Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: St. Josephs finest!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    St. Joseph, MO
    Posts
    100

    St. Josephs finest!

    Although it doesn't pertain to open carry in a normal sense, this shows what kind of law enforcement we have around here. Lord knows what would of happened if the guy had been open carrying.

    This was filmed last night in St. Joseph.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNCljupDzVE

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    231
    Wow. What was happening before the video started? I can't find St. Josephs' code for disorderly conduct. Could you post it? If they were saying it was disorderly conduct by interfering, there is substantial federal caselaw that came out of Missouri that will destroy that charge and possibly setup a federal lawsuit. Furthermore, if you were the only one to get arrested on that side of the street, the city will have a hard time saying it had nothing to do with you recording.
    Last edited by lancers; 03-06-2011 at 05:55 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    and what was he arrested on?
    what basis?

    its not illegal to be in public recording your surroundings

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    St. Joseph, MO
    Posts
    100
    He said on Facebook:

    "I'd also like to point out that I was released without explanation after I opted to take the 24 hour hold rather than paying bail. I was only held for 3 1/2 hours."

    He just started filming when 2 women were fighting, had no involvement in anything.

    As for the code:


    Sec. 20-188. Disorderly conduct.
    (a) Definitions. The following words, terms
    and phrases, when used in this section, shall have
    the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection,
    except where the context clearly indicates a
    different meaning:
    (1) Incite a riot means but is not limited to
    urging or instigating other persons to riot,
    but shall not be deemed to mean the mere
    oral or written:
    a. Advocacy of ideas; or
    b. Expression of belief, not involving
    advocacy of any act or acts of
    violence or assertion of the rightness
    of or the right to commit any such
    act.


    (2) Riot means a public disturbance
    involving:
    a. An act of violence by one or more
    persons, part of an assemblage of
    three or more persons, which act shall
    constitute a clear and present danger
    of or shall result in damage or injury
    to the property of any other person or
    to the person of any other individual;
    or
    b. A threat of the commission of an act
    of having, individually or
    collectively, the ability of immediate
    execution of such threat, where the
    performance of the threatened act of
    violence would constitute a clear and
    present danger of or would result in
    damage or injury to the property of
    any other person or to the person of
    any other individual.
    (b) Conduct prohibited. A person shall be
    guilty of disorderly conduct if he wilfully does
    any of the following acts:
    (1) Commits an act in a violent and
    tumultuous manner toward another
    whereby that other is placed in danger of
    his life, limb or health.
    (2) Commits an act in a violent and
    tumultuous manner toward another
    whereby the property of any person is
    placed in danger of being destroyed or
    damaged.
    (3) Causes, provokes or engages in any fight,
    brawl or riotous conduct so as to
    endanger the life, limb, health or property
    of another.
    (4) Interferes with another's pursuit of a
    lawful occupation by acts of violence.
    (5) Obstructs, either singly or together with
    other persons, the flow of vehicular or
    pedestrian traffic in a public way and
    refuses to clear such public way when
    ordered to do so by the city police.
    (6) Resists, by using or threatening the use of
    violence or physical force, the performance of duties by city police or
    any other authorized official of the city,
    when known to be such an official, or
    flees to evade apprehension or arrest from
    city police or any other authorized official
    of the city, when known to be such an
    official

    (7) Obstructs, either by action or inaction, the
    performance of duties by city police or
    any other authorized official of the city
    when known to be such an official.

    (8) Incites, attempts to incite or is involved in
    attempting to incite a riot.
    (9) Addresses words to any member of the
    city police department, any other
    authorized official of the city who is
    engaged in the lawful performance of his
    duties or any other person when such
    words by their very utterance tend to
    incite violence. Words merely causing
    displeasure, annoyance or resentment are
    not prohibited.
    (10) Damages, befouls or disturbs public
    property or the property of another so as
    to create a hazardous, unhealthy or
    physically offensive condition.
    (11) Makes or causes to be made any loud or
    boisterous noise or disturbance on or in
    any public place whereby the public
    peace is broken or disturbed.
    (12) Fails to obey a lawful order to disperse by
    a police officer, when known to be such
    an official, where one or more persons are
    committing acts of disorderly conduct in
    the immediate vicinity, and the public
    health and safety is imminently
    threatened.
    (c) Exemptions. This section shall not be
    construed to suppress the right to lawful
    assembly, picketing, public speaking or other
    lawful means of expressing public opinion not in
    contravention of other laws.
    (Gen. Ord. No. 879, 1(16-129), 7-8-91)


    I'm guessing they got him on the bolded part, but like he said, they released him without explanation, so they probably didn't want to deal with it. It's a wonderfully broad code in favor of the police department =\

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Sounds like the person with the phone should have left ....

  6. #6
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    Sounds like the person with the phone should have left ....
    Sounds like some Johny Q Law chose to abuse his powers to keep his fellow local bacon from being held to any accountability. The LEOs care more about being able to do their job in any manner they please. Letting the camera person have his Constitutional Rights might interfere with there abuse of power. So to the clink he went.

    Doc

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    231
    He no doubt has an easy federal lawsuit against the officer. It will be a harder battle against the city unless he can show this type of behavior was cause by an order the police gave or that this was such common behavior, the chief policy makers (probably the city council), showed a deliberate indifference.

    I was just rereading a case from the Federal 8th District Court of Appeals out of a town in the St. Louis area in 2010. A man was charged with "interfering" (similar to this) because he was yelling and cussing at a police officer parked in front of his business conducting a traffic stop. The guy was just on the other side of the traffic violators car screaming at this cop. The cop arrested him and the Federal Court of Appeals said he didn't even have arguable probable cause to arrest him because he was using his 1st amendment right to criticize police.

    Why do these police think they can get away with whatever they want? Instead of dealing with the problem, this cop went out after the guy videotaping him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    False arrest and battery. Tort suit in state court. No qualified immunity in Federal Court for violation of 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment rights. I'm not aware of any cop so moronic as to think he can arrest someone for standing across the street engaged in peaceful commerce. Hence: bad faith. That's why they sprung him so fast. They know they acted liked ******* Stormtroopers and can smell the lawsuit.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    False arrest and battery. Tort suit in state court. No qualified immunity in Federal Court for violation of 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment rights. I'm not aware of any cop so moronic as to think he can arrest someone for standing across the street engaged in peaceful commerce. Hence: bad faith. That's why they sprung him so fast. They know they acted liked ******* Stormtroopers and can smell the lawsuit.
    So why didn't they drop the charge if they wanted to distance themselves. If the city stands behind the charge they are now the main plaintiff in any pending lawsuit. Trying to make a bad arrest stick will just make a push back from the defendant more likely.

    Doc

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    You are as good as the company you keep. Doesn't look like he kept very good company.

    There was a disturbance, they wanted it dispersed and someone didn't. They went to jail. There won't be a lawsuit ...lol.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    You are as good as the company you keep. Doesn't look like he kept very good company.

    There was a disturbance, they wanted it dispersed and someone didn't. They went to jail. There won't be a lawsuit ...lol.
    You're right there probably wont be a lawsuit because he probably can't afford it.

    The officer had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion a crime had been, would be, or currently was being committed. Any officer who acts to detain or arrest anyone with no cause is committing assault. It makes the officers that work hard at doing their jobs the right way look bad because it contaminates the publics perception of all officers. Just because an officer tells you to do something doesn't mean its lawful or proper. You have to know when and where their boundaries and your rights meet up.

    The person in the video was told to move across the street. He complied. He was told to stop recording the action on the other side of the street. He did not. The officers order was not lawful. There is no right to privacy in public, not for anyone.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    So why didn't they drop the charge if they wanted to distance themselves. If the city stands behind the charge they are now the main plaintiff in any pending lawsuit. Trying to make a bad arrest stick will just make a push back from the defendant more likely.

    Doc
    Drop what charge? He was released without charges made, hence false arrest.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 03-08-2011 at 12:33 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    You are as good as the company you keep. Doesn't look like he kept very good company.

    There was a disturbance, they wanted it dispersed and someone didn't. They went to jail. There won't be a lawsuit ...lol.
    Really? I guess no one that you know has ever broken a law, or been arrested? Because if so, then you are a no good criminal.

    The guy "dispersed", walked across the street to the sidewalk like they said.

    I hope he does file a lawsuit this kind of crap has got to stop in Missouri, and America.

    chakagrod, do you know this guy?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    Sounds like the person with the phone should have left ....
    Absolutely.

    Did they forget the State law that involves gang activity and that it only requires 3 people to be streteched into that? Sadly, they got caught up in the good old "disorderly conduct" catch-all.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Richieg150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Show Me State
    Posts
    433
    Most LEO think they are above the law PERIOD,as long as they can get away with this kind of conduct,nothing will change.I,m reminded of a St. Joseph officer that fatally shot another officer in the back.Now.........if any one of us would have accidentaly shot the same officer in the back with the same outcome, where do you think we would be this very second?? I'm sure there would at least been a Manslaughter charge against us at the very least. Its a shame the officer got shot,but my point is,even though it was an accident, the other officer should have been charged, the law is supposed to be for everybody,INCLUDING those sworn to uphold it.
    Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
    Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

  16. #16
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    Absolutely.

    Did they forget the State law that involves gang activity and that it only requires 3 people to be streteched into that? Sadly, they got caught up in the good old "disorderly conduct" catch-all.
    Go ahead and feel free to link this statute of which you have such intimate knowledge.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Drop what charge? He was released without charges made, hence false arrest.
    I this statement it implies he was released on personal recognizance in lieu of bail.

    "I'd also like to point out that I was released without explanation after I opted to take the 24 hour hold rather than paying bail. I was only held for 3 1/2 hours."

    Doc

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by cash50 View Post
    Go ahead and feel free to link this statute of which you have such intimate knowledge.
    Is that smarminess I detect in your post? It certainly reads like it.

    Here's the statute as it would apply for 14-17 year olds.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5780000423.htm

    Here's the definition statute.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5780000421.htm

    Here's Chapter 578 if anyone would like to weed through it to find how it applies for 18 and older.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c578.htm


    Remember, I said if it were to get stretched into it, I didn't claim this was applicable.
    If memory serves, someone posted here or on another carry forum that they had a LEO threaten the gang activity statute for an OC meet & greet.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 03-08-2011 at 04:10 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    I this statement it implies he was released on personal recognizance in lieu of bail.

    "I'd also like to point out that I was released without explanation after I opted to take the 24 hour hold rather than paying bail. I was only held for 3 1/2 hours."

    Doc
    I guess I interpret it that he was let go without charges--no explanation, as even on PR release they would have booked him, and I assume he would have said so.

  20. #20
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    No smarminess, RT4U, I really wanted a link. Nice word choice btw, don't hear it every day.

    That statute requires more than just the "3 people". It requires their primary purpose as committing crime. From what little video, and total knowledge we have, that wouldn't apply. Especially to the guy who got arrested after crossing the street like he was told.

    I still stand by my position that they had no (good) reason to arrest this guy.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Drop what charge? He was released without charges made, hence false arrest.
    You need to go to a case prep class, talk to folks fresh from an academy, or talk to a good prosecutor. LEOs don't have to charge him right now, they can drag their feet and wait to charge him later. I would hope you've heard of a thing called the statute of limitations.

    Fact is, when a LEO tells you to leave and you refuse you can be arrested. They can then hook you up for trespass, obstruction, he catch-all of disorderly conduct, or even interfering with an arrest (not the same as obstruction either). Just because you're arrested for a crime and not formally charged does not mean it's a false arrest.

    Sadly, it does mean that the arrest is on your record and now it will cost YOU the money to get an arrest without charges expunged from your record. So no matter what, they've got you in a pinch.

    Here's the RSMO on the interfering with an arrest.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000150.HTM

    In all honesty, that one looks to be the most applicable that I've seen thus far.



    Sorry cash, I didn't see your post until I had this one up. So what's your thought on the combined issue of the crime for interfering occurring and it possibly being stretched into the street gang activities statute? It's a really large stretch in my opinion, but it appears at face value that it technically could be possible. Camera operator's best interest should have been in following the instructions of the LEO for his own good, especially after being told to leave the area.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 03-08-2011 at 08:35 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    I think any time something has to be "stretched" to fit a crime, I really wonder what reason(s) there is for this. Obviously, many cops don't like being filmed. IMO, if you can't handle being filmed well, then how can you, as a cop, handle other, more "rigorous" duties well?

    From the video, which I only watched once, the cops told the people to go across the street and get on the sidewalk. It looked like the camera operator complied, and continued filming.

    Also, after moving a reasonable distance away from the people fighting, I'm not sure what else the LEO's wanted the cameraman to do, or why.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    You need to go to a case prep class, talk to folks fresh from an academy, or talk to a good prosecutor. LEOs don't have to charge him right now, they can drag their feet and wait to charge him later. I would hope you've heard of a thing called the statute of limitations.

    Fact is, when a LEO tells you to leave and you refuse you can be arrested. They can then hook you up for trespass, obstruction, he catch-all of disorderly conduct, or even interfering with an arrest (not the same as obstruction either). Just because you're arrested for a crime and not formally charged does not mean it's a false arrest.

    Sadly, it does mean that the arrest is on your record and now it will cost YOU the money to get an arrest without charges expunged from your record. So no matter what, they've got you in a pinch.

    Here's the RSMO on the interfering with an arrest.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000150.HTM

    In all honesty, that one looks to be the most applicable that I've seen thus far.



    Sorry cash, I didn't see your post until I had this one up. So what's your thought on the combined issue of the crime for interfering occurring and it possibly being stretched into the street gang activities statute? It's a really large stretch in my opinion, but it appears at face value that it technically could be possible. Camera operator's best interest should have been in following the instructions of the LEO for his own good, especially after being told to leave the area.
    How does 575.150 apply?
    "(1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer; or

    (2) Interferes with the arrest, stop or detention of another person by using or threatening the use of violence, physical force or physical interference."

    I never saw any threat or physical interference like in the below case.

    From the federal 8th district court of appeals Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875:
    "A review of the video taken from Chief Locke's police cruiser illustrates that Steibel's repeated requests for Chief Locke to move his vehicle distracted Chief Locke while conducting the traffic stop. Moreover, the video depicts an agitated Steibel who points at Chief Locke, points down the road, and by Steibel's own admission, tells Chief Locke to "move the f***ing car." However, even at the height of his agitation, Steibel was separated from Chief Locke by the length and width of the stopped vehicle. And, while Steibel did approach the traffic stop, the video shows Steibel approaching in a non-aggressive manner. Accordingly, when viewed in a light most favorable to Steibel, at most, Steibel distracted, cursed at, and pointed at Chief Locke.
    Steibel's conduct, viewed in this light, does not violate Missouri Statute section 575.150 which requires "(1) the defendant, having knowledge that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or a stop of a person or vehicle, (2) resists or interferes with the arrest by threatening to use violence or physical force or by fleeing from the officer, . . . and (3) defendant did so with the purpose of preventing the officer from completing the arrest." State v. Clark, 263 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Mo. App. 2008), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Daws, 311 S.W.3d 806 (Mo. 2010). Here, Steibel knew that Chief Locke was making a traffic stop, but the record, viewed in a light most favorable to Steibel, indicates that Steibel did not threaten the use of violence or physical force nor did he "flee" from the officer under any reasonable definition of the word as he backed away from the scene upon being engaged and pursued by Chief Locke. Moreover, according to the record, Steibel had no intention of preventing the officer from completing the stop. Thus, under the facts viewed in a light most favorable to Steibel, no reasonable officer could have believed that Steibel had violated section 575.150.

    The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.. If, as Steibel avers, Chief Locke arrested Steibel solely for distracting him from the stop through the use of his protected expression, then the arrest was unlawful even if it arguably interfered with police activity.

    Notably, Chief Locke asserts that he advised Steibel to step back. Steibel denies this. Accordingly, viewing the record in a light most favorable to Steibel, Chief Locke merely reacted to Steibel's use of loud, profane language coupled with Steibel's expressive gestures in directing the Chief to move his cruiser away from Steibel's business. No reasonable police officer could believe that he had actual probable cause to arrest a citizen for such protected activity. Accordingly, on this summary judgment record, Steibel has presented sufficient evidence to show that Chief Locke arrested him without actual probable cause."



    So here when this guy didn't even backup, (while just being on the other side of a car), the cop still did not have probable cause.

    This St. Joesph's guy is lucky that the video recording was still available when he got his phone/camera back.
    Last edited by lancers; 03-09-2011 at 12:25 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    St. Joseph, MO
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Richieg150 View Post
    Most LEO think they are above the law PERIOD,as long as they can get away with this kind of conduct,nothing will change.I,m reminded of a St. Joseph officer that fatally shot another officer in the back.Now.........if any one of us would have accidentaly shot the same officer in the back with the same outcome, where do you think we would be this very second?? I'm sure there would at least been a Manslaughter charge against us at the very least. Its a shame the officer got shot,but my point is,even though it was an accident, the other officer should have been charged, the law is supposed to be for everybody,INCLUDING those sworn to uphold it.
    Yep, I posted the story about that in the general forums awhile back. We have a great 'good ol' boy' system in our city.

    As far as this is concerned, I haven't heard anything else, but I'm going to message my friend and see what's going on with it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    [QUOTE=REALteach4u;1483186]You need to go to a case prep class, talk to folks fresh from an academy, or talk to a good prosecutor.

    Gee, I went to Law School...is that good enough? Petty charges for a violation, as opposed to felony or more serious misdemeanors, are made via a 'citation' upon release from custody--if it goes that far, or at the scene. When you are released without being booked on some minor charge or issued a citation with PR release automatically rendered, the chances of a charge at a later date are very slight. In more serious cases it is more likely to happen, although add on charges from a baseline at time of arrest are far more likely. While I'm not an expert in MO law, the guy obeyed the cop's lawful order to cross the street. Any subsequent command from the cop was unlawful once he was out of the instant vicinity of the arrest and engaged in peaceful commerce; therefore, the arrest was made in bad faith and is tortuous, should he seek to litigate.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 03-09-2011 at 11:13 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •