May 18th, 2013

NYPD Cops Arrest Woman Recording Them, Apparently Stealing Wrong Memory Card (Updated) 172

By Carlos Miller

 

New York City police officers arrested a woman who was video recording them from a public sidewalk as they conducted some type of “vehicle safety checkpoint.”

The officers apparently stole a memory card from a camera, which turned out to be the wrong one, allowing us to view the video.

In the Youtube description, under the headline, “You stole the wrong SD card,” Christina Gonzalez said her boyfriend was also arrested.

We were arrested while filming an NYPD checkpoint on a bridge between a soon to be gentrified Bronx and a quickly gentrifying Harlem. We were charged with OGA, DisCon, and resisting arrest. I was holding a bag of yarn in one hand and a canvas in the other. My partner had food in his hands when he was tackled. Even though their violent actions were unjust, we did not resist. Simultaneous with our “arrests”, the checkpoint was closed down.

We were held for 25 hours.

OGA is obstructing government administration, which generally requires the person to physically obstruct police from doing their job.

According to a New York attorney:

Generally, If you impair or obstruct the administration of law or prevent a public servant (often a police officer) from performing his or her official duty and function, then you have committed this crime. However, the other crucial element is that this intentional obstruction be done through intimidation, interference, physical force or an independently unlawful act.

But Gonzalez didn’t appear to be doing any of the above. She was peppering the cops with questions as to what they were doing and one sergeant tried to answer a question before telling her he wasn’t going to answer more questions.

She kept peppering him with questions, which prompted him to order her to move away.

When she refused, he demanded identification, which she also refused to provide.

That led to her arrest.

I sent her a message asking her to clarify about the memory card. Will update when she responds.

UPDATE: Mickey Osterreicher just emailed the following:

See the following from the NYPD Patrol Guide under PG 208-03 Arrests – General Processing, effective 01-01-2000 that came as a result of a 1977 Consent Decree between NYPD and the NYCLU. In pertinent part that section reads as follows:

OBSERVERS AT THE SCENE OF POLICE INCIDENTS
As a rule, when a police officer stops, detains or arrests a person in a public area, persons who happen to be in or are attached to the area are naturally in position to and are allowed to observe the police officer’s actions. This right to observe is, of course, limited by reasons of safety to all concerned and as long as there is no substantive violation of law. The following guidelines should be utilized by police officers whenever the above situation exists:
a. A person remaining in the vicinity of a stop or arrest shall not be subject to arrest for Obstructing Governmental Administration (Penal Law, Section 195.05) unless the officer has probable cause to believe the person or persons are obstructing governmental administration.
b. None of the following constitutes probable cause for arrest or detention of an onlooker unless the safety of officers or other persons is directly endangered or the officer reasonably believes they are endangered or the law is otherwise violated:
(1) Speech alone, even though crude and vulgar
(2) Requesting and making notes of shield numbers or names of officers
(3) Taking photographs, videotapes or tape recordings
(4) Remaining in the vicinity of the stop or arrest.
c. Whenever an onlooker is arrested or taken into custody, the arresting officer shall request the patrol supervisor to the scene, or if unavailable, report the action to the supervisor where the person is taken.
This procedure is not intended in any manner to limit the authority of the police to establish police lines, e.g., crowd control at scenes of fires, demonstrations, etc.

 

NYPD Patch_10


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • http://sonnyparlin.com Sonny Parlin

    This one’s a little questionable as to whether or not she was breaking a law… she WAS pretty close to them and when they asked her to move back she didn’t. I get the feeling that if she had just been quiet and kept recording there may not have been a problem, but who knows.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gregg-Jones/527975393 Gregg Jones

      If one or more of the officers did take the memory card without declaring it in the reports, and logging it as evidence, then there is very little question that the officers broke the law. Tampering with evidence is a felony and then add violation of oath of office which may be either a felony or misdemeanor. It is the almost routine destruction of, or attempted destruction of video evidence by police officers that is by far the most serious crime in these cases. The officers routinely commit this very serious crime because they believe there will be no consequences for it. For the most part they have been right so far.

      • ElDouchee

        also, they’re incompetent.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.m.gray Jeffrey Marcus Gray

      She was on a public sidewalk where other citizens were moving through the same area. She well within her rights and on solid legal grounds. She was singeled out because she was filming and she had the audacity to ask questions. This is a clear case of contempt of cop.

      • Proud GrandPa

        She was not singled out because she was filming. Nor was she arrested for asking questions. Watch the video again and again.

        .

        The cops did not arrest her until after she repeatedly interfered with them by bombarding them with questions.

        .
        Here are the key observations:

        1. Police allowed her to remain on the sidewalk, to follow them, and to video them. Proof that these were not the causes for the arrests.
        .
        2. She pursued police and repeatedly asked the same question. At first they did not arrest her. Proof that her speech alone was not the cause for the arrest.
        .
        3. She interfered with justice by pestering them with the same questions. Again they did not arrest when they were diverted away from their duty to have to address her. At this point they gave her an order: Clear out. Again no arrests.
        .
        4. She refused to leave. She continued to annoy them making it impossible for them to continue their work. At this point they had no choice but to make an arrest. I would have also were I an officer.

        • http://www.facebook.com/steve.kimball.7 Steve Kimball

          really? a cop in NY cant deal with noise?

        • http://www.facebook.com/jon.cranfill Jon Cranfill

          She, like every citizen, is allowed to ask questions. Also, at no time is it ILLEGAL for a person, who has committed no violation of the law, to refuse to identify themselves. Only upon arrest with probable cause must you identify yourself to the police. You are allowed to observe the police, you are also allowed to take notes, both written, picture, and video of police actions in almost all states, New York being one. You are allowed to request names and badge numbers as well. These things are allowed as a check, a measure of security to us the people that in fact the police ARE being observed and therefore someone will now and speak of when they do things wrongly or in some cases unlawfully. Random searches of vehicles is illegal without probable cause and warrants issued by a Judge. If such warrants were issued than all persons subject to search are within their rights to request to see those warrants. These officers were violating several laws and didn’t like the idea that someone was taking an interest in that. She was not required to leave, only to view from an appropriate distance, a safe distance. There was no interference of Justice, nor was there any cause for them to be assaulted. There was no request for her to put her hands behind her back, nor was there a declaration that she was under arrest before she was assaulted and her partner was tackled. They figured that they could arrest them, destroy the video, charge them, and then use intimidation to extract a promise of silence from them before dropping those trumped up charges. This is one more case of the police screwing up, and then trying to sweep it under the rug.

          • David Jones

            I am going to side with the police on this one. She kept pestering them, getting closer and closer and interfered with what they were doing. She had the right to be on the sidewalk, film, etc, but at some point, when you aggressively get into the cops’ space, they get to arrest you. The judgment here is when the citizen’s actions get the point they are really interfering. When the police tell her they aren’t going to answer her questions but she keeps on pressing and getting close. I don’t know if she “crossed the line” legally or not, but it was pretty clear she was trying to provoke such an encounter and they were extremely patient as she walked up and down the sidewalk, tailing the officers, filming, etc.

          • steveo

            Yeah,. long as they don’t bother us white wall street guys.

          • bj

            That’s your opinion. It’s not the law. Read the cases referenced above. You don’t know how valuable free speech is until it’s taken away.

          • jc

            typical sheep response…

          • Difdi

            Police in NYC are under a consent decree to allow exactly the behavior she was engaged in. You’ve sided with the criminals in this matter.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          None of those four points constitute a criminal offense on her part.

        • Barking Dog

          She refused to leave because she asked a legit question and was ignored.

        • Difdi

          Repeatedly asking questions does not justify an arrest in most places, and especially not in NYC, where there is a consent decree from a prior lawsuit that concerns that exact behavior.

          1. Police are required by law to allow those things, the fact that they obeyed the law should not be noteworthy, nor should it be taken as a sign of their tolerance. It’s simply their duty.

          2. Again, she acted completely within the law when she did that. The fact that they did not commit a crime in response to her lawful acts proves little.

          3. For what she did to qualify as obstruction in NYC requires that she assault and/or batter the officers. Did she? No? Then she didn’t obstruct them. Police in NYC are specifically prohibited from issuing that order in those circumstances.

          4. Refusing to leave a public place while not breaking any law is not a crime. Police have no authority to issue such an order without some sort of good, lawful reason. Those police officers did not. Continuing to annoy them in a 100% lawful way does not justify an arrest. If anything, they had no choice but to keep their sworn oaths and do their duty — They chose to make a false arrest and tamper with evidence instead.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Obstruction does not require assault or battery, just physical interference.

    • http://www.facebook.com/steve.maratta Steve Maratta

      Reead the response. She was within her rights…Cops need to understand the law, and stop being so heavy handed

      • n4zhg

        It’s hard to understand when you’re recruiting one sigma below mean.

  • Jon Quimbly

    That’s the Codd consent decree, just in case you was curious. I know about it from my time with I-Witness Video (sort of an Indymedia.org offshoot).

    http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/Black%20v.%20Codd%20consent%20decree.pdf

  • bastardo

    Gonzalez and her boyfriend will probably win their cases, but the police still won: they were arrested, identified, imprisoned and are temporarily stuck in a perpetual system of state supervision. They were both assigned FBI numbers that are stuck with them for the rest of their lives and will show up on every serious background check through a NCIC (National Criminal Information Center) database to which only USDOJ or law enforcement officials have access. Fingerprints, pictures taken, surveillance video or any other history of them was permanently added to it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/lazerhaze Travis Rogers

      So.. what’s your point? Shall we just allow this bullshit criminal behavior by “police” or do we risk having “FBI records” (the FBI is worthless anyways) to stand up for our constitutional rights?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roger-L-Moore/1730427952 Roger L. Moore

        Why not just leave the police alone and let them do their jobs instead of having to deal with some whiny looser that has nothing better to do than try to set up cops just doing your job! As far as I’m concerned she doesn’t have a constitutional right to be an asshole!

        • thealphaturtle

          but it’s not a crime to be an asshole either.

          • n4zhg

            If it was, just about every cop would be in jail.

