December 26th, 2013

Kansas Cops Bully Man into Arrest for Trying to Record Them (Updated III) 350

By Carlos Miller

A man was crossing a street with his camera on Christmas, apparently to record some police activity, when he was arrested for refusing to provide identification immediately upon demand.

The Topeka cops approached him as soon as he stepped onto the sidewalk, demanding his identification.

The man, Addison Mikkelson, asked if he needed to present his identification, considering he didn’t appear to have been committing a crime.

But the cops accused him of crossing the street against the crosswalk, which may or may not be true because the cop was referring to the signal after he had already crossed.

“It looks to me like that says ‘no crossing,'” one of the cops said, more than ten seconds after he had crossed, meaning the signal could have easily changed during that time.

Nevertheless, the man said he would provide his identification, but wanted to put his camera down first.

However, the pair of cops began crowding him in typical bully fashion until they arrested him.

“I don’t sit here and wait for you to give me ID when it’s convenient for you,” cop said.

I counted less than 15 seconds from the first time the man said he would provide his identification until they arrested him.

It was clear he was trying to cooperate. But it was also clear they were intent on arresting him from the onset, not because he crossed a barren street against a crosswalk, but because he wanted to document their activities.

The cops are named Schulz and C. Wilson. Call Chief Ronald Miller at 785-368-9551 and Deputy Chief Tony Kirk at 785-368-9427.

Call Mayor Larry Wolgast at 785-368-3895.

For more contacts and emails at the Topeka Police Department, click here.

Or post a comment on their Facebook page.

And to call the Topeka Chamber of Commerce, who might not take too kindly to their city officers unlawfully arresting teenagers participating in Constitutionally protected activities: 785-234-2644.

Addison Mikkelson, looking menacing in his disregard for crosswalks on empty streets.

Addison Mikkelson, looking menacing in his disregard for crosswalks on empty streets.

UPDATE: Jeff Gray and I spoke at length tonight with Mikkelson, who is a 17-year-old high school graduate planning on studying criminal justice in college, which is why he is interested in video recording cops.

He wants to be a private investigator, not a cop. Especially after his arrest.

However, he is not a cop hater. On Christmas Eve, he had a positive experience with an officer and even wrote a message to Topeka Police Chief Ronald Miller to commend the officer as well as an email to the officer himself, both which are posted below:

Dear Officer McCoy,

I would like to take the time to personally thank you for your professionalism the other day at the mall. You were very kind,calm, and very educational and I respect that, you’re the kind of police officer we should have in our community.

Thank you again for doing what you do, and keep up the good work! I’ll be looking forward to be seeing you again in the future.

P.S Merry Christmas to you and your family, be safe.

And to the chief, he wrote the following, from a contact form on the police department’s website:

I’m an activist in the community, a person who likes to take documentary of everything I find interesting. I feel the need to make this compliment to one of the Topeka police officers. It was on the 24th of December 2013 when I was in the West ridge mall, and I had come in contact with Officer McCoy and he was very educational, professional and very respectful to me. Shane McCoy is a very professional Officer who takes his duties of being a police officer very seriously..

Kevin Schultz

Sgt. Kevin Schultz when he’s not violating the rights of citizens.

Ot around 7:30 p.m. on Christmas Day, he drove by a bunch of cops surrounding a house, so he pulled over, parked his car and walked up to the house with his camera, standing on
the sidewalk as cops walked past him without saying a word.

“They were looking for somebody but I don’t think he was there,” Mikkelson said.

At one point, he overheard them saying they were all going to meet up at the convenience store down the block, so he walked down there to head them off. In the video, you can see police lights behind him.

Given that it was a holiday, there was hardly any traffic, so he crossed the street when he saw no cars coming and stepped out on the sidewalk on the other side, which is when he saw the two cops come storming at him demanding identification.

That was when he turned the camera on, capturing the two bully cops, Sergeant Kevin Schultz and C. Wilson, who were clearly way too immature to wear the badge, especially the way they mocked him on the drive to juvenile hall.

And they were clearly not representative of the rest of the Topeka Police Department from what Mikkelson told us.And they were very hypocritical.

For them being so meticulous about the pedestrian signal, they didn’t even bother using their turn signals as they drove him handcuffed in the back of the patrol card, laughing at him the way bullies do when they pick on someone younger and more powerless than them.

Sergeant Schultz from another era, but not as far removed as we would like to think

Sergeant Schultz from another era, but not as far removed as we would like to think

And they mocked him at the station while they booked him for Obstructing legal process or official duty.

But Mikkelson, who could easily be their boss one day, simply for the fact that he plans to obtain the education they seemed to have missed, has a very strong message for them.

“The biggest thing about being young is the cops think I’m going to be afraid of them,” he said. “I want them to know that I’m not going to be afraid.”

So I guess we should expect a younger HONORYOUROATH to emerge from Kansas in 2014.
UPDATE II: Mikkelson sent me a video from before his arrest when he walked into the Topeka Police Department with his camera requesting footage from a police officers’s helmet cam regarding an incident from a shopping mall where he was banned by a security guard, the same incident where he commended McCoy in the above messages.

The cop at the desk told him he would need a court order to obtain footage from the helmet cam, which may or may not be true as I have not researched Kansas public records laws, but I’m betting it’s not true. And I’m sure one of you guys will quickly come up with the actual law on this.

They also told him he was not allowed to video record in the station after he had told them he was working on a “documentary.” I advised him to just tell them he was working on a journalistic report because a documentary can be construed to mean commercial videography, which would require a license in a public building.

At 17, Mikkelson handles himself extremely professional and assertive and I hope it’s not too late to see if he is interested in changing career plans from criminal justice to journalism because we need more people like him in the industry.

Or as I’ve already told him in Facebook messages, to figure out a way to combine the two.


UPDATE III: PINAC Editor Jeff Gray called and recorded the following video.

Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • nrgins

    They were probably bored and needed someone to bully.

  • Daniel Wood

    I just called and asked about this situation. As soon as I mentioned that I was recording the conversation they hung up. Typical police ullshit.

    • ExCop-LawStudent

      Kansas is a one-party state. You don’t need to inform them that you are recording, so long as you consent, and so long as you are not located in a two-party state.

      • Jeff Mowery

        You are correct.

        • ExCop-LawStudent

          LOL, of course I’m correct.

          I’m always correct.

          I’m modest, too.

          • NoelArmourson

            Your correct modesty has been duly noted…

      • Amicus Curia

        Not true. Washington is a mutual party consent state, but the courts here have ruled no consent from a LEO is required, not even surreptitious recording. They have no expectation of privacy in this State. I’m unfamiliar with Kansas law.

        • ExCop-LawStudent

          So what does that have to do with Kansas? Or what I wrote?

          Since you’re unfamiliar with Kansas law.

          • psychokillers911

            You stated: “You don’t need to inform them that you are recording, so long as you
            consent, and so long as you are not located in a two-party state.”

            Amicus stated that in the 2 party state of Washington consent is not required if the other party is LE.

            So not all 2 party states require dual consent in 100% of all cases. There are exceptions. Such as Washington.

          • Jeff Ottens

            I believe in Kansas you do need to tell police they are being recorded.

        • Kevin Palomo

          I want to call but im from new jersey. what is the law for me state?

        • Mark Parsons

          The high courts ruled recently that it is not only a right of the people to film a public official in the performance of their duties but it is the duty of the citizens to do so. The courts went on to rule that it is a right protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. This ruling effective kills the consent rule you mentioned.

          Learn more about the US Constitution; the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers and more at

      • CEDUPZ

        correct lots of states are like that…cops make shit up, and get belligerent, if you don’t take the bait

      • steveo

        Sorry to disagree here, but nowhere in the US are you required to tell leos that you are recording per the 5th Amendment and the due process clause. Wiretapping, forget it , it’s dead, even in MA and Ill.when recording police. You might need to tell the government agent that you are recording a phone call, but even that I would try to argue that I need the recording for due process rights. Not alot of case law on recording and the 5th Amendment, wish there was more.

        • ExCop-LawStudent

          Both Mass. and Ill. require that the recording be done openly. Secretly recording is still a violation, and there is not any case law in either jurisdiction that states that secret recording has blanket approval. There are some cases that have allowed it as an exception, but that does not eliminate the statute.

          In those states, one recording secretly are doing so at their own risk.

  • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

    These guys are just as bad if not worse than the Brevard Game Over Task Force Agents that arrested me. I will be calling tomorrow.

  • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

    Actually i’m calling now and tomorrow.

  • Tony Loro

    Ok let the Topekaians know this is not OK.

    • elvis

      That is correct. It is KS, not OK.

      • Fotaugrafee

        All roughly the same, a bunch of uneducated hicks who don’t know or respect the laws/rights of their fellow citizens. :D

      • Ed McGuire


  • Gavin Seim 2014

    785-368-9200 ( seems to be the public dispatch number. You can ask for the police desk and they transfer you.

    Officer Darcy keeps hanging up. I call back trying to have a polite conversation and get some explanation.

    He just said if I keep calling he is going to FILE CHARGES against me.

    • Carlos_Miller

      Can you get that on audio?

      • Gavin Seim 2014

        A new guy answered the phone and did not try that line. I was not recording it. If you can get him he might try the same again though.

        — Gav

  • Happy_Tinfoil_Cat

    I’d love to see what the cops’ cameras showed. I bet he didn’t jaywalk. Especially fun listening to what the cops said just before they decided to assault him.

    • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

      Yes we need to do a public records request for the cop cam.

      • Addison

        They will tell you that it’s not public, you’ll have to go to court for it. That is what they told me. Some bulll shit!

        • Fotaugrafee

          You’ll learn in time young man, that just what they tell you doesn’t make it law. They could have been feeding you a line & you’re still a little green to counter quickly.

      • Taylor PINAC

        Im working on it Jeff

  • bobholderman

    Yea, Officer “Darcy” didn’t seem to please about being called. He said that he wouldn’t answer questions about policy and hung up.

  • Anonymous

    So, you’re going to complain about “being harassed” and then commit a crime by “harassing” them back via phone? That logic makes no sense.

    • Wandering_Bard

      Calling a readily available public information phone number in order to seek redress of grievances is far from harassment.

      • Amicus Curia

        Maybe…maybe not. If they won’t talk to you, send them a letter (return receipt requested) and have another reliable witness sign an affidavit they mailed it w/sufficient postage properly address and the content of the mail. They cannot make you talk to them, neither can they be forced to talk to you. LEO’s have no less rights than you do. If they stop/detain you, you may ask them to identify themselves. That’s it unless they arrest you, in which event you may expect them to answer why they are arresting you or what they’re charging you with. You may also ask why you’re being detained, if you are. You cannot force a dialogue on a LEO. However, once you sue them, you can force them to provide a sworn deposition. The lesson here is you won’t hit a home run unless you keep swinging. Talk is cheap. Learn how to represent yourself in court so you will be taken seriously by the thin blue line.

        • garyspuppy

          The court isn’t much help when it has it’s foot in the same boot as the police. It takes public outrage and voices joining together to make the message heard before anything really happens.

    • BC MotoGuy

      stop using your cop logic and put on the big boy freedom from tyranny pants.

    • MichaelP

      Demanding an explanation from a public employee is NOT harassment. They invite multiple calls by failing to explain policy or answer the questions of those that pay their salary. In the future….try not to be such a dumb ass.

    • Kevin Palomo

      it depends on each individual. I will call, but I wont harass them.

    • Difdi

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
      prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
      speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
      assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      Do those words sound familiar at all to you, do they ring any bells? It’s kinda hard to petition for the redress of grievances if the government hangs up on you. There’s always the chance they just have cheap phone lines anyway, so you call again.

      Expecting someone to obey the law and not break his sworn oath is not harassment, even if you have to redial a couple dozen times for him to remember his duty.

    • Fotaugrafee

      ^^^Bootlicker…or cop, take your pick “Anonymous”.

  • Ron

    Clearly they have too many cops working for them and not enough crime to solve. The cops appear to be bored thugs, probably with too much steroids in the blood, just itching for a dust up.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      I lived in Topeka for most of my adult life. More than 30 unsolved murders in the past 30 years or so, but God help you if you jaywalk or turn your radio up too loud… Now I live in Alamogordo, a place that makes the TPD look like kindergartners…. Cops here will beat your ass for asking “why?”….

  • BusPass

    One step closer to ridding the world of the scourge of people walking across the street.

    Hey old man…which one of them was the good cop.

  • Sammie

    It looks like the dead of night with no traffic on the road anyway – who cares if he walked across a “no walk” sign. Have the cops really got nothing better to do? Why are we paying these thugs to patrol a empty road?

    • CEDUPZ

      Your LIFE is controlled by a friggin LIGHT mounted on a pole!!! This really special, and there are assholes to ENFORCE the LIGHT!!!! humanity is falling fast!

      • Fotaugrafee

        And sooner than later, they will do it from surplus military SWAT vehicles, shooting you with a 50-caliber shell when you DO cross that street illegally! :o

        • James

          Well, at that point crossing the road against the light would in fact be deadly.

  • FtP

    Who knew crossing the street when the light was green would have two cops there within 30 seconds? Imagine the response if he had broken the law!

    • James

      3 days, minimum.

  • Guest

    I’d like to submit a public records request for the footage captured by the cop’s camera.

  • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

    C.Wilson is the thug who went hands on first.

    • Amicus Curia

      Never forget, cops are not only allowed to lie to suspects, but encouraged to do so.

      • Bob_Striffler

        They’re allowed and encouraged to lie only for investigative purposes not to lie or misrepresent Material Fact or the Law itself They’re being trained supervised and disciplined to do just that by systematic abuse of process left unchecked! Americans are not the most free, they’re the most dumb to allow this! Americans are being dumbed down by America’s Media!

        • G

          “They’re allowed and encouraged to lie only for investigative purposes not to lie or misrepresent Material Fact or the Law itself'”

          It seems that statement you made is not taught to the cops at academey training and I would like to see you tell that to the cops and see what kind of reaction you get from them

  • Bob_Striffler

    Wow I didn’t know Kansas had a stop and identify law? Even after the US Supreme court ruing of Hibel first they would need one at the state level, of course it would have to pass constitutional muster which so far hasn’t happened (except with Hibel which has some serious clauses in it) and second I’m pretty sure he needed to be under reasonable suspicion of a “Crime” not civil infraction (Jaywalking) for an investigative detention or more importantly probable cause to arrest! In other words since it was a civil infraction it would have to be the least invasive of law enforcement encounters! Barely a step above a consensual encounter! Here in Florida you only have to provide your name by law, not your ID, after your arrested not before and it has to be a legal arrest. You see hear in America, EX-COP, we don’t need unaccountable Nazis stopping us demanding to see our papers! And of course I could cite the Controlling case law on the subject ex-cop! If I were arrested like that in Florida it would damn sure be an illegal arrest and a crime with imprisonment as the penalty under federal law as well as no immunity for a civil rights claim AKA 1983 claim! Really what the cops did here was create a crime which is entrapment also in violation of Florida controlling case law which I could cite EX-Cop! I’m sure a real attorney would agree that the more legal precedent avenues you attack these false arrests from the better chance you’ll beat your charges! Except Florida has the systematic Rubberstamping Deliberate Judicial Error problem so well described in the US Supreme Ct. Ruling of Leon! (On top of that Florida has a Malicious Prosecution Problem all combined with Judicial Canon Violations and Ineffective council violations) And these courts are Rubber Stamps for the police! It’s kind of funny how in Leon the Supremes said that there should be oversight and discipline against Judges and courthouses that participate in this…yet they didn’t explain how and nothing has ever been done! The ruling of Leon was about probable cause in a case that probable cause was actually sought to overturn the conviction of a real underlying criminal offense! This here is Jaywalking with no underlying criminal charge at all that will probably be Rubber stamped! It would be here in Florida so as to protect these crooked cops who do these wicked Christmas deeds! That’s why that Jerk-off prosecutor in Brevard County, in regards to Jeff’s false arrest falsely claimed that there was probable cause to arrest for a “Constitutionally Protected Right and activity!” It must have been rubberstamped by a Judge here! Apparently in that prosecutor’s mind here in the 18th Judicial Circuit there is no such thing as a False Arrest! That ruling in Leon regarding oversight of Rubberstamping Judges would probably be handled by the Justice Department in Washington’s Civil Rights Criminal Division if there were any meaningful checks and balances left against Immune self-regulated, power-drunk, prosecutors, cops and Judges!

    • ExCop-LawStudent

      Have you always been an idiot, or is this something that happened recently?

      • Bob_Striffler

        Thanx for your expected input….you’re true blue, aren’t you!

    • bacchys

      There’s no law in Kansas requiring a citizen to carry an ID save in special circumstances (i.e.: operating a motor vehicle, concealed carry), so I don’t see how they could have a law requiring one to produce it on demand in any circumstance.

      • Bob_Striffler

        In Florida the only law that sort of says you have to have an ID is when operating a motor vehicle. However if you do not produce an ID even while operating a motor vehicle you have to give correct name and thumbprint the ticket! It is not an arrest able offense and if you show it in court there are no fines or court costs to be imposed!

        • steveo

          Actually in FL, the leo can place you under arrest even for a non-moving traffic violation, county ordinance or municipal ordinance, it’s rarely done but there have been lots of homeless guys arrested for littering, pedestrian violations, smoking in public parks and using electricity at public parks that is available for public use. The leos get around this by telling the judge that the subject didn’t have “reliable” ID, so they weren’t able to write a proper citation. Most of these arrests are to “intimidate” the homeless into moving to Texas.

          The arrests in my county got so bad (most for trespass after warning) that the judges were releasing the homeless people the next day without any fines and time served. But the leos kept bringing them in anyway.

          • bacchys

            The “reliable ID” claim is garbage, too. As there’s no requirement to carry an ID, generally speaking, not having one can’t be sufficient to make an arrest.

            But that’s not going to stop until the judges start hammering the police for doing so, and they aren’t likely to do that. Releasing people after they’ve been arrested and hauled down to the PD for processing- even if they don’t spend a minute in jail- isn’t a solution to this lawless behaviour.

          • Michelle Ann Hubbard-Griffin

            If they do not want to answer questions, maybe they should have thought twice before arresting the young man, because they think they can get away with treating people anyway they want,and trump up charges!! Second year CJ.

          • bacchys

            They think they can get away with it because they do. All the time. The *worst* thing that usually happens, from their perspective, is the charges get thrown out. That doesn’t cause them any pain at all.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Just more ignorance & cluelessness from the LEO’s, that all. Big surprise…nothing to see here.

    • Jeff Ottens

      I believe Kansas requires you to only identify yourself verbally with a name and date of birth. I am looking for the ruling, but I do know it was a KS Supreme Court decision. It may also require address too, but I haven’t found the decision to verify that. Either way I doubt officers will offer to take your word for it

      • scaredofpandas

        That’s just a standard Terry stop requirement. Kansas doesn’t have any special rules and doesn’t have a “stop and identify” statute. It’s mentioned briefly in State v. Smith from 2008.

    • Kevin Palomo

      thanks for this amazing info!

      • Bob_Striffler

        Glad you liked it except I should have elaborated further on Kansas not having a Stop and identify statute. they do except it goes beyond the scope of what hibel allowed and so the legislature kept it on the books without rewriting it and the legislature also left it with out legislated action, arrest or punishment? I can’t figure that one out? But even if they tried to change the charge on that kid to this statute 1 it’s not arrest-able or it would say so and 2 it still requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and Jaywalking is neither a felony or misdemeanor? It’s an infraction! America would be hard pressed to justify this crap they did to this kid especially when the kid on tape say here I’ll give you my ID I have to put my camera down first! Then they tackle him! If they still try to make the obstruction stick at the top of the webpage I’ve posted the controlling case law that states they can’t charge the kid with that either! It was a false arrest! If it wasn’t I wouldn’t be able to cite all this law!

    • Difdi

      Tl;dr. You might consider using a recent invention known as paragraphs.

      • ExCop-LawStudent

        Difdi, don’t bother. He’s a full-fledged whackjob.

        • steveo

          Maybe not a whackjob, but a new participant in this blog who hasn’t read all the other posts since 2007. Anyone who hasn’t read everything here since 2007, is probably mis-informed. Especially about Florida law. Because now it’s becoming a broken record.

          • ExCop-LawStudent

            Yeah, he’s a whackjob. Look at his criminal history. He makes bogus claims of beating 41 charges, but doesn’t talk about all the deferred adjudication and guilty findings.

  • Amicus Curia

    It’s a pretty blatant example of police abusing their authority. Unfortunately, it’s all too common. Try to keep a safe distance from LEO’s in case you meet one with too little impulse control like here. This video is only the beginning of what should be the entire story, including going to court and presenting this evidence of abuse of authority. The officer dissembled about not giving sufficient time for the photographer to present his ID. The officer created a phony pretext for demanding it which translates you have to provide your name when asked, not necessarily have ID since the photographer didn’t appear to be driving. This LEO deliberately escalated a confrontation to potentially violent proportions, revealing very poor training/discipline. Again, keep your distance to protect your space from sudden assaults by a cop like this one.

    • Bob_Striffler

      Amicus Curia, unfortunately right on this site there was coverage of a Judge who refused to look at a video as evidence of material fact. He should have been removed from the bench! No punishment and this self-proclaimed immunity only perpetuates this kind of outright “Officially Sanctioned Oppression!” God help citizens if EX-Cop Law Student ever sits on a bench or prosecutes cases!

      • Difdi

        The problem there wasn’t the judge. The problem is that the court system is so out of touch with reality (not just society, but physical reality) that if no living individual gets up on the stand and testifies that there is a video and it is accurate, then the court must pretend it does not exist.

        The rule that requires this predates the invention of electronics, and originates in a time when eyewitnesses were the most reliable form of evidence. The idea that a machine might be capable of creating an infallible record without direct human intervention was science fiction at the time. The rule of evidence that covers things like security camera recordings has not been updated to reflect technological changes in over 200 years.

        If the judge had allowed the video as evidence, he’d have been punished by the courts for violating the rules. He might even have wound up in prison for doing so. Every word of his ruling would certainly have been reversed on appeal.

        • ExCop-LawStudent

          Female judge.

          Otherwise you are right on point.

      • Raylan Givens

        Here’s an idea that should keep you preoccupied for a while Bob.
        Try researching Case Law on being an asshole in a no asshole zone and report
        back to us with your findings and analysis.

  • William Skrainski

    Fucking Jaywalkers

    • Gma

      lmao!! Scum of the earth them damn Jaywalkers!

  • Alma Lovell

    I like the part of the video where the good cops intervened and stopped the false arrest.

    • Ron

      … oh wait.

    • Bob_Striffler

      The article stated that he was taken to the police station and on the way verbally abused? Once your cuffed and in custody any more than briefly you’re seized/arrested. If he was released at the station it was still a false arrest. However if he was released it does show that at least they acknowledged the wrongness! What I can’t stand is how now-a-days the police feel the right to body slam all potential citizen violators! Where is the “Bear Jew” with his bat, from Inglorious Bastards when you need him! Remember the Nazi’s wouldn’t stop their abuse either and were also supported by a very bad regime who always made threats of “color of law” retaliation against those who stood against them! (Also Officially Sanctioned)

  • Jim talbot

    I hope the victim sues and wins big time! Maybe when enough lawsuits come up, Maybe something will change. But until people start being proactive and fight back Legally speaking and Suing These Rogue cops, nothing will ever change. Make sure when you record use a smart phone with an app called Bambuser…. This way if a Rogue Cop decides to Illegally Steal your phone like a common thief you can upload the evidence at the same time you are recording. Thus the evidence wont be destroyed! Also make sure you have a Printed Copy of your states Laws when it comes to Filming or recording police. This way if you are in the right you will have Tangible proof! Esp if you end up suing!

    • bacchys

      If he sues, he’s not going to “win big time.” He’d be lucky to get a dollar and an apology from the janitor at the department.

      • Jim talbot

        you may be right, however it would be nice if he could or did win big..

        • Jamesdiamond

          What good is suing doing when almost everyone settles out of court?

          • Difdi

            What good is suing when the taxpayers pay the bills and the guilty get off without owing a penny? If the person suing the police lives in the same town, they wind up paying themselves a (small) part of the judgment!

        • OhSnapDJB

          All at the expense of the tax payer! Gotta love dumb ass cops: we pay their salaries AND pay when their dumb asses fuck up! Cops are a fucking WORTHLESS, EXPENSIVE, AND UNNECESSARY tax payer burden.

          • Chuck Estes

            BAD cops are the “…WORTHLESS, EXPENSIVE, AND UNNECESSARY tax payer burden.” “Counter-productive liability”, could be added to the list, then. I am a supporter of good LEO’s, which are still in the majority. A shrinking majority, but still a majority.

    • Bob_Striffler

      Jim where I live the attorneys just don’t sue the police except in only the most publicized of cases. You can’t find an Attorney in any phone book around here that advertises in Civil Rights AKA the Bill of Rights! This is the 18th Judicial Circuit of Florida! I recently travelled across the State to see family and looked at all the phonebooks there in the Tampa St. Pete area which is enormous and there was only one Attorney advertised there in Civil Rights! This fact alone should be national news! This disease is spreading! Where I live there are no lawsuits as check and balance and if you’ve read of Jeff’s Brevard encounter you’ll see that internal affairs complaints result in no response what-so-ever! The officer who arrested Jeff had 24 complaints of excessive force all closed and the 25th was on Jeff’s recording! People watch cop and lawyer shows and somehow still believe the system is represented by what they watch in TV land…not you personally Americans in General! In reality this is Institutional officially sanctioned oppressive corruption! It’s fascism at it’s height!

  • Carlos_Miller

    I posted an update

  • sfmc98

    Listen at 1:57. Even though he knows hes being recorded you can hear the other cop say “You screwed up my car stop. I was waiting for him to drive because he has no DL.”

    He admits they were looking for an excuse to screw with him. Brazen.

  • jeffphoto

    Any PINAC readers in Topeka need to go to that intersection and time out how long the green light lasts and how long the walk light remains on. The light doesn’t turn green for the other direction of travel until 32 seconds into the video which means it has to be at much longer before that before he started into the crosswalk. Depending on the timing of the lights in the intersection the video could clear this guy and help his potential lawsuit.

    • Pat Lane

      That point is pretty much moot unless they are going to do it on that day of the week and that time of day. I think the larger point is, assume they were right and look at their actions after that.

      Having absolutely no patience with a young person who they have no reason to believe is a threat, and is merely guilty of possibly crossing against the light on a day with no traffic, is the problem. He said “I’ll give you my ID.” He’s carrying a huge camera on a tripod, he wasn’t going anywhere. There’s no reason why they couldn’t wait. And by the way, not every 17 year old has ID, so slow down. If I was 17 and just walking around my neighborhood, I might not have it with me.

      But anyway, their heightened level of aggression is uncalled for. If this was some guy who they’d witness punch his girlfriend, fine, be a little agressive. But this kid was not a threat. What are they so afraid of?

    • Bob_Striffler

      First if you notice on the video the cop approaches the man filming, then asks him for his ID, then goes to look and see if the light is in “don’t walk” mode! Probable cause after the fact? Second if the officer was charging him for crossing the street as proclaimed on the video, can it be possible that “Law enforcement” is saying that committing a civil infraction in the proximity of another traffic stop is somehow also the violation of the Un-Constitutionally Vague criminal infraction of resist, obstruct or oppose? Then if there is a traffic stop and someone nearby makes a wrong turn for example they too can be charged with the criminal offense of resist obstruct or oppose rather than just a civil infraction! It’s unlawfully stacking charges! It’s unarguably “Manufacturing Crime” also which is entrapment and there is no immunity for the cops against a 1983 claim for blatant entrapment like this! See the legal points here? Just ask EX-COP he’d understand and be more than willing to add his opinion!.

    • Derek Sneden

      The light operates on sensor loops in the pavement so the time varies depending on whether or not a car is stopped at the light.

  • ray brown

    The Chief is definitely going to apologize for this. For one thing there was no need to escalate the situation. I’m pretty sure it’s because he was filming.

  • Pat Lane

    Apparently he got kicked out of the police department too

    • Bob_Striffler

      Some body tell the chief that I gave him permission to film in that police station and my permission supersedes the chief’s because I’ve got the law backing me up and he has no law backing him up! If these police don’t like the laws of this country they should be removed from their positions and take more suitable jobs like the cleaning of stables! This government seems to forget that every citizenry has had its breaking point throughout history!

      • kraz

        Part of the problem is that the cops think the police stations, the side walks and even our towns actually belong to them. Over and over I hear police on camera saying to “get off my sidewalk” or something similar. When we enter the police station while filming I would be willing to bet they actually believe we’re on their property when in fact it’s the other way around. We are letting them use OUR property to do their job and make a living.

  • Carlos_Miller

    I just updated the story with a new video and info.

  • Bob_Striffler

    Identically written laws to that one like Florida’s Resist obstruct or oppose w/o violence have been declared by other state Supreme Courts, Federal Courts and Federal District Court of appeals as Un-Constitutionally Vague under Kolender! They were rewritten in accordance of the Kolender Ruling. “Kolender States, “a law can’t be written that an average person cannot read the law and understand what conduct is prohibited” These very educated Higher Court Judges ruled that they couldn’t understand by “resist, obstruct or oppose” what conduct was prohibited. So how could a mere citizen! This is where Kolender also covers that these laws would be “used against groups deemed to meet their displeasure!” Kolender like Papachristo v Jacksonville and others also discuss Constitutionally Protected Activities and the need that laws are not supposed to be written and enforced in Overbreadth so as citizens would not fear participating in Constitutionally Protected Activities! Of course this is how these laws are being used! Unfortunattely some of these challenges to laws like this are found constitutional by some states regardless of the Kolender Ruling. One can safely assume these are courts that want the right to use these kind of catch-all laws, kind of like a mob or gang very organized…Kind of like RICO! It’s locking people up at will not for violations of a real law! And every scumbag officer of the court knows this!

    • steveo

      You’ve reached the blog where the comm-enters, authors and editors are experts in 843.02 because we’ve all be arrested and charged with this offense. Me, once, Carlos, three, Jeff Gray, I think two and so far we’re 6-0. Carlos is the only photographer I know in FL who was charged with 843.02 (obstruction or resisting W/O violence) who went to trial (twice). Everyone else has had their charges either dropped or not filed at all by the State Attorney.

      I think the system above the leos, the public defenders, SA’s and the judges look at this law as a necessary evil, so that the leos can maintain order on the street, but if the leos abuse the law which is evident every single day, the judges usually recognize it real quick.

  • ray brown

    I think the officer was caught off guard when the kid asked what he had done “wrong” The officer had to quickly resort to MSU, “make something up” and then became exasperated because his initial plan to simply harass the kid had blown up on his face and both parties had recorded the situation and the police camera may or may not show jaywalking. This shows that police haven’t got accustomed to constant POV camera monitoring and still act impulsively.

    • steveo

      When the officer asks for your ID, it should go something like this:

      1) you got some ID?
      2) My name’s Bill Photographer.
      3) Ok, Bill, you got some ID?
      4) Yeah, I just gave it to you.
      5) No I mean I need your DL or something.
      6) I’m I required to carry that with me when I’m not driving? Are you lawfully detaining me or am I free to go?
      7) No, you’re not free to go
      8) Ok, could I ask what I’m being detained for?

      :You get the picture. the detainee has satisfied Hibell which is only really applicable in Nevada, but a good idea to use in every state, since it’s a SCOTUS ruling. He isn’t required to carry government ID and knows it and in most jurisdictions it’s policy for the leos to inform the citizen of the reason for his detention. If he wants to write you a citation, you can assist him with the rest of the information, if that’s his intent. Simple, but under no circumstance should you turn of the recording device.

  • ray brown

    Fiddle Fingers will also have to explain why he shut the camera off.

  • ray brown

    Was the kid charged with jaywalking, the original “offense”?

    • Jeff Ottens

      No. He was charged with obstruction – reason: not producing ID upon request.

      • Difdi

        Kansas IS a stop and identify state, but the law is satisfied with name, address and an explanation of what the suspected person is doing. Pedestrians are not required to possess or display an ID card under the Kansas stop and identify law.

        • Rusty Shackleford

          Heck,,, all you have to do is say “No habla”…. problem solved…

      • steveo

        Every state requires a RAS when detaining a citizen regardless of their stop and identify law. Otherwise, they could just set up a sidewalk block and demand ID from all passerbys, to check for warrants. Don’t put it past them. This officer’s RAS was related to jaywalking which was fairly weak and probably wouldn’t hold up with a proper legal argument and motion. Plus the gentleman was complying by telling the leo that he was producing the ID. There is nothing in the law that says that the ID has to be produced in 20 seconds.

  • Sanford Leavy

    Topeka PD public information officer/spokesperson:

    Kristen Veverka
    Public Relations Specialist/Spokesperson

  • Sanford Leavy

    here are some more contacts for the Topeka PD:

  • Doug Tankersley

    A bully teaches America’s kids that it is okay to bully. And we wonder why some kids feel they have to resort to mass murder and suicide as the best course of action. What do you expect when America’s police provide our finest “bully” examples.


      I agree. It may get their attention when the suicidal ones who are bullied by the police begin to shoot up police stations instead of schools.

  • Fascist Slayer

    Ha!! Ha!! LOL.. What won’t Fascist Amerika do to imprison and incarcerate its
    citizens. I’m guessing the largest prison population on earth just isn’t

    Too bad this kid wasn’t in Moscow, Russia from what I hear it’s a great place these
    days for Americans seeking freedom as well as prisoners receiving pardons.


  • Fascist Slayer

    Hey America just a quick FYI, I think that slogan that you all like to chant,
    “America Strong” doesn’t really mean what you all think it’s

  • Fascist Slayer



    The great Vladimir Putin of Russia just made a statement saying he’s “envious
    of America and of Obama”, because, “they can arrest and imprison American
    citizens just for walking across a street and get away with it”. The
    Russian President concluded his statement by saying “America Strong”.

    • Bob_Striffler

      You serious or joking? Can you send a link to story! I’ll move to Russia to hang with my hero Snowden!

      • Fascist Slayer

        LOL.. I was actually being as sarcastic as possible. What actually happened was Vladimir Putin did an annual press conference with a Q&A session for Russian journalist several days ago and one of the journalist asked Putin what he thought about Obama and NSA spying and Putin said, “I actually envy Obama, because he can spy and get away with it”. Then several days later, American mainstream media, specifically CBS, ran a story specifically stating that Putin was defending Obama and the NSA, due to that quote, when the fact of the matter is the comment that Putin made was a joke in
        the room, which got a huge laugh, and was a matter of fact a slap in Obama’s
        face and was specifically an INDICTMENT, it was also a tongue and cheek way of saying that the American people are stupid enough to let Obama get away with it. The comment was in no way, shape or form an endorsement as the CBS story was trying to claim. In addition the story also went on to claim that Putin defended espionage when in fact what Putin did was compare espionage to prostitution. I guess in the eyes of CBS being called an old Wh0re is a compliment. It’s one thing to know that U.S. media spoons out propaganda, but for me it was actually scary to see such bold face lies being told, it made me feel really sorry for the American people, it actually broke my heart. So anyway I just did a spoof comment about the CBS story.

        God Bless Russia!! God Bless Russian Sovereignty, shall it reign FOREVER!! RUSSIA STRONG!!

        God Bless the Mighty Hammer and Sickle that slaughters Fascist beneath its conquering feet. ☭


          Isn’t this the same country who imprisoned Russian Pussy girls for outing Putin as a queer in a song?

          • Fascist Slayer

            LOL.. Contrary to what your Fascist propaganda media has informed you, had Pussy Riot been running around New York City and doing the things that they were doing in Moscow, Michael Bloomberg and Ray Kelly would have come out publicly and labeled them as public terrorist enemy number 1 and they would have faced 50 years in prison as opposed to the 2 years they got in Russia, which by the way Russia just granted amnesty to Pussy Riot along with 30,000 other prisoners. Meanwhile the U.S has the largest prison population on earth, there are more men in U.S. prisons, jails, on parole and or on probation than there were enslaved in 1850, and while your Fascist nation stands on the world stage and proclaims to be a noble bastion of freedom and a Paragon of liberty, when was the last time anyone was granted amnesty? Humm..oh yea, yes.. your President did pardon a Turkey last Thanksgiving.. Why how noble of you, what a noble country. Ha!! Ha!! LOL.. I’ve never in my life seen such a free country so insanely obsessed with imprisoning and incarcerating its
            own citizens and from the looks of this news story you can’t even walk across a street without being jailed, add that to the millions and millions of people in just NYC alone who are stopped, slammed up against a well, berated, searched and frisked just for walking down a street or being outside their home. You should go and visit Moscow and Red Square where you can FREELY walk around without worry of the same fate.

            RUSSIA STRONG!!!
            Привет и благословения мои русские братья! Спасибо
            президенту России Владимиру Путину для защиты американского героя, Эдварда Snowden!

  • BusPass

    Here is the Facebook page for Officer Melissa Miller featured in the second video.
    She’s taking messages.

    FYI, her last name is the same as the chief of police…just speculating.

    • Ron

      That didnt take long. The Facebook page is gone.

      • BusPass

        I’m still able to see it.

        Maybe she started blocking people?

    • inquisitor

      Her body language oozes of someone who feels their job is to say “No” and “You can’t do that.” It would not surprise me if she was related to the chief. She has those airs about her.

  • io-io
    • io-io

      Apparently there is an exemption for dash cam videos, which I would expect to include officer cameras as well. The article is about OK, but lower it walks through states with similar exemptions.

      • io-io

        There is a exemption. There is also a subsection that indicates multiple requests are harassment.

        • Jefft90

          I think K.S.A. 45-220 provides a duty to access public records in the above formats. So unless there is a provision regarding content or nature of the info, there may be a duty to allow access to such records, viewing or listening, and then in some cases copy the materials.

          Also the OK exemption only applies to the Highway Patrol, all other agencies have to comply with FOI on cameras.

  • Scott Wilson

    Christmas? Seriously?

    These things will continue to happen until enough people have had enough and stop it by any means necessary.

    So sad, how far we’ve sunk from our former glory as a free country.

    • Bob_Striffler

      Amen to that!

  • Raylan Givens

    They were right – It’s a violation of law.

    8-1532. Pedestrians; obedience to official traffic-control devices required.

    (Pedestrian obedience to official traffic control)

    (a) A pedestrian shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control
    device specifically applicable to such pedestrian, unless otherwise directed by
    a police officer.

    Here’s a tip for you guys that play the I.D. game with law enforcement.

    Unless you are operating a motor vehicle, you do not have to provide a document for
    Identification purposes. As the law states, when operating a vehicle you must
    present a driver’s license upon demand of a law enforcement officer.

    It’s doesn’t say you must refuse or it must be presented within a “reasonable amount time” to avoid being arrested for the offense. Most laws use the word “failure to identify” not refusal. Even though this was a cheap pinch, the officer made a lawful arrest here.

    Also, never allow them to assume or imply that you have a physical I.D. on your person. Had this guy not implied he had an I.D. on his person, this arrest would have never occurred.

    Remember this…… The same rule applies in reverse. Here’s a tip for when on foot in such situations with short tempered cops such as this moron. First, you must know that you only have to give your name, address and date of birth and nothing more. As with most police encounters the chances are favorable that it’s being recorded in one fashion or the other either by you, or the officer himself and/or other laws enforcement officials that may be

    Second, keep an eye on the officer’s hands. If he doesn’t have a note pad and pen in hand
    when he requests the information, at that time, make it clear you don’t have an
    I.D. with you. State your name, address and date of birth for the record. Only do this once and do not repeat it or spell your name for anyone. Make sure you speak clearly the first time and it’s captured on the audio recording.

    I have done this on several occasions and even added my SS# to the mix. This only adds more confusion to the officer that wasn’t prepared to accept the information he was requesting in the first place because he was already under the assumption that I had an I.D. on my person.

    Once this is done, you have met the requirements of the law. It’s not your responsibility to be sure the officer that is requesting