North Carolina Police Reportedly Arrest Woman Who Refuses To Turn Over Cellphone After Filming Alleged Abuse

In Jacksonville, police are being accused of arresting and beating the wrong man in response to a report of a fight on Christmas Eve. They then arrested family members who say that were just trying to stop police from beating their relative. Daisy Besancourt, 57, was charged with failure to disperse on command, after she reportedly filmed the police and refused to turn off her phone.

Recently, in a column, I discussed the continued crackdown by some police officers on citizens who film them in public. Citizens have a right to film police officers in public. Often we see police officers allege that such filming is “interfering” with their carrying out of their duties — a highly questionable charge in circumstances of alleged abuse.

Family members in this case insist that police focused on the wrong man and proceeded to tackle him, pepper spray him, and try to taser him.

Jonathan Guiterrez told the media that police mis-identified his 16-year-old son, Hector, based on his clothing and that they immediately tackled him. When his cousin Ruperto stepped in, he says that Ruperto was beaten with a baton. The melee ensued with a score of arrests.

The arrest of Daisy Besancourt for failure to disperse on command is particularly suspicious and demands investigation. She says that she refused to turn off her camera and that the police proceeded to confiscate it and arrest her.

I have tried to find an account from police who deserve to be heard on such allegations. However, there is only a statement that the matter is under investigation.

Source: WCTii12 as first seen on Reddit.

FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 30, 2011.

26 thoughts on “North Carolina Police Reportedly Arrest Woman Who Refuses To Turn Over Cellphone After Filming Alleged Abuse

  1. As we move forward, more not less police induced violence will occur. Somewhere the police obtained the notion that unjustified beatings are their prerogative. This is one small example. Dozens were reported post hurricane Katrina. MD

  2. Again, why is this news? Cops are above the law. As long as they are allowed to use these tactics, they will continue to abuse their power.

  3. Mark Davis, MD:

    In my experience, police beatings have gone on as long as I have been practicing law. Usually the beat down occurred after a particularly violent arrest or with a so-called “mouthy” defendant. I’ve settled a couple of these cases.

    In my early practice, a sort of tacit agreement existed whereby the cops rarely pressed charges for assault against the deffendant, considering the fisticuffs an implicit part of the job. Later, as more light was shown on this practice, the cops began to charge most everyone who was less than docile with resisting arrest or assault on a police officer as a defensive mechanism.

  4. The cops do this because they have been allowed to get away with it. Welcome to Amerika or the USSA, whichever you prefer to call it. This is just more of the police state. I’ve seen a video where a lady was stopped because the cops “didn’t know who she was.” They searched her, found a pocket Constitution, and proceeded to discuss it. One stated, “I think it’s illegal to have these.” REALLY???? It’s only going to get worse.

  5. My nephew pled guilty to a misdemeanor for videoing a cop brutally slamming down a young woman who was too drunk to resist. The cop confiscated his phone and deleted the video. The judge was disappointed in his plea but my nephew could not afford a lawyer . He got community service.

  6. “Again, why is this news?”

    Because, as explained before, it is news.

    You’re playing semantics.

    While police violating civil rights is nothing novel (“new), it is still information worthy dissemination (“news”); maybe even more so as it appears (see BG above) to be part of an escalating assault on civil rights by law enforcement agents.

  7. If any of you are upset with the actions of the police in arresting people for filming in YOUR CITY, …

    Please ask yourself, why aren’t you getting arrested for civil disobedience?

    Especially if you’re a member of a privileged or sympathetic class(, for example, an upper middle class white female senior citizen.)

    Call up your friends, find some lawyers and journalists to accompany you or that you can call on demand 24×7, and record the hell out of the police.

    And don’t just film them, but use Qik/ustream/ to *instantly broadcast* everything you record, and use twitter and facebook to announce each one under #copwatch #occupyvideo #seniorcitizenbrigade

  8. I think that a lot of police have shoulder microphones. Is there any reason why the microphone should not be on continuously, so that audio of all interactions would be available? This would be a step towards having video available for all interactions, a kind of expansion of the dash-cam.

    Is there any reason why judges should be placed in the position of relying on memories of the police about an incident when recording equipment is so inexpensive, and the money is there?

  9. More Florida attorneys need to be lead to the Federal Courthouse door and thence to the law library to be shown a copy of 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 and Section 1985. The annotations will explain the causes of action for these plaintiffs. The Pacer system will lead one to sample pleadings. The lawyer can file suit and seek money damages, injunctive relief for the return of goods and bring in the city for municipal liability. There is money to be made here but the over supply of attys needs to get out of divorce court and find a new Way. It dont take Lord Bhudda.

  10. Belinda, after a brief search I found the video of the lady who had a copy of The Most Dangerous Document in the World. At least they did not demand to know if she was a Jew. Things have really improved in the past seventy-five years.

  11. anon 1, December 27, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    If any of you are upset with the actions of the police in arresting people for filming in YOUR CITY, …

    Please ask yourself, why aren’t you getting arrested for civil disobedience?
    What anon said!

  12. My apologies to Jacksonville Florida. I have changed the state to North Carolina. I was driving back from Chicago with the four kids and the dog for twelve hours. I just saw the problem minutes ago. Thanks for the heads up.

  13. JT:

    “I was driving back from Chicago with the four kids and the dog for twelve hours.”


    I think that a fitting citation for a Congressional Medal of Honor.

  14. Or alternately, to keep a room reserved at the nearest psychiatric facility.

    I figure about a month of bed rest with some major tranquilizers ought to do the trick.

    this is 2 Jacksonville police pulling up to a traffic stop that was called in by Marine Corps. police . I was not resisting them at all and was doing the best I could to cooperate with them . They were not even in the Jacksonville city limits . I was charged with Resisting a public officer . A judge later made a ruling that because these officers made the assumption that I was a possible danger to them ( with no substantiating facts or actions ) their actions were permissible in her court . The video is the dash cam with the dispatch audio . This is abuse of the Justice System . More video on my U-tube channel.

  16. A police officer who orders someone to delete images from a camera has issued an illegal order. Why? Simple:

    If the images themselves are illegal, that is to say, taking pictures is an actual crime, then the pictures are evidence of that crime, and deleting them is destruction of evidence. Generally a felony without a court order.

    If the images are not illegal, then deleting them is destruction of property. Not a felony (unless the images somehow exceed the monetary value threshold for felony vandalism) but also not a legal act.

    If the images record evidence of an unrelated crime, then police require a subpoena to acquire a copy of the images or a warrant to seize the camera itself.

    The only time police can legally seize a camera without a warrant is when the police arrest the photographer. But even then, the police cannot delete the images legally without a court order. And false arrest just to lay hands on a camera is illegal.

Comments are closed.