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

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

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.

About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.
  • 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.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ 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.

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

          LOL, of course I’m correct.

          I’m always correct.

          I’m modest, too.

          • http://dailygrackle.wordpress.com 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.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ 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.

          • http://www.patriotprojectinc.com/ 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

          http://www.MarkParsons.us

      • 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.

        http://flliberty.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/due-process-right-to-record.pdf

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ 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

    https://www.facebook.com/cityoftopeka?ws&nr

    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

        LOL
        Cute

  • 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

  • http://callmegav.com/ G Seim – callmegav.com

    785-368-9200 (http://www.topeka.org/tpd/contacts.shtml) 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. I just called back again.

    • Carlos_Miller

      Can you get that on audio?

      • http://callmegav.com/ G Seim – callmegav.com

        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

  • 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.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

        • 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?”….

  • StreyDawg

    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. K.Shultz is the thug who lied about the cross walk.

    • Amicus Curia

      Never forget, cops are not only allowed to lie to suspects, but encouraged to do so.
      -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

      • 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!

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ 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.

    • http://www.patriotprojectinc.com/ 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.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ 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.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ 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.
    -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

    • 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.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ 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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPcZyGr5-Ls

    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.
        Edit: Just realized I posted the wrong video but this one works.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC2Ndzy_oPc

  • 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”?

    • http://www.patriotprojectinc.com/ 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
    785-368-9438
    kveverka@topeka.org

  • Sanford Leavy

    here are some more contacts for the Topeka PD:

    http://www.topeka.org/tpd/contacts.shtml

  • 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.

    • DONALD BREWER

      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
    enough.

    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.

    RUSSIA STRONG!!!

  • 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 means.

  • Fascist Slayer

    URGENT BREAKING NEWS!!! BREAKING NEWS!!

    THIS JUST INTO THE NEWS DESK!!

    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. ☭

        • DONALD BREWER

          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 wall, 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. Oh yea and while you’re there feel free to drop by one of Moscow’s many public Gay Bar’s, the drinks are great, the music so much fun, the drag shows are awesome and the Russian men are HOT.

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

  • StreyDawg

    Here is the Facebook page for Officer Melissa Miller featured in the second video.

    https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000199670124
    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.

      • StreyDawg

        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.

      http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/okla-keeps-trooper-dash-cam-videos-under-wraps

      • io-io

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

        http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_45/Article_2/45-219.html

        • 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
    nearby.

    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 the information be prepared to write it down or remember it in its entirety. If you are recording, you have the evidence.If they’re recording as well, they will have the same evidence.

    Bottom line is you were asked to identify yourself and provided all the identifying information required by law. Period. The law doesn’t state you must speak very slowly, give only one part of the identifying information at a time, or in any special order, ask him to write it down or wait for him to prepare himself or repeat it until the officer gets it.

    Any arrest for not providing the information after that point would clearly be unlawful. Even more so if the officer is recording the encounter and isn’t smart enough to review the tape to get the information you provided to them. As a former police officer, I have done this every chance possible when approached and asked for “I.D.”. After verbally giving them the information I refuse to answer any questions. They will usually understand pretty quickly they are at an impasse with me and don’t have total control over the situation any longer. When this happens the attitude usually changes for the better. The reason it does is because they’re thinking how can they explain to a supervisor, judge, DA or jury they arrested you because they were not prepared to accept the requested information that you provided.

    As they always say… “If you’re not prepared for the answer to your question, then don’t ask”.

    • Bob_Striffler

      Is that a state law above or a municipal ordinance. Is it a criminal violation or a civil infraction? Like speeding or wrong turn? As far as having to give your name address and birthday have you read the controlling case law on the right to remain silent handed down by the superior courts!? You state that this was clearly a lawful arrest. Yet you cite no real authority of law either Court ruling or statute that says it’s a crime not to show your Id which he tried to give! Then the officer shouted I don’t have to wait while you put your camera down! He should apparently drop and break his camera on demand! Further I’d like to know the Jury instructions on the lessor of two evils defense. Which would pose to the jury, “would you drop and break your camera on the demand of a dimwitted cop?” I think they would find him not guilty! I think you should expound upon you the authoritive bodies of law that backs up what you just explained here as law? Your a police officer aren’t you?

      • Raylan Givens

        Believe me here… I am not defending the cop’s actions. Only stating it was lawful. Stupid yes, but otherwise lawful. The crime of crossing the street etc. – gave him RAS to stop and detain him. Being a dink and not waiting for him to put
        the camera down to give him his I.D. is at the officer’s discretion. As unfortunate as it may be, the use discretion can also be used to make some unstable cops proud of being assholes. Unfortunate but true.

    • dravo1

      Did the kid enter the crosswalk AFTER the signal went red or was he already walking across when it went red? I suspect the cop tried to claim it was illegal to be walking in the crosswalk if the light turns red. Not so.

      • Raylan Givens

        I have worked with idiots like this in the past. Based on the cops initial attitude when he approached him, you could tell he was looking for “any reason” to make things difficult for him. I didn’t see any video footage of him walking across the street, so I can’t comment on that. But, this was clearly a pretextual stop, which is not illegal. The truth is If a cop doesn’t like someone (because they were filming them earlier) and wants to stop them just to be an asshole, all they can. The only thing they need is RAS for any other infraction. In other words, the cop was really stopping him for filming them, but since he had RAS to stop him for the alleged offense, it’s legal.

        This is why you guys need to be more aware of your surroundings
        when dealing with zeros such as this guy. This case will go away, as any
        smart person or defense attorney will bring up (past practice) of the
        individual officer. For example, if he’s been a police officer for 10 years and has never stopped and subsequently arrested someone for crossing the street in the middle of the night or on Christmas with no vehicular traffic, and has not done so again (if) or by the time this case goes to trial, he will have a very difficult time with a judge, DA or jury believing him in this case.

        • Difdi

          Actually no, they can’t stop someone for exercising a constitutional right. They often lie and make up other reasons for the stop, but every now and then you get a cop so deeply stupid that he admits it on camera.

          Exercising a constitutional right does not create reasonable suspicion (articulable or otherwise), let alone probable cause — mostly because exercising rights isn’t illegal.

          On the other hand, violating rights IS a crime. One officer by himself deciding that he doesn’t like someone else having or exercising rights and doing something about it is committing a misdemeanor. But when two cops work together to violate rights, both are committing a felony (even if one is just backing up his partner).

    • Guest

      It was 16 seconds from the time he was ordered to ID to the time of the assault (I mean arrest). And it was only 2 seconds for the victim to say, “I’ll give you my ID,” after ordered to ID.

      You write:

      “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.”

      According to you everyone can always be arrested for failure to ID and it is always a lawful arrest, because even one nanosecond of time that passes between the order to ID and the ID constitutes failure to ID. You’re a schmuck. No offense intended.

      • Raylan Givens

        I know it’s not what you want to hear but the short answer is yes. Officer discretion is subjective and not objective. It’s not timed in seconds. That’s half of the problem with law enforcement and idiot cops like the one in this video.

        The real problem here though is lack of accountability. While I’m sure these charges will be dismissed at some time or another, the fact remains this kid will have an arrest record that will follow him the rest of his life. The cop went home, the kid didn’t. That’s all that matters to fools like him.

        There are ways to prevent this and if it can’t be, you’ll at least be compensated nicely when they settle your Tort Claim. A small level of accountability maybe, but what else or other choice do you have?

        • Guest

          “but what else or other choice do you have?”

          For DAs to start upholding their oath and start doing their job of immediately deciding not to charge in these unlawful arrests and to aggressively charge the traitor cops that violate their oath and our rights. I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon. But that is how it should work if the system wasn’t corrupt to the bone.

          • Raylan Givens

            You’re 100 percent correct. And I agree. But the problem is
            far deeper than just the officer making an arrest. It’s the mistake of most to assume the DA’s office has some sort of common sense and integrity. They don’t and never will.

            When I first went into law enforcement there was an officer
            that used to take a Philips screwdriver and adjust the headlights “up” on his cruiser. While he was traveling on low beam at night oncoming cars would leave
            their high beams on and he would stop them for failing to dim lights within 500ft.

            When I found out about this I turned him and he was subsequently
            fired. There are stupid cops out there, but that doesn’t change the fact they can arrest you at any time and make your life a living hell for many years after.

  • Ted

    After looking around i seen this … its a good place to start when you have FOIA questions…

    National Freedom of Information Coalition http://www.nfoic.org/kansas-foi-resources
    Good Job young Man !

  • Douglas Hester

    I left a message with Ms. Veverka an hour ago, she has not returned my call. Captain Scott’s (head of Professional Standards) voice mail box is full. My next call will be to the chief’s Executive Officer.

  • ARtP

    It is going to be so sweet when the public records show head two mounted cameras looking over at Mikkelson with the walk sign lit up.

  • CEDUPZ

    the cops assaulted him they attacked him, cops are assholes indeed. They are tough when they are in numbers!

  • CEDUPZ

    Why do you need to have I.D. when not driving, what country is this? Holy Shit! cops are really on drugs? STEROID RAGE!

    • Bob_Striffler

      In my opinion they were born assholes and the steroids just make them worse!

    • Phred

      There is no requirement anywhere in the country to carry ID if you are not driving.

    • Difdi

      You don’t, in Kansas. You just need to tell the officer your name, your address, and if he asks you what you’re doing, answer truthfully. Refusal to do so is a crime…but nowhere in Kansas is a pedestrian required to present an actual ID card in response to a police officer asking you to identify yourself.

      • CEDUPZ

        So they CREATE CRIME, why do you have to ID oneself, if not accused of a crime, so cops can make it a crime, that you have to answer when they ask, I bet that ain’t true…You have the right to REMAIN silent, when do you HAVE to talk, what planet is this?

        • Difdi

          What planet is this? Earth. Kansas law does not require probable cause for an officer to stop and identify someone. As even the US Supreme Court has noted, it’s improbable that merely identifying yourself would incriminate you, and unless it does, the fifth amendment does not apply.

          What color is the sky on your planet?

          • CEDUPZ

            Freedom to move about un impeded is in the book, as in leave me alone! DUH, not having to be questioned by AUTHORITY….on what grounds does a cop have to randomly just stop someone crossing a street or walking on a sidewalk, problem is, EVERYTHING has been made an offense to justify not leaving people alone….guess you haven’t lived long enough to REMEMBER when cops couldn’t do 90% of the shit they get away with now…it’s called DEVOLVING, we are DOOMED!

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

            You do realize that no state requires probable cause to stop & ID? The the Terry v. Ohio decision only requires reasonable suspicion.

          • Difdi

            Quite true. A Terry stop doesn’t require probable cause, only reasonable suspicion that a crime may be in progress, have been committed or may be about to be committed.

            But what crimes do waiting at a crosswalk for the light to change then crossing, or exercising a constitutional right create reasonable suspicion of?

            And then an arrest requires probable cause. Again, what crimes do waiting at a crosswalk for the light to change, exercising a constitutional right and additionally stating that you will obey the lawful order you’ve just been given generate probable cause for?

          • LibertyEbbs

            Yep, except he stated that he would obey an unlawful order. He agreed to provide ID but was also asking for clarification from the officer as to why he was required to provide it (he knew it was not a lawful order but was still willing to comply.)

            It seems that ECLS knows that this was a false, illegal arrest but thinks that since cops are never held to account in these situations that he will be proven correct. ‘Look, even the PD and the courts agree that the arrest was legit, therefore, it was a legal arrest’…LMAO.

          • guess

            I really didn’t want to say anything but you are incorrect. I just pulled up at lease 30 court case laws that say basically the same thing, you don’t have to identify yourself in many shape or form, so basically yes the cop can ask you to identify yourself but you can refuse, unless the officer seen you commit an arrest able offense. No I’m not from Kansas but I have people there who done this in court and won so the whole identify state law is a de facto law. Sorry believe what you want I used this before so its nothing you can tell me.

  • Tamra Louviere

    More assholes! I hate cops…ALL of them. Bullies with badges! Jack booted thugs!

  • lungfish

    Should have told these knuckle draggers that if they had nothing to hide they had nothing to fear…

  • Julie Richards

    I loathe cops….they are paid killers

  • http://zoneside.blogspot.com/ Shane G.

    were they ex military, seem to be some pretty inflated ego’s that get handed to the police dept’s from our brothers with arms….bunch of douche bags trying to serve and protect and fuck that up, you had one job!

  • Mike Jessie

    Just a thought, if your not driving, dont carry ID. Screw them, let them arrest me.

    • Raylan Givens

      That’s the best way to go about it. Don’t carry one and never imply you have one. And for God sakes you guys, stop asking if you’re being detained or free to go. The officer is
      under no obligation to answer you and in most cases will not. They’ll just keep asking questions in an effort to keep you talking and make a mistake to pursue things further.

      • Phred

        Asking if you are being detained or are free to go is the ONLY thing one should say to a cop. If they want to keep asking questions, that’s up to them. My answer will always be the same: “Am I being detained, or am I free to go.”

    • dravo1

      Just curious, how do the homeless survive without ID?

      • Difdi

        You need ID to drive, buy tobacco, buy alcohol (and in Washington and Colorado, buy marijuana). If you can’t afford any of those things, you don’t need ID.

  • Bob_Striffler

    For those in the know? The difference between a criminal violation and a civil infraction! I could look up the controlling case law of the Kanas Courts but this should do just fine! Especially since the second one is federal regulation!

    1) This can be read here http://section520.org/infractions.html

    Vehicle Code Infractions Are Not Crime

    When a police officer makes contact the with someone that is not a consensual encounter, the purpose must be for conduct that rises to the leve of crime. Application of the State’s police power to NONcriminal conduct is illegal. When a police officer applies the State’s police power to conduct that does not rise to the level of crime they act beyond the scope of their job and violate their oath. An unauthorized arrest is void.
    (My quote- an un-authorized arrest is mistake of law and holds no immunity for the officer)

    “‘To be valid, administrative action must be within the scope of authority conferred by the enabling statutes. . . .’ . . . ‘If the court determines that a challenged administrative action was not authorized by or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature, that action is void.'” (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 113, 131-132.)

    Hamilton v. Gourley (2002) , Cal.App.4th

    [No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]

    2) This can be read here http://www.criminalpages.com/criminal-records-classification/traffic-violations/infractions/

    With this in mind, it should be considered that any one of the previously
    mentioned examples of traffic violations could easily become a more serious
    charge of misdemeanor or felony, depending on the state in which the crime is
    processed, how much harm is caused, as well as how excessively the offense was
    put into action. For example, barely speeding over the speed limit in a
    jurisdiction would most likely be an infraction, while excessively speeding in
    that same area, could easily graduate to a misdemeanor or felony.

    In 1981, the topic of minor traffic offenses was reviewed and determined to be separate
    from their misdemeanor and felony traffic violations, in that they offered no
    criminal activity-with or without intent-in their action. So, federal regulation
    now holds that all traffic offenses of this nature be non-criminal in how they
    are processed and regarded. This means no one has access to a persons driving
    record without their consent.
    ( My quote-It was a consensual encounter as I said earlier, there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain or arrest and it was an outlandish display of un-authorized ignorance! It was mistake of law, it was entrapment and assault and battery by throwing him on the ground! It’s an obvious Failure to Train, Supervise and Discipline Police Officers and Trumps even Municipal Immunity! So both the police department and municipality are liable! Further the courts are not doing the job they are in public trust to do by allowing this crap to continue in Nazi Fascist police state prison planet Fashion! You can’t just make up beliefs of law in a rule of law country!)

    • Raylan Givens

      Whether Civil, Criminal, Town Ordnance or an Infraction it doesn’t make any difference. Any of those give the officer RAS to stop you. How they are processed and any associated penalties may differ from State to State. If you’re correct then throwing a cigarette butt on the ground is a Civil violation not enforceable, but ten bags of trash is… However, they are both called littering violations.

      Speeding one over the limit vs. thirty over are both speeding violations as well. One is an infraction and the other a misdemeanor. Both provide an officer with RAS for the stop. How you interpret the law and what you do after that point is up to you.

      • Bob_Striffler

        Again you cite no authoritive body of law ! As stated before you’re either a cop or other assorted officer of the court who thinks that you are the Law! That’s called a dictatorship! It’s also a Mob Rule where one group in power oppresses another! The reason that for many years that the courts pass these rulings is to keep you in check because they see what you’re doing! You should probably call into one of those talk radio programs where everybody else who calls agrees with you! You can then all feel self-righteous about yourselves while pointing fingers at everybody else, with your self-superiority!! And sure you can stop someone for an infraction but it has to be the least constitutuionally invasive stop! And the rule of law says you don’t have to even give the police your name let alone being thrown on the ground for not showing an ID quick enough! The volumes of Rule of Law I can show on this and why is irrelevant to you! You’re just so self absorbed you just don’t want to follow the law here in America! You think that people doing nothing wrong need to comply with you or you’ll just twist the truth until you justify your false arrests! Like a little baby! People like you need a spanking, a bitch slapping or prison time! And unfortunately your mind doesn’t properly work to see the problem with all this and is why you should not be an officer of the court. But the courts and rule of law does see the problem with all this and again that’s why they make these rulings!

        • Raylan Givens

          Jesus! I didn’t mean to put you into spin dry. Relax and take a breath as I don’t even know where to begin with you. I never agreed
          with what the officer did was correct. You can say all you want and request I recite case law to you. I am not going to do that. Yes, you’re correct in the fact you don’t even have to give your name when requested by a law enforcement officer for any reason. I know this, and that’s not the topic of discussion on this thread. It is
          about the actions of a police officer.

          In the meantime those that are taking video of police activity
          are looking for ways to educate those and remain safe around those that oppose such activity and that’s why I am here on this site. As a society, that’s how we operate.

          If you want to challenge the laws (or lack thereof) every cop, court or symbol of power at every turn and get arrested every day for the
          rest of your life, then so be it. Good luck in the future on the Planet Cornball.

          • Bob_Striffler

            What’s on this website keeps happening over and over and over! Punishment deters crime no punishment encourages crime! False arrests are federal violations and felonies being ignored! That’s why I’m angry! I just beat my 41st frivolous criminal charge in a row for crap just like above! I learned the law by spending 13 years studying it! Much of the time while locked up on “BS Frivolous Charges” after being profile stopped and beat those charges! Not on technicalities to suppress an underlying real charge but because my conduct wasn’t in violation of the law! Just far reaching bull shit applications of law! AHHHRRRGGG! Frank Serpico was the last good cop and look what happened to him and the department he worked for! It’s rubberstamped systematic Institutional abuse! And it’s getting worse by the day!

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

            Except you haven’t learned the law.

            I’m also curious why you don’t say anything about all the convictions? Just the acquittals? Really? Trespassing? DUI? Theft?

          • Bob_Striffler

            Yeah shit-bag I guess counting those in Tampa, The Caribbean Islands, and Mexico that makes 46 or 47 charges practically in a row that I beat! Not just the 41 here! I was just Lucky 46 or 47 times! Only a lying shit-bag cop, EX-Cop or wanna-be would entertain and promote the, “I was lucky” ideology! Because all the videos on the pinac site show a bunch of other slime like you who are caught over and over and over and over again crapping on people and then act so self-righteous in doing it! You slime expect to hide behind some manipulated rule of law to do it! The courts are going to become embarrassed and they’re going to start prosecuting your brethren and sending them to prison! The uniform doesn’t make you men. The videos show it must make you half men now-a-days! And remember the charges I was convicted of (in closed courts at night) in the fashion I was convicted is what made me study the law in this rat-hole chicken-shit 18th Judicial Circuit of Florida to begin with and all that changed, didn’t it. I’m facing two more like I said for Misuse of 911! I’ll keep you posted shit bag! I hide from nothing that’s why not only do I use my real name which is for a reason, but I let folks know where I live and have even posted links to videos of my police encounters here on this site and elsewhere, where people can get a good look at me! I’m not scared or shy of shit! Or shit-bag Cops or EX-COPS for that matter! Hey is it true what the others on this site said about you, that you stand in front of a mirror nude posing with your little penis tucked between your legs so you look female when your alone and say things like “It puts the lotion on it’s skin?” Don’t bother posting me back. I’m going to ignore you, like others on this site do and the women in your life have done! Oh and try a different profession you’ll never make enough in law to get that operation!

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

            Wow! I’m impressed.

            So in the short period of time between being found guilty for trespassing in December of 2010 and now, you’ve been charged with 47-48 more offenses?

            I’m impressed. Most people can’t get arrested that many times in that short period of time.

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

            BS is not all that swift Raylan.

          • Raylan Givens

            Thanks for the update and clarification EX. For a while there I thought my posts were being sent to another site. At this point I can only surmise that when he steps outside on a windy day, it’s very noisy inside his head.

  • Bob_Striffler

    Regarding Obstruction of legal process, see my previous post it was not a legal process! Americans have a right to resist an illegal arrest! Besides as explained earlier these laws written like this Unconstitutionally vague are a sham that’s encouraging dickhead cops to act this way! Somebody should cut paste and post this and my previous post to there face book page! I don’t do facebook! By the way Kudos fellow Phothogs for making the Topeka Kansas Facebook page look like the PINAC Website!

    • Raylan Givens

      I agree with your assessments. But, some people are like some police officers
      and are rouge or untrustworthy and will lie about anything and everything.

      They will lie and be untruthful at every turn – if allowed. When I was in law enforcement I couldn’t get enough of the camera being in my car. It saved my ass so many times from false accusations from the public I eventually lost count.

      The problem is it’s not going to change and most people don’t have bank accounts full of cash to fight these guys all the way to the Supreme Court. There are certain ways to keep yourself out of jail, and in the event you’re arrested, making absolutely
      certain you were protected under the 4th Amendment at the time the
      cuffs were placed on your wrists. That’s the best chance you and I have in the
      world we live in now and there’s a certain way to go about making certain you’re
      protected.

      • http://www.patriotprojectinc.com/ Jeff Ottens

        I find it interesting – how many of the people here are former LEO’s.

        • Raylan Givens

          Believe it or not, there are some of us that took the oath, and
          respected and protected the U.S. Constitution for the citizens in the communities in which we served. Not many, I’ll give you that, but there are some us left.

          • http://www.patriotprojectinc.com/ Jeff Ottens

            I actually left my career as a police officer because of the corruption in the department, thus my interest. I only know of a few officers in my generation who still keep the oath best they can. When the upper ranks forget the oath, the new officers will follow.

        • Raylan Givens

          Believe it or not, there are some of us that took the oath, and
          respected and protected the U.S. Constitution for the citizens in the communities in which we served. Not many, I’ll give you that, but there are some us left.

  • http://www.patriotprojectinc.com/ Jeff Ottens

    I just noticed – when the officer says the light says “don’t walk” the camera for a split second catches the light at the other end of the crosswalk. It is GREEN with a white hand.

  • Bob_Striffler

    I know this will still be irrelent to some hard heads out there http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2007/20070727/96181.htm

     

    No. 96,181

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

    STATE OF KANSAS,

    Appellee,

    v.

    ROGER K. KELLEY,

    Appellant.

    SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

    1. Crimes are classified as felonies, misdemeanors, traffic infractions, and cigarette or tobacco infractions. Some violations of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic do constitute misdemeanors, such as reckless driving, driving under the influence, and fleeing or attempting to elude. However, improperly crossing the center line in violation of K.S.A. 8-1514 is a traffic infraction which is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. Thus, a defendant cannot be charged under K.S.A. 21-3808 with obstructing officers in their official duty of conducting a stop for such a traffic infraction.

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

      As I noted above, this decision does not apply in this case.

  • Bob_Striffler

    Any questions

    • Raylan Givens

      It’s not a question but more like a comment. He wasn’t arrested for obstructing anything
      after crossing a center line. In fact we wasn’t even driving a motor vehicle . He was arrested for failing to provide the officer identification upon request. Right or wrong,
      that’s what happened.

      • LarryWidget

        It is not a crime to “fail to provide” an officer “identification upon request”. it is possibly a crime to fail to identify yourself on request. He was not asked to identify himself. he was asked for ID. When asked to perform an act, reasonable time to comply is required. The officer lied on tape claiming he “refused” to identify himself. He not only was not asked, he did not refuse and in fact stated multiple times that he would produce identification.

        Here is how you are asked to identify yourself “What is your name?”.

        Answering that does not require putting a camera down so it can be provided promptly if the law requires it.

        Showing identification was not required in this instance and that was the only request the officer made.

        it was a bogus arrest for the purpose of harassment with full knowledge that it wouldn’t be prosecuted.

        • Bob_Striffler

          You can not be arrested for keeping your mouth shut except under rare circumstances defined in Hibel! And oh hell they relentlessly prosecute cases just like this here in florida and they do it because citizens have been dumbed down about their rights not because it’s a crime! This because of systematic institutional corruption/perversion of the Judiciary! One after another stop and identify laws have been ruled unconstitutional!

      • Bob_Striffler

        God some people are thick headed and slow to learn or deliberate! His charge was resisting that’s why Jeff or Carlos provided that link to that Kansas law in the article! That’s why he was arrested! Because Jaywalking itself is not an arrest able offense! The Kansas Ruling I sent you is the controlling case law on the subject! Following so far? It clearly defines infractions that are misdemeanor and felonies versus civil infractions that are not CRIMES at all like Jaywalking or crossing a line in the road while driving! Are you still following? The other post I’ve made showed other court rulings and even federal regulations saying the same thing! One more time here is the Kansas ruling which could not be anymore clear!
        “However, improperly crossing the center line in violation of K.S.A. 8-1514 is a traffic infraction which is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor.(Like Jaywalking Raylan) Thus, a defendant cannot be charged under K.S.A. 21-3808 with obstructing officers in their official duty of conducting a stop for such a traffic infraction.” You “officers of the court” would know this if you were being Trained Supervised and Disciplined! But I know the real trick you’re being trained to do the opposite! Because nobody can be this stupid!

  • LAW ABIDING FREEDOM FIGHTER

    PUCK THE FOLICE!
    COMMUNISTIC ASSHATS!

  • Ron

    The problem with videos like this is that people like this kid who go around video taping cops are looking for confrotation so they push the envelope. If they didn’t then they would have nothing to post. It sounds like he goes around looking for it. It kind of remonds me when the jouralist confronted Pete Rose at the All Start game looking for a reaction. Sometimes it becomes an ego macho thing with everyone involved (cops), you are dealing with humans, but the kid is looking for confrontation so he can post it on social medai and get some recognition. At least on this video. I have seen some videos that have merit when cops have over reacted or have just been bullies, but this one is not one of them.

    • Douglas Hester

      The cop approached the kid and initiated the encounter, not vice-versa.

      • Ron

        Yes you are right the cops did approach the kid first at the secod location, but remember he approached the cops first at the first location where he video taped the cops and what they were doing. I would like to know from the kid if the cops ever approached him at the first location, he never mentioned that, maybe because he wasnt confronted by them. At least nothing that was worth while mentioning. I’m sure he was making himself very noticable to the cops, at the first incident where he overheard the cops say where they were going to meet. He followed them with camera in hand and the cops saw him coming so they were probably annoyed with hm by then. You think when they saw the kid approach at the second location it would have given them the clue that this kid was looking for a confrontation. The cops should have left the kid alone nothing good can come from that. I video and take pics as well, I do it from a distance away and I have never had anyone tell me to stop. I have had a few people walking on a public sidewalk give me dirty looks, but never had anyone approach me. I try not to get too close or in peoples faces because people in general dont like strangers video taping them in public or taking pics.

        • Carlos_Miller

          Did you read my story? He said they didn’t bother him other than a few glances in is direction.

          And yes, he was making himself noticeable to the cops. He has nothing to hide. Wouldn’t it be more suspicious if he was hiding behind a car with his camera?

          Stop blaming the kid for looking for a confrontation when it was clear the cops were looking for the confrontation.

          Stop being a cop apologist.

          • Ron

            I’m not baming the kid or the cops. I wasnt there to see exactly what happened, I’m just posting my opinion from wat I read. I don’t think he should hide behind cars, but I do have concerns on why he followed the cops to the second location. Thatmakes me think that he was looking for a confrontation. I take pics and video of people in public places all the time and I try not to invade their space and even then I get dirty looks from people. Most people don’t like there pics taken by strangers. I’m sure this cops are no different. I agree with Phred, the cops should have left the kid alone, even if the kid did walk ilegally across the street. They should have known the kid was looking for something good to post on social media.

          • http://www.patriotprojectinc.com/ Jeff Ottens

            Perhaps you should be a bit more objective ron. It doesn’t matter if the kid went to a second scene. It doesn’t matter if the kid was video taping for any reason. It does matter that the tape does not show police asking him to leave, or telling him that he is too close, or simply asking for some time off camera while they are working a domestic (even though we don’t see or hear mention of a victim). What matters is he was LEGALLY, by Kansas Law, recording a public official in a public place.
            It was the officers who said they were stopping him for jaywalking, NOT for being at the second scene or too close.

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

            While this was a BS arrest, if he actually crossed against the signal, the officers could ID him under K.S.A. 22-2402. If he refused to ID (which I don’t believe that he did), he could be taken into custody under K.S.A. 21-5904 (Interference). I think that the arrest was BS, a pretext, but don’t be surprised if the PD claims that it was legal. Based on what I’ve seen, I think that it probably is.

            You may also want to check your link to the statute. You are linking to a 2009 copy of the code, which was repealed in 2010, effective in 2011. A better link is here: http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/statute/021_000_0000_chapter/021_059_0000_article/ A good reference to the recodification is here: http://www.wichitabar.org/pdfs/CriminalCodeGuideRevised071411.pdf‎

            I’m not sure how the Kansas juvenile law works. In Texas, 17 is an adult, unlike most states. If he was still a juvenile, there are other procedures that need to be addressed by a local attorney.

          • LibertyEbbs

            It is obvious BS but you sure do dance around that…I know you never make mistakes so can you please explain how you can go from “…this was a BS arrest…I don’t believe that he did [refuse to ID]” to “Based on what I’ve seen, I think that [the arrest] is probably [legal]”??

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

            There is a great deal of difference between what is “legal” and what is “just” (as in justice). BS meant that I don’t think that justice was served by the arrest, although it is legal, within the bounds of the law.

          • LibertyEbbs

            Legal as in the de jure legal? If so, I don’t see it as there was no refusal to provide the ID regardless of the fact that the detention was illegal to begin with.

            Or did you mean de facto legal because 99.999% of arrests are legal because the police do not get charged when making illegal arrests?

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

            If the officers had RAS that he crossed against a “Don’t walk” signal, the stop was legal, which means the request for ID was legal.

            In other words, legally both de jure and de facto.

          • LibertyEbbs

            He initiated the detention prior to even looking at the signal, so no RAS when detention began. Also, you are still avoiding the question of how the arrest can be lawful when the kid didn’t refuse to ID.

    • Carlos_Miller

      The kid is entering college to become a criminal justice major. He is fascinated by police work. Would you rather have him sitting around the house, doing drugs, playing video games, with absolutely no future aspirations?

      • Bob_Striffler

        Wow I believe in filming cops not because I want to be one, because I can’t stand what they’re doing to my fellow citizens and the pride of this country’s freedom!

    • Bob_Striffler

      Me and some guys from the VFW are going to go out and film cops all day long and we’ve already told the Media and Attorney General we were going to do it! If the cops want a confrontation they got one! Some of us will be live streaming!

    • Phred

      The cops could have ignored the kid, you know. Instead, they chose the confrontational route. The onus is on them.

      • Ron

        Yes you are right they should have ignored him. Instead, by taking action, whether the kid walked illegally across the street or not they gave him what he was looking for. You think they would know better.

  • ray brown

    I’m quite sure he was charged with obstruction. However there had to be some underlying reason he was asking for ID. Presumably to document a jaywalking offense. It seems the officer forgot why he stopped. We all know he wouldn’t stop him just to harass him….

  • Douglas Hester

    Captain Conklin (Sheriff’s Executive Officer) isn’t returning his messages either. Next call will be directly to the chief.

  • zaiger

    This is why when I see police officers I do my best to stay out of their proverbial radar. Thank you to the brave souls who go out of their way to expose the corruption in the system at their own great personal risk.

  • ray brown

    I heard the officer comment about car and DL. Was the kid driving. I think their original intent was to harass him and the kid’s asking why he needed to be id’d discombobulated the officer. The other officer’s car, DL comment reminded him that there were other avenues to harass the kid.

    • Carlos_Miller

      Yes, he had been driving before pulling over when seeing the police action.

  • io-io

    The Kansas stop and ID law reads

    22-2402. Stopping of suspect.
    (1) Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any
    person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is
    committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand
    of the name, address of such suspect and an explanation of such
    suspect’s actions.

    http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/statute/022_000_0000_chapter/022_024_0000_article/022_024_0002_section/022_024_0002_k/

    So, he was only obligated to provide name and address. The officers demanded ID. This instantaneous demand for 100% compliance of an order that is way beyond what is required. The officer could have said I need your name and address – where as ID certainly carries the demand to produce something in a physical form.

    The police expect that everyone should know by memory all the applicable laws. Therefore I would expect that the officers only enforce the laws as written, not as they wish to apply them.

    • Bob_Striffler

      Did you see a punishment specifically for not telling the officer your name address and what you were doing? No because it violates your right to remain silent! Any arrest mentioned would be for the criminal activity suspected that turned up! That law will only remain on the books written as it is till it’s challenged on Constitutional grounds! This kid above was under no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity as he was charged with a civil infraction thus read the case law above! I’ll post more on challenges to this law!

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

        Actually, it does not violate the right to remain silent.

        Nice try though.

        • Bob_Striffler

          When did you read hibel today?
          under hibel when that changed and you had to give your name it still required reasonable suspicion which is 1 absent in this case and 2 that was Nevada that had a state law written like that! Kansas sort of does 22-2402 but it’s toothless because it’s written beyond the scope of what hibel allowed so they deliberately left it without prescribed action, arrest or punishment! Why they didn’t just rewrite it? hell if I know? The head FBI guy for the state of Kansas after a study of hibel and this Kansas statute says hell if I know too! You probably know though and tell me all about it! HEy did you see my videos that I posted links to? After trying to trash me on my criminal record! About all those charges I beat? Now since they the Honorable 18ht are aware of that video they got embarrassed and changed my records? I have both copies! Gee I think that’s illegal too. Or are there exceptions to changing official records I know them do you? I’m sure you can tell me all about it though!

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

            The officers had RAS.

          • LibertyEbbs

            No, he didn’t. If you truly believe that the young man’s behavior here meets the RAS standard, then there is almost no situation where monitoring the police wouldn’t. Therefore, you are giving free rein to detain anyone anytime they are doing anything the cops don’t like. Your argument essentially goes far beyond Terry and eliminates even that narrow protection we theoretically still have.

            You say you support the public filming cops in their public duties, but you also believe that cops should be able to break the law and detain, arrest, and harass the public when doing so. Is it intellectual dishonesty or just remnant loyalty?

    • Bob_Striffler

      io-io,

      The best example I can give is actually included at the end of a study of the last US Supreme Court Ruling on Stop and Frisk laws. Go to the last page and see the conclusion On Hibel v Kansas Statute 22-2402 this was written by The head FBI guy in Kansas. I can show you other more complex case law but this will simplify it here This shows there is no penalty for not telling the officer your name or anything else! Hibel itself does actually allow arrests in Nevada under reasonable suspicion detainments solely for not giving your name. (Name only nothing else) Nevada has a state law providing for that punishment! Kansas does not! State Laws can be less intrusive but not more intrusive than what the Feds rule! The statute you quoted above is toothless as per Kansas provided no punishment! So the police can ask and demand till they’re blue in the face! They cannot arrest somebody for it! Link to study answer last page
      http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/PDF/court/RCD20040621.pdf

  • FS1

    This is kid is trying to get attention…he succeeded! I was at the scene and he went walking up on the police during an active scene. I’m wondering why he didn’t post that video to show how close he was to a potential hostile scene, the police were looking for a domestic violence subject and he comes up right next them with this camera. He was far too close and looking for attention…we’ ll he got it!

    • LibertyEbbs

      It is odd that these goons never once mentioned that during the encounter in which he was detained and arrested. However, Shultz did look at the crosswalk signal AFTER initiating the detention (for which he must have ARS) and stated that as his reason for demanding ID. Illegal detention without a doubt.

      The aggressive way wilson approached the young man from behind and then assaulted him was further criminal behavior. Kicking his camera was yet another crime.

      What’s worse: crossing a street inside a crosswalk with no traffic present against the signal (allegedly) or violating a person’s natural rights and potentially destroying his life with an unlawful, CRIMINAL arrest? I mean it, which of these two things should our criminal justice system be more geared toward preventing? The answer is obvious to any reasonable person who actually gives two shits about liberty.

    • StreyDawg

      If that was the case, then the police should’ve been confronting them for those issues.

      But that’s not why they claimed to have demanded his ID, now…is it?

      Try again.

      • FS1

        Someone should ask where the father and mother of this minor who was going through a crime scene was at on Christmas night…..you will find no father in this kids life….maybe that is the problem! He should post the video prior to the encounter for jaywalking…maybe that would shine some light on the police and this kids motives….but he probably wont do that because it would diminish his innocent appearance.

        • Bob_Striffler

          And why weren’t your mother and father smacking some American Values into you Freak Show!

        • StreyDawg

          You are simply entirely incapable of staying on topic, aren’t you?

          There is apparently no end to the uninformed tangents which you will pursue to avoid discussing the real issue here.

        • LibertyEbbs

          Nice attempts to deflect from the real issue, but the readers here are quite a bit more sophisticated than you seem to think. These cops are law-breaking thugs as evident to any reasonable person seeing that video. If you are not enraged by their behavior, I think you must ask yourself why. Stop blaming the victim.

    • Bob_Striffler

      Like I said earlier me and a bunch of guys from the VFW are going out to film the police all day long! The media is aware as well as Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office! What do you have to say about that FS1? What does FS stand for Freak Show?

    • Rusty Shackleford

      What intersection did this happen at?

  • FS1

    The minors name is this incident is Addison Marshall…Check his facebook page out https://www.facebook.com/BigDaddyAddyy?fref=ts………. and ask him to post the other video that night of him harassing the cops during a crime scene.

    • harry balzanya

      Typical sociopath criminal,point the finger at the victim he was asking to be molested by a coupke of thugs, we are not discussing the victims charecter the victims charecter has no relevancy to the fact that Americans are not required to have id arresting someone for not producing something he was not required to have is a criminal offense.

  • Bob_Striffler

    One more time so followers of this site can read this to the police commenting on this site that have comprehension problems! This is the controlling case law in Kansas on the subject which tells cops what they can do and can’t whether they can comprehend this or not! Earlier I posted other state law on this and Federal Regulation that say the same thing as this ruling!

    This is the link to the entirety of the ruling below and it’s also in plain English so there is really no room for debate! It’s just a matter of whether or not police want to live by the Rule of Law America dictates or not! It not a matter of their opinion! Bottom line! And there are penalties for false arrests!
    http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2007/20070727/96181.htm

    No. 96,181

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

    STATE OF KANSAS,

    Appellee,

    v.

    ROGER K. KELLEY,

    Appellant.

    SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

    1. Crimes are classified as felonies, misdemeanors, traffic infractions, and cigarette or tobacco infractions. Some violations of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic do constitute misdemeanors, such as reckless driving, driving under the influence, and fleeing or attempting to elude. However, improperly crossing the center line in violation of K.S.A. 8-1514 is a traffic infraction which is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. (Jaywalking is the same category) Thus, a defendant cannot be charged under K.S.A. 21-3808 with obstructing officers in their official duty of conducting a stop for such a traffic infraction.
    (Or pedestrian infraction)
    Post this on the Topeka facebook page and ask them how long their “make believe” investigation will take!

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

      You know Bob Striffler, or BS for short, you probably should avoid giving legal analysis when you don’t understand what you are doing.

      First, State v. Kelley, 162 P.3d 832 (Kan. App. 2007), did not state that one cannot be charged with obstruction for a traffic infraction. It stated that one could not be convicted of felony obstruction based on an original offense that was a traffic infraction.

      In the case of a traffic infraction, the proper obstruction charge is an “A” misdemeanor, not an “E” felony. See State v. Dalton, 895 P.2d 204, 206 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995) (“Obstructing legal process or official duty in a case of misdemeanor or a civil case is a class A misdemeanor.”); State v. Sullivan, 844 P.2d 741 (Kan. Ct. App.1993 ) (Obstructing in the case of an infraction is punished as a misdemeanor).

      Finally, are you even aware that Mikkelson was not charged with a violation of K.S.A. 21-3808, which is the statute described in Kelley? It’s impossible, as that statute was repealed in 2010. Opps.

      Thanks for playing.

      • Bob_Striffler

        Wow in the article above it actually says verbatim Mikkelson was booked on 21-3808 because it provided a link to it! Click on the link idiot! Gee EX-Cop what was he booked on if the author of this article is wrong…you know so much! Jaywalking isn’t an arrest able offense shit-bag! Are you saying he was arrested on 22-2402? Because shit-bag there is no penalty for that as it has no teeth and is not in accordance with US Supreme Hibel it is not arrest able unless Kansas law provides for that which it don’t shit-bag! Look it up!
        And no, what that Kelly ruling said and is included in my posts is- one could not be convicted of felony obstruction based on an original offense that was a traffic (civil) infraction that didn’t rise to a level of mismemeanor or felony! (As in no Reasonable suspicion or probable cause of “Criminal Activity” Dumbass read the freakin ruling and study the law bro! There is no probable cause for a civil infraction because it’s not a criminal infraction!
        I also provided in my posts Federal Regulation dictating the same verbatim as well as other state superior courts (up to date) that are in accordance with all of the above. Your just a shit-bag troll that gets on this site and disputes all law and anything else because you are a shit-bag! Your just one of those who feel your ignorant opinion is above those of the highest courts of the land! Cops and EX-Cops you’re all the same! God your such a dick! Didn’t you get schooled enough yesterday! Now I’ll go right now and see if I was sent to an out dated site with that link to 21-3808 and I’m sure I’ll still end up calling you a shit-bag! Shit-bag! “It puts the lotion on its skin” I can picture it right now!
        Further shit bag the Kelly ruling was 2007 the other rulings you mentioned were 1993 an 1995! The Kelly ruling is up to date and in accordance shit-bag! You should quit pretending you are a law student. Because if you are your a shit-bag ignorant one!

        • Bob_Striffler

          Yep you’re still a shit bag! Just like I thought!

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

          Try looking it up assmunch.

          K.S.A. 21-3808, repealed by laws 2010, ch. 136, § 307, eff. July 1, 2011.

          The link is to an old version of the law, prior to the repeal.

          He was arrested on Interference with law enforcement, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5904 (West), which is not even mentioned by Kelley. Also, the other cases are directly on point.

          It is obvious that you do not understand the law, even with your multiple convictions and deferred deals for destroying evidence, drugs, petty theft, DUI, public intox, etc.

          • Bob_Striffler

            Never fear I beat 41 charges practically in a row! They were charges just like the one above! As far as the few convictions I had they’re still open shit-bag! Furthermore I’ll be posting some videos of my own on other shit-bag police just like you! And there are a few other things in the works that should be upcoming in the news and not only about my arrests! By the way I’m facing 2 more criminal charges both for “Misuse of 911,” ironically also Constitutionally vague law involving a schizophrenic making death threats. I actually have the death threats on video while on the phone with 911? Every one of my neighbors was witness to the whole thing. Come to think of it I was arrested twice in Tampa for walking down the street. Of course it was resisting or some such nonsense you scum bag cops use! So that was 3 more charges I beat! Then I was arrested in Mexico for not having work papers…I beat. I was also arrested in one of the many beautiful Caribbean Islands I used to live on and I beat that charge! Now either I’m wrong and the courts can never seem to convict me or I’m right and this is abuse! Has that legal term been erased from you’re pea brain? As a matter of FACT I’ll just go ahead and post links to two of these videos! Oh and by the way I started studying the law after being convicted of those few charges in closed courtrooms at night with no attorney, no public present, no jury, and denied an appeal! I have the transcripts and more! If you’ll notice they are open again! So in fact it was dirt-bag police just like you that made me study the law and say enough was enough!

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

            Gee, that’s funny. The convictions show to be final convictions.

  • Bob_Striffler

    22-2402 Kansas stop and frisk is a toothless law that is not punishable. You can’t arrest or sentence someone for not giving name in Kansas! I can show more complex case law but this sums it up! It’s a study of Hibel v Kansas Statute 22-2402. Hibel is the last Stop and frisk ruling by US Suprememes. Nevada had a state law that penalized not giving name when under true reasonable suspicion! Kansas has a law but no penalty! It’s toothless so the cops cannot arrest you for this in Kansas. The link is to comprehensive study conducted by Feds the answer to the question is clear on the last page! http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/PDF/court/RCD20040621.pdf

  • Heather

    That’s why I’m glad I’m moving the fuck out of Topeka in 3 weeks

    • Bob_Striffler

      God bless you Heather but I’d avoid florida like the plague if you don’t like what goes on in Topeka! This place is a police state hell on earth!

    • Rusty Shackleford

      That’s what I did…. but be careful… New Mexico is worse….

  • Boffin

    Easy-Peasy to fight. You can see the light turn to yellow at about the 0:27 point. City request for the timing of that traffic light (or film it yourself) If there’s less than 27 seconds between end of flashing walk signal and the light going yellow; you’ve got the officer filing a false charge.

  • Ordinary Citizen

    Local Media seems to have picked up the story:

    http://www.wibwnewsnow.com/topeka-police-fire-youtube-video-shows-teens-arrest/

    “When asked, Police Chief Ron Miller said he was aware of the video that was posted, and said, “The department is aware of the complaint. We are investigating. The case will be sent to the district attorney’s office for review. It would be inappropriate for us to comment on the case.””

    • Ron

      and the closing statement is that recording cops could be a safety issue? A safety issue for who?

  • Zatoichi808

    Fuckingcops.

  • toomuch72

    Just found this comment on the Topeka pd Facebook page and a different opinion I usually leave “untrolled,” but the way this was SIGNED I could not let it go without making people aware: Dear Officer McCoy and Sgt. Kevin Schultz,
    I would like to send you a formal apology on behalf of my Generation. My Generation is filled with disrespectful and arrogant individuals which attempt to push rights they do not have and assault police officers and than claim they have been assaulted. This child you were forced to deal with on that cold winter night is a disgrace to our society. Though I do not need to tell you this, you both are obviously in the right and within all legal limits of what you did that night.
    I, as a citizen of this country applaud both of you for a tremendously well handled situation. To be honest, I wouldn’t have been as easy on him as both of you were had I been in your shoes.

    Best wishes,
    Soon-to-be NJ State Trooper,
    -Christian Lidel

    • Dan-O

      Good gracious mavis, where are my bull feces resistant shoes!!!

      • Bob_Striffler

        Where u gonna be working so me and some vets can come by and film you all day long!

        • Dan-O

          Well, I’m retired but you can come to Toledo any time and film me.

          Rights are like muscles, if you don’t exercise them they may not work well for you when you need them.

          • Bob_Striffler

            First I’ll post videos of what happens when the members of the VFW here go out and film the local police and we’ll see that only muscles they flex are the ones around their mouths!

          • Dan-O

            You think im x-cop or something??

          • Bob_Striffler

            Whoops it might have been the Dan-O thing, he was 5-0! Remember Book-em Dan-O?

          • Dan-O

            I think i made that post from my phone. I have a hard time getting logged with it. I only use the one name on here. sorry for any confusion. I am a retired factory worker (jeep). I do like using that “Rights” tag line.

    • Bob_Striffler

      Christian Lidel if that’s your real name? Soon to be NJ State Trooper! I’ll send your comments and the video about the comments you made to the NJ State Troopers Headquarters/human resources and they’ll know that I’ve also sent the same to the media in NJ so we can all follow your career if you have one anymore! I’ll see what their response is and post it here! How does that sound?

  • Ed

    I think we all know that this isn’t going to stop until they’re all dead.

    • Bob_Striffler

      The Arab Spring in Egypt where all the poverty stricken rose up unarmed and first burned every police station down and the police went into hiding, (Big surprise) then over threw the President! Which is really something I’d hate to see happen in America all because the police can’t restrain themselves from beating up women. children, elderly and making up crimes to arrest citizens! American values? John Wayne would have beat that cops ass had he tried to arrest him for crossing a street AKA legally filming the police (Public Servants)

  • Bob_Striffler

    I’m sorry this is off topic but to discredit me EX-COP mentioned things here I feel I must respond to! This is part of a very large series of videos I’m going to use soon! Did I mention the COPS and EX-COPS around my neck of the woods run whorehouses and steal drugs from the evidence lockers on film? Something that will be documented in later videos!
    This is my second trespass from city hall! You know that you live in Zimbabwe and get silenced when trying to speak the truth like….. dissidents in China! The police are nothing less thena Mob Rules Tool around the 18th Judicial Circuit of Florida. Oh and EX-COP I’ll get back to you later on your idiot arguments trying to justify you COP BS!
    Watch this first https://www.dropbox.com/s/sn001elkn3femfc/city%20hall.MTS

    Watch this second https://www.dropbox.com/s/wlmbmdqwf5xrt8h/city%20hall-police.MTS

  • Glenn

    I’m a child of the 60’s. When I was 19, I hitchhiked across the country — something that took me more than a month.

    You’d have to be aware of the situation then. A lot of unrest. A lot of protest. A lot of tension. 1971 was the height of the war.

    As a rogue hiker, I had many encounters with police on my way to California and back and I can say honestly that I never received one iota of disrespect or bullying by any policeman. They were always calm, collected and professional. I never feared an encounter at any time.

    This new generation of cops is completely different. The war on drugs has made them all think they are warriors. I fear getting stopped for anything in this day and age.

    It’s sad.

    • Peanut Gallery

      I don’ think it is just the war on drugs but the fact that many of them are ex-military and have come from a real war and view anyone not in uniform as ‘the enemy’. They dont distinguish from civilians and ‘threats’.

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

        There have always been high levels of former or ex-military in police. Glenn is right, it is the war on drugs mindset.

        • Jefft90

          ECLS
          What part or part of the WoD do you feel has contributed to the fearful or warrior attitude?

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

            That is too much to discuss in a short comment.

          • Jefft90

            Understood. Your comment regarding the WoD seemed a little glib.

            Maybe a post at your place?

          • Rusty Shackleford

            The part that gave them armored personnel carriers and automatic weapons, no-knock warrants and the numbers to be effective at it…

      • Rusty Shackleford

        I’d have to agree with Glenn on this one…

      • ELD

        for the most part our honorably discharged military are highly trained personnel.
        From their military training to their law enforcement training that do the job right. Officers actions like the one’s mentioned in story, and others in police forces around the U.S. that are very un professional are the ones bullied in school so they become cops to bully back

    • G

      Cop back in the 19th centuary and much of the 20th centuary were no better than today’s generation of cops. As a matter fact where do you think today’s cops got their bad attitudes considering that you have several generations of cop/military families.

    • Pixie

      It’s not just the war on drugs. It’s the WAR. I’d like to know the percentage of officers serving today that are ex-military of some king.

      It has been the longest war we’ve ever fought. Those veterans need to work somewhere, and they come home pre-made for law enforcement.

  • Korndawgg

    The kid did break a law in the state of Kansas. (b) Flashing or steady don’t walk or upraised palm. No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of such signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed crossing on the “walk” or “walking person” signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety island while the “don’t walk” or upraised palm signal is showing.

    How much trouble would it have been for him to press the button? It would’ve changed right away for him.

    I am also wondering at what time this 17 year old was wondering the streets? Yes it may be a holiday and that is why there is not traffic, but it looks to be very late at night. While Topeka has no curfew laws, that does not stop officers from asking for ID and asking what you are doing out so late at night. I have experienced this situation myself. They do have the right to ask for ID when they are suspicious of a kid walking around in the middle of the night. And for those of you unfamiliar with Topeka, where this is filmed is not a very good neighborhood for a kid to be walking around with a camera, something a lot worse could have happened to him. He was looking for this trouble in my opinion.

    I am not saying how the officers handled the situation was the best. Everyone can handle some situation differently in their life.

    • Peanut Gallery

      What in the world does the time of day have to do with your rights to walk around unimpeded by reckless law enforcement officers?

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

        Time of day and area of the town are both factors that figure into RAS.

        • Peanut Gallery

          Sorry, I am not familiar with the acronym RAS.

          However, I must again ask if your constitutional rights change based on time of date, area of town or age of the citizen?

          • Ron

            Reasonable articulate suspicion. Basically the cop should be able to tell (articulate) to a Judge why the cop was suspicious that the guy had committed a crime and the Judge will say “That sounds reasonable”

          • scaredofpandas

            That’s not the standard in Kansas; police don’t need an articulable suspicion, circumstances only need to demonstrate that an objectively reasonable officer would have had probable cause for arrest. It allows for ex-post-facto justification, and the prosecutor has more leeway to come up with any possible reason than the officer does to explain what his actual reason was.

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

            RAS = Reasonable articulable suspicion.

            Your rights do not change, but if the officer can show RAS, there is not a constitutional violation.

    • Bob_Striffler

      No Jaywalking is a non-arrest-able civil infraction but that’s too complex for you to understand! And now this next ones really complex! Walking around at night does not supply the required Reasonable Suspicion to stop or demand ID! As a matter of fact there is no law in the entire United States aside from operating a motor vehicle that requires any civilian or American to produce an ID on demand! In Florida if you are driving and don’t produce and ID, it by itself is non arrest-able and you do have to show up at court and show it there! (Florida Statute) Even then you can’t be fined or even charged court costs upon showing it in court! It takes the required articulable reasonable suspicion of “Criminal” Activity to even briefly detain someone! Otherwise it’s called a consensual encounter! Which a citizen can ignore and walk away from! It’s called freedom! My father is a WWII veteran who fought the Nazi’s who went around demanding people’s Identification, detaining them and arresting them without cause! That’s why it’s illegal in America! Not including military installations etc… as far as ID’s are concerned! It was a false arrest like all the other false arrests on this website. That is why this site exists! To stay vigilant against intrusive lying agents of the government! All Governments need to be held in check by their people because history shows what they do when not held in check! That kid was falsely arrested ( absolutely no authorization of law backed up the arrest) because what he was doing was “deemed undesirable to the police” in his lawfully filming of them! We film the police because they are becoming brutal and out of control and making false arrests! This government films us all day long everywhere we go whether we like it or not! They are our servants! In this case the police lied and made an excuse to arrest him and are caught red-handed in doing it! America is not a country where the police can get away with kidnapping and imprisoning it’s citizens for things the police don’t like. What kind of country would that be? Now is there anything I’ve said here that America’s Founding Fathers haven’t or wouldn’t have said? The reason for your uneducated opinions stated above and lack of understanding constitutional liberties is because there is a movement to Dumb Down Americans of knowledge of what those freedoms are! This is being done by the media, schools, political parties and yes even churches! The people behind it are called Globalists! It’s a slow subversion of the American way and its National Sovereignty as well as individual rights and sovereignty! When Americans fought in the revolution it wasn’t so you could watch fireworks on the 4ht of July! And only 3% of the population stood up and fought for freedom! Were your ancestors part of the 97% who sit back and enjoy what the 3% gave their lives for. If those 3% hadn’t done that you and your ancestors would be miserable right now!

    • LibertyEbbs

      Deflection, minimization, and victim blaming are the hallmarks of guilty consciences and apologists. Fuck off!

  • ray brown

    If an arrest is made or citation issued the head cam video should be made part of the file and released to accused without court order. If the video is “lost” no case under most circumstances.

  • Bob_Striffler

    Are there any law enforcement websites out there where citizen crime is filmed and the citizens troll the site and try to Justify these crimes like the cop trolls do here? It really is shameless if they had any shame!

    • G

      There was a website called http://www.officer.com. I put my comments on that website for years until the owner of the website got software to keep me off. Least we let LEOs voice their opinions here. Too bad LEOs don’t give us the same rights on their websites.

  • steveo

    The ID thing is different in almost every state. I think the best way to handle this situation because it happened so quickly, is to tell them your name and why wouldn’t you want to tell them your name, if you want some fame from your documentary activities. If then they say they are requiring a government ID, then they get on slippery ground, because they can pull up an ID from name and BD. Nowhere in the US are we required to carry government ID, even when flying and going through TSA (it’s alot easier if you do) when not driving a car.

    They were probably going to arrest him anyway for jaywalking. Lots of great case law in FL on whether giving an ID when asked is obstruction or not, normally it’s not unless you are under arrest. Of course, the leos don’t see it that way. Plus they want to be in control of the streets, so there’s that.

    • Bob_Striffler

      In Florida by law you don’t need to even give your name until after your arrested! They’ll still charge you and convict you for it if you let them get away with it! And it has to be a lawful arrest! Not like the one above! This isn’t about fame steveo it’s about accountability and freedom!

      • steveo

        Technically, you may correct, but functionally and in reality, I wouldn’t follow your advice. But you are required to ID if you are lawfully detained in FL. The key word there is lawfully and you can be further charged with 901.36, if you refuse to ID at the jail. Great scholarly article on this subject in FL written by the State Attorney in Brevard County (probably the reason Jeff Gray got off).

        http://flliberty.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/rs_10_04.pdf

        • Bob_Striffler

          Does Florida now have a stop and ID law? They may have since the last 6 times I beat that charge! At the Jail after a “Lawful” arrest is true and I’ve posted that here! But cite the statute that says it’s arrest-able not to show ID! You may be correct since the Hibel Ruling! But that still would require Reasonable Suspicion of criminal activity! It’s not “Technically, you may be correct, but functionally and in reality….” It’s called Rule of Law, am I lawfully correct! Steveo I’ve been charged with loitering and prowling and/or resist obstruct or oppose for simply walking down the street and not showing my id on demand! You don’t get it do you! You don’t want to know the law you want the law to be your opinion! Instead of having me look to see if you are correct show me this new law you speak of!

          • steveo

            That’s ok to believe what you’re saying and you might be correct, but if in questioning the jurors, everyone says that leos have the right to ask for ID and the only reason citizens aren’t giving it to them is because they are criminals….What do you think the verdict is going to be? It’s a defacto law, a defacto law because the system wants it to be. Not real law, but you’re still convicted anyway. and you can fight through an appeal, like Carlos did, he won, but ask him how much it cost.

          • Bob_Striffler

            The system is a branch and the branch needs oversight! When I spoke of forums (judicial) it was rule of law not defacto anything! That’s not what we pay for in taxes or the lives of our soldiers! It’s fraud extortion and false imprisonment! All three are against the law! That’s oppressive terrorism and dictatorship hiding behind the walls of prestige the judiciary built around itself with there immunity and self-regulation! They also hide behind well dressed mannerisms and elegant rhetoric! AKA manipulated lying legalese! Because the people are being dumbed down to the point of stupidity!

          • Bob_Striffler

            Hibel Ruling demands “name only” with Reasonable suspicion” and State Statute in place that’s constitutional.
            The only law in Florida I know of is Operating motor vehicles to show id. If you don’t show your ID at a traffic stop you tell the officer your name and finger print the citation. The statute says that in itself this is not arrest-able. The statute goes further and says that that person show up in court and produce ID there. No fines or court costs are even to be imposed! (No punishment) A citizen/pedestrian cannot be imprisoned for committing the same offense by not showing id under the equal protection clause! Because it’s the same act! It can’t be named differently by using another law, like a constitutionally vague one! Loitering/Prowling… Resist, obstruct…w/o! A person driving a big weapon like a car is more of a public safety concern than a citizen pedestrian on foot or bicycle! Wouldn’t everybody agree? (Unless of course they’re dirty, homeless, black, poor, someone who loves freedom, someone voiceless and unrepresented etc…) Under the Florida controlling case law of Loitering it must be charged under “founded suspicion” a higher threshold! (founded being more obvious) Resist should obviously be the same for the same reasons! These laws are being deliberately used for this catch-all purpose of ID checks for warrants and other misguided reasons! Just check the volumes of published challenges to these laws here in Florida to verify this fact! (Enough is enough) Then realize identically written they’re being ruled unconstitutional under kolender- reasons across the US at even federal levels including Federal District Court of Appeals! (“a law needs to be written that the average citizen can read and understand what conduct is prohibited” Kolender) Identically written these judges across the country couldn’t determine what was prohibited, so how could the average citizen? Maybe here in Florida and other jurisdictions we’re not supposed to! Why beat around the bush and not just write laws that state that citizens must show ID on demand and comply with any other demand an officer makes! (Due to their training or lack of this is exactly what the officers believe anyway and they tell you so on the PINAC Website!) At least it wouldn’t be constitutionally vague then, right? Further Kolender goes into the fact that if these laws are so vague it forces the court to makes decisions in each and every case on too many different applications and variations of the law being brought forth to prosecute and thus they have to take on the role of the Legislative Branch! And that is a far too dangerous separation of powers issue there! This even when in Kolender it is simply suggested to re-write these laws clearly in accordance with their ruling! Kolender even suggests that this would not be too hard to do!
            Terry v Ohio is being abused! The US Supremes have so far held Terry and reasonable suspicion in serious cases only! At the time of Terry that was the purpose/excuse of our slipping away from the higher threshold of probable cause! Also Terry “Pat Downs” have now become “Frisks and Groping” for evidence! Terry went from seeking dangerous weapons to “any contraband” at all! But not yet for these monkey (Stop and ID) charges that the police continue to fill the courts with! These two different laws Loitering…and Resist, obstruct… are undeniably being used as Stop and Identify laws! It’s on film everyday on PINAC! But even still here in the United States you can’t have two different punishments for the same act of not showing an ID! Thus the red-light camera rulings and two different fines for running a red-light when caught on film from the officer giving the ticket which is a different fine and different punishment! Depending on who you are, what court your in and who your judge is you may or may not even be able to make these legitimate arguments let alone have them acknowledged, which is deliberate error, judicial canon violation and equal protection violation by itself or discriminatory on status! (the unspoken profiling) The cost of freedom which too many can’t afford! (Gideon’ s broken promise) Far too many defense attorneys will not even attempt to make these arguments/challenges! (Ineffective council) But they definitely need to be made! They should have been made a long time ago! The evil unpublished opinions of some jurisdictions that totally undermine the Stare’ Decisis Doctrine which is in place to provide that very right to equal protection are a travesty that should be addressed as well! Besides it’s obviously wasting the court’s supposedly “precious time” and taxpayer dollars by shamefully throwing shit against the wall to punish “groups (people) deemed to meet their displeasure” (Kolender) then even more shamefully, “Make” it stick! Like what happened to Carlos and other Journalists and continues to happen over and over with different variations being tried against them for the same thing! (Fundamental Fairness Doctrine, for God’s sake) These vague laws need to be re-written to control these outrageous applications of quasi-law as per Kolender! Just like elsewhere across the country. Otherwise Florida and some other jurisdictions would be getting away with arrests, prosecutions and convictions that are unconstitutional elsewhere in the United States if argued correctly! (Equal protection again) The Courts should quit being a “Rubber Stamp” for this as per US Supreme Ct. Leon, because people are paying attention and getting angry! And these laws are causing people, especially in these certain groups or ideologies, doing nothing wrong, to have fear in their constitutionally protected activities from unwanted intrusions of government agents acting under color of law under the ongoing erosion of the Over-breadth Doctrine! This, per Kolender and a whole slew of other Over-breadth supportive rulings! All you have to do is watch the PINAC videos and realize that the police are also using these same types of vague (catch-all) laws to arrest citizens for all kinds of other constitutionally protected activities, like filming them!

        • Bob_Striffler

          Oh and hell Stevo if your talking about Norm Wolfinger’s website I’ve been there many times and can show you on there where the state attorney admits a resist obstruct or oppose charge requires a lawful arrest according to the 5 DCA!

          • Bob_Striffler

            However he’ll still pursue charges like that even though his web-site says he lawfully knows better! If you knew the half of what goes on here in the 18th Judicial Circuit! Yikes! But that’s what my upcoming videos Court transcripts news stories etc… are going to show! These courts outright ignore material fact to convict or coerce pleas out of innocent people all day long! And that is deliberate error combined with Judicial Canon Violations, Malicious Prosecution and Ineffective Council! And yes it’s long overdue but I’m doing something about it….if it kills me! And I’m not alone! This has been an embarrassment to their profession for far too long!

          • steveo

            Sir, you’re talking about misdemeanors. Most of the time these are dealt with at first appearance or before arraignment. If you aren’t charged with a felony in FL, unless you’ve been charged with a dozen or so misdemeanors, you’re out the next day, ROR. Except for DUI, nobody cares about misdemeanors. Deal with it, and end it any way the system can. Your also in County Court, so any decision has to be appealed to the Circuit Court before being appealed to the Appellate Circuit. In my county, it costs 350 dollars to just file an appeal with the Circuit Court.

          • Bob_Striffler

            The lower courts are bound by higher court rulings under the Stare’ Decisis Doctrine which provides for Equal Protection of the law across it many jurisdictions! It’s there and in place to keep lower courts bound and not so they can disregard these ruling in the unpublished and unknown opinions in an unprofessional unethical and unconstitutional process. The law is set up if followed imperfectly but acceptable. It’s when it stops is when oppression starts! Now you’re obviously arguing all this because you see no problem with the police these days getting away with what’s on this website! A whole bunch of Americans are getting real upset with this and have the law backing us up! If forum to argue this law is being corrupted by police committing crimes that are angering Americans then the forum itself falls into question! I never ever wanted to study the law! I was forced to! I don’t know how much time you’ve spent studying it, but by what you’ve said I encourage you to study it more. Because America no longer wants Americans to know their rights and that’s a fact!

          • steveo

            I would certainly like to view all your videos and transcripts and police reports. Where do we see these documents and videos?

          • Bob_Striffler

            I have a lot so the is a lot of film editing to do which I’m learning as I go! I have several different formats etc… Blah Blah and is vey tedious!

            I have couple videos on drop box you might be able to view? Try these links in this order it two short videos of same incident here in Brevard

            Watch this first https://www.dropbox.com/s/sn00

            Watch this second https://www.dropbox.com/s/wlmb

          • steveo

            This year in Sarasota county there were 109 arrests for resist/wo violence on stand alone without another charge, which we are disputing with the various agencies through the ACLU. There shouldn’t be a charge of 843.02 unless there is an underlying charge, but that doesn’t mean they don’t do it. Most of these charges were disposed of before a guilty plea. But it sucks none the less.

          • Bob_Striffler

            The controlling case law here says no! That should be the end of it here. The prick still relentlessly prosecutes! I know a man who spent a full year for resist… even though that controlling case law was on Wolfinger’s website! Even without that website I know the caselaw! You have to check out the chain of jurisdiction there in that DCA first!
            Have you ever read US Spreme Ct Kolender on constitutional vagueness. The reason I mention this case is because the law is being abused! It states that a law “must be written so that an average citizen can read and understand the conduct that is prohibited” It further states that these laws would be used “by prosecutors against groups deemed to meet their displeasure” Profiling! You should check the socio economic status of those being charged as well as their race! They also use this law and the loitering law to force people to show ID! Rubberstamped of course if you don’t know the arguments to make or your not allowed to make those arguments! Which is an abomination! Next I believe it was either The resist charge or the loitering charge that wasn’t properly challenged or re-addressed/revisited since the Kolender ruling! Further I can cite not right now as it’s not handy State Supreme Court and assorted other state level courts and federal district court and federal district court of appeals rulings that declared identically written laws there were declared unconstitutionally vague as quoted because the judges themselves couldn’t determine what was prohibited conduct by these identically written laws so how could the average citizen who is uneducated in law! I can also show you that identically written laws across this country to Florida’s Loitering/prowling were also struck down by judges for the same reason. In all these cases they had to rewrite these laws! Not here though they are very proud of them and have written many more similarly vague! Deliberately these laws are being written for the very purpose of catch all laws! which borders on erosion of the Overbreadth Doctrine which makes citizens afraid of Constitutionally protected activities! Like filming the police! Anyway I wrote a legal brief on it. I may still have it if it was not destroyed by crashed hard drive. It is in the Clerks case files though. I’m real interested in this ACLU cause! Keep me posted please! I have a ton of case law on this that I would be happy to share for that cause!

  • Bob_Striffler

    One more time. Even if they said he Jaywalked, it is a civil infraction not crime as determined by a ton of prevailing precedent law. It’s not an arrest-able offense! In other words it’s already been ruled on and determined across the country and at federal levels! Including Kansas! Therefore there is no Reasonable Suspicion of, or the higher threshold probable cause of “Criminal Activity” to arrest because a civil infraction which has been defined by the courts as not a crime! Next Kansas has a law about giving your name only in cases of reasonable suspicion of a “crime” but because of the Hibel Ruling it is not written in accordance so the Kansas legislature provided for no action or arrest or punishment for failing to do so! It’s toothless and even if they had provided for an arrest for failing to give your name. It’s clear on the video that is not what happened! It was without a doubt a false arrest. So cop trolls we all watched the video and saw that he was arrested for the sole reason “he was deemed undesirable” by them for filming them! So quit acting like spoiled little babies and go home and ask your bosses to train you properly or they will not only open themselves up to a lawsuit but Topeka as well as the dimwit cops who made this arrest! They then, the cops in the film, in chicken-shit fashion assault and battered him and lied about the reason for arrest and are caught red-handed doing it! The whole reason you cop trolls are here is to show everybody, with your chick-shit excuses, that the entire culture of the police now-a-days is chicken-shit! And that’s why everybody is here on this site! Here is the part that really pisses you off; Eventually the American people are going to force the courts to prosecute these types of cases! This a case of Mistake of Law and is prosecutable! It’s also civil liability un 1983 claims! So go back to your own site and agree with each other all you want! You can use the “Honorable Courts to hide behind but like I said the American people are getting sick of that to. It’s why we film you! It’s starting to become an embarrassment to the Judiciary and they won’t tolerate that too much longer either!

    • scaredofpandas

      If your exclamation points hadn’t totally ruined your argument, your terrible citations would have. Kansas doesn’t have a stop and identify statute. And obstruction of legal duty is a crime, which is what he was arrested for, not for crossing against a signal. People aren’t trolls just because they disagree with you.

      • Bob_Striffler

        They are trolls when they disagree with the rule of law and undermine people’s freedom from actors under color of law who break the law and are being pathetically trained!

        And Kansas does have a stop and identify law it just has no teeth as its not in compliance with the hibel ruling and this has been posted on this site for days the stop and identify law you say doesn’t exist cann be found by doing a search for this Kansas Statute 22-2402 If you’ll note there is no action, arrest or punishment for violating this law! But what’s the point in arguing…you’ve been studying the law for how many days? Do you also argue with your doctor?

        • scaredofpandas

          Stop and identify statutes give what you call “teeth” to the ability to request (or as I’m sure you would say, demand) identification. KSA 22-2402 is not a stop and identify statute and does no more than codify the parameters of a Terry stop.

          • Bob_Striffler

            Whatever! Where does it show the punishment for that law! (22-2402) “Codify the parameters of Terry” that was codified along with “”””The Right to Remain Silent” in Hibel the most recent from the US Supremes! 22-2402 goes way beyond Hibel. Hibel authorizes for name only only in “Reasonable Suspicion” cases and so far since Terry the Supreme court has upheld Terry and reasonable suspicion only in cases involving “serious charges!” Discussions of this are covered comprehensively in the Harvard Review! Now read this Kansas case and weep! Mr. Argumentative!
            No. 96,181
            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

            STATE OF KANSAS,
            Appellee,
            v.
            ROGER K. KELLEY,
            Appellant.

            SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

            1. Crimes are classified as felonies, misdemeanors, traffic infractions, and cigarette or tobacco infractions. Some violations of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic do constitute misdemeanors, such as reckless driving, driving under the influence, and fleeing or attempting to elude. However, improperly crossing the center line in violation of K.S.A. 8-1514 is a traffic infraction which is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. (Jaywalking is the same category) Thus, a defendant cannot be charged under K.S.A. 21-3808 with obstructing officers in their official duty of conducting a stop for such a traffic infraction.
            (Or pedestrian infraction)
            Post this on the Topeka Police Department Facebook page and ask them how long their “make believe” investigation will take!

  • Bob_Striffler

    Punish these cops for their crimes under laws that are on the books for that reason to deter them from repeatedly happening before the people get together and do it themselves!

    • scaredofpandas

      They wear the headcams for that exact reason. To provide a check on potential abuses but also protect them from false accusations when they’ve done nothing wrong.

      • Bob_Striffler

        here in Brevard the cop gets caught trying to do away with the video of him beating a 66 yr old skinny black man with dementia who on video offers absolutely no resistance what-so-ever and doesn’t get fired or punished in any way! On top of brutality that tampering with evidence isn’t?

        • Taylor PINAC

          link to story?

          • Bob_Striffler

            Type middendorf into search box top of page! It’s on this site! However I know a whole bunch about this story as I’m from here. I and others have been assaulted by this fat skinhead dirt-bag! I even went to a City Council Meeting which was recorded Complaining about not only this creep but how my interview with internal affairs Melbourne police went in regards to my witnessed incident! The Florida Today did coverage as well as central florida news stions Orlando. The video has been taken down from PINAC cite however
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=05v955tG0Ik
            Tell Jeff of the letter of reprimand! Oh and Bross thought me and others who wanted to testify to our experiences would up the dollar amount of Mr. Flowers case

  • Bob_Striffler

    I wonder if Christian Lidel “soon to be NJ State Trooper will mind?” From post on Topeka Police Facebook!

    Christian Lidel if that’s your real name? Soon to be NJ State Trooper! I’ll send your comments below and the video about the comments you made to the NJ State Troopers Headquarters/human resources and they’ll know that I’ve also sent the same to the media in NJ so we can all follow your career in the News if you have one anymore! I’ll see what their response is and post it here, when they e-mail me back! How does that sound? I like when you bragged that you would have been more brutal than Officer McCoy and Sgt. Shultz! We’ll see if they’re looking for a few good men or not!

    Dear Officer McCoy and Sgt. Kevin Schultz,
    I would like to send you a formal apology on behalf of my Generation. My Generation is filled with disrespectful and arrogant individuals which attempt to push rights they do not have and assault police officers and than claim they have been assaulted. This child you were forced to deal with on that cold winter night is a disgrace to our society. Though I do not need to tell you this, you both are obviously in the right and within all legal limits of what you did that night.
    I, as a citizen of this country applaud both of you for a tremendously well handled situation. To be honest, I wouldn’t have been as easy on him as both of you were had I been in your shoes.

    Best wishes,
    Soon-to-be NJ State Trooper,
    -Christian Lidel

    • toomuch72

      Look like he has removed the comment from the Facebook page. That should be the end of it, but we all need to make sure that the NJ state troopers know what they are getting into. This might be some made up troll? Or he might be the reason someone is killed or injured in the future.

      • Bob_Striffler

        yeah thanx for posting that below! Absolutely let them know! Cops are usually not all that bright it probably is his real name! Amen to that

  • FtP

    “Protect and Serve” but only for the first 15 seconds.
    If we can’t come to a resolution by then we’ll have to arrest you.

  • Bob_Striffler

    Remember the police excuse for arresting Jeff Gray in Brevard for filming a “Traffic Stop” thirty feet away “He was interfering in a fluid law enforcement investigation” ? “He was endangering the life of the officer” “He was endangering the lives of the public”
    If that were true why didn’t they arrest him for that? Why did they tell him to stand in the parking lot of the business, where he wasn’t standing before then go and coerce that same business owner to trespass him (That’s pure Entrapment and creating crime right on tape, which is a felony) after he had moved out into the street! They dropped the charges against Jeff so all these cop hallucinations wouldn’t be presented to the jury who would have wondered where the cops got the drugs they were on to alter their reality so much!
    These chicken-shit delusions are repeated over and over again on one video after another! And we still have to listen to this troll crap!

  • Raylan Givens

    I had to make some final adjustments to my custom built next level PINAC camera equipment today. The Police never know when their being filmed and this is why I NEVER get questioned when filming them or anything else for that matter. It’s all done via video link and they have no idea they’re being filmed or where I am.

    I feel so bad for this kid, I’m thinking of building him one, and sending it to him in Kansas. One thing is for sure is he‘ll never have to carry a tripod or cross the street again to get the footage he wants…

    You’re not on KANSAS anymore Dorothy….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPfIoqqEnCk&feature=youtu.be

    • steveo

      Let me be the first to say that this poster if real, is completely lawful. He can record any police activity without letting them now, ever, in any of the 50 states.

      • Raylan Givens

        It’s real and you’re correct in your assessment Steveo. They have no right to privacy let alone from the air. They forget people like us can build and use drones too. Perfectly legal and autonomous to boot.

    • Bob_Striffler

      Dude that is so cool! We can film the drones filming us now too! That’ll really piss them off! Does it fire missiles too when the police get brutal? That’s awesome! The public servants will go ballistic knowing we got drones watching them back now! For public safety reasons…of course!

    • BB

      Just what we need. Cops firing bullets into the air.

      • Raylan Givens

        They already did that when they arrested a 17 year old kid for crossing the street in the middle of the night with no traffic in sight. They in fact fired the first shot in the air and across the bow of those that own cameras and film them.

    • Taylor PINAC

      where can i get one of them?

      • Raylan Givens

        I custom built this one. It’s huge (46” Dia) but very discrete It has two cameras, one with infrared night vision and the other to record. GPS autopilot, full aircraft on screen data display (distance from home, alt, air speed, position, motor temp, voltage and waypoint inputs from Google earth etc) and a flight data recorder. But you can get started with something like this for about a third of the cost. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=999838&Q=&is=REG&A=details

  • LessBiasMoarStory

    The officers really didn’t do anything wrong, at least not anything they cant easily get away with. There are laws about recording voice as well as video. It is almost always illegal to record someones voice without their knowledge and consent. Of course you will get hung up on. The video was legal but as soon as the officer asked for identification, doing anything but complying gives them legal authority to detain him. They can cite you for disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, obstructing a police officer, etc. The little nudge to the camera happened while the officers struggling to restrain him. Honestly, The only way to ever deal with law enforcement is to comply with their every request and wait until you are out of their custody to figure out how to fight the charges they just gave you. While you are in their custody they are in complete control. You have no rights when you are in jail. Its jail.

    • Bob_Striffler

      You as an American are trying to share your imposition of law and constitutional rights when you are clueless about them! If not cite those laws or rulings you speak of about recording blah blah blah! And that part about as soon as they aske for id doing anything but complying blah blah blah Where di you get that from! Certainly you can cite some authority of law! Or is it just your opinion? It just your opinion or an opinion somebody else told youa bout who know not!

      • LessQQ

        Actually no. I studied photography and and photo journalism under John Harte when I was in college. He happens to be the reason journalists in California are afforded the same access to emergency areas as emergency responders. He was arrested while doing his JOB. The newspaper he worked 14 years for didn’t want to fight the cops but John Harte went through the LEGAL process. Eventually, after a long time he helped create new case law in California. http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/photographer-charged-interfering-rescue-efforts Stay in school.

        Nice fail at trolling though.

        • Bob_Striffler

          This whole site is about knowing your rights in filming the police! Cite the authority of law that you expounded upon above! I don’t need to hear about your friend? As far as staying in school I’m 52 and when I was in college maintained a 4.0 while working full time!

    • LibertyEbbs

      Honestly, The only way to ever deal with your moronic comment is to say: Go fuck yourself!

    • Jamesdiamond

      Baaaaaaaaa

    • Raylan Givens

      The arrest was legal, but that’s all you get. And if you don’t for one minute believe the officers were out of line and the lack of pure common sense is a serious issue here, well then, with all do respect to you, Blow Me

      • LessPl0x

        I didn’t mean to imply that I thought what they did was right. They simply were acting within their legal authority. It was immature. But so is this rage page. But right and wrong don’t matter when you live in a police state. Why do you think journalists wear their identification around their neck? Derp. “I fought the law and the…”

        • Harry Balzanya

          Arresting someone for obstruction for not having a ID that is not required by law is not a lawful arrest. The officer never once gave a lawful order. DO you have ID? is a question NOT a command. A question is not a order. Arresting someone for failing to obey a question is unlawful. Arresting someone withing 15 seconds of not producing a ID that IS not required by law is not at all lawful. It is in fact criminal.

          • Raylan Givens

            Bravo to you Harry,,,,, Finally someone heard what I did,,,,

          • stk33

            > The officer never once gave a lawful order

            This very question, what is lawful order, was once discussed at cops’ own forum at officer.com. You may be interested to go and read, it was very long discussion. The consensus is “it’s any order the cop gives, unless it’s specifically unlawful, like “go and beat that guy”. Unfortunately, the juries tend to agree.

            There were rulings by high courts to the effect that inconveniencing officer’s job, or making him less effective by non-cooperating, does not raise to the level of obstruction. Still, the point the cop makes, is not without reason. “I saw a violation, however minor. I need to issue citation. I can’t do it without the name. Hence, by not giving me the id you make my job impossible, which is obstruction.” The correct answer to this is “it’s your problem, and I don’t have a duty to help you to resolve it”, but it’s certainly not something most of “your peers” will immediately agree with.

        • Bob_Striffler

          Our founding fathers fought the law too….do you even remember what happened? The fourth of July isn’t so you can go watch fireworks! And “Dancing With the Stars isn’t very important! Quit being an apologist for, or just plain showing weak complacency about these repeated assaults by police on citizens including women, children and the elderly! Let alone the Constitution that protects the rights of women children and the elderly from government actors under color of law!

      • Bob_Striffler

        The arrest wasn’t legal at all and when all the law in the world can’t convince someone of that they have extremist view points that can’t be changed by fact, rule of law, video or the constitution. That ideology is dangerous! It’s spreading like a disease! We all saw the video. Is jaywalking an arrest-able offense? No! Is not showing an identification against the law? No it’s not! And this kid was actually reaching to give his ID! How many times have I beat charges of not showing my ID on demand without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity…..doesn’t matter, some people just know they’re right! The reason first I beat these charges is because I’m lawfully correct! Second the reason I don’t show my ID is because people like you and these cops with your spewing of false law are causing me to face situations where even simply walking down the street I’m accosted and asked to do this! Because of people like you and these other cops! And then to make it more illegal these cops just had to do one of there vicious tackle take downs of this kid. All the cops then say not in truth or reality is we felt threatened they are now getting away with this in assaults on women…there are no two truths here! Jesus in the bible was asked if there were two truths and said ” a yes is a yes and a no is a no!” He didn’t say a no is a yes did he! Well you just said that it’s lawful to film the police with your helicopter…until they claim they felt threatened by it! That’s when the lies supersede the truth in a cops mind. It doesn’t have to be true he just needs to say it! Raylan you’re just another cop who will swear to your brethren’s lies and make your brethren worse! And my guess is that helicopter will never be used to film the police, will it?

        • Raylan Givens

          The clearest way for me to reply and make you understand the following is to put it in a language only you can understand…
          ohdf;ojasgdhf;oshbdfl’skdhf’jklsndf
          ds;kjf;sdjf;sljdhg;kshdfgfojsdfgpoudspofgupdsfugpougpusadfpgouspdfugpsgpasuk[s[p[sadigofusdpofguposdfgupoadsufgpoasudfpguaskdsojugfioasytoihyetryqoiwerfkasjdho’fhasoidhoisdhygoiyashgd’ipohsa[dofigyh[oieqhwgrfj

          • guest

            @disqus_F1YYwjwPTy:disqus ya how old are you 5?

    • LessHateMoarTolerance

      This is how you argue effectively with law enforcement,
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1rbSFPVVCk

      • Bob_Striffler

        Should have told him he was your public servant! And that’s why you had the right to ask him questions for that reason! Should have asked him why he isn’t training his soldiers about the sovereign citizens rights!

        • Bob (pure BS) Stupidface

          For the same reason he doesn’t train his soldiers about how to deal with Unicorns and Pink Elephants.

      • stk33

        The cops in this video (the one above, in the airport) are obviously on the soft side. To expect this from all cops everywhere would be big mistake. Yes, some cops will behave like this, but there are also others who are actually represented by this very story, where the conversation is very brief:

        “I need to see your id”
        “Do you have reasonable suspicion?”
        “I will tell you one more time: give the id or be arrested”
        “What crime did I commit?”
        “put your hands behind your back, you just committed an obstruction”

  • Bob_Striffler

    No. 96,181

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

    STATE OF KANSAS,

    Appellee,

    v.

    ROGER K. KELLEY,

    Appellant.

    SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

    1. Crimes are classified as felonies, misdemeanors, traffic infractions, and cigarette or tobacco infractions. Some violations of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic do constitute misdemeanors, such as reckless driving, driving under the influence, and fleeing or attempting to elude. However, improperly crossing the center line in violation of K.S.A. 8-1514 is a traffic infraction which is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. (Jaywalking is the same category) Thus, a defendant cannot be charged under K.S.A. 21-3808 with obstructing officers in their official duty of conducting a stop for such a traffic infraction.
    (Or pedestrian infraction)
    Post this on the Topeka facebook page and ask them how long their “make believe” investigation will take!

  • Boxerguy

    Kansas Statutes Chapter 45-216, 217, 221 He should be able to make the request, then if denied then would have to get a subpoena.

    • Guest

      What judge would sign that for jaywalking and go against controlling case law from a higher court? Higher court rulings are binding on lower courts and judges under the Stare’ Decisis Doctrine which is what provides for equal protection of the law across the many jurisdictions! The Judge who did this could be found in deliberate error and that’s very bad for him. There is no way out of this for the police making that illegal arrest! Mistake of law= no immunity! A subpoena for an ID for something that wasn’t even a misdemeanor isn’t that outrageously reaching for something that’s not there? Everybody watched the video and they arrested him for filming them, which they didn’t like. They then did their typical unnecessary, therefore illegal vicious tackle takedown even though he offered to show them his ID. And as he was putting his camera down after requesting to do so, the cop yells I don’t have to wait and smash he was arrested! Now in typical cowardly fashion rule of law is trying to be used to paint this as something else! Even those are not the actions of some true blue hero! They’re the opposite!

      • Boxerguy

        These are in relation to his second video to get the helmet cam from the officer.

  • jwalsh

    Left a VM for the Chief….asking to get these two officers under control.

  • Boxerguy

    Any updates?

  • TrafficLightAnalyst

    Is it possible to calculate the exact point in time when the “Don’t walk” sign would have started to blink based on the time that the traffic light is seen turning green later in the video? That could prove the cop was full of sh*t.

  • psuedo sudo

    The guy is a hacker who steals credit card numbers. He posted this video on a hacking forumns and the linked us here. Don’t feel bad for him.

    • Pat Lane

      Proof? oh none? ok

    • Bob_Striffler

      Oh so it’s OK to falsely arrest someone you don’t like? You sound more like a cop to me. That’s their mentality!

    • Bob_Striffler

      Hacker sites? Isn’t hacking a crime too?

  • surp prised

    You are 18,000 times more likely to be Hurt/Maimed or Kill by US Law Enforcement than being a US citizen and being hurt, maimed or kill by terrorist any where in the world.
    Andy K.

PINAC

PINAC Logo cutout copy
Be the Media