this look healthier to you? Does this look like a community that’s thriving? Well, I have to say, it doesn’t look like this kind of policing really made this community stronger. Now, I’m not saying policing is the cause of all ills, and I’m not saying there’s a solution to all ills, but I am saying it had a devastating effect on this community and it had an impact on people like me. And let me say this, I have to thank the cop watchers out there because they showed me that I had the right to say no. I had the right to say I don’t have to provide ID. But now thanks to cop watchers and a lot of people who’ve been advocating for change, we can.

Okay, now that I’ve given my little tour, I think I’m about to embark on what might be the most important rant of my life, an argument I will make about the broader implications of the arrest that we have just witnessed, that I dare say is the whole reason this show exists. But first I want to make another important point about our show. Often when I try to analyze the broader implications of bad policing during this segment, I get a little pushback. People who disagree or think I push things a bit too far or just simply don’t like the way I frame my arguments about a variety of phenomena that I believe are tied to bad policing. Among them are the people who thought that my discussion of the high price of asthma inhalers as an intrinsic part of an unequal system that fuels rampant inequality and by extension bad policing was just a step too far, that I should stick to talking about the cops and not the inequality in our economy.

So they disagreed with that analysis. Fair enough. But let me say this, I am more than okay with that. In fact, I invite it. I mean the whole reason we produce this show is to generate discussion. Better yet, embrace a fulsome debate and thoughtful disagreement on a variety of issues. I read your comments because I want to understand. I need your comments because I want to learn. So even if I disagree with your disagreement with my work, I welcome your thoughts. To me, it’s not the sign of some sort of deeper problem that we can’t agree on everything. In fact, it makes me feel more assured in my work when you push back and say, “Hey Taya, wait a second, here’s another way to think about the issue.” It’s okay to disagree. It’s okay to criticize. All we have to agree on is that we all have the right to respectfully debate and express ourselves.

So keep on commenting because I welcome you, even if you disagree with my analysis of the information I present. Okay, I had to get that off my chest before I said this. Now, as you’ve just witnessed, the indiscriminate arrest powers deployed by the police and the video we just dissected was not the result of some random decision by a couple of cops. It was not, to be clear, the result of a couple overeager officers trying out illegal arrests as some sort of devious sociology experiment. No. It was in fact an intentional government policy based upon the dubious premise that has wreaked havoc on this country for decades. An idea that is so powerful, it is in part responsible for most of the acrimony surrounding the debate over law enforcement that continues to prevent clear-headed thinking about the difficult task of keeping our communities safe.

Namely this, more cops mean less crime, more aggressive policing is even better. And when cops don’t do their jobs, crime goes up. I mean, that’s the idea that’s been the impetus behind some of the worst aspects of American policing that I can think of. It was a core philosophy behind zero tolerance that turned my former neighborhood into a wasteland. It’s the primary imperative that encourages cities to allocate the bulk of their budgets to new cop cars. And it’s why even in rural communities like Milton, West Virginia, the police budget swelled into the single largest line item for a town mired in poverty. Now wait, again, I can hear the naysayers saying, “But Taya, what about the last few years? Police departments struggled with staffing while crime went up.” The protests against policing across the country in the wake of George Floyd’s death and many other victims made cops too afraid to do their jobs, and as a result, crime was rampant.

Well, not really. That’s not the whole story because while it’s true that police departments have had problems filling jobs and staffing in some departments like our own city’s has dropped dramatically, there is something curious that happened as law enforcement struggled to fill vacancies. A change in the rate of crime that belies the argument that more cops automatically equals more safety. That’s because while cops kept quitting, crime went down and not just down by little, down by a lot. Murder dropped at the fastest rate ever according to statistics released by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, crimes of violence dropped practically in every major city in the country. Now, there are some caveats. For example, in our city, car thefts are way up as [inaudible 00:22:58] really take advantage of the lack of security of Kias and Hyundais, for example. And the perception that crime is up, which is also important, continues to linger.

But again, big picture, crime is actually down across the board even though there are less police on the street. And as we reported in our last show, Ethan Newberg himself says police are taking the proverbial knee because according to him, effective cops like himself are being prosecuted for doing their jobs. I’ll stay no comment on that assertion. In fact, in this just released audit of overtime spending by the Baltimore Police Department, we learned that the agency has a record 762 vacancies, and yet city leaders just held a press conference touting a 20% drop in homicide. How does that happen in a world where aggressive policing is the elixir to the crime laden anxieties of police boosters who would have us place a cop on every corner? It just doesn’t make sense, which is why I said at the beginning of this rant, this might be one of the most important arguments I’ve ever made.

The reason we have so many videos, so many examples, and so much over-policing is based upon the simple premise that the recent crime stats have made dubious at best that somehow some way crime can only be stopped by throwing more cops and more money and having more law enforcement. And when that’s not enough, tell them to book stats, make more arrests, lock up more low level offenders, lock up more innocent people, and as a result, crime will suddenly disappear. As I said earlier in the show, that attitude has led to some of the most unimaginative public policies in the annals of human history. I mean, why in my city where vacant homes are more prevalent than well-paying jobs, have we spent billions, and I do mean billions, putting cops on the street and paying them hundreds of millions of dollars in overtime? Why do we have brand new SUV cop cars roaming around neighborhoods that are blighted to the point of terminal despair?

