View Full Version : Man peacefully filming a federal building in Virginia is arrested
Lawful arrest? What crime, if any, did he commit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcizZEqIErE
While I generally don't have time for professional activists I didn't see justification for lawful detainment or arrest. We haven't yet arrived at the point where we are required to carry and present ID. Obviously if the individual was engaged in the commission of some kind of crime he can be detained and even arrested until his identity is determined, buy I think "obstruction" (if I heard that correctly) might be a bit of a reach.
Obviously the people in the Federal building have a different view when it comes to collecting data and video than the government does with regard to recording citizens, but I don't think that is the main issue here.
I appreciate the fact that this individual "peacefully" exercised his 5th amendment rights. Will be interesting to see how this one shakes out. Wonder if the ACLU will even be interested.
Interesting question OP and a good issue to discuss.
1) Is there another source for the video that shows what happened before the officer arrived?
2) Where was the person standing when they were approached by police? Private or restricted access property? Were signs posts?
3) Was the person near a vehicle that was legally or illegally parked?
4) Could the officer see the holster when he first made contact? Is there a Virginia CCW law that requires a person provide identification when approached by an officer?
Virginia does not require a licensed CCW holder to notify an officer if he is carrying, though it is usually advised as a courtesy. Not sure about ID however.
I missed the part about him being armed. That potentially brings in a whole new dynamic.
I know VA is a "no license needed" state but I'd be willing to bet that anyone openly carrying is required to produce ID upon demand. We need to get some local experts to weigh in.
I'm thinking anyone who is going to try to pull off a stunt like this and attempt to do it professionally and politely should have done his homework and knows all the issues going in.
Seems pretty legit.
Arresting people for walking around, minding their own business, while letting known radical Muslim terrorists like the Tsarnaev's plan and kill Americans.
Everything is going according to Hussein's plan.
An officer cannot ask for ID simply because you are displaying a firearm. There still needs to be reasonable suspicion that there is a crime. See the following;
U.S v. Black (4th Circuit Court of Appeals), St. John v. City of Alamogordo, Northrup v. City of Toledo (still ongoing I believe). And more recently a case in Arizona where a convicted felon was carrying a firearm and was convicted. It was overturned by the state supreme court State v. Serna (Arizona).
I missed the part about him being armed. That potentially brings in a whole new dynamic.
I know VA is a "no license needed" state but I'd be willing to bet that anyone openly carrying is required to produce ID upon demand. We need to get some local experts to weigh in.
I'm thinking anyone who is going to try to pull off a stunt like this and attempt to do it professionally and politely should have done his homework and knows all the issues going in.
From what I heard in the video, he was not armed. He had an empty holster and the officer asked him where the gun was. He said I plead the 5th, and the officer laughed.
It looks bad though. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that guys lawyers if he really wasn't doing anything illegal, and the video didn't show him doing anything illegal. For all we know though, he edited out the parts that make him look bad.
As far as I know, VA is not a stop and ID state. I think he will have grounds for a lawsuit.
I missed the part about him being armed. That potentially brings in a whole new dynamic.
I know VA is a "no license needed" state but I'd be willing to bet that anyone openly carrying is required to produce ID upon demand. We need to get some local experts to weigh in.
I'm thinking anyone who is going to try to pull off a stunt like this and attempt to do it professionally and politely should have done his homework and knows all the issues going in.
It's tough to draw any reasonable conclusion without seeing the person videotaping the Federal building, how they were dressed, if the officer saw part of or the whole holster, etc. Without seeing signage and knowing who's property they were standing on at the time, it begs even more questions.
As far as the firearm question is concerned, if a person refused to identify themselves how do you determine if they were issued a concealed carry permit?
Virginia Code § 18.2-308.01. Carrying a concealed handgun with a permit.
A. The prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun in clause (i) of subsection A of § 18.2-308 shall not apply to a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this article. The person issued the permit shall have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun and shall display the permit and a photo identification issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth or by the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. State Department (passport) upon demand by a law-enforcement officer. A person to whom a nonresident permit is issued shall have such permit on his person at all times when he is carrying a concealed handgun in the Commonwealth and shall display the permit on demand by a law-enforcement officer. A person whose permit is extended due to deployment shall carry with him and display, upon request of a law-enforcement officer, a copy of the documents required by subsection B of § 18.2-308.010. http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-308.01/
Was the person videotaping standing on Federal property at the time he was approached by the officer and what signage was posted?
Until more/better details become available, it is hard to draw a reasonable conclusion.
See in bold.
Interesting question OP and a good issue to discuss.
1) Is there another source for the video that shows what happened before the officer arrived?
Here is some more footage of the scene at which it took place.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/29568206/henrico-arrest-prompts-questions-on-citizen-rights
2) Where was the person standing when they were approached by police? Private or restricted access property? Were signs posts?
It looks as if in an office park. See above
3) Was the person near a vehicle that was legally or illegally parked?
Hard to tell.
4) Could the officer see the holster when he first made contact? Is there a Virginia CCW law that requires a person provide identification when approached by an officer?
VA CCW law requires a person concealing a handgun to disclose this to an officer. I assume the police officer saw the holster, but it was empty.
It's tough to draw any reasonable conclusion without seeing the person videotaping the Federal building, how they were dressed (not a cause for arrest), if the officer saw part of or the whole holster (apparently, the officer did not see a gun in the holster since he asked for its location), etc. Without seeing signage and knowing who's property they were standing on at the time (appears to be public property/office park property), it begs even more questions.
As far as the firearm question is concerned, if a person refused to identify themselves how do you determine if they were issued a concealed carry permit? (It is not the stopped person's responsibility to make the LEO's job easier. The police officer could have done a search and frisk (Terry vs. Ohio) to determine if a weapon was present, assuming he had RAS, which he likely did not.)
Virginia Code § 18.2-308.01. Carrying a concealed handgun with a permit.
A. The prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun in clause (i) of subsection A of § 18.2-308 shall not apply to a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this article. The person issued the permit shall have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun and shall display the permit and a photo identification issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth or by the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. State Department (passport) upon demand by a law-enforcement officer. A person to whom a nonresident permit is issued shall have such permit on his person at all times when he is carrying a concealed handgun in the Commonwealth and shall display the permit on demand by a law-enforcement officer. A person whose permit is extended due to deployment shall carry with him and display, upon request of a law-enforcement officer, a copy of the documents required by subsection B of § 18.2-308.010. http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-308.01/
Was the person videotaping standing on Federal property at the time he was approached by the officer and what signage was posted?
Until more/better details become available, it is hard to draw a reasonable conclusion.
In bold.
I'm no fan of activists, but prior to being arrested, it's my understanding cops have no right to demand "Your Papers" like some cops think. After you've been arrested, yep, they can legally demand I.D., but not on a whim.
If you're not doing anything illegal, you don't have to produce I.D.
This is still America, sort of, and I would respond the same way if a cop decided to insist out of the blue, I provide I.D. when I've done nothing illegal.
Found a 2002 VA Attorney General opinion that states, "It is my opinion, under the specific facts you have presented, that a law-enforcement officer conducting a lawful investigative stop may not arrest a suspect for obstruction of justice under § 18.2-460(A), when the suspect refuses to identify himself to the officer. Depending on the circumstances, however, there may be justification to detain a suspect for the purpose of determining his identity. "
http://www.ag.virginia.gov/Opinions%20and%20Legal%20Resources/opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/07/virginia-man-records-himself-being-arrested-for-invoking-his-right-to-remain-silent/
Bottomline: If the man had been in the company of eight or more individuals, and they had all been openly carrying arms, the police likely would have done nothing. It's simple biology: As most male Homo sapiens sapiens, the officers understand the risks involved when others in numbers choose to carry arms, too.
http://truthuncensored.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/web1_BUNDY-APR15-14-001_11.jpg
Was the officer dispatched after someone in the Federal building made a telephone call to police or did the officer merely see the individual recording as the officer drove past? Video recording in itself would not be considered criminal activity and I am not so sure a Terry Stop would be appropriate.
