We have another video of a police officer destroying the cellphone of a citizen who is filming an arrest in clear violation of her constitutional rights. New reports indicate that the officer holding an automatic weapon in the videotape below who is seen charging the woman and smashing her phone on the ground is a United States Marshal in California.
The video shows the woman standing out of the way while filming an arrest. She is actually backing up when an officer rushes her, smashes the phone on the ground and then kicks it before walking away. Unfortunately for the officer there was a second person filming and the woman asks “Did you record that?” She did.
We have been following the continuing abuse of citizens who are detained or arrested for filming police in public. (For prior columns, click here and here). Despite consistent rulings upholding the right of citizens to film police in public, these abuses continue.
The question is what to do with this officer absent some unknown reason for this assault. I cannot imagine the justification for such conduct. However, if it is as it appears, there is the question of whether this officer should be allowed to retain his position. The level of contempt for the constitutional rights of this woman is shocking. I would be very concerned about the judgment and the level of personal control that would be shown by this officer in other circumstances.
What do you think?
It was a John Doe investigation regarding collusion. To pretend that if the shoe weren’t on the other foot that it wouldn’t be applauded is disingenuous. Conservatives are authoritarians and they started this militarized approach to policing and investigation.
I find it astonishing people make such absurdly biased and unfounded statements. Another person reads a horrifying article of police abuse and instantly thinks “how can I use this to attack conservatives”. People are sick.
Isaac
Now you know.
In my opinion the US marshal should be prosecuted for assault and battery destroying someone’s private property and fired from his position and serve time. If that doesn’t happen that means US marshal is sweeping it under the rug. If you notice anymore you’re seeing a lot of police officers breaking the law people recording them and posting it online and putting it on the news and not a lot happening to them for them doing this. What makes these police officers think they’re above the law just because they have red and blue lights and carry a gun and a badge
Sent from my iPhone
Guilty of trashing the constitution for sure, but the destruction of property is a no brainer, Even if there was some super secret undercover agent present (Puh-lease!) you confiscate the phone, not destroy it and kick it around like an angry 4 year old throwing a tantrum, what a complete fool he made of his soon unemployed self.
Ah Pogo Pogo Pogo
I knew Obama was behind this. But it took your explanation to sort it out for me.
Randy and Darren,
Heard years ago that it is possible for a plaintiff to petition a federal court [Criminal Division]:
“To Convene a Grand Jury to Appoint a Special Prosecutor”. It’s apparently a rare tool that can be used when the DOJ (U.S. Attorneys) may not be inclined to prosecute their own employees. There are federal Title 18 criminal statutes that clarify and define any government official acting under color of law violating any constitutional rights.
The risk to using this tool is that the case may get sealed for decades and the plaintiff gets hung out to dry by the prosecutor. Some post 9/11 blacklistees and war crime victims have been hesitant to use this tool for that reason since the DOJ has been complicit in many of these color of law crimes.
Ross & Randy,
Here is an example of the court rule utilized in Washington State for addressing citizen initiated criminal process.
Look under subsection (c)
RULE CrRLJ 2.1
COMPLAINT–CITATION AND NOTICE
(a) Complaint.
(1) Initiation. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, all criminal
proceedings shall be initiated by a complaint.
(2) Nature. The complaint shall be a plain, concise and definite written
statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall be
signed by the prosecuting authority. Allegations made in one count may be
incorporated by reference in another count. It may be alleged that the means by
which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that he or she
committed it by one or more specified means. The complaint shall state for each
count the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation or
other provision of law which the defendant is alleged therein to have violated.
Error in the citation or its omission shall not be ground for dismissal of the
complaint or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not
mislead the defendant to his or her prejudice.
(3) Contents. The complaint shall contain or have attached to it the
following information when filed with the court:
(i) the name, address, date of birth, and sex of the defendant;
(ii) all known personal identification numbers for the defendant, including
the Washington driver’s operating license (DOL) number, the state criminal
identification (SID) number, the state criminal process control number (PCN),
the JUVIS control number, and the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) number.
(b) Citation and Notice To Appear.
(1) Issuance. Whenever a person is arrested or could have been arrested
pursuant to statute for a violation of law which is punishable as a misdemeanor
or gross misdemeanor the arresting officer, or any other authorized peace
officer, may serve upon the person a citation and notice to appear in court.
Criminal citations shall be on a form entitled “Criminal Citation” prescribed
by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Citation forms prescribed by the
Administrative Office of the Courts are presumed valid.
(2) Release Factors. In determining whether to release the person or to
hold him or her in custody, the peace officer shall consider the following factors:
(i) whether the person has identified himself or herself satisfactorily;
(ii) whether detention appears reasonably necessary to prevent imminent
bodily harm to himself, herself, or another, or injury to property, or breach
of the peace;
(iii) whether the person has ties to the community reasonably sufficient to
assure his or her appearance or whether there is substantial likelihood that he
or she will refuse to respond to the citation and notice; and
(iv) whether the person previously has failed to appear in response to a
citation and notice issued pursuant to this rule or to other lawful process.
(3) Contents. The citation and notice to appear shall include or have
attached to it:
(i) the name of the court and a space for the court’s docket, case or file number;
(ii) the name, address, date of birth, and sex of the defendant; and all
known personal identification numbers for the defendant, including the
Washington driver’s operating license (DOL) number, the state criminal
identification (SID) number, the state criminal process control number (PCN),
the JUVIS control number, and the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) number;
(iii) the date, time, place, numerical code section, description of the
offense charged, the date on which the citation was issued, and the name of the
citing officer;
(iv) the time and place the person is to appear in court, which may not
exceed 20 days after the date of the citation and notice, but which need not be
a time certain.
(4) Certificate. The citation and notice shall contain a form of
certificate by the citing official that he or she certifies, under penalties of
perjury, as provided by RCW 9A.72.085, and any law amendatory thereto, that he
or she has probable cause to believe the person committed the offense charged
contrary to law. The certificate need not be made before a magistrate or any
other person.
(5) Initiation. When signed by the citing officer and filed with a court of
competent jurisdiction, the citation and notice shall be deemed a lawful
complaint for the purpose of initiating prosecution of the offense charged therein.
(c) Citizen Complaints. Any person wishing to institute a criminal action
alleging a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor shall appear before a judge
empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the State, other than
a judge pro tem. The judge may require the appearance to be made on the
record, and under oath. The judge may consider any allegations on the basis of
an affidavit sworn to before the judge. The court may also grant an opportunity
at said hearing for evidence to be given by the county prosecuting attorney or
deputy, the potential defendant or attorney of record, law enforcement or other
potential witnesses. The court may also require the presence of other
potential witnesses.
In addition to probable cause, the court may consider:
(1) Whether an unsuccessful prosecution will subject the State to costs or
damage claims under RCW 9A.16.110, or other civil proceedings;
(2) Whether the complainant has adequate recourse under laws governing
small claims suits, anti-harassment petitions or other civil actions;
(3) Whether a criminal investigation is pending;
(4) Whether other criminal charges could be disrupted by allowing the
citizen complaint to be filed;
(5) The availability of witnesses at trial;
(6) The criminal record of the complainant, potential defendant and
potential witnesses, and whether any have been convicted of crimes of
dishonesty as defined by ER 609; and
(7) Prosecution standards under RCW 9.94A.440.
If the judge is satisfied that probable cause exists, and factors (1) through (7)
justify filing charges, and that the complaining witness is aware of the
gravity of initiating a criminal complaint, of the necessity of a court
appearance or appearances for himself or herself and witnesses, of the possible
liability for false arrest and of the consequences of perjury, the judge may
authorize the citizen to sign and file a complaint in the form prescribed in
CrRLJ 2.1(a). The affidavit may be in substantially the following form:
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss. No. ________
COUNTY OF _________________)
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINING WITNESS
DEFENDANT:
Name ____________________________ Name ____________________________
Address _________________________ Address _________________________
Phone ___________ Bus. __________ Phone ___________ Bus. __________
WITNESSES:
Name ____________________________ Name ____________________________
Address _________________________ Address _________________________
Phone ___________ Bus. __________ Phone ___________ Bus. __________
Name ____________________________ Name ____________________________
Address _________________________ Address _________________________
Phone ___________ Bus. __________ Phone ___________ Bus. __________
I, the undersigned complainant, understand that I have the choice of
complaining to a prosecuting authority rather than signing this affidavit. I
elect to use this method to start criminal proceedings. I understand that the
following are some but not all of the consequences of my signing a criminal
complaint: (1) the defendant may be arrested and placed in custody; (2) the
arrest if proved false may result in a lawsuit against me; (3) if I have sworn
falsely I may be prosecuted for perjury; (4) this charge will be prosecuted
even though I might later change my mind; (5) witnesses and complainant will be
required to appear in court on the trial date regardless of inconvenience,
school, job, etc.
Following is a true statement of the events that led to filing this charge.
I (have)(have not) consulted with a prosecuting authority concerning this incident.
On the ____ day of ___________, 19__, at _______________________.
(location)
_____________________________________________________________________
Signed _______________________________
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ____ day of ___________, 19__.
______________________________________
Judge
(d) Filing.
(1) Original. The original of the complaint or citation and notice shall be
filed with the clerk of the court.
(2) Time. The citation and notice shall be filed with the clerk of the
court within two days after issuance, not including Saturdays, Sundays or
holidays. A citation and notice not filed within the time limits of this rule
may be dismissed without prejudice.
[Amended effective March 18, 1994; July 2, 1996; September 1, 1999;
November 21, 2006; May 6, 2008.]
It was a John Doe investigation regarding collusion. To pretend that if the shoe weren’t on the other foot that it wouldn’t be applauded is disingenuous. Conservatives are authoritarians and they started this militarized approach to policing and investigation. The chickens have come home to roost, as someone upstream or on another thread said. It’s only being objected to because it involves a conservative governor and his aides.
fiver
Regarding conservatives’ new found concern for constitutional rights because of the Wisconsin raids, Marc Randazza writes: “Welcome to the party.”
Conservatives (not all of them) loved it when we got tough on “crime.” No knock warrants, militarized police, doors bashed down, homes invaded, it all worked to keep a little Reagan-inspired law and order.
…
Welcome to the party. Please stick around, since we are going to need numbers.
Many conservatives are against these tactics, especially as implemented by incompetent and indifferent law enforcement. But of course they aren’t going to “stick around” for people who when granted the opportunity to emphasize a common interest instead use that opportunity to slime conservatives. That choice shows their priorities.
randyjet
Too bad this cop was not in DC when Dick Cheney cost the CIA millions of dollars when he blew the cover of Valarie Plame. I would have liked to see him storm into Cheney’s office and beat him up. THAT was a REAL crime.
Richard Armitage publicized Valerie Plame’s name. If there was a financial loss, which is doubtful, it was entirely due to the desire to create one in furtherance of a manufactured media fauxrage. It’s embarrassing people keep repeating long-discredited political attacks.
He’s a member of a public employee union. She’s not. Case closed.
It seems that the earlier poster (alan tiger) also forgot to read Balko’s complaint that spending increased considerably after Obama became president.
1 BarkinDog wrote:
“Peter, Paul & Mary – If I Had A Hammer Lyrics”
fyi, “if i had a hammer” was co-written by pete seeger and lee hays of the weavers.
—
2 Mike Appleton wrote:
“The militarization of domestic police forces predated the election of President Obama by many years.”
indeed. it seems that the earlier poster (pogo) also forgot the almost $50 billion shoveled out by department of homeland security to state and local police for so-called anti-terrorism protection soon after dubya’s 9/11 misadventure.
Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Waco etc.etc.etc. Fascism is a social sickness predicated on maintaining the power, and importantly but seldom discussed, the “safety” of the ruling class. Politicians and Judges must both be becoming more and more aware and afraid of the civilian population’s discontentment, especially at the lower socio-economic levels. With 1/3 of our total population now living at or near the poverty line, the anti-social effects are surely being observed by the policy makers.
Pogo Hears a Who
OMG, Max and I agree.
What highly trained petty authoritarian cretins the US Marshall Service employees.
It makes me proud to be an American.
I agree with Justice Holmes!
To: John F. BaRoss Jr…It matters not that the woman “may” have been agitated or argumentative with LE. THAT is not a crime. If the officer truly believed her (alleged)agitation was a legitimate “hint” to “potential wrong doing” the correct response would have been to legally detain her and conduct an investigation. However..since the cop clearly opted for plan B evidenced by his BUM RUSHING her for the purpose of denying her civil liberties followed by an armed, criminal assault topped off with a willful(not to mention clearly unlawful) destruction of her personal property…it’s safe to assume he had other plans. You ask “could the civilian be guilty of violating lawful instructions from law enforcement personnel..?” Seriously?? Does it occur to you were that true they would have simply gone ahead and placed her under arrest? It never ceases to amaze… the lengths some LE apologists will go to. This is no more complicated a story than the countless other ones we see every day. Cop hates the camera….Cop attacks camera + camera operator.
I can only assume that those in law enforcement do not fear the repercussions of their actions. Is that not how most atrocities happen? Did not the NAZI goons fear the government leadership more then the people they slaughtered? It is a systemic problem within government. The politicians and Judges must be having some level of contribution to the problem when they are supposed to be the remedy.
Well, Mr. Leo, above, deserves his very own Irish Poem!
LEO, The Lyin’ ???
An irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
Sooo, you saw a “bad cop” video:
And now, you are wanting to know.
What’s that stuff that you saw???
Well, it’s called, “Marshal Law”!
And they just make it up as they go!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
In my view there is probable cause for malicious mischief type of crime on the state level, with a degree related to the value of the cell phone.
The event could constitute an unlawful seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment.
I predict the deputy marshal will receive a suspension over this but not a termination from employment unless there are a multitude of violations of policy committed by this man previously. The Marshals Service better work fast to compensate the victim for her losses and do so quickly if they want to resolve the matter.
Darren, If I were that woman, I would go to the US attorney’s office and demand charges against this officer. She should also go to the local DA and seek charges against him if she gets no satisfaction from the Feds. Is there any legal way for her to press charges against the crook if the prosecutors fail in their duty?
Randy,
There are some states that allow for a citizen to initiate a criminal prosecution. I do not know specifically what is offered in this state or at the federal level.
True, Squeeky.
And then you don’t even need a license to drive.
Or insurance.