And for those who might’ve missed our last report, why do we pay officers like Sergeant Newberg over a quarter million dollars a year? I mean, all the rhetoric surrounding policing, defund, underfund, refund, I don’t know, take your pick, drives right past a simple point. Does it work? Can it ever work? Is it the most effective and just important fiscally sound prescription for reducing crime? Will we be better off taking some of that money and funding other priorities that might actually build something like a park or community garden, afterschool programs, a mental healthcare center, or maybe we should even just pass the cash out to residents to spend on themselves? And please don’t start posting comments about how I am surreptitiously touting some sort of clandestine socialism. I’m talking about making our communities healthier and therefore safer. And I’m just making a point about what I’ve witnessed firsthand.

Investing in policing instead of the people is emphasizing chaos over community. Showering cash on cops prioritizes punishment over productivity and trying to solve complex social problems by locking them away and throwing away the key puts our minds, our communal creativity in a cage of our own making. This is why if I achieve anything through doing this show, I want to dispel the myth that the relationship between crime and cops is as simple as police partisans would want you to believe, that our country’s addiction to law enforcement is as pernicious and implausible as a flat earth geolocation system that not only doesn’t make sense, but is flat out delusional. Okay, that pun might’ve been intended. It’s actually a point Stephen made 10 years ago when he co-wrote a book with a former Baltimore homicide detective called You Can’t Stop Murder. The book recounted how a detective who was steeped in constitutional policing during his career was shocked after he retired and taught at the city’s police academy.

There he administered a test to sergeants and lieutenants on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. They all failed, every single one. But it gets worse. He discovered at that same academy, the top brass was training officers to be soldiers, not students of the law or investigators. It was a process he felt was far field from the best and the only way to prevent future crimes, by solving the crimes of the past. This again, was a rare glimpse inside how American law enforcement intentionally abandoned the principles on which our country was founded. It’s a firsthand look at how often the expedient desire for some sort of fix for rampant poverty and communal abandonment was effectuated by cops chasing innocent people, making bogus arrests and otherwise sowing chaos with cuffs and their capriciousness. Well, as the book pointed out, it won’t work. Because two years after the book was published and its warnings were ignored, Freddie Gray died in police custody.

My city was set on fire, figuratively and literally. And the world watched as our police department tried to justify the death of a handcuffed man who died in the back of a van after being chased, yes, chased, because officers didn’t like the way he looked at them. Interesting that four years later they were still doing the same thing. And that’s why we’ll keep reporting on bad policing, and that’s why we’ll keep reporting for you because someone has to tell the truth and try to build hope for something different no matter how painful that can sometimes be. I have to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece and for going to my old stomping grounds and interviewing me. Thank you so much, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods of the show, NOLA D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you and a very special thanks to our accountability report Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R., David K., Louis P., and Lucita G., and super friends Shane B., Pineapple Girl, Chris R., and Matter of Rights. And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you.

Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

In 2023, Sgt. Ethan Newberg of the Baltimore Police Department pled guilty to misconduct in office—a charge he was initially given four years before. Now, body camera footage of one of Newberg’s nine known illegal arrests has been recovered by Police Accountability Report. The video shows Newberg escalating a parking ticket given to a FedEx driver to the arrest of a bystander who attempted to attempted to intervene on his coworkers behalf. But Newberg didn’t stop there—he even contacted FedEx in an effort to get the man he was arresting fired. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis discuss the case and the lengthy investigation and trial process that followed, throwing light on just how difficult it really is to hold police accountable for abuses of power.

Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley

Transcript

Taya Graham:  Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. To do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops, instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. Today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video of a police officer arresting a man for talking. I am not kidding. But it’s why this cop felt empowered to abuse him and how the justice system fought to protect the officer that we will be unpacking for you today. It’s a story that reveals a troubling truism that this video goes a long way toward revealing. When police break the law, it can be challenging to hold them accountable.

But before I get started, I want you to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. Please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. We do have a Patreon called Accountability Reports, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t take corporate dollars or run ads, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, as we often discuss on this show, holding police accountable is not only difficult but an ongoing challenge. Part of the reason for this is simple: Even when cops are caught breaking the law, the justice system often seems reluctant to punish them. This isn’t my opinion, today we have undeniable proof. That’s because the video I’m showing you now reveals how that system works. It depicts a former Baltimore police officer named Ethan Newberg making an illegal arrest that nearly destroyed a man’s life. An abuse of police power that is as shocking as it is matter-of-fact. But what makes this video even more troubling, is how we had to fight to obtain the video and why our state’s law enforcement establishment wanted to keep it secret.

But first, we need to review the evidence in detail and for that, we have this: The body-worn camera video of one of nine illegal arrests made by Baltimore Police Sergeant Ethan Newberg. Newberg pled guilty to misconduct in office in 2023. Those charges were brought by the office of former state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby in 2019, whose body-worn camera review office caught the illegal encounters and outlined charges that same year. The story of this illegal arrest begins in 2019, in a parking lot of a Baltimore City shopping center. There, police were writing a ticket to a FedEx driver who had stopped next to a curb to deliver a package. Ticketing a person delivering a package is questionable at best but this video is not about a parking ticket. Not hardly.

That’s because another FedEx driver arrived on the scene and began to argue on his coworker’s behalf, a show of driver solidarity that police soon determined was unacceptable. Now, just a note that some of the audio from Officer Newberg’s camera is distorted, which we could not fix, but we still thought it was important enough for you to hear it regardless. Take a look and listen.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

FedEx Driver 1:  All right. I see this man writing me a ticket. There’s a car behind me. I run out here, I tell him I’m ready to move my car. He tells me he can’t; he has to finish it because he started writing it. Man, you don’t have to finish that. I sat there and say, there was a car right behind me. Did you give the person behind me a ticket and write that stuff up for them? He’s like, what car? Man, you seen it. He turned right there and said, oh, that car? Man, stop playing with me. I came out here to move my car. Stop it.