Without being in control of a motor vehicle or being engaged in an activity, such as carrying a firearm, that would require presenting ID to LEO upon request, there may not have been any standing to ask for ID. On the other side of the coin, if the Federal building was attacked one month or six months from now and the person video recording the building was involved in intelligence gathering for the attackers, a lot of people would be raising hell and saying police should do more to prevent attacks on Federal buildings, Marine Corps recruiting stations, etc. This puts the officer behind the 8 ball no matter which way he handled the situation.
The situation definitely merits review and intelligent discussion.
If he did have an empty holster, wouldn't it be reasonable to think he had a gun on him, concealed? Just from an officer safety standpoint, I would want to make sure he didn't have a gun, especially if he's evading questions. I'm not an LEO, just some thoughts.
If he did have an empty holster, wouldn't it be reasonable to think he had a gun on him, concealed? Just from an officer safety standpoint, I would want to make sure he didn't have a gun, especially if he's evading questions. I'm not an LEO, just some thoughts.
What you say makes sense. We don't know at what point the holster was seen. If the person was hoping for an encounter with police to prove a point, he should have planned farther ahead and had video of himself both before and during the contact with LEO.
If he did have an empty holster, wouldn't it be reasonable to think he had a gun on him, concealed? Just from an officer safety standpoint, I would want to make sure he didn't have a gun, especially if he's evading questions. I'm not an LEO, just some thoughts.
Let's assume the officer had RAS, why did he not detain and search? Even if he did plan on detaining/searching (but not arresting), he can't claim the man obstructed justice, given that videographer had not been informed of his detention.
Moose-Knuckle
07-17-15, 14:54
Lets be honest, he wanted to be confronted/arrested by the police as he is a professional activist. He chose that specific building, video rolling, etc.
Now would they have arrested him had he been a male of military age, of Middle Eastern decent, with a student Visa as ID, full beard, and wearing a taqiyah? I'd surmise not . . .
Lets be honest, he wanted to be confronted/arrested by the police as he is a professional activist. He chose that specific building, video rolling, etc.
Now would they have arrested him had he been a male of military age, of Middle Eastern decent, with a student Visa as ID, full beard, and wearing a taqiyah? I'd surmise not . . .
This is the gist of it. Now the question is what should LEO do acting within the guidelines of the law and case law in the future when confronted by one of these activists? We don't need to publicly post how they are trained, but hopefully LE agencies are better prepared for this type of incident that in years past. As most people know, case law governing search and seizure is an ongoing process.
Lets be honest, he wanted to be unlawfullyconfronted/arrested by the police as he is a professional activist. He chose that specific building, video rolling, etc.
Now would they have arrested him had he been a male of military age, of Middle Eastern decent, with a student Visa as ID, full beard, and wearing a taqiyah? I'd surmise not . . .
The individual may have wanted to be unlawfully arrested/detained, which may prove to have been the case. As much as we wish individuals would not provoke the police, we must all agree that LEOs must respect the law of the land, regardless of the emotions present. If they can't handle that, they must find another occupation.
Moose-Knuckle
07-17-15, 15:35
At this point I'm all for responding LEOs to roll out with a film crew and their city attorney.
Digital_Damage
07-17-15, 16:12
Depending on which building it is that could be a big nono. Not sure what the idiot was trying to prove... other that "look at me they are violating my rights"
Edit: Just watched the video.
I was just in that building Tuesday! LOL.
It is basically located in an office space complex, so it is not against the law to film.
Case will be dropped, cop in the wrong.
If it wasn't concealed or he saw part of the holster then it also wasn't concealed.
In bold.
Depending on which building it is that could be a big nono. Not sure what the idiot was trying to prove... other that "look at me they are violating my rights"
Edit: Just watched the video.
I was just in that building Tuesday! LOL.
It is basically located in an office space complex, so it is not against the law to film.
Case will be dropped, cop in the wrong.
The obstruction case will be dropped? Or the plaintiff's civil suit against the officer and the agency?
I can't comment on VA law, but in my state, the officer would be entirely in the wrong. Absent RAS that a firearm is present (no, a plainly visible empty holster isn't enough), even a temporary detention to establish identity would not be permissible. A couple of additional points:
It appears the citizen is videoing from the edge of a parking lot. Is the lot legally posted against trespass? Did the person who called the authorities request the person be advised of criminal trespass and escorted off the property? If not, then the officer definitely didn't have the authority to detain the subject. Regardless, the officer never even brought up the subject before the detention/arrest, so bringing it up after the fact would be a non-starter. He never gave the subject an opportunity to leave. As a matter of fact, he actively prevented it.
Also, most federal facilities on leaseholds are managed on the security side by the Federal Protective Service. If that parking lot is on a federal leasehold under FPS protection, the facility should've called FPS.
So given the silent treatment by a subject that you cannot get to cooperate voluntarily with your investigation, who is not trespassing and not displaying any criminal intent or actions, what should an officer do? Photograph or video the subject (it's a free country and that applies to the officer as well), surveil the subject as appropriate and file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the available information you can glean from the activity/subject without violating his or her civil rights.
http://nsi.ncirc.gov/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Don't be surprised if your counter-surveillance elicits a response and inquiry by the subject as to what you're doing. Remember that you're under no obligation whatsoever to provide information to the subject about your counter-surveillance activities, but that it may be used as leverage to gain additional information from the subject. I've used this to great effect with initially non-cooperative subjects "exercising their rights" in the past. It's amazing when you break out a camera and start taking close-up photos of them doing their thing, how their focus turns from what they're doing to what you're doing. :)
Can you show some actual law or otherwise that states that you can or cannot film a certain type of building?
Depending on which building it is that could be a big nono. Not sure what the idiot was trying to prove... other that "look at me they are violating my rights"
Edit: Just watched the video.
I was just in that building Tuesday! LOL.
It is basically located in an office space complex, so it is not against the law to film.
Case will be dropped, cop in the wrong.
Digital_Damage
07-17-15, 18:15
The obstruction case will be dropped? Or the plaintiff's civil suit against the officer and the agency?
I can't comment on VA law, but in my state, the officer would be entirely in the wrong. Absent RAS that a firearm is present (no, a plainly visible empty holster isn't enough), even a temporary detention to establish identity would not be permissible. A couple of additional points:
It appears the citizen is videoing from the edge of a parking lot. Is the lot legally posted against trespass? Did the person who called the authorities request the person be advised of criminal trespass and escorted off the property? If not, then the officer definitely didn't have the authority to detain the subject. Regardless, the officer never even brought up the subject before the detention/arrest, so bringing it up after the fact would be a non-starter. He never gave the subject an opportunity to leave. As a matter of fact, he actively prevented it.
Also, most federal facilities on leaseholds are managed on the security side by the Federal Protective Service. If that parking lot is on a federal leasehold under FPS protection, the facility should've called FPS.
So given the silent treatment by a subject that you cannot get to cooperate voluntarily with your investigation, who is not trespassing and not displaying any criminal intent or actions, what should an officer do? Photograph or video the subject (it's a free country and that applies to the officer as well), surveil the subject as appropriate and file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the available information you can glean from the activity/subject without violating his or her civil rights.
http://nsi.ncirc.gov/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Don't be surprised if your counter-surveillance elicits a response and inquiry by the subject as to what you're doing. Remember that you're under no obligation whatsoever to provide information to the subject about your counter-surveillance activities, but that it may be used as leverage to gain additional information from the subject. I've used this to great effect with initially non-cooperative subjects "exercising their rights" in the past. It's amazing when you break out a camera and start taking close-up photos of them doing their thing, how their focus turns from what they're doing to what you're doing. :)
Obstruction will be dropped, that building is in the middle of a number of office complexes. Nothing is posted and the land he was on was not Federal Land. Someone could literally buy an office across the street and film 24/7 and there is nothing they could do about it.
Digital_Damage
07-17-15, 18:23
Can you show some actual law or otherwise that states that you can or cannot film a certain type of building?
Trespassing is illegal.
Feds buy up all the surrounding land that provides a vantage point to film. Does not even have to be posted. They have people watching 24/7, if they see someone they come out take all your shit and show you to the property boundary and give you a summons. Happens all the time.
Trespassing is illegal.
Feds buy up all the surrounding land that provides a vantage point to film. Does not even have to be posted. They have people watching 24/7, if they see someone they come out take all your shit and show you to the property boundary and give you a summons. Happens all the time.
In order to be charged with trespassing in my jurisdiction, the property either has to be legally posted (correctly), or the person has to be advised of criminal trespass, refuse to leave and THEN be cited. LE still can't confiscate your stuff, except administratively if you're arrested. Federal property or not, the law is the law.
I live in Henrico, unfortunately my house was struck by lightening the other day and I've been trying to get stuff back in order. I briefly saw this... the piece on the news suggested there was more to the story... but not necessarily a fault of the LEO.
I can tell you, the Henrico Police are not the type to go looking for trouble and if they do grab you.... both they and you probably know it's in the right. It's not a high crime area. There is no social animosity towards LEOs. Everything kinda runs cut and dried with little drama in between. I haven't seen where this was... was it the FBI building? Does anyone know a street or address. I think the FBI building moved and we do have a lot of office parks so depending on where this was he could have been private property.
Also the thing about concealed carry vs open... if the guy was carrying concealed, if he printed, if his shirt lifted up, if the LEO simply asked... again you could argue if it can be seen it's not concealed but we really don't go there here.... I don;t know anyone that wants to play that game... so I'm guessing if the LEO knew he had a CCW that's why he said "let me see your ID" which is about the only thing I remember seeing and I thought... man, that's a bit bold.... totally out of character.... at the time I didn't know there was a firearm involved... I see why he would have presented it that way now.
I think someone was on a fishing expedition and it wasn't the LEO... I could be wrong but from what I'm now reading that's what it sounds like. I guess if I had to describe a Henrico LEO.. in my experience would be, they are strict but you need to get in their face and be stupid before you will experience that strictness at which point it's usually very cut and dried.
ETA: .. yep, strange situation... this guy Benjamin usually calls it right down the line. The local news have two guys they usually call on for opinion. Both guys are good but he really tries to make clear the heart of the matter... it sounds like they cut him off in this clip.... so yeah.... maybe this guy has the right ... but I liken this to idiots marching into Sears with their AK slung over their shoulder to buy a new dish washer. I thinking now the LEO figured he was damned if he does and damned if he didn't so he erred on the side of caution.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/29568206/henrico-arrest-prompts-questions-on-citizen-rights
At this point I'm all for responding LEOs to roll out with a film crew and their city attorney.
How bout a reasonable understanding of PC, RAS, and state and federal laws, instead? It's their job to know and apply them properly.
Digital_Damage
07-17-15, 19:26
In order to be charged with trespassing in my jurisdiction, the property either has to be legally posted (correctly), or the person has to be advised of criminal trespass, refuse to leave and THEN be cited. LE still can't confiscate your stuff, except administratively if you're arrested. Federal property or not, the law is the law.
No idea what you jurisdiction is but if it is LEO you have no dog in that fight.
Title 18 U.S. code, it was also extended in 2011 with H.R. 347 to include the Whitehouse and any grounds the president might visit. Honestly, I'm surprised more people are not aware of it and razing a stink.
Try walking around UDC, MEC, EBS snapping up pictures. Especially UDC, completely unmarked and I have seen more than a few hikers have all their stuff searched and any recording devices confiscated and escorted from the premises.
No idea what you jurisdiction is but if it is LEO you have no dog in that fight.
Title 18 U.S. code, it was also extended in 2011 with H.R. 347 to include the Whitehouse and any grounds the president might visit. Honestly, I'm surprised more people are not aware of it and razing a stink.
Try walking around UDC, MEC, EBS snapping up pictures. Especially UDC, completely unmarked and I have seen more than a few hikers have all their stuff searched and any recording devices confiscated and escorted from the premises.
So you're saying federal LEO's are doing the stop? Any caselaw to back up the confiscations?
BTW, I have no idea what UDC, MEC and EBS are.
I live in Henrico, unfortunately my house was struck by lightening the other day and I've been trying to get stuff back in order. I briefly saw this... the piece on the news suggested there was more to the story... but not necessarily a fault of the LEO.
I can tell you, the Henrico Police are not the type to go looking for trouble and if they do grab you.... both they and you probably know it's in the right. It's not a high crime area. There is no social animosity towards LEOs. Everything kinda runs cut and dried with little drama in between. I haven't seen where this was... was it the FBI building? Does anyone know a street or address. I think the FBI building moved and we do have a lot of office parks so depending on where this was he could have been private property.
Also the thing about concealed carry vs open... if the guy was carrying concealed, if he printed, if his shirt lifted up, if the LEO simply asked... again you could argue if it can be seen it's not concealed but we really don't go there here.... I don;t know anyone that wants to play that game... so I'm guessing if the LEO knew he had a CCW that's why he said "let me see your ID" which is about the only thing I remember seeing and I thought... man, that's a bit bold.... totally out of character.... at the time I didn't know there was a firearm involved... I see why he would have presented it that way now.
I think someone was on a fishing expedition and it wasn't the LEO... I could be wrong but from what I'm now reading that's what it sounds like. I guess if I had to describe a Henrico LEO.. in my experience would be, they are strict but you need to get in their face and be stupid before you will experience that strictness at which point it's usually very cut and dried.
ETA: .. yep, strange situation... this guy Benjamin usually calls it right down the line. The local news have two guys they usually call on for opinion. Both guys are good but he really tries to make clear the heart of the matter... it sounds like they cut him off in this clip.... so yeah.... maybe this guy has the right ... but I liken this to idiots marching into Sears with their AK slung over their shoulder to buy a new dish washer. I thinking now the LEO figured he was damned if he does and damned if he didn't so he erred on the side of caution.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/29568206/henrico-arrest-prompts-questions-on-citizen-rights
Sounds like the FBI office threw the Henrico officer under the bus.
Yes, it does... however.... I'm going to post the map after this... note that where this is the courthouse just down the street and so is the jail just a little further. You honestly can't go down Parham Rd right there and not pass one if not several police cars. Also I have looked up the tax parcel. When you see this Google photo notice it's two components basically. It's two big parcels. Both have private named ownership... one's an LLC ( FBI ) the other is XXXX of South Carolina... so both private property. Now it looks like this guy must have been standing in the non-FBI leased parcel... so it's possible someone from an office there saw him, thought it looked odd, can call the LEOs... or... he even has a friend that works there and called... not beyond the possibilities.
So anyway you cut it he was on private property. So does he have a right to photo FBI building, sure. Does he have to speak, no. But if someone calls and says suspicious guy, we don't want him here, from the office building... maybe that's a different story. I don't know who called and to be honest it seems a bit odd that the FBI would even call. It's not like that place is hidden away. I'm not sure if it's been revealed who called or what they asked of the Police.
If you see something say something... now what. Anyway you cut it he was reported for suspicious activity on private property. How do you guys handle that? I would think that by the fact of the call it is implied the property controller wants a reasonable explanation or wants him gone. So by the fact he was unresponsive he had to be removed. I was also under the impression the video had been edited but maybe I mis-heard that.
It's clearly a no win situation. I know after an outdoor concert in one of our office parks you can stand there and talk a few minutes then the Police sweep the place.... no way you are going to stand there like a statue... yet on the day after you could just walk right through that same area freely. Certainly private property must have the higher legal ground. So the police must act for caller and must do something with a non responsive individual, right? Like sit-in protestors?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Federal+Bureau+of+Investigation/@37.6399893,-77.4842702,732m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x61db089cefed9d1f!6m1!1e1?hl=en-US
ETA: I can't believe it... that nut case lives right down the street from me. There is a small set of townhouses at the end of my subdivision. He just bought a townhouse there last year.
kinda small but you can see the pond... the property line looks to me like it runs right along the edge of that parking lot outside the FBI gate. So he was clearly on non-FBI private property. He also wasn't arrested for photography.
34222
Yes, it does... however.... I'm going to post the map after this... note that where this is the courthouse just down the street and so is the jail just a little further. You honestly can't go down Parham Rd right there and not pass one if not several police cars. Also I have looked up the tax parcel. When you see this Google photo notice it's two components basically. It's two big parcels. Both have private named ownership... one's an LLC ( FBI ) the other is XXXX of South Carolina... so both private property. Now it looks like this guy must have been standing in the non-FBI leased parcel... so it's possible someone from an office there saw him, thought it looked odd, can call the LEOs... or... he even has a friend that works there and called... not beyond the possibilities.
So anyway you cut it he was on private property. So does he have a right to photo FBI building, sure. Does he have to speak, no. But if someone calls and says suspicious guy, we don't want him here, from the office building... maybe that's a different story. I don't know who called and to be honest it seems a bit odd that the FBI would even call. It's not like that place is hidden away. I'm not sure if it's been revealed who called or what they asked of the Police.
If you see something say something... now what. Anyway you cut it he was reported for suspicious activity on private property. How do you guys handle that? I would think that by the fact of the call it is implied the property controller wants a reasonable explanation or wants him gone. So by the fact he was unresponsive he had to be removed. I was also under the impression the video had been edited but maybe I mis-heard that.It's clearly a no win situation. I know after an outdoor concert in one of our office parks you can stand there and talk a few minutes then the Police sweep the place.... no way you are going to stand there like a statue... yet on the day after you could just walk right through that same area freely. Certainly private property must have the higher legal ground. So the police must act for caller and must do something with a non responsive individual, right? Like sit-in protestors?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Federal+Bureau+of+Investigation/@37.6399893,-77.4842702,732m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x61db089cefed9d1f!6m1!1e1?hl=en-US
ETA: I can't believe it... that nut case lives right down the street from me. There is a small set of townhouses at the end of my subdivision. He just bought a townhouse there last year.
kinda small but you can see the pond... the property line looks to me like it runs right along the edge of that parking lot outside the FBI gate. So he was clearly on non-FBI private property. He also wasn't arrested for photography.
34222
Two points:
One: If you're called out for suspicious activity and discover no criminal activity, you observe, document and file a Suspicious Activity Report (as I stated in an earlier post). It's literally the textbook answer.
Two: As I also pointed out earlier, the officer never advised him of criminal trespass, never asked him to leave the private property and literally refused to allow him to leave of his own accord. That completely negates the trespassing angle.
Does anyone truly disagree with completing and filing a SAR as one of, if not the best method to deal with a situation of this nature? :confused:
I'm no fan of activists, but prior to being arrested, it's my understanding cops have no right to demand "Your Papers" like some cops think. After you've been arrested, yep, they can legally demand I.D., but not on a whim.
If you're not doing anything illegal, you don't have to produce I.D.
This is still America, sort of, and I would respond the same way if a cop decided to insist out of the blue, I provide I.D. when I've done nothing illegal.
Depends on what kind of activism. Activism is a broad term. The Constitution was written by "activists". On the other hand, the Communists that took over Russia were also "activists". Totally different goals/ideals.
I'm pretty sure there are a lot of 2A activists on here, but that is very different from being a Leftist race zealot activist.
Lets be honest, he wanted to be confronted/arrested by the police as he is a professional activist. He chose that specific building, video rolling, etc.
Now would they have arrested him had he been a male of military age, of Middle Eastern decent, with a student Visa as ID, full beard, and wearing a taqiyah? I'd surmise not . . .
Is there something to show that he makes money off doing this? Honest question.
I know that there definitely are professional activists within the realm of race hustlers (Sharpton, Jackson, Holder, Obama, Sotomayor, etc.), "environmentalism/foreign oil (Tides Foundation, Greenpeace, etc.), but I don;t know anything about this guy.
As for Muslims, it is entirely reasonable to arrest Muslims filming shit, or doing pretty much anything. Just like it would be reasonable to arrest Swastika wearing Fascists during WWII. Same thing. Members of a hostile, violent, fascist ideology that we are at war with.
The individual may have wanted to be unlawfully arrested/detained, which may prove to have been the case. As much as we wish individuals would not provoke the police, we must all agree that LEOs must respect the law of the land, regardless of the emotions present. If they can't handle that, they must find another occupation.
Agreed.
Depending on which building it is that could be a big nono. Not sure what the idiot was trying to prove... other that "look at me they are violating my rights"
Edit: Just watched the video.
I was just in that building Tuesday! LOL.
It is basically located in an office space complex, so it is not against the law to film.
Case will be dropped, cop in the wrong.
I would need more information before I could assert whether this guy was an idiot or not. Maybe he was just going about his business, maybe he was making a legit point, maybe not.
Two: As I also pointed out earlier, the officer never advised him of criminal trespass, never asked him to leave the private property and literally refused to allow him to leave of his own accord. That completely negates the trespassing angle.
That's where I thought I had heard there had been some creative editing... was he the first LEO to respond?, had FBI security already spoken to him, someone from office building, etc... It seems really unusual.
ETA: "Besides Hugshon, the arresting officers include Officer Elliott, Officer Gallatin and Sergeant Reamer." So 4 LEO's screw up this situation?.... something else is going on...
Thank you.
In order to be charged with trespassing in my jurisdiction, the property either has to be legally posted (correctly), or the person has to be advised of criminal trespass, refuse to leave and THEN be cited. LE still can't confiscate your stuff, except administratively if you're arrested. Federal property or not, the law is the law.
Erring on the side of caution and violating someone's rights are two different things. I am all about arresting people when needed. Arresting someone for contempt of cop is something else entirely.
And for the record, one of my friends with whom I served with in the military works for Henrico.
I live in Henrico, unfortunately my house was struck by lightening the other day and I've been trying to get stuff back in order. I briefly saw this... the piece on the news suggested there was more to the story... but not necessarily a fault of the LEO.
I can tell you, the Henrico Police are not the type to go looking for trouble and if they do grab you.... both they and you probably know it's in the right. It's not a high crime area. There is no social animosity towards LEOs. Everything kinda runs cut and dried with little drama in between. I haven't seen where this was... was it the FBI building? Does anyone know a street or address. I think the FBI building moved and we do have a lot of office parks so depending on where this was he could have been private property.
Also the thing about concealed carry vs open... if the guy was carrying concealed, if he printed, if his shirt lifted up, if the LEO simply asked... again you could argue if it can be seen it's not concealed but we really don't go there here.... I don;t know anyone that wants to play that game... so I'm guessing if the LEO knew he had a CCW that's why he said "let me see your ID" which is about the only thing I remember seeing and I thought... man, that's a bit bold.... totally out of character.... at the time I didn't know there was a firearm involved... I see why he would have presented it that way now.
I think someone was on a fishing expedition and it wasn't the LEO... I could be wrong but from what I'm now reading that's what it sounds like. I guess if I had to describe a Henrico LEO.. in my experience would be, they are strict but you need to get in their face and be stupid before you will experience that strictness at which point it's usually very cut and dried.
ETA: .. yep, strange situation... this guy Benjamin usually calls it right down the line. The local news have two guys they usually call on for opinion. Both guys are good but he really tries to make clear the heart of the matter... it sounds like they cut him off in this clip.... so yeah.... maybe this guy has the right ... but I liken this to idiots marching into Sears with their AK slung over their shoulder to buy a new dish washer. I thinking now the LEO figured he was damned if he does and damned if he didn't so he erred on the side of caution.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/29568206/henrico-arrest-prompts-questions-on-citizen-rights
Digital_Damage
07-18-15, 06:58
So you're saying federal LEO's are doing the stop? Any caselaw to back up the confiscations?
BTW, I have no idea what UDC, MEC and EBS are.
Depends on the facility
USSS Secure Some.
NPPD Secure the others through FPS
UDC is the "Giant Vacuum", people keep using telephoto lenses and the .gov keeps snapping up land to make it harder. The current fight going on is they are trying to annex a big chunk of land on the other side of 68 to Thanksgiving Point.
The others are similar in nature.
Depends on the facility
USSS Secure Some.
NPPD Secure the others through FPS
UDC is the "Giant Vacuum", people keep using telephoto lenses and the .gov keeps snapping up land to make it harder. The current fight going on is they are trying to annex a big chunk of land on the other side of 68 to Thanksgiving Point.
The others are similar in nature.
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/ (parody site) is a lot different than an ordinary office building in a commercial zone.
As for NPPD, they aren't a law enforcement agency and have no LE powers. FPS does.
Digital_Damage
07-18-15, 08:06
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/ (parody site) is a lot different than an ordinary office building in a commercial zone.
As for NPPD, they aren't a law enforcement agency and have no LE powers. FPS does.
I realize that it is different, that is the same point I was making. Officer was in the wrong.
NPPD is the parent agency of FPS. NPPD tells FPS what locations they are protecting.
I looked up the crime report..
Call - Suspicious Situation
Incident - Government Building
Arrest - Obstruction
It still seems like a lot of facts are missing but it seems like the LEOs must have thought they were on .gov property. Either led to believe that by FBI or otherwise.
Digital_Damage
07-18-15, 08:53
I looked up the crime report..
Call - Suspicious Situation
Incident - Government Building
Arrest - Obstruction
It still seems like a lot of facts are missing but it seems like the LEOs must have thought they were on .gov property. Either led to believe that by FBI or otherwise.
I have been to that office, and from the video vantage point I would be willing to bet not .gov property. Of course the adjacent large office building where I think he was filming is suspiciously vacant. So who knows?
The land is privately owned, I know that for sure. I'm not sure who is in that office building but just a casual search indicates government contractors among other things. So that has been my point/question ... if a private citizen, from that building calls and says hey there looks like some nut case outside, make him go away.... and then he stands there like a statue, what do you do? as a LEO I mean.
As to 'walking away' .. .not unlike that fiasco in the Walmart parking recently.... what are the LEO supposed to do? The guys at Walmart 'tried to walk away' just like this fruitcake... and then decided to not walk away resulting in people getting shot and killed.
The Internet got this rolling as an ordeal about taking a photo... and I know about the issues photogs have with authorities, but this has nothing to do with photography....
So if a person stands like a statue on private land that is not his. Does nothing illegal but still is clearly 'not right'... then the LEO is just supposed to file a report that says... yep nut case on corner, I'm outta here.
Well, they could be asked to leave. Thats the biggest issue with things like this, at least here. Ask them to leave, if they dont, call cops and arrest them for trespassing. They police can ask them to leave, or the property owner or manager.
But instead, people just get in huge fights over stupid crap when all you had to do is calmly ask them to leave, then call cops.
That's my point... and again dealing with someone that that clearly has no intention of being normal...
Caller: Nut case outside, I afraid to approach him. Make him go away.
LEO: Is he doing anything wrong?
Caller: No, he just on my property and I don't like it, he's taking photos of FBI building
LEO: Can you just ask him to leave?
Caller: What if he has a gun?
LEO: I'll be there in a minute
Now we have this video which seems incomplete... so my question is... can the LEO simply roll up and ask for ID right out of the gate based on above scenario and what seems to be shown in video?
dwhitehorne
07-18-15, 13:52
Well I'm at home and don't have my cheat sheets with me but I did find this.
http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/Fed_Rules_Regs8_5x11_Final2005_R27-s10_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf
Which of course is long winded and is further added to by individual regulations like this memo that is binding once signed of on by the Agency head.
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/foia/prohibited-items-program-nppd-fps-directive-15.9.3.1.pdf
So my Agency covers multiple Federal Agencies when they request assistance. I run the Firearms section in Training and haven't been on the road for 6 years. All that said if you are on Federal owned or lased property you must present ID when requested by Law Enforcement. 32 CFR covers DoD and CIA, 41 CFR covers GSA buildings. I know FBI has their own Police and I haven't written a ticket on FBI property before but I'm certain it is the same for them I just don't know the Codes. Video taping of any DoD or Intelligence facility is strictly prohibited by statute. FBI may be the same. It does have to be posted at the entrance so who knows what is in the parking lot. I have been to facilities where the jurisdiction was only in the building and not on the sidewalk outside of the building. I've been to others where the parking lot and the private drive up to the parking lot were part of the lease so who knows at this location. CIA facilities actually have a 500 foot buffer written into the code just for this type of situation where the protestor thinks they are on the other side of the street but are in the 500 foot zone. Some refer to it as trespass but the act of being there not on official business is the violation so there is not duty to ask to leave prior to requesting ID. David
Moose-Knuckle
07-18-15, 13:58
How bout a reasonable understanding of PC, RAS, and state and federal laws, instead? It's their job to know and apply them properly.
I'll meet you half way and ask that all these activists go get a job and work during the day instead of attempting to become YouTube stars. We live in a world where a military recruiting office is attacked my a disciple of Allah in broad day light and people are murdered in their church while praying because they are the wrong skin color. Standing around and filming public places especially government buildings is going to set bells off.
The land is privately owned, I know that for sure. I'm not sure who is in that office building but just a casual search indicates government contractors among other things. So that has been my point/question ... if a private citizen, from that building calls and says hey there looks like some nut case outside, make him go away.... and then he stands there like a statue, what do you do? as a LEO I mean. File a SAR.
As to 'walking away' .. .not unlike that fiasco in the Walmart parking recently.... what are the LEO supposed to do? The guys at Walmart 'tried to walk away' just like this fruitcake... and then decided to not walk away resulting in people getting shot and killed.
The Internet got this rolling as an ordeal about taking a photo... and I know about the issues photogs have with authorities, but this has nothing to do with photography....
So if a person stands like a statue on private land that is not his. Does nothing illegal but still is clearly 'not right'... then the LEO is just supposed to file a report that says... yep nut case on corner, I'm outta here. File a SAR and leave him be.
The officer was not enforcing a law, he was enforcing an opinion. Nuff said.
That's my point... and again dealing with someone that that clearly has no intention of being normal...
Caller: Nut case outside, I afraid to approach him. Make him go away.
LEO: Is he doing anything wrong?
Caller: No, he just on my property and I don't like it, he's taking photos of FBI building
LEO: Can you just ask him to leave?
Caller: What if he has a gun?
LEO: I'll be there in a minute
Now we have this video which seems incomplete... so my question is... can the LEO simply roll up and ask for ID right out of the gate based on above scenario and what seems to be shown in video?
That wasn't the call. See post #45
Well I'm at home and don't have my cheat sheets with me but I did find this.
http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/Fed_Rules_Regs8_5x11_Final2005_R27-s10_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf
Which of course is long winded and is further added to by individual regulations like this memo that is binding once signed of on by the Agency head.
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/foia/prohibited-items-program-nppd-fps-directive-15.9.3.1.pdf
So my Agency covers multiple Federal Agencies when they request assistance. I run the Firearms section in Training and haven't been on the road for 6 years. All that said if you are on Federal owned or lased property you must present ID when requested by Law Enforcement. 32 CFR covers DoD and CIA, 41 CFR covers GSA buildings. I know FBI has their own Police and I haven't written a ticket on FBI property before but I'm certain it is the same for them I just don't know the Codes. Video taping of any DoD or Intelligence facility is strictly prohibited by statute. FBI may be the same. It does have to be posted at the entrance so who knows what is in the parking lot. I have been to facilities where the jurisdiction was only in the building and not on the sidewalk outside of the building. I've been to others where the parking lot and the private drive up to the parking lot were part of the lease so who knows at this location. CIA facilities actually have a 500 foot buffer written into the code just for this type of situation where the protestor thinks they are on the other side of the street but are in the 500 foot zone. Some refer to it as trespass but the act of being there not on official business is the violation so there is not duty to ask to leave prior to requesting ID. David
Which may have come into play if he was approached by FPS or other duly authorized federal agent. He wasn't. He was approached by a local LEO, who isn't empowered to enforce C.F.R.'s. BTW, U.S.C. is federal criminal code, C.F.R. is regulatory and therefore, civil law.
That wasn't the call. See post #45
#45 is my post. ???
dwhitehorne
07-18-15, 18:58
Actually Feds grant locals Special Police powers all the time. We have MOU's with most local Agencies that have been on going for decades. When I was working July 4th. I was riding in a Virginia State Police SUV sitting behind the FBI riding shotgun and we were following a county officer and we were all covering Federal property.
This is the VA code I am familiar with mentioning us. We have the same wording for State Officers to enforce Federal Codes. No different than Troopers enforcing DOT regs on the trucks. David
§ 15.2-1729. Agreements for enforcement of state and county laws by federal officers on federal property.
A. The governing body of any county may enter into an agreement with the United States government or a department or agency thereof, under the terms of which agreement law-enforcement officers employed by such government, including but not limited to members of the United States Park Police, may enforce the laws of such county and the Commonwealth on federally owned properties within such county, and on the highways located therein and other public places abutting such properties. In the event such an agreement is entered into, all of the provisions of §§ 15.2-1724 and 15.2-1727 shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis.
B. The governing body of any county governed under the provisions of Chapter 8 (§ 15.2-800 et seq.) of Title 15.2 may enter into an agreement with the United States government or a department or agency thereof, under the terms of which agreement law-enforcement officers employed by such government, including but not limited to members of the United States Park Police, may enforce the laws of such county and the Commonwealth on federally owned properties within such county, and on the highways and other public places abutting such properties. In the event such an agreement is entered into, all of the provisions of §§ 15.2-1724 and 15.2-1727 shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis.
The officer was not enforcing a law, he was enforcing an opinion. Nuff said.
That wasn't the call. See post #45
Which may have come into play if he was approached by FPS or other duly authorized federal agent. He wasn't. He was approached by a local LEO, who isn't empowered to enforce C.F.R.'s. BTW, U.S.C. is federal criminal code, C.F.R. is regulatory and therefore, civil law.
I'll meet you half way and ask that all these activists go get a job and work during the day instead of attempting to become YouTube stars. We live in a world where a military recruiting office is attacked my a disciple of Allah in broad day light and people are murdered in their church while praying because they are the wrong skin color. Standing around and filming public places especially government buildings is going to set bells off.
I was sort of understanding your point, then realized... What does filming have to do with active shooters?
Is there a correlation besides conjecture about potential scouting?
In my opinion, if he was trespassing then the officer should have stated as much. He could have stated- Sir, you are trespassing on xxx property. You have to leave unless you have business here. If he doesn't respond, and the officer arrested him at that point, it would be understandable. But, from what I saw that didn't happen.
dwhitehorne
07-19-15, 07:11
This is the correct course of action. The officer didn't seemed to be prepared to even get out of the car. The guy fumbling with the radio is embarrassing not to mention an officer safety disaster. David
In my opinion, if he was trespassing then the officer should have stated as much. He could have stated- Sir, you are trespassing on xxx property. You have to leave unless you have business here. If he doesn't respond, and the officer arrested him at that point, it would be understandable. But, from what I saw that didn't happen.
This is the correct course of action. The officer didn't seemed to be prepared to even get out of the car. The guy fumbling with the radio is embarrassing not to mention an officer safety disaster. David
Yes, I noticed that to.... but aside from that towards what Iraqgunz said.... aren't we all supposing that this was the first officer to encounter this individual? 4 officers are noted. What if this guy was the second? What if another had already told him to move along, perhaps he even spoke to him some what,... we just don't know.
Now if he had already been warned, then this guy with his 'show an ID or go to jail' deal would make a bit more sense. It just seems odd for Henrico LEOs, and the way it presents itself on video. Lots of strange things have been happening lately though so who knows.
But yeah, when I saw that LEO turn away and fiddle with his radio, I thought jeeze, I hope this guy is not dangerous..... "What's in your pocket?" 'Not going to tell me?' Ok, I'll turn my back to you and play walkie talkie
From the VA Attorney General (http://www.ag.virginia.gov/Opinions%20and%20Legal%20Resources/opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf):
Law-enforcement officer conducting lawful stop to investigate alleged criminal activity may not arrest for obstruction of justice suspect who refuses to identify himself to officer. Depending on circumstances, suspect may be detained for purpose of determining his identity.
In my opinion, if he was trespassing then the officer should have stated as much. He could have stated- Sir, you are trespassing on xxx property. You have to leave unless you have business here. If he doesn't respond, and the officer arrested him at that point, it would be understandable. But, from what I saw that didn't happen.
This sounds like a reasonable way to handle the incident.
#45 is my post. ???
Yes. :)
I looked up the crime report..
Call - Suspicious Situation
Incident - Government Building
Arrest - Obstruction
It still seems like a lot of facts are missing but it seems like the LEOs must have thought they were on .gov property. Either led to believe that by FBI or otherwise.
No mention of trespassing. Anywhere. Ever.
Actually Feds grant locals Special Police powers all the time. We have MOU's with most local Agencies that have been on going for decades. When I was working July 4th. I was riding in a Virginia State Police SUV sitting behind the FBI riding shotgun and we were following a county officer and we were all covering Federal property.
This is the VA code I am familiar with mentioning us. We have the same wording for State Officers to enforce Federal Codes. No different than Troopers enforcing DOT regs on the trucks. David
§ 15.2-1729. Agreements for enforcement of state and county laws by federal officers on federal property.
A. The governing body of any county may enter into an agreement with the United States government or a department or agency thereof, under the terms of which agreement law-enforcement officers employed by such government, including but not limited to members of the United States Park Police, may enforce the laws of such county and the Commonwealth on federally owned properties within such county, and on the highways located therein and other public places abutting such properties. In the event such an agreement is entered into, all of the provisions of §§ 15.2-1724 and 15.2-1727 shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis.
B. The governing body of any county governed under the provisions of Chapter 8 (§ 15.2-800 et seq.) of Title 15.2 may enter into an agreement with the United States government or a department or agency thereof, under the terms of which agreement law-enforcement officers employed by such government, including but not limited to members of the United States Park Police, may enforce the laws of such county and the Commonwealth on federally owned properties within such county, and on the highways and other public places abutting such properties. In the event such an agreement is entered into, all of the provisions of §§ 15.2-1724 and 15.2-1727 shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis.
You mention state officers enforcing federal codes, but your cites only mention federal officers enforcing state and county laws. Can you specify an instance where a local or state officer made an arrest under 18 U.S.C. that was prosecuted in federal court? Also, enforcing U.S.C. statutes by local and state LEO's would be significantly different than said LEO's issuing citations or processing cases for C.F.R.'s. Further, most states have applicable state statutes for local and state LEO's to use in enforcing DOT regs. Enforcing the actual DOT regs would require those cases to be handled in federal court, would they not?
I'm not trying to get in a pissing contest here, at all. I have considerable experience with enforcing C.F.R.'s. I also work with local, state and federal LEO's on concurrent criminal/civil cases. I also have experience in filing SAR's and how they get handled after the initial report. No one here seems to be willing to admit it's likely the most appropriate action that could've been taken in this case. I'm really not understanding the resistance to it? :(
From the VA Attorney General (http://www.ag.virginia.gov/Opinions%20and%20Legal%20Resources/opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf):
Law-enforcement officer conducting lawful stop to investigate alleged criminal activity may not arrest for obstruction of justice suspect who refuses to identify himself to officer. Depending on circumstances, suspect may be detained for purpose of determining his identity.
Which from all outward appearances (and the report), he wasn't even investigating alleged criminal activity, merely suspicious activity.
I'm not trying to get in a pissing contest here, at all. I have considerable experience with enforcing C.F.R.'s. I also work with local, state and federal LEO's on concurrent criminal/civil cases. I also have experience in filing SAR's and how they get handled after the initial report. No one here seems to be willing to admit it's likely the most appropriate action that could've been taken in this case. I'm really not understanding the resistance to it? :(
I'm not doubting you.
Yes, he was called for suspicious activity. However, I -thought- his arrest was a result of him trying to leave the scene when he was being detained for questions and he resisted.
So what I heard on that video was him walking away... then ' hey don't walk away' .. then a little rustling, then a take down,,, you're under arrest... what for... Obstruction. But you are saying if you told him to not walk away, and he continued to do so, you would have simply written it up.
SAR:
Nut case on corner
Would not communicate
Walked away and did not respond to request to stop.
End of report.
I honestly don't have a dog in the fight, and I've seen many many vids where I think the LEOs are way in the wrong... but living here, knowing how Henrico LEOs generally operate, I would not be ready to throw this guy under the bus just yet. Especially at his age, because it's been my experience the older guys are way more laid back than some of these younger guys, not that they are incompetent or loose canons. I would have absolutely expected that guy to say to the kid, look you need to move on or it's trespassing... and the fact he didn't suggests to me we may be watching Pt2 and probably missed Pt3 as well. .... but who knows ... maybe not... maybe that LEO is just lacking in competence.
I'm not doubting you.
Yes, he was called for suspicious activity. However, I -thought- his arrest was a result of him trying to leave the scene when he was being detained for questions and he resisted.
So what I heard on that video was him walking away... then ' hey don't walk away' .. then a little rustling, then a take down,,, you're under arrest... what for... Obstruction. But you are saying if you told him to not walk away, and he continued to do so, you would have simply written it up.
SAR:
Nut case on corner
Would not communicate
Walked away and did not respond to request to stop.
End of report.
I honestly don't have a dog in the fight, and I've seen many many vids where I think the LEOs are way in the wrong... but living here, knowing how Henrico LEOs generally operate, I would not be ready to throw this guy under the bus just yet. Especially at his age, because it's been my experience the older guys are way more laid back than some of these younger guys, not that they are incompetent or loose canons. I would have absolutely expected that guy to say to the kid, look you need to move on or it's trespassing... and the fact he didn't suggests to me we may be watching Pt2 and probably missed Pt3 as well. .... but who knows ... maybe not... maybe that LEO is just lacking in competence.
Absent RAS or PC of a crime (not to mention no report of a crime being committed), what choice would I have? As IG stated, it really looks like he was arrested for contempt of cop (absent additional information). It happens every day across the country unfortunately. Officers are trained to elicit information from subjects they have no legal obligation to provide. It works 99% of the time. Upon encountering that 1%, you have to be able to set aside your emotions and remain professional. Not all officers are capable of doing that.
As for the SAR, it would be a lot more detailed: Physical and clothing description of the subject; equipment used to record; behavioral indicators etc.. You'd also want to observe the subject to see if they utilized a vehicle to depart the area, or if anyone else was involved. One thing I advise officers to look for is a surveillance asset that may be documenting the responding agency/officer procedures, which might be used to facilitate secondary attacks. At the same time, additional observation provides an opportunity to develop RAS or PC of a crime, upon which you could detain/arrest the subject and establish identity.
The only reason I keep MMQB'ing this incident is because no one was hurt in the encounter and it appears to be a good training opportunity. It's easy to confuse what you feel should happen with what should actually happen.
Moose-Knuckle
07-20-15, 14:46
I was sort of understanding your point, then realized... What does filming have to do with active shooters?
Is there a correlation besides conjecture about potential scouting?
While I referenced the two most recent "active shooter" incidents, the point I was trying to make is it stands to reason people who are planning a active shooter/terror attack/robbery/et al. will be doing some homework/recon of the building/area/school/etc. prior to going through with their plot(s).
After 9/11 there were a metric s**t ton of tourists filming in public places getting suspicious 911 calls on them.
@glocktogo --- Ok, I have no reason to doubt you.... If it is what you say it is, then I'm fine with that. Like I said, the guy Benjamin, the lawyer interviewed in the video in one of the links. He was basically saying similar until he was cut off and like I say he's usually very clear in describing how things work ( or are supposed to work ).
Seems like a rookie mistake if that's the bottom line.
ETA: well here ya go... case dismissed.
http://www.richmond.com/news/local/henrico/article_ba3d07d8-ec25-52b7-8eab-7ef08ea4da68.html
@glocktogo --- Ok, I have no reason to doubt you.... If it is what you say it is, then I'm fine with that. Like I said, the guy Benjamin, the lawyer interviewed in the video in one of the links. He was basically saying similar until he was cut off and like I say he's usually very clear in describing how things work ( or are supposed to work ).
Seems like a rookie mistake if that's the bottom line.
ETA: well here ya go... case dismissed.
http://www.richmond.com/news/local/henrico/article_ba3d07d8-ec25-52b7-8eab-7ef08ea4da68.html
Thanks for the link! From said link:
Taylor said it was important to resolve the case after reviewing both the video taken by Hammond and the video of the arresting officer, and both supported dismissal. Hammond also was wearing a holster but had no weapon.
There were no signs in the area where Hammond was positioned warning against trespassing; nor was Hammond violating any law by filming the FBI building.
But Taylor stressed that the incident occurred a day after July 4 and at a time when alerts had been issued nationally about concerns over increased terrorist activity.
It's easy to understand why the officer was baited into making an arrest when one wasn't warranted. Hopefully Henrico Co. and Mr. Hammond can come to terms without tying up the courts over it. That would be the adult way to handle it.
Yes, unless he's planning to sue somebody, I think it's over. His court date was scheduled for Aug 31 and they got rid of it today, so I suppose it's over. Personally I think he at least should be bitch slapped. I mean, I'm all for our rights but not to get them squared away the way he's going about it. I still see him as part of the problem and not the solution. I suppose the officer needs training but to be honest I can't fault him on a week when the whole nation was on high alert. That kid went out of his way to have his rights violated and it's akin to an officer getting in his car and following one individual until they make a mistake and then giving them a ticket.
I respectfully disagree. Everyone needs to follow the laws, and that includes the police. I will tell you that incidents like this as well as others like the most recent incident is Chandler, AZ are eroding the support for the police by law abiding citizens. This isn't me making stuff up, this is what I am hearing from guys on the street in my classes.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2015/07/17/chandler-woman-naked-police-arrest-lawsuit/30325793/
http://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/cell-phone-video-chandler-officer-illegally-enters-womans-home-arrests-her-while-she-is-naked
Yes, unless he's planning to sue somebody, I think it's over. His court date was scheduled for Aug 31 and they got rid of it today, so I suppose it's over. Personally I think he at least should be bitch slapped. I mean, I'm all for our rights but not to get them squared away the way he's going about it. I still see him as part of the problem and not the solution. I suppose the officer needs training but to be honest I can't fault him on a week when the whole nation was on high alert. That kid went out of his way to have his rights violated and it's akin to an officer getting in his car and following one individual until they make a mistake and then giving them a ticket.
I respectfully disagree. Everyone needs to follow the laws, and that includes the police.
I know I'm wrong, but I don't think this kid did the cause any favors. Now those vids you posted, I agree, that's the kind of stuff that upsets me. I figure, without you even saying, that trust is eroding nationwide. Not surprised to hear that.
I suppose you are right in that you can look at this as one of the few means possible to point out these flaws without something going really wrong and someone getting hurt or killed but it still seems petty to me. Maybe this is how a correction has to start though.
This guy is at least offering an educational component. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mP70I6_cr0 ... I can see his methods working.
I demand my rights! But let me ask my lawyer first....
http://bambuser.com/v/5661658
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/search.php?searchid=3018208
This guy is creating his own prison. He doesn't need a LEO to lock him up.
dwhitehorne
07-21-15, 18:56
Yes. :)
You mention state officers enforcing federal codes, but your cites only mention federal officers enforcing state and county laws. Can you specify an instance where a local or state officer made an arrest under 18 U.S.C. that was prosecuted in federal court? Also, enforcing U.S.C. statutes by local and state LEO's would be significantly different than said LEO's issuing citations or processing cases for C.F.R.'s. Further, most states have applicable state statutes for local and state LEO's to use in enforcing DOT regs. Enforcing the actual DOT regs would require those cases to be handled in federal court, would they not?
I'm not trying to get in a pissing contest here, at all. I have considerable experience with enforcing C.F.R.'s. I also work with local, state and federal LEO's on concurrent criminal/civil cases. I also have experience in filing SAR's and how they get handled after the initial report. No one here seems to be willing to admit it's likely the most appropriate action that could've been taken in this case. I'm really not understanding the resistance to it? :(
Which from all outward appearances (and the report), he wasn't even investigating alleged criminal activity, merely suspicious activity.
Here is the text for 16 USC 1a6 for my Agency below. I couldn't tell you one specific case that I have been on but we swear in a few hundred officers every 4th of July to assist. If anyone has seen the inaugural parade route, Hundreds of Troopers from mostly East Coast states sent personnel to line the parade route. Others that I have been on with local officers are all the periodic Klan rallies at Gettysburg, Yorktown and Antietam. The local officers all are sworn in at the beginning of the day by the Feds.
I'm not trying to argue with you. The thread just started down the line of it was an unlawful arrest. The local officer could have been granted the authority by the Feds to enforce 41CFR. Failing to produce an ID was the question and you have to have display ID on GSA controlled Property. All of our CFR codes are 6 months/$5000 fine misdemeanors, even the state codes we assimilate so it technically is an arrestable offense.
I don't agree with the way the Henrico Officer handled the incident but he would have the authority to ID under CFR.
The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to—
(1) designate officers and employees of any other Federal agency or law enforcement personnel of any State or political subdivision thereof, when deemed economical and in the public interest and with the concurrence of that agency or that State or subdivision, to act as special policemen in areas of the National Park System when supplemental law enforcement personnel may be needed, and to exercise the powers and authority provided by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b) of this section;
(2) cooperate, within the National Park System, with any State or political subdivision thereof in the enforcement of supervision of the laws or ordinances of that State or subdivision;
(3) mutually waive, in any agreement pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection or pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of this section with any State or political subdivision thereof where State law requires such waiver and indemnification, any and all civil claims against all the other parties thereto and, subject to available appropriations, indemnify and save harmless the other parties to such agreement from all claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury, which may arise out of the parties’ activities outside their respective jurisdictions under such agreement; and
(4) provide limited reimbursement, to a State or its political subdivisions, in accordance with such regulations as he may prescribe, where the State has ceded concurrent legislative jurisdiction over the affected area of the system, for expenditures incurred in connection with its activities within that system which were rendered pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection.
The authorities provided by this subsection shall supplement the law enforcement responsibilities of the National Park Service, and shall not authorize the delegation of law enforcement responsibilities of the agency to State and local governments. [/I]
Here is the text for 16 USC 1a6 for my Agency below. I couldn't tell you one specific case that I have been on but we swear in a few hundred officers every 4th of July to assist. If anyone has seen the inaugural parade route, Hundreds of Troopers from mostly East Coast states sent personnel to line the parade route. Others that I have been on with local officers are all the periodic Klan rallies at Gettysburg, Yorktown and Antietam. The local officers all are sworn in at the beginning of the day by the Feds.
I'm not trying to argue with you. The thread just started down the line of it was an unlawful arrest. The local officer could have been granted the authority by the Feds to enforce 41CFR. Failing to produce an ID was the question and you have to have display ID on GSA controlled Property. All of our CFR codes are 6 months/$5000 fine misdemeanors, even the state codes we assimilate so it technically is an arrestable offense.
I don't agree with the way the Henrico Officer handled the incident but he would have the authority to ID under CFR.
The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to—
(1) designate officers and employees of any other Federal agency or law enforcement personnel of any State or political subdivision thereof, when deemed economical and in the public interest and with the concurrence of that agency or that State or subdivision, to act as special policemen in areas of the National Park System when supplemental law enforcement personnel may be needed, and to exercise the powers and authority provided by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b) of this section;
(2) cooperate, within the National Park System, with any State or political subdivision thereof in the enforcement of supervision of the laws or ordinances of that State or subdivision;
(3) mutually waive, in any agreement pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection or pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of this section with any State or political subdivision thereof where State law requires such waiver and indemnification, any and all civil claims against all the other parties thereto and, subject to available appropriations, indemnify and save harmless the other parties to such agreement from all claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury, which may arise out of the parties’ activities outside their respective jurisdictions under such agreement; and
(4) provide limited reimbursement, to a State or its political subdivisions, in accordance with such regulations as he may prescribe, where the State has ceded concurrent legislative jurisdiction over the affected area of the system, for expenditures incurred in connection with its activities within that system which were rendered pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection.
The authorities provided by this subsection shall supplement the law enforcement responsibilities of the National Park Service, and shall not authorize the delegation of law enforcement responsibilities of the agency to State and local governments. [/I]
I wasn't aware of any C.F.R. that carried a jail penalty, can you provide a cite? (not questioning your assertion, just truly curious)
I'm aware that local officers can and do serve on task forces such as drug and JTTF's. In those cases they're issued federal creds and are empowered to uphold 18 U.S.C. laws.
I think at this point it's fairly well established that the subject wasn't on GSA controlled property, wasn't investigated for criminal trespass and that the arrest wouldn't hold up. I still consider it a learning example. There are several other ways to handle an issue such as this that will afford a better outcome, both for the agency and possibley the citizen.
FWIW, I agree with some assertions that the subject made the situation more difficult than it had to be. I hope he doesn't try to press the issue legally and if he does, that his actions are taken into account when determining an outcome.
Thanks to everyone for a healthy debate on this one! :)
dwhitehorne
07-22-15, 15:56
36 CFR 1.3
§ 1.3 Penalties.
(a) A person convicted of violating a provision of the regulations contained in parts 1 through 7, 12 and 13 of this chapter, within a park area not covered in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, shall be punished by a fine as provided by law, or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both, and shall be adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings.
(b) A person who knowingly and will- fully violates any provision of the regulations contained in parts 1 through 5, 7 and 12 of this chapter, within any national military park, battlefield site, national monument, or miscellaneous memorial transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior from that of the Secretary of War by Executive Order No. 6166, June 10, 1933, and enumerated in Executive Order No. 6228, July 28, 1933, shall be punished by a fine as provided by law, or by imprisonment for not more than 3 months, or by both.
36 CFR 1.3
§ 1.3 Penalties.
(a) A person convicted of violating a provision of the regulations contained in parts 1 through 7, 12 and 13 of this chapter, within a park area not covered in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, shall be punished by a fine as provided by law, or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both, and shall be adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings.
(b) A person who knowingly and will- fully violates any provision of the regulations contained in parts 1 through 5, 7 and 12 of this chapter, within any national military park, battlefield site, national monument, or miscellaneous memorial transferred to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior from that of the Secretary of War by Executive Order No. 6166, June 10, 1933, and enumerated in Executive Order No. 6228, July 28, 1933, shall be punished by a fine as provided by law, or by imprisonment for not more than 3 months, or by both.
Thanks for the info! Consider me, enlightened! :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.