        • Proud GrandPa

          I tend to agree with your assessment in this case. She did interfere by repeatedly asking questions. Here are the key observations:
          1. Police allowed here to remain on the sidewalk, to follow them, and to video them. Proof that these were not the causes for the arrests.
          .
          2. She pursued police and repeatedly asked the same question. At first they did not arrest here. Proof that her speech alone was not the cause for the arrest.
          .
          3. She interfered with justice by pestering them with the same questions. Again they did not arrest when they were diverted away from their duty to have to address her. At this point they gave her an order: Clear out. Again no arrests.
          .
          4. She refused to leave. She continued to annoy them making it impossible for them to continue their work. At this point they had no choice but to make an arrest. I would have also were I an officer.
          .
          What could have placated the constitutionalists here on PINAC? I believe most of us would be satisfied had the officers plainly and calmly explained to her that they were unable to concentrate upon their law enforcement work under her relentless questions. The should have told her she is welcomed to take pictures and even to ask an occasional question, but she must not ask non-stop questions or divert their attention. They should then leave it up to the couple to exercise their best judgment.
          .
          If the woman had just kept her yap shut and taken pictures and asked a quiet question or two, the whole incident would have ended without an arrest. The woman sounds like a rude spoiled child. I hope she learned from this. I hope some of our readers here did too.

          • Aaron

            Read the four things the cops aren’t allowed to arrest you for. Speech is one of those. It doesn’t matter that she kept pestering them. That’s her job as a citizen, that’s your job as a citizen. Police aren’t allowed to do whatever they want and then make up for it later, or just apologize and continue doing it unless people like you stand up and say I don’t care! The law is just so above me, I might as well just submit to authority!

            People like you are the reason things like this exist. We as citizens have a right to question police whenever we want. You can tell us to get to the side, but unless we physically stand in your way, speaking to you is in fact, not a crime.

          • PearlieMae

            OH PLEASE! She didn’t give a damn about the people in the cars, she SO obviously just wanted to look like some kind of folk hero for “standing up to the cops”. psssshhhhh~ they were doing their jobs, and they ignored her until she decided to run her fat mouth. I get so sick of people pounding on their chests. I’m glad they arrested her.

          • mike

            “they were doing their jobs”… that’s what nazis said in courts: “we were only doing our jobs”

          • steveo

            Ok,. leos,. let me see the OP for the roadblock and where are your signs leading up to it,. and did you advertise it in the papers 24 hrs in advance? Oh,. you are running an unconstitutional roadblock? So then it is impossible for me to obstruct you because what you are doing is illegal. Oh,. sorry,. this is NYC,. I forgot there is no US Constitution there.

          • Barking Dog

            Pretty much. They have declared the stops legal but the courts say it must be every 4th car or some pattern, can’t just stop those who look like victims and she had a right to record if the stops are being done properly.

            Realize that the chief Zionist, Bloomberg, who trains his cops in brutality with the IDF in Israel, has stated that not only is the NYPD his “personal army” but after Boston, the Constitution doesn’t apply in NYC anymore

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            How long have you believed in violating people’s constitutional rights?

            The officers did not have a valid charge, and Gonzalez had a right to do what she was doing. As a matter of fact, the only crime I saw was being committed by the officers.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Cops are definitely allowed to arrest you for speech, when a certain condition is met. Do you know what that condition is?

            .

            Hint: Interference with their duty by speech is not protected. It is up to the courts to decide each case. In this example I would have no difficulty with a guilty vote.

            .

            I agree that merely unpopular opinions are never a basis for arrest. It is clear that the content of her speech was not an issue. Still good point, and I thank you for making it. We need to be reminded to assert our rights. Although we differ on this case, let us not be cowed into silence on those occasions when we do not interfere with police guarding a checkpoint.
            .
            Glad to discuss this.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Except in NY, you are not correct. Go look at the other cases I cited. This is crystal-clear, black letter law.

            No physical interference, no crime. This wouldn’t even survive a motion to dismiss for failure to allege an offense.

          • steveo

            Most of the white people in NYC with incomes over 80K or so, have no problem with stop and frisk, pull overs and search of every car with a brown or a black. In fact, only three of the current 8 candidates for mayor want to change stop and frisk or the stop the car for no reason and search method in NYC, (also with taxis, as long as the passenger isn’t white and well dressed). If stop and frisk was 86% percent white people, you wouldn’t hear of stop and frisk, cause there wouldn’t be any.

          • PearlieMae

            Right on GrandPa. She was totally out of line.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Being a rude spoiled child is not an offense. Neither is speech. See my comment in reply to you above.

          • Marmotjmarmot

            Hmm. I don’t know quite how to respond to this.

            Oh yeah, now I have it…FUCK YOU.

          • Barking Dog

            Not true. They will mess with you even if you are silent

          • wsavary

            That’s exactly how it appeared to me as well. I think she became enraged and was actively trying to interfere in the activities of the cops.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Maybe so, but until she physically interfered, she hasn’t committed a crime in NY.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jon.cranfill Jon Cranfill

          Let them do there jobs? She was trying to ensure that the JOBS they were doing were 1.) LEGAL 2.) APPROPRIATE 3.) NON-VIOLATING of anyone’s rights or freedoms. It is her RIGHT as a citizen to police the police.

        • FUCKUPIG

          Oh yes she does Officer Moore. She needs to stand on the sidewalk giving the cops the finger to remind them that she has her 1st amendment right to do just that. FUCK THE POLICE

          • io-io

            I agree you have the right, but things can get out of hand….

          • Difdi

            Assuming it’s a real cop and not staged, the video shows a police officer committing a federal felony…what distinguishes it from any other violent crime?

            18USC242 makes it a crime for a public official to violate rights (such as the first amendment) by use of their official authority under color of law. A simple oral order to cease and desist in the exercise of a constitutional, civil or statutory right is worth a year in prison for the officer. Threat of a dangerous weapon or its use increases the penalty to 10 years in prison.

            A baton is a dangerous weapon, and clubbing someone with it for exercising his first amendment rights (the Supreme Court has ruled that raising your middle finger to an officer is protected expression) is use of a dangerous weapon to violate someone’s rights.

        • steveo

          Gee,. I wonder if it would surprise anyone if 86% of the drivers of the cars were african american or hispanic. Why shouldn’t we stop them,. they do all the crime in NY.

          • joey

            you white folk are fucking insane :)

        • http://facebook.com/dballing/ Derek Balling

          Well, I hate to break it to you but you DO have a constitutional right to be an asshole. So perhaps that’s the first place your understanding of the situation breaks down.

        • Squatlo

          Wow… In your world, the police are always right and citizens (who pay their salaries) have no right to observe or question their behavior? You’d make a fine little sheep for the next fascist to manipulate with THAT attitude. Thank god there are people out there who don’t surrender their rights so easily. Maybe the next car they stop for a “random” check will be yours, and perhaps you’ll appreciate the fact that observers refused to disperse when the police violate your constitutional rights.
          I suspect you’re a big fan of COPS on Fox…

        • http://www.facebook.com/lazerhaze Travis Rogers

          I beg to differ. You’re doing a good job at using your “constitutional right to be an asshole”. Why is it that what’s good enough for you not good enough for her. Oh, and fuck you also.

        • Difdi

          Since when is it their jobs to break their sworn oaths and the law?

    • steveo

      Yeah,. you’re right. I give up.

    • Barking Dog

      They do an iris scan also now

  • io-io

    I see no interference, in fact you can see other folks on bicycles and just walking passing through the scene. Apparently it was some type of vehicle check they were conducting.

    So, what are the penalties for violating a consent decree? I can hear the officer now saying that they were not aware of the consent decree, so they can not be held liable.

    This has to stop. I think that the only way to get it stopped is for jail time and awards in the millions of dollars to get the federal, state, and local governments to behave themselves in a civil manner.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.m.gray Jeffrey Marcus Gray

      I agree! It’s time these cops start getting a taste of their own medicine. They need to face criminal charges and do time behind bars. After all they have no compassion for the people they stick with bogus charges and false arrest.

    • Difdi

      Consent decrees are usually in lieu of a much heavier penalty, typically in the form of outright permanent injunctions and hefty fines/monetary awards. They’re essentially a form of civil probation. Violating the decree in a civil matter is like violating probation in a criminal one. The penalties that the decree is in place of come down on you full force.

    • Proud GrandPa

      You say you see no interference? No, you saw it, but failed to recognize it as interference.
      .
      She interfered when she bombarded the officers loudly with questions and pursued them. She has no right to stalk police. The arrest is good.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        Speech is not interference. The interference has to be some physical action. See People v. Case, 365 N.E.2d 872 (1977); People v. Longo, 336 N.E.2d 85 (1971) (A verbal act alone does not constitute physical force or interference with the governmental administration of justice.).

        The arrest is bad.

        • Proud GrandPa

          People v Case doesn’t apply here. It refers to revealing the location of a radar speed detector via CB radio. Same for Longo.
          .
          Had Case or Longo got out of their cars, walked over to the speed detector, and bombarded and pestered the officers, then we would have a situation similar to this one.
          .
          Thank you for finding this though. I appreciate the information about speech revealing speed traps. I have always felt it was protected by the first amendment too.
          .

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Geez.

            This is not complicated, and is black letter law. Do you want me to spoon feed you?

            When reading a case, you look at the principle or rule of law applied by the court. Here it was whether a verbal, non-physical act meets the elements of the offense for OGA. It doesn’t.

            Both Case and Longo apply. Both were arrested for speech, not a physical act. Gonzalez was arrested for speech, not a physical act.

            See also People v. Mayol, 801 N.Y.S.2d 240 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2005) (yelling at a police officer who was arresting a 3d person not an offense, at most it was a distraction); People v Castro, 918 N.Y.S.2d 399 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010) (yelling threats at an officer writing a citation to a 3d person not an offense when not coupled with physical action).

            I could list about 20 other cases but you get the idea.

            Look, I understand you support the police. I do too, but here they are wrong. It was a bad arrest.

          • Proud GrandPa

            I looked up the two cases you mentioned. Mayol seems to support what you say, but I see a Mack-truck size hole when we consider behavior. That may or may not apply to stalking police.