[Police radio talk]

Come on, now. I literally walked and saw him writing and I came right out here and said I’m going to move my car. He going to tell me, oh, I got to finish writing it. You don’t got to finish writing that.

[Distant crosstalk]

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  I’ll tell you what, you got about three seconds to stop him… Pull him over, pull him over. Stop him. Stop him.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, I’m sure like me, you were confused by this video. What exactly was the crime that the driver committed? Since when did speaking to police constitute a crime? But that brief exercise of the constitutional rights of the driver was met with a resounding show of force, cuffs, and detainment. Just watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Driver’s license and registration. No, no. Driver’s license and registration.

FedEx Driver 2:  What’s up? What’s up?

Sgt. Ethan Newberg: Driver’s license?

FedEx Driver 2:  Come take it. You a bitch, man. Like I said.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Take him.

FedEx Driver 2:  For what? For what? For what? I ain’t do shit. For what?

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  [Crosstalk] Call the FedEx company. Tell him his driver’s under arrest.

FedEx Driver 2:  For what? For what? I see another FedEx driver getting in trouble.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You’re not going to curse at officers and create a disturbance out here. Your truck’s gone, your job’s gone, I hope.

FedEx Driver 2:  That’s cool.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You have no right to even have this job.

FedEx Driver 2:  You have no right to assault me like that. For talking to another employee? Yeah, I ain’t do shit.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You’re not going to cuss at the police.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, even after the driver was pushed into the back of a patrol car, Sergeant Newberg was not done. What you’re about to see next is a point we make on this show that is often ignored or at best, underestimated. That’s because even after Officer Newberg had clearly made an illegal arrest, the next step he took was even more disturbing. Take a look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

FedEx Driver 2:  Stopped for another FedEx employee. Both of us work for FedEx, yo. Both of us work for FedEx. This man asked me for my ID.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Well, hopefully, you won’t be working for them long.

FedEx Driver 2:  I gave this man my ID, right? He took my ID out my hand and grabbed my other hand and said I’m under arrest. For nothing. For nothing.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You’re under arrest.

FedEx Driver 2:  For nothing.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Disorderly conduct.

FedEx Driver 2:  For nothing.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Sir, step in the vehicle. Sir.

FedEx Driver 2:  That’s crazy.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Have a good day.

FedEx Driver 2:  That’s crazy. I’m going to work.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  I need someone to pick up the phone. I need your boss’s number.

FedEx Driver 2:  That’s what I’m asking them. I’m saying can I get my phone out of my car so I can get you all that information?

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  No.

FedEx Driver 2:  I’ll walk with you and all that. I’m not even going to do none of that. You already got me cuffed up, man.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  No, you’re going to jail and I’m calling your boss to come get your truck.

FedEx Driver 2:  That’s okay.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  What’s your boss’s number?

FedEx Driver 2:  It’s in my phone in my truck. That’s what I’m saying to you.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  What happens if I call the 1-800-FedEx number?

FedEx Driver 2:  It’s going to send you to a hotline and they’re going to send you through a runaround. That’s all they’re going to do. I can literally get out the truck… I mean, get out this car and go with you. Yes, sir.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  No.

FedEx Driver 2:  It’s right there inside the GPS thing.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  No.

FedEx Driver 2:  That’s what I’m saying. Man, I don’t have no problem with going to jail, sir. I have no issue with that. If you’re going to lock me up, lock me up. It’s okay. I understand you’re frustrated. I understand you’re mad.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  No, I’m not frustrated, man. You’re not going to cuss at my officers. You’re not going to put their life at risk.

FedEx Driver 2:  How did I put his life at risk?

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You caused all these people to start coming out and cussing and carrying on. We have one guy now threatening us of that.

FedEx Driver 2:  No, I didn’t cause any of this. I didn’t cause any of that.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Yeah, you did.

FedEx Driver 2:  I stopped for another employee who I know is another employee and said, yo, stop moving your hands around, yo. You don’t want to get [crosstalk] dumb ass.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  It’s all on body camera.

FedEx Driver 2:  I know that.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Police are a bunch of bitches, you’re bitches.

FedEx Driver 2:  All this crime going on and y’all stopping a man for a ticket?

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  That’s right. Sergeant Newberg told police to call FedEx with what we can only imagine is an attempt to cost the driver his job. I’m not kidding. Literally, for the crime of exercising his constitutional rights and talking. The officer decides that being put into a cage in the back of a patrol car and disrupting this young man’s life is simply not enough. That saddling him with a criminal record and court costs, legal fees, and perhaps bail was still insufficient. Just watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Oh, this was unbelievable with this guy.

FedEx Driver 2:  Look, what I’m saying to him is like, yo, he right. He right. I’m not sitting here disputing saying, yo, you wrong. I could have handled things differently. Same way this man could have handled things differently. We all could have handled things differently.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  I’m done with him. I’m just calling the 1-800 number now.

Police Officer:  What’s the number, boss?

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  I don’t know the number.

Police Officer:  Don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about it.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Crew. What does he… Do you guys… Eddie, what are you doing?

Eddie:  [Inaudible]

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  But why is he over at this truck?

FedEx Driver 1:  Because I work for these guys, FedEx.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Get him away from the truck.

FedEx Driver 1:  What I’m doing [inaudible].

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Yeah. This is Sergeant Newberg from the Baltimore City Police Department. Do you understand that? You understand what I’m saying? Your FedEx driver in one of your trucks is under arrest and his truck is just sitting out here. I need someone to come get it.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  But that’s not where the misconduct – And I am not mischaracterizing this here – Of the unrelenting overreach of Sergeant Newberg ended. That’s because when another resident exercised their First Amendment rights, criticizing him for what was clearly an illegal arrest, again Newberg threatened to make the situation worse. Just look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You get ready to go too.

Speaker 1:  Freedom of speech!

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You get ready to go too, big, man.

Speaker 1:  [Inaudible] officer. Make sure your camera on. Make sure your camera on.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Go away and take your balloons.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, there are two types of police behavior that are worth breaking down in this encounter. Two aspects of how police behave when confronted with the wrongdoing of a fellow officer need to be examined. First, the victim of this illegal arrest shows more dignity than the police who arrested him. He tries to be understanding and show respect for the officer after he has not had the same done for him. But above and beyond that act of empathy is how many officers witnessed and worked with Newberg and how they stood by and allowed this illegal act to unfold. Even worse, finding ways to justify it on camera and bolster Newberg’s flimsy case that this driver had committed a crime. Just watch.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

FedEx Driver 2:  Yo, you don’t got to treat us like this. You don’t have to treat people like this. We are human beings. That’s all it is. Y’all want to act… Y’all pulled up here deep. Literally. Literally. Literally. Yo, I didn’t [car door slams shut] –

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  What? That’s your FedEx driver.

Police Officer:  We weren’t doing anything to him. He was complaining. He just stopped the other dude. It makes no sense, dude. Bro, you could have just said, hey, Kevin, what you do to [inaudible], and kept it moving, but you wanted to keep jabbing on him.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Oh, this was unbelievable with this guy.

FedEx Driver 2:  – Look, what I’m saying is like, yo, he right. He right. I’m not sitting here disputing saying, yo, you wrong. I could have handled things differently. Same way this man could have handled things differently. We all could have handled things differently.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  But even after sowing all the chaos that upended this young man’s life, Newberg is not done. At least not finished with exaggerating and portraying the driver to his employer as a reckless individual with contempt for the law. Just listen.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  So you got locked up for him, but what’s he doing for you? He’s over there and ain’t saying a word.

FedEx Driver 2:  You right, man. You right. Sir, sir. You right, because he obviously got more common sense than me. That’s literally what I –

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You really just lost your job probably.

[To FedEx supervisor on phone] Well, I can try to fill you in on what’s going on with your driver, if you’d like to know. A supervisor was called, which would be me, the supervisor, because an employee, I guess he’s on his lunch break, I don’t know what his deal was, was parked in a fire lane in his personal car. An officer was giving him a parking ticket. He was hooting and hollering out here. It turns out he’s a FedEx employee, which whatever, he’s carrying on, didn’t want his ticket. Whatever, that’s his prerogative.

The problem became when your FedEx driver pulled up in a truck, I guess he is a fellow employee of this gentleman, stops in his FedEx truck, and starts cussing at the police and making a heck of a scene. He’s told to knock it off, he continues, and now he’s cussing at the police and people are gathering. I don’t know what this guy’s deal was, but it got to the point where based for safety issues for the police involved, he was taken into custody. I don’t know what this guy’s deal was or what his problem was with the police, but now we have a FedEx truck running here sitting in the middle of the roadway in the shopping center, and we got him in handcuffs in the back of a car. That’s where we’re at.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  To put an exclamation point on how troubling this entire encounter is, I want you to watch how this arrest actually unfolded and compare it to how Officer Newberg described it to his employer. Let’s watch the arrest and then play back Officer Berg’s description as we play the video of what actually happened.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  [To FedEx supervisor on phone] A supervisor was called, which would be me, the supervisor, because an employee, I guess he’s on his lunch break, I don’t know what his deal was, was parked in a fire lane in his personal car. An officer was giving him a parking ticket. He was hooting and hollering out here. It turns out he’s a FedEx employee, which whatever, he’s carrying on, didn’t want his ticket. Whatever, that’s his prerogative.

The problem became when your FedEx driver pulled up in a truck, I guess he is a fellow employee of this gentleman, stops in his FedEx truck, and starts cussing at the police and making a heck of a scene. He’s told to knock it off, he continues, and now he’s cussing at the police and people are gathering. I don’t know what this guy’s deal was, but it got to the point where based for safety issues for the police involved, he was taken into custody. I don’t know what this guy’s deal is or what his problem was with the police, but now we have a FedEx truck running here sitting in the middle of the roadway in the shopping center, and we got him in handcuffs in the back of a car. That’s where we’re at.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Even after all this, the most troubling moment of this entire ordeal occurs when Newberg, using the weapons of handcuffs, jail time, and the loss of a job, to force – And I mean force – The driver to confess that he was wrong on body-worn camera. In this short ordeal of time, Newberg literally manages to violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution in a single conversation, shredding the civil rights of this young man and the Constitution, simultaneously. Just look.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Well, what I should have done is just towed the thing and not wasted my time making any of these phone calls.

FedEx Driver 2:  Sir, I understand. I understand. I understand.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  I’m trying to help your company out. I don’t have to do all this stuff.

FedEx Driver 2:  I understand that, man. I understand.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Now I’m just trying to figure out now that you’ve calmed down whether to still take you to jail or let you go on your merry way with this truck.

FedEx Driver 2:  I wish you would let me go on my merry way with this truck.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  But the issue I have [crosstalk] – Hold on a minute. The issue I have with this whole situation is I honestly believe that you think you did nothing wrong, and that’s the problem I have with this.

FedEx Driver 2:  No, I know what I did wrong.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  What do you think you did wrong? I don’t even care if you pulled up and said to your compadre there, hey, let the punk police do what they got –

FedEx Driver 2:  See, that’s what I’m –

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  – You’re not even letting me talk. I don’t even care. Let the punk police write you your ticket. I’m surprised they had nothing better to do and drove away. That’s not exactly what you did. What you did was you took it to the next level and your anger just came spewing out of you and the cussing and the carrying on and people… It’s all on camera, sir.

FedEx Driver 2:  – No, I said the fuss and the stuff.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  It was ridiculous. Do you have children?

FedEx Driver 2:  Yes.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You support them with your job?

FedEx Driver 2:  Yes.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Why would anybody risk that to do what you did for him? What is he, your brother? Were we kicking his face in?

FedEx Driver 2:  No. Y’all weren’t doing none of that, man.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  Were we choking him?

FedEx Driver 2:  It was [inaudible] happening with him.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You’re a grown man.

FedEx Driver 2:  Right, sir.

Sgt. Ethan Newberg:  You have a family. This isn’t the street corner down here where it’s like a bunch of knuckleheads jumping all over the police and you have nothing to lose. You have a job, a good job with probably a good company with benefits. What are you doing? Get your head on straight.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Now, oddly in the end, Sergeant Newberg lets the driver go, only after he humiliated him, told his boss that he was a lawless instigator, and made him confess to a crime he didn’t even commit. But this particular encounter is not the end of this story. There is much, much more to tell about the crimes of Newberg, a story that has to do with the system we often discuss that makes bad policing possible. For more on that, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who was in the courtroom with me when Newberg was sentenced. He’s reviewed the other videos that were released by the Baltimore City Police Department. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  Stephen, you were at the sentencing hearing for Sergeant Newberg. What did he say before he was sentenced? Was he remorseful? Did he apologize?

Stephen Janis:  Taya, we watched his entire proceeding. He was anything but remorseful. He blamed what he did on the culture of Baltimore policing, that is old-school style policing, where police were supposed to go into neighborhoods, sow disorder, and order people around, and he said that was the problem. It wasn’t him. In fact, he said, it’s amazing that my whole career has come down to a couple of arrests on video. He said, if it wasn’t for the video, I wouldn’t be here. He was not remorseful or a man who put the blame on himself.

Taya Graham:  What type of sentence did the prosecutors ask for? What did they think was fair for the crimes he committed against the public?

Stephen Janis:  Taya, the prosecutors were quite emphatic that he deserved 36 months in prison. They said that an officer like Ethan Newberg makes it more difficult for officers to go out and do their jobs because people see him, see what he does, and think that’s the Baltimore Police Department. It erodes trust in the community. He asked the judge to reaffirm that faith in the justice system by giving him a sentence of three years, making him spend some time behind bars like some of the people that he arrested himself.

Taya Graham:  Now, Newberg’s attorney argued that in some sense Newberg was just doing what he was ordered to do. In other words, this was just Baltimore policing as it was designed to work. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Stephen Janis:  Ethan Newberg’s lawyer was very emphatic too, saying that, hey, this is the culture of Baltimore Police. Police were supposed to do what former police commissioner Ed Norris said, go into a corner and disrupt. That is, disrupts whatever’s going on in the community. At that point, it was supposed to be targeted at drug dealers, but as we both know who has covered zero tolerance in Baltimore, it was much more widespread and was applied to any situation where people in the city congregated. Drinking a beer on a stoop, any relatively innocent activity suddenly became criminalized. But his lawyer said that’s what they were told to do. Even Ethan Newberg said in his statement that now officers aren’t going out and being proactive like he was, and that’s why crime has gone up in the city. It was an interesting argument in the sense that there was very little remorse or very little taking account for their own actions.

Taya Graham:  Stephen, as a reporter who has covered the city of Baltimore for 20 years, you saw some of that policing before, but it’s extraordinary that it’s occurring now because wasn’t the police department under a consent decree when this happened?

Stephen Janis:  Taya, since 2016 the city has been under a consent decree with the Department of Justice based upon an investigation that found the Baltimore Police Department engaged in unconstitutional and racist policing for years. This happened way after that. Let’s remember also the Gun Trace Task Force, eight officers who robbed residents and stole overtime, also occurred during the investigation by the Justice Department. It seems like the Justice Department doesn’t have a lot of effect on some individual officers, especially those officers who are used to what we call the old-school style of policing in Baltimore.

Taya Graham:  Stephen, finally, what did the judge do? What was the sentence for Sergeant Newberg?

Stephen Janis:  Well, Taya, here’s where all the ideas put forward by the prosecutor that this is going to show some accountability to the public: Ethan Newberg got six months of home detention.

Taya Graham:  Wait, excuse me?

Stephen Janis:  Yeah.

Taya Graham:  No jail time for nine different illegal arrests caught on camera?

Stephen Janis:  Yeah. Six months of home detention, Taya. No jail time for Ethan Newberg. Not a second in jail. Nothing. Even when he was arraigned, he went to jail for maybe a couple hours and got out despite the fact that we’ve caught nine arrests like this on video and that the suffering of the people in the community, because of his actions, Ethan Newberg will never see the inside of a jail cell. In fact, at the time his lawyer said that he could serve his time not in Baltimore City where the crimes occurred, but in Carroll County, a suburb of Baltimore, which he said would be much safer for Mr. Newberg. It was from the beginning, even though the judge seemed like he was going to sentence him to some time, the judge gave him six months of home detention. That’s the result of what you’ve seen. That’s why people are raising questions about this sentence because they’re saying, how on earth can we hold officers accountable if someone who’s been caught on video breaking the law doesn’t serve any jail time?

Taya Graham:  Thank you, Stephen. I want you to think about what Stephen revealed regarding Sergeant Newberg’s punishment, or lack thereof, in the context of the idea I raised at the beginning of the show – How difficult it is to hold police accountable. The video we watched was a perfect example of what happens when police powers are allowed to be abused, unchecked, and what it means when we allow our fear of crime to justify law enforcement that is neither lawful nor effective. But there is a deeper problem here embedded in the crimes of this officer, an idea that informs why we are still dealing with these types of tactics amid efforts to reform policing across the country. To put it as plainly as possible, I have a very simple reason why police tactics like this proliferate and despite the best efforts of activists and in some cases even elected representatives, they will continue to persist. A fight over something that may seem entirely unrelated to policing, but if we probe deeper, is actually one of the primary reasons this debate rages on. Asthma.

Oh, that’s right. You heard me. Your computer, your phone, it’s not malfunctioning. I actually said asthma. A terrible disease that afflicts people from all walks of life and requires them to use an inhaler to survive. It’s a byproduct of industrialization and poverty that consigns people who’ve been affected to dependence upon a medical product that has now been subject to a different conflict, a fight that might seem peripheral, but speaks to the core reason we accept, and in some ways, bolster bad policing in communities that already are under siege. That’s because Senator Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Senate’s Education and Welfare Committee, recently sent a letter to the CEOs of four major pharmaceutical companies. The letter, the contents of which he released publicly this week, asked one simple question; why? Why do four of the largest major drug companies in the US charge up to 10 times more for an inhaler here than they do in other countries?

Why, he wondered, do the sick people in the US often go without inhalers due to their steep price when a citizen of Germany, for example, pays $9 for the same lifesaving care? It’s a critical question because according to that same letter, some 25 million Americans suffer from asthma and another 16 million Americans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and both require an inhaler to survive. And both must pay multiple times, no, exponential times, what their counterparts in European countries have to fork over for the exact same medication. But of course, at this part of my rant, you’re probably asking, Taya, what the heck does this have to do with a crooked cop? What does the exorbitant price of an asthma inhaler have to do with one rogue officer who decided to make one man’s life utterly miserable?

That is a fair question. Please allow me to answer. Both are related because ultimately both are acts of violence. One is economic violence and the other, is a matter of criminal justice, violence against our liberties, and civil rights, but both seek to degrade our agency, and our quality of life, and erode the rights of the people who are subject to them. We make a fundamental mistake when we limit our conversations about rights to specific guarantees outlined in the Constitution, those rights are important, but they mean little to the people who can’t breathe or can’t afford the medicine to prevent them from suffocating. The point where both of these injustices intersect is often less tangible, but just as important to comprehend because the unchecked power of officers like Newberg stems from the same pathos of the ability of wealthy pharma companies to gouge the sick and the poor.

It’s the disease called inequality. While it starts with the big companies charging outrageous prices, it’s enforced by agents of the government like Newberg who uses power to erode our political efficacy and thus our ability to fight back. If we spend all our time defending our basic rights from one cop, how on earth can we fight the bigger battle for the right to affordable healthcare? If an officer of the law can break the law to break us, what chance do we have to advance or expand our rights not to be overcharged for life-saving healthcare? Seriously, when you think about it, the rights that Newberg assaulted should be the starting point, not the culmination, of our rights. Guaranteeing that the government can’t rifle through our belongings, whatever they want, or that we don’t have to testify against ourselves are not exactly the key to a happy existence; It’s just a basic safeguard from tyranny.

This is why I brought up the idea of the extractive expense of asthma inhalers in the context of over-policing. Because what community, what group of reasonable people would decide that the right to breathe should be prohibitively expensive? What type of society would overcharge people for a lifesaving medication while a person in another country with the same ailment pays a fraction of the cost? Is that the policy of the greatest and wealthiest nation on earth? Is that how we perpetuate freedom and democracy, by gouging desperately ill people? Of course, there is one place where our great nation doesn’t mind being generous. Yes, we might overcharge sick people, but there is a group we don’t mind showering with cash and thrusting them into the 1%, and that group is cops, or more specifically Sergeant Ethan Newberg himself.

That’s right because the same officer whose crimes were captured on the video that we showed you was actually notorious for one other rather intriguing distinction. The man who decided to cost another man his livelihood held a singular position in the city for which he worked that is entirely relevant to the topic of this show. Ethan Newberg, it turns out, was one of the highest-paid employees in the entire city. In the year he made all those illegal arrests, he gained roughly $239,000 in pay in overtime, a salary that put him on par with the mayor and the police commissioner, and money he made making illegal arrests and ruining people’s lives. He made over a quarter million dollars while violating the rights of Baltimore City residents like me.

If I take the precepts of capitalism to its logical conclusion that our free and fair market puts obvious values on goods services and people, there are a few conclusions that I can draw from these facts: One, a crooked cop who makes a legal arrest is exceptionally valuable to society. His ability to conjure reasons to put innocent people in cages gives him a real chance of being part of the luminous 1%. Conversely, if you are sick with asthma, it is perfectly acceptable to gouge you for illicit gains. Your life-threatening condition, through no fault of your own, deserves not one cent of compassion from the richest nation on earth. Hardly. The powers that be have made it impossible for the government to regulate or protect your right to breathe. Instead, they have all but assured companies that they can charge you whatever they want, that they, the rich CEOs and greedy shareholders, can reach into your pockets and extract every single penny in exchange for lifesaving medicine you cannot live without.

As you can see, it’s easy to ascertain what this country values and what rights amount to; A calculus I can outline for you before, if you’re keeping score at home. The crooked cop, enriched. The sick, they are impoverished. The innocent, jailed. The CEOs, showered with cash. The people, ignored. Our rights, diminished. Our health, monetized and our freedoms, limited. These are the inequities we have to fight. These are the values we must rethink. This is the justice that we deserve and we must demand because all of it is worth fighting for.

I have to thank Stephen Janis for his intrepid reporting, research, writing, and standing with me in that courtroom and helping me fight to get those body camera videos. Stephen, thank you so much.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:  I want to thank mods and friends of the show, Noli D. and Lacy R. for their support. Hi, Noli D. A very special thanks to our Accountability Reports patrons, we appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon associate producers John E.R., David K., Louis P., Lucita G., and super-friends Shane B., Pineapple Gold., Chris R., and Matter of Rights. I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct.

You can also message us @policeaccountabilityreport on Facebook or Instagram or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. Of course, you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. Please like and comment. I really do read your comments and appreciate them. We do have the Patreon link pinned below, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. Anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Maximillian Alvarez:  Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most. We need your help to keep doing this work, so please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to The Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

The weather outside is frightful, and so is the behavior of police departments around the country! In a special holiday-themed livestream, Police Accountability Report looks at a series of police abuse incidents around the country. From a Washington state trooper’s car crash to a botched raid in Kentucky, Stephen and Taya report live on the latest incidents of cops behaving badly and what it tells us about policing in the US today.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Studio Production: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the PAR, Police Accountability Report, end-of-the-year accountability livestream. What’s an accountability livestream? Well, it’s one of our shows where we hold police accountable, but in this case, we do so completely live. And that is we highlight cops who are abusing people’s rights in real time and let you, our viewers, weigh in. And that’s why today we will be reporting on several stories of cops who have used the powers of policing to engage in questionable behavior. And as we do, we will unpack some of the broader issues that, as we always say, makes bad policing possible.

And in the process, of course, we want to engage with you, our viewers. I mean, the whole point of producing this show week after week is for you, the people who watch us. We value what you say and think, and we want to understand your perspective on all these questions. So to get started, we have posted a poll in our community tab, and we’ll share a link in the livestream chat for you to weigh in. It’s a very important question about the efforts to reform police that we will be discussing at the end of the show when we will show you the results and, of course, share some of your comments. But first, just a preview of what we will be reporting on today.

So this is a video of an accident caused by a Washington state trooper. But despite the evidence of what you are seeing on the screen, police tried to frame an innocent truck driver and blame him for the collision. It’s a perfect example of how the cover-up is often worse than the crime. Then we will be talking to Chris Reiter, the copwatcher, otherwise known as For Public Safety, who has been documenting and investigating the misconduct of an Indiana sheriff who raided their home but is now facing serious charges himself. And finally, we will close out the show with one of our favorite guests, Otto the Watchdog. And he will be giving us an update on his fight for justice with Royse City Texas law enforcement. And he will share what his years-long ordeal fighting the law enforcement establishment there has taught him about the challenges of holding police accountable, and he might have some good news as well.

But first, as usual, even though we’ve been planning the show for weeks, I have to find Stephen. I mean, he knows he’s supposed to be here, but right now, he’s simply MIA. Fortunately, our excellent show director David Hebden has been looking for him too. Dave, do you have any updates? Oh, you found him? Thanks, Dave.

Stephen Janis:

[inaudible 00:02:32] so good. I’m going to have such a great Stephen outdoor-

Taya Graham:

Stephen. Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

… one over here. One over here-

Taya Graham:

Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

… one over here… Oh.

Taya Graham:

I cannot believe this.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, hey, Taya, what’s going on? How you doing? Do you like what I’m doing with the Christmas tree-

Taya Graham:

Stephen, what are you doing with the corn nuts? What are you doing?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I’m putting them up on the Christmas tree. Max gave them to me as a Christmas bonus and I thought it looked good to have a little Christmas thing for myself outside, as you know, it gets-

Taya Graham:

Stephen, we have a live stream tonight.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, we have a live stream tonight?

Taya Graham:

Yes, we do.

Stephen Janis:

Wow, I didn’t know that. So should I come inside?

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. Get in here right now.

Stephen Janis:

I’m coming, I’m coming, but I want to just finish with the corn thing and-

Taya Graham:

Yeah. No. No. Get in here.

Stephen Janis:

I want to finish my corn nuts-

Taya Graham:

No. And Max wants the corn nuts back. Get back in here. Seriously.

Stephen Janis:

He wants them back?

Taya Graham:

Yes, he does.

Stephen Janis:

All right, I guess I have to come inside then. All right.

Taya Graham:

Please, just come inside.

Stephen Janis:

Fine. Fine. Fine. Fine.

Taya Graham:

Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

I’m coming in.

Taya Graham:

Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

I’m coming in. I’ll be inside.

