• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

St. Josephs finest!

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
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:

kylemoul

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
640
Location
st louis
and what was he arrested on?
what basis?

its not illegal to be in public recording your surroundings
 

chakragod

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
100
Location
St. Joseph, MO
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 =\
 

sohighlyunlikely

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
724
Location
Overland, Missouri, USA
Sounds like the person with the phone should have left .... :banghead:

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
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
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.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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.
 

sohighlyunlikely

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
724
Location
Overland, Missouri, USA
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
 

Festus_Hagen

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
490
Location
Jefferson City, Mo., ,
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.
 

Shooter64738

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
107
Location
Missouri
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.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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:

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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?
 

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
Sounds like the person with the phone should have left .... :banghead:

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.
 

Richieg150

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
432
Location
Show Me State
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.
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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.
 

sohighlyunlikely

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
724
Location
Overland, Missouri, USA
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
 

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
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:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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.
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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.
 
Top