            .

            I was unable to find the right Castro 2010 case, but there is another one for murder, but not for yelling threats.
            .
            In all this I agree with you that merely speaking is not a crime, but I think there is an area of law that couples crime with behavior. Have you studied this yet?
            .
            I do respect policed, but not blindly. There are good and bad in every group, and I am afraid that includes law and politics.
            .
            I want to keep informed about this. It may prevent taking some lumps by my grandchildren. Just interested…

        • steveo

          It’s too difficult to learn every State. I’m amazed when a lawyer is admitted to the Bar in even more than one state. And here the discussion is just about misdemeanor criminal law. What about all the rest of it?

          In FL, there are situations where words alone constitute obstruction/resisting without violence. Inciting violence or a riot, even talking to the detainees has some legs, refusing to give ID or DL during a lawful traffic stop if you are the driver, refusing to give ID when the leo has a well founded RAS that a crime has been or might be committed. Even refusing to take your yamaka off in a courtroom (that one might be contempt, but only in the Southern states, not FL). In the above situation though, the activites of the leos are in question and an excellent reason for the videographer to be there newsgathering.

          Again, I don’t agree with copwatchers talking to the leos, the detainees or anyone other than their backups, but her words didn’t rise to a criminal level, but you might lose this case to a jury that believes that you have to do everything a leo says. If you weren’t talking you wouldn’t or shouldn’t have a problem.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Whether the individual officers are aware or not aware of a consent decree are not relevant to a violation. The consent decree binds the city, and the city is responsible for making sure that its employees are properly trained. That argument would lose the case immediately for the city.

      Penalties can vary. It could be normal contempt of court, or the consent decree may set out damages.

      • steveo

        I think it must be very hard to be a leo in NYC. I have an acquaintance who is retired 20 years and 2 mins, he says, and we can talk about anything except his time as a cop in NYC. The only other guy I know that is like that is a friend about 58 yrs old who specialized in “ambush” in Vietnam in 1971.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sevangrim Evan Lee Battle

    while the officers were dicks (very much so)… she was also kinda instigating the situation. It was very obvious she was looking for a confrontation, and when the officers asked her to do things she responded with flat out “No I dont have to” instead of asking why the officers wanted her to move, or complying and asking why in the mean time. Your ID holds no magical powers over you. If you refuse an officers request to know who you are (especially when making comments like “you work for me”) it in itself becomes suspicious. As a 20 something black man i get pulled over pretty often just because its possible im doing something wrong. It sucks, but compliance quickly reveals that im a law abiding citizen, and these interactions rarely last longer than 3 minutes or so.
    so while yes, the cops did tons of wrong in this situation, it should be noted that this lady wasnt a “Victim”. She went from filming calmly to purposely irritating to being down right abrasive with the cops in this video. Two wrongs.

    • http://www.facebook.com/lazerhaze Travis Rogers

      She did nothing that was not within her rights. I think you’ve been persecuted by the police so much you have decided to cowardly kowtow to abusive/harassing police instead of having the integrity required to challenge these “police’ on their criminal tactics.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roger-L-Moore/1730427952 Roger L. Moore

        Yes it is her right to be a bitch and annoying!

    • http://www.facebook.com/steve.maratta Steve Maratta

      I understand the crap you’ve endured, but THAT was probably illegal as well. She was within her rights…Cops just dont care. More people who will stand up can change this.

    • Proud GrandPa

      You are correct, Mr Battle. You wrote,”…it should be noted that this lady wasn’t a “victim”. She went from filming calmly to purposely irritating to being down right abrasive with the cops in this video.”

      .

      Exactly on point. The limit to frees speech is when one stalks and annoys and harasses a police office so badly that he is unable to focus upon his duties.

      .

      The officers’ responses were graduated and appropriate. I only wish they had explained how her bombarding them and following them closely distracted them and interfered. I hope that we on PINAC would have respected that and complied. Had she said, “Sorry, officer, I will keep quiet and let you work.” they would have been happy to ignore her and focus on the job.

      • Darryl Hamlin

        She never overstepped to where she could have been arrested for OGA. I would advise reading the law she allegedly broke before you go claiming she broke it.

      • Difdi

        Verbally distracting an officer isn’t a crime, it’s a constitutional right. It’s also the subject of a consent decree in NYC.

      • steveo

        PgP is precisely the guy prosecutors are looking for in a jury pool. They’ll pack juries with older gray haired seniors who live to get called for jury duty and believe that “why would this colored person be here if he wasn’t a criminal?”

    • Difdi

      By your standards, the police instigated her lawful behavior by their unlawful behavior…which, to continue your logic, absolves her of any blame, not that she had any anyway, since her actions were not illegal in NYC.

      Being irritating is not wrong. It’s a protected constitutional right. Nobody ever needed a highly protected right to do and say exactly what everybody likes to see and hear, after all.

      Being abrasive is also not wrong. It’s practically considered a human right in New York, and like being irritating, is protected expression.

  • Richard Klinnett

    Any time an officer says ” for your safety and our safety” you’re going to be subject of police harassment. These words are the justification for their actions.

  • BusPass

    How about the mere fact that they were conducting a “random safety checkpoint?”

    I have no doubt that it was Constitutionally questionable given the fact that the NYPD thinks it’s acceptable just to stop people who are walking down the street, search them and abuse them like they actually are already in prison.

    • steveo

      Yeah,. next time we send Snake Pillisken.

  • cholo2les

    you should look at Gonzales you tube page, it has a couple of good videos and I also have some good videos. check out my youtube channel cholo2les. nypd use patriot act to detain me. I posted this vid on your facebook Carlos. I think you’ll like it.

  • Tijjuana Joe

    Where in the Constitution does it say armed goons can randomly and without provocation stop you in your vehicle in order to maintain your “safety.” Sounds like bullshit to me. Also, based on the video, quite unsafe.

    • Proud GrandPa

      These random stop and search events are a constitutional problem and a subject for another forum. The so-called border checkpoints far away from the border are even more troubling. One cannot be legally forced to answer their checkpoint questions. Invoke rights. This is a great subject for a discussion.

      • steveo

        It’s not really a subject for another forum,. because if they weren’t running a lawful checkpoint,. then it is impossible for the videographer to be obstructing them. Like the attorney said above,. they have to be performing his or her official duty and function,

        • Difdi

          And even if they were performing their lawful duties in a lawful manner, it’s not obstruction unless the videographer assaulted & battered the officers.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            That’s not correct. All they have to do to meet the elements of the offense is physically interfere. That does not necessarily mean assault or battery.

          • Difdi

            Unless she stepped between the officer and a suspect or stole evidence and ran, it’s hard to imagine any physical interference that would not also be assault.

          • steveo

            In FL, we have a statute called resisting arrest without violence. 1st degree misdemeanor. Examples are headlong flight in a high crime area, not allowing the leo to put on the handcuffs,going limp during the arrest, even a little, parking in a handicapped space and refusing to give the leo your DL even if you have a sticker or handicapped plate, acting as a lookout for street dealers and yelling 5-0 or some other kind of code when you see the plainclothes officers, not giving the leo your ID when he is serving court papers and refusing to help a leo or emt during an emergency. None of these involve a physical altercation.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Difference in state law. NY requires physical interference.

          • steveo

            even better: why do I see so many violations without any repercussions.
            1) I have to assume it’s racism
            2) Leos have no respect for the rule of law, why should the criminals?

          • Tijuana Joe

            “In FL, we have a statute called resisting arrest without violence. 1st
            degree misdemeanor. Examples are headlong flight in a high crime area,
            not allowing the leo to put on the handcuffs,going limp during the
            arrest…”

            What I really respect about that law is that there’s not much
            potential for overzealous or vindictive cops or to mis-apply it. (rolls eyes)

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            The elements don’t include assault and battery against the officer, they include physical interference. Two different things.

  • Ted Baxter

    Never tell a cop “You work for me”.

    • BusPass

      Why? Is it illegal to tell a cop “you work for me?”

      • n4zhg

        It’s not illegal, but it’s also not true, according to the cop. The cops work for the people who sign their paychecks. If the people that sign their paychecks tell them to shoot every blue-eyed person in the city, they will do it.

        • BusPass

          Then they need to be reminded who they work for, in which case it’s appropriate for her to tell them.

          On another day, ask them why they do this job, and they will tell you with a solemn look and a misty eye that they do this ‘for the people of New York.”

          I don’t think they’ll tell you they do it for some suit signing checks.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750235201 Kieran Devine

          LOL yes I believe this to be completely true… you must be completely ignorant and lacking any moral compass to become a dirty pig

    • steveo

      Marlon Brando had a great comeback, in the movie “The Chase” where he plays a small town sheriff. People are always telling him that they pay his salary. He says, “Ok, next time you are in trouble and call me and I don’t come, I’ll make sure you get a refund.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roger-L-Moore/1730427952 Roger L. Moore

    Hey, this “lady” came looking for trouble and didn’t get near as much as she should have! 25 hrs!, she should have gotten 25 days!

    • BusPass

      For what?

      • Lilliput Little

        Public service.

        • BusPass

          “Public service” is a crime?

          • Difdi

            It is if you ask the NYPD.

  • Pauljpb2

    She should have kept her big mouth shut.

    • BusPass

      Yes, how dare she exercise her 1st Amendment rights in two different ways at the same time.

    • steveo

      Yeah,. just like all those jewish guys in the sewers of the Warsaw ghetto who were apposing the SS guards. They should have just gone quietly on the train to Treblinka.

  • Pauljpb2

    As Chris Rock famously said, when you are dealing with the police “just shut the fuck up”.

  • http://twitter.com/StanHalbert Stan Halbert

    It was not only a completely unlawful arrest, but it was apparently an attempt to destroy evidence of the unlawful arrest. I’m sure that some attorneys are salivating about suing the NYPD over this one, as well they should be.

    • http://facebook.com/dballing/ Derek Balling

      I’m not convinced it’s an unlawful arrest, although there was lots of misconduct surrounding it.

      “Stop and identify” laws — laws which require you to show ID if you have it to a law enforcement officer — have been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS, and NY has such a law on the books. Thus — legally — she was required to show ID to the LEO upon request. Failure to do so immediately put her in an actionable position.

      We can, perhaps, debate whether SCOTUS got it right on that precedent, but that IS the prevailing law of the land at this time.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        Please don’t misstate the law.

        You need to read Hiibel again. To use a stop and ID statute, the officer has to have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that she committed a crime. What crime was she suspected of? That requirement is in each and every SCOTUS decision on the issue, from Brown, to Prouse, to Hiibel.

        Until you can show that, she has absolutely no duty to ID herself.

        • http://facebook.com/dballing/ Derek Balling

          You’re correct, but it’s trivial for the cop to say that he had a suspicion of “conspiracy to commit OGA”, which under the circumstances would be a justifiable suspicion.

          Did what she did rise to the level of OGA? Not near as I can see, but it would be a reasonable, articulable suspicion.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            No, because any officer should know the elements of the offense, which include a physical force or action. Mistake of law on his part negates reasonable suspicion.

          • Barking Dog

            Suspicion of “conspiracy to commit OGA”???

            WTF is that? He thought she MIGHT be conspiring to interfere?

            Sounds like a thought crime to me

        • http://www.telescreen.org Vidiot

          Exactly. And, New York State’s stop-and-identify law — like most states’ — does not require one to produce physical government-issued identification. Identifying oneself orally with full name and address is sufficient.

          Moreover, citizen-police law in New York is more granular than just Terry stops and arrests — see the tests laid out in the appellate decision People v. De Bour. I am not a lawyer, but here’s something I wrote several years ago after researching the law:

          http://www.telescreen.org/2007/11/talking-to-the-.html

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I wouldn’t use DeBour, there are too many negative references when you check the citation, each of which would have to be read and analyzed (and which I’m not willing to do here). I agree with the general premise, but would chose other cases that have not been distinguished, called into doubt, etc. Plus, the federal cases cited are clear on the matter.

            That’s not to say DeBour is not good law, it very well may be–I’m just not going to spend the research time necessary to confirm that it is.

      • steveo

        Totally unlawful arrest. Not sure about NY,. but in FL,. the leo has to be in a lawful execution of a legal duty. This roadblock was neither lawful or lawfully executed. She couldn’t have obstructed them because what they were doing was illegal.

    • Charles Magus

      I wish that were so Stan, attorneys work for the same corrupt system that operates these criminal gangs that have become your new fascist police force. It has to be down to the people to work together to arrest and detain these thugs in uniform! People outnumber them a 1000 to 1, But all the public have to be on board with removing these thugs masquerading as police off the streets of America. You must do all you can to stop a police or Military State! That is when America will become a Jack-Boot Oppressor! If America falls, the entire world will fall! Then zionist Criminal Banksters will rule the world!! Check on this, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion! this old document reveals their 118 year old agenda for the world. It is NO Forgery!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jayjay.stacks.1 Jay Jay Stacks

    first off- these cops deal with ignorant people all day long. some of these people even want to harm them / kill them. They have to treat every situation as potentially life threatening.

    All the people crying “1st amendment” and all that– get your head straight! respect will get you respect – or else you’re looking for a fight. This lady, while within SOME of her rights, was a straight up bitch. She probably doesn’t even pay her taxes which would pay that cop’s salary.

    Stop harassing the cops (yes, as a black man, I said THAT)— they put their lives on the line so you don’t have to.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      A citizen does not have to give officers respect.

      The officer, on the other hand, does have to respect her constitutional rights.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750235201 Kieran Devine

        not just respect but comply with her rights.

      • Lefim

        Hmm, I like that.

    • BusPass

      lol…put their lives on the..HAHAHA…line.

      Sure.

      It’s far more dangerous to be confronted by cops than to be one.

      Ask the Hofstra University Student.

      Or maybe I misunderstood you. Were you doing a black thing or something?

      • Difdi

        Garbage collectors have several times the on-the-job injury and death rates that police officers do. Garbage collection is at least as necessary (and arguably more so) as law enforcement.

        And yet, if you suggest that because their job is so hard and dangerous and necessary, that they be excused from having to obey laws, people look at you like you’re crazy.

        And garbage collectors don’t swear oaths to uphold the law!

    • FUCKUPIG

      JJ,….now just put the pipe down BRO and walk to the refrigerator. (there you go) The cops,….yup even the black ones want to bust your head in. They have a major hard on for brown and black people. They are not YOUR friend. So cut the shit and start filming. If you pay attention, you just may learn something from this women. Her activism will, and has gone a long way. Don’t leave a minority women to fight these cowards by herself. She’s fighting for all MINORITIES !

    • Difdi

      Why should she (or anyone) respect an oathbreaker?

    • steveo

      Another one for jury duty

  • noob

    I feel that if there discussing sensitive information pertaining to there investigation having someone recording that conversation could obstruct there investigation by allowing that information to be shared publicly. This also isn’t photography its videography which isn’t covered in that consent decree. When he said back up you should of and everything that unfolded after you deserve. Learn from this because it could of been a lot worse.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      There is no expectation of privacy in public.

      If they needed to discuss sensitive information, then they can go to the police van and shut the doors.

      The officers were dead wrong.

      • Proud GrandPa

        If they needed to discuss sensitive information AND observe the cars AND be ready for combat at the location beside the cars, then they were acting reasonably. I can craft such an argument. Surely their union lawyers and city lawyers can too.
        .
        If you or I or the woman’s lawyer, however, could somehow prove that it was unimportant that the officers stay on the street and sidewalk, then she would win.
        .
        So what evidence is there on point? Look at the cones on the sidewalk. That means stay away. We cops own this space. And look at the presence of the police watching the cars. Just ponderables for you, counselor. Would you be prepare to show the cones and police presence and row of cars did not mean the police needed to remain on scene?
        .
        I would score points heavily in favor of the state on this issue.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          You still can’t prove the elements of the offense. What physical force or act did she complete? Speech doesn’t count, no matter how annoying.

          This won’t go to court, it’ll get dropped by the DA.

          And since the officers did not have PC for the arrest, they’ll lose too.

          Whether it was important for the officers to be on the sidewalk is not material either to her arrest or her 1983 case.

    • Guest

      You cops are such idiots. My god you act as if you own society. Put your gun in your mouth and pull the trigger please. You will do a greater good by doing this. Leave the police work to folks that will honor their oath to the constitution, ones that are there to help citizens and looking to teach lessons.

    • FUCKUPIG

      You cops are such idiots. My god you act as if you own society. Put
      your gun in your mouth and pull the trigger please. You will do a
      greater good by doing this. Leave the police work to folks that will
      honor their oath to the constitution, ones that are there to help
      citizens and not looking to teach lessons.

    • steveo

      Crap, if the DA can’t win a conviction with this group, maybe he should try getting a job at 7 eleven.

  • steveo

    To be obstructed,. first the leoss have to be in a lawful execution of a legal duty. Second,. let me see the operational plan for the police roadblock,. Oh,. you don’t have one,. you mean you are running an unlawful unconstitutional roadblock? So,. what you are saying is that it’s impossible for me to obstruct you,. because what you are doing is a completely unlawful execution of no legal duty at all.

    Oh,. sorry,. when the NYPD learned law they were sick that day.

  • http://twitter.com/eruptionchaser Mike Ross

    I’ve a few thoughts on this one, on both sides of the argument, but the bottom line is that I’m left with the strong impression that she went with the explicit intention of provoking the police into making an arrest, and it took a fair bit of provocation on her part before they cooperated.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Another thought for a plot for a detective show is that she worked in cahoots with a criminal gang to divert attention away from the cars while they removed evidence. One could write good fiction with that.
      .
      Just fiction… no evidence to believe she has a connection to the owners of the cars.
      .

    • Difdi

      None of her “provocations” violated any laws. Sure, she was annoying but…that’s not illegal. Sure she was a bit distracting, but that’s part of the job and if they can’t do the job, they should find an easier profession.

      If going out with the intent to act 100% lawfully and hope someone does something illegal so you can catch them at it makes you wrong, then entire police departments across the entire nation are wrong every day.

    • steveo

      Ok, we’ve identified at least 7 or 8 people for the DA’s jury. What? You are police officers or relatives of leos, man, that shoots our whole jury.

  • steveo

    This is the NYPD, by the way. Why are you arresting me? Because you’re a mutt. A What? You want a slap, keep it up. You’re going to slap me? Shut you’re fking mouth or I’ll slap it shut.

    • FUCKUPIG

      That cop called him a mutt because he’s RACIST ! Even the minority cops in NYC are RACIST due to the Stockholm syndrome effect. Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        That’s about the dumbest thing you’ve said so far.

        • FUCKUPIG

          I’ve watched enough videos and have heard enough stories of minority cops joining in on the bashing. Minority cops get caught up into this us against them mind set. Growing up, these same cops also experienced it, but now as a cop they perpetrate the same actions they experienced.

          You tell me, why did this cop call that kid a mutt ? A mutt is considered a mixed dog. That WHITE cop saw this Puerto Rican / Black Kid as a mixed throwaway mutt. A nothing in his eyes.

  • ihatestupidpeople

    Seems like she has to much time on her hands. These police are ou everyday risking their lives so that this idiot can walk freely on the road at night. Doing random car searches is the norm in any country – so how would she suggest that the cops do their searches? In fact why doesnt she join the police force and when she is searching a vechicle for dangerous items she can deal with some sob bitch who wants to film and ask stupid quesions. really – get a life.

    • Ernie Menard

      Random car searches are not the norm in the United States, random car searches are illegal. Really – get an education.

    • steveo

      I agree as long as they leave us white people alone.

    • Difdi

      Since when does just doing their jobs include breaking both the law and their sworn oaths?

      If you have to swear an oath to get a job, having to break that oath to carry out the orders of your superiors is a DAMN good indicator that you have been given illegal orders.

    • steveo

      Now I’m thinking that the SA/DA’s office has someone who goes through these blogs and tries to find out who these people are to send them a subpoena for jury duty.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.bordeaux.54 Michael Bordeaux