Taya Graham:

Oh, my gosh. I can’t even believe this. He’s a hard-nosed investigative journalist and he’s just used to being in the outdoors and beating the pavement for stories. It’s hard to get him back into the studio. Dave, thank you for locating him. As we wait, and this is live, you just have technical difficulties like this sometime. So as we wait for him to make his way into the studio, I think we probably just need to keep rolling.

So as I said before, we posted a new poll on our community tab, which we would love for you to respond to. It asks a question that is related to our last poll, but with a twist. Remember last week we asked you if you thought body-worn cameras had changed police behavior. Interestingly, more than half of you thought they did. But tonight, we have a slight iteration on that question that is related to the guests we will be speaking to later. And the question is, do you think copwatchers have had an impact on how police behave? That is, have copwatchers made police think twice before abusing their power? Have they made things better or worse? And obviously, we have done extensive reporting on copwatchers, but the controversy and, of course, their struggle to film police, and in doing so, hold police accountable. But we wanted to know what you think… Wait. Oh, thank you for gracing us with your presence.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, I brought some corn nuts with me, so we can-

Taya Graham:

Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Are you okay?

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Stephen, I think you have the wrong mic in your hand.

Stephen Janis:

I don’t want to use this one. I can’t use my outdoor mic?

Taya Graham:

No.

Stephen Janis:

I’m pretty tapped.

Taya Graham:

You’re indoor now.

Stephen Janis:

Okay. All right.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. Thanks.

Stephen Janis:

You sure? Okay.

Taya Graham:

Yeah, it’s cool. It’s cool. Since you finally decide to grace us with your presence, I’m going to ask you the question-

Stephen Janis:

Me?

Taya Graham:

Yes. That we had in our poll. I know you’ve covered this topic before, but what are your thoughts?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I’ve done a lot of thinking about copwatching. And to be honest with you, it’s a bit of an obsession with me because we’ve covered so much of it. And it’s, as we’ve talked about before, watching a movement unfold. But I was thinking about it in a very different light this morning when I was contemplating some of our guests and what they’ve been up to. And I was thinking about a concept that was known as gonzo journalism, right? Back in the ’60s, the ’70s, Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, where the idea was a reporter puts himself in the story and says, “I’m not objective. I’m experiencing this firsthand.” And why I think that’s relevant to copwatchers is because if you look at the period where it evolved and where gonzo journalism became a big thing and a dominant cultural theme, it was a time when people didn’t trust government very much, where there was a lot of mistrust of the establishment, so to speak.

So I think in a way, copwatchers are very much a gonzo journalism. The other thing they do that I think is quite interesting and very important is that they turn the panopticon around on the establishment. In other words, the power, the establishment, the police that are used to observing us and watching us suddenly had that reverse. A reverse in balance of power where they’re being watched, but they’re being watched by people who aren’t part of the establishment, right? I mean, let’s be honest, mainstream media sometimes works with police in ways that I think is deleterious to the process of journalism. But a copwatcher doesn’t really belong to an institution. And a copwatcher is a wild card. And I think that’s really important to remember that that’s what’s cool about it. It’s a wild card where you have people like Otto who we’ll be talking to, who’s very creative, or Chris Reiter, who is also very creative about the way… They’re approaching this with their own, as you will say later, inimitable style, their own way and context of doing it. They’re reinventing their own form of gonzo journalism at this point.

And so I think it’s very important to the whole… As we see journalism in this crisis, we see newspapers closing, we see this tremendous crisis of journalism, now we’ve got these guys and women who are stepping up and filling the void, in a way, I think that responds to what’s actually going on. You can’t always cover these extreme abuses of power with just neutral journalism. And they’re saying neutral journalism doesn’t apply. So I know we both watched the movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with Johnny Depp. And I’m not saying they’re that extreme, but there is a sense that something else is needed to fight the establishment narrative that ignores people’s true problems. And policing, of course, is a great lens through which to see that, but I think copwatchers fill a void, so to speak, from that perspective.

Taya Graham:

You have some support out here. Snark and Sass said, “He’s adorable.” I’ve never heard Stephen called adorable before, but I’m sure he appreciates it.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

So if you don’t know, I’m trying to put your comments on the screen while I’m running the stream. And I wanted to say to Linda… Let me make sure she’s up there. Linda, I got your contribution. That was awesome and thank you so much. Your card absolutely made my day.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, that was her card?

Taya Graham:

Yeah, I think it was her card.

Stephen Janis:

Oh, wow.

Taya Graham:

And I think I took her card and made a community post with it. It was a card that said thanks on it. So I just want you to know that if you send me mail or a donation, that I really appreciate it. We appreciate it a great deal.

Stephen Janis:

And we should point out right now that we’re in our fundraiser and that anything you donate to The Real News right now, which I was going to say… Is it okay if I ask for something for the tree? Because as you can see, my tree has got a bunch of corn nuts, but there are no lights. And so if people want to donate, I’m not saying I’m actually probably wouldn’t be approved to spend them on the lights, but nevertheless, if you donate now, your donation is matched by very generous donor. So if you donate $50, it’ll be $100 for us, and it’s really important… As we’re talking about journalism, journalism is in a really difficult place and it’s wonderful to have something independent like The Real News and have independent journalists who are not tied to any institutions really going out there and telling people’s stories. So if you can donate, we would really appreciate it. And I think it would be good for everyone to contribute to journalism.

Taya Graham:

You know what? I think I’m seeing some amazing people in our live chat right now. I think James Freeman, the James Freeman-

Stephen Janis:

The James Freeman?

Taya Graham:

The James Freeman-

Stephen Janis: