February 28th, 2014

Minnesota Man Found Not Guilty for Video Recording Deputy 106

By Carlos Miller
Screenshot 2014-02-27 23.41.25

Andrew Henderson gets interviewed by the media after his not guilty verdict Thursday.

Just over a year ago in January, Andrew Henderson of Minnesota was unable to get the attention of the ACLU to help him in his case after he was criminally charged for video recording a local deputy standing by as another man was being placed into an ambulance.

Two months earlier, Ramsey County sheriff’s deputy Jackie Muellner snatched his camera, telling him she did not want to be on Youtube. She also accused him of violating the federal HIPAA law, which really has to do with the privacy of medical records, not with the photography of medical patients.

He was not arrested on the spot, but was charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing justice more than a week later. And when they returned his camera two weeks after that, his footage had been deleted.

The welder made too much money to qualify for a public defender but not enough to hire an attorney. And more than a month went by after he had contacted the local ACLU with no response.

So on January 6, 2013, he published an 18-minute video to Youtube, explaining the entire situation, including audio he had recorded on his Android after she had snatched his camera.

 

On January 9, I published his story on PINAC, encouraging readers to call the ACLU to urge them to take his case:

The 28-year-old welder said he makes too much money for a public defender but not enough to hire an attorney.

He said he reached out to the ACLU more than a month ago, but was ignored.

Meanwhile, he is facing disorderly conduct and obstructing charges, which were filed more than a week after a Ramsey County sheriff’s deputy illegally confiscated his camera. Read the report here.

***

Henderson has a pretrial hearing scheduled for January 30. Call (651) 645-4097 to encourage the ACLU of Minnesota to assist him in this matter. Or email them at ACLU of Minnesota.

After three days of phone calls and emails from PINAC readers, he was contacted by the ACLU, inviting him to meet with them in person to discuss his case, as I reported on my Facebook page at the time:

 

Screenshot 2014-02-27 23.30.53

 

Less than 12 hours ago, the ACLU announced a victory after a two-day trial and a 90-minute jury deliberation found him not guilty.

 

Screenshot 2014-02-27 23.33.57
This is not only a huge victory for Henderson, 29, who is now running for city council. But a huge victory for the PINAC community because it shows the power we have by backing each other up when needed.

But it mostly shows the importance of resorting to back-up recorders once they confiscate the first recorder as well as  using social media, especially Youtube, to get your story out there.


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Fantastic news. Hopefully he’ll follow up with a 1983 case.

  • TimSto

    Why did the state even go forward with this? What were they trying to truly accomplish with having a trial? Besides the typical line of them being asses and putting the citizens down. I would like to know what was their case?

    • rust

      Essence of their case: BECAUSE WE SAY SO. SO SHUT UP OR GO TO JAIL

    • Carlos_Miller

      They were trying to wear him out. That’s what they do when you take a stand against them.

      • rust

        After having listened to his 18 minute presentation, I am appalled by the constant insinuations, the run-around, the innuendo on the part of these Enforcers who did all they could to exhaust Andrew. First but foremost, his property should have been returned on the FIRST DAY, with an apology. And secondly, the thief Jackie Muellner should have been cited for petty larceny and a civil rights violation under color of law.

        • inquisitor

          The tampering with and the destruction of evidence should be the type of thing to cause any cop to lose their job and serve prison time…in an ideal world.

          • Guest

            Not even an “ideal world.” Just not a massively corrupt and traitorous world.

          • TheFlashingScotsman

            A Constitutional world.

    • steveo

      It’s called “bleed and plead”. You bleed the defendant of money and resources then plead them to something they didn’t do that gives them no jail time, probation and community service, so that the conviction rate stays high and the leos don’t get their asshxxles in a sling.

      • pinbalwyz

        So, they actually have a ‘name’ or term for it, eh? That would imply it’s common practice. It certainly serves as one of the reasons citizens are losing respect for our courts and law enforcement officers.
        - amicuscuria.com/wordpress -

    • pinbalwyz

      Cops have a saying: “You may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride.” That (as here) *IS* their agenda!

      Too many district attorney’s similarly abuse their position. It’s an abuse of due process, but difficult to prove and prosecutors have a huge amount of qualified immunity–not quite as extensive as a judge’s, but almost. Corrupt cops and DA’s use process as punishment in itself After all, it’s not THEIR nickel. They even get paid for doing it. Grand juries were originally conceived to discourage this kind of abuse, but today they’ve become little more than a rubber stamp for prosecutors and a tool for intimidation and/or disrupting networks of acquaintances with common cause.
      - amicuscuria.com/wordpress -

    • stk33

      Because there was Kelly Thomas case, which showed that the loyalty of the jury to the cops can’t be overestimated.

    • n4zhg

      FYTW

  • Doogie Howzer

    Its rare for the ACLU to take cases like this. The ACLU is only about money or advancing their political agenda.

    • jeffy1951

      Well Doogie, it looks like they make exceptions to your claim and pretty effective ones at that! Maybe if they DID take more cases like this, not as many people would have the opinion of them that you do.

      • Doogie Howzer

        No, I said its “rare”. Taking a case wouldn’t be an exception to my claim it would be confirming my claim.
        Yes, they should take more cases like this but they don’t because there is very little money for them in these cases.
        The ACLU is a group of lawyers. Lawyers only work for money.

        • notforprofit

          wrong

        • AynRand

          ExCop-LawStudent will work for a pat on the head
          from the local commissar. Doesn’t that count?

    • steveo

      I’ll tell you what I think is unusual. That the jury is out 90 min. It takes at least 10 to 20 min to pick a foreman, about 10 to pass out the paper and pencils, about 10 min for the baliffs to bring in the admitted evidence, that doesn’t leave much time to deliberate. First, vote was unanimous, probably. Why the judge didn’t grant a motion to dismiss or the motion for a directed verdict is more troubling. Probably a former prosecutor.

    • Tijuana Joe

      Actually they often fight on principle, rather than for money.
      You must be confusing them with UCLA.

      • kraz

        I’ve seen so much hate for the ACLU but they are the only group that will take cases no one else will touch. Them being about money is a relatively new one to me though.

        • pinbalwyz

          The ACLU sucks for most oppressed victims. I’ve tried on any number of occasions to contact them. They didn’t return phone calls or e-mail. Almost all litigants are better off representing themselves. For most litigants, the ACLU is a paper tiger. The organization loves the limelight and collecting donations. Being responsive to the cause of justice and the poor?–not so much. The comment about it being a group of lawyers is about right. “Look, bitch!–you knew I was a snake when you picked me up.”
          - amicuscuria.com/wordpress -

          • MCXL

            The ACLU gets like a bazgillion requests and has relatively little resources.

          • pinbalwyz

            All the more reason people need representation and pro se litigants should be allowed to select ANYONE they choose, especially paralegals, to assist them. But, that will never happen so long as attorneys are allowed to milk desperate litigants and keep their monopoly. We need to return to the days when, like Lincoln, folks could hang out a law shingle and let the market/people decide. Paralegals receive far and away fewer complaints than attorneys. Attorneys who passed the bar, went to law school, belong have been certified to practice would still be available. But, pro se litigants should be allowed the same options (to hire who they believe can best assist them) as attorneys. Note that Carlos succeeded in his appeal without an attorney, but representing himself. Attorneys act like that never/rarely happens when the opposite is the truth.
            - amicuscuria.com/wordpress -

    • CanuckAmuck

      And exactly what “political agenda” is that?

      • jcfromnj

        ACLU gets a majority of the funding from the Private Foundations, which in turn have a PC Agenda. You need to look BEHIND THE CURTAIN….It’s usually a click of well connected old line law firms for the most part. If you have to shame them into support, as was the case here, what good are they for the majority of us ?

        • CanuckAmuck

          ACLU gets a majority of the funding from the Private Foundations

          Which ones?

          which in turn have a PC Agenda.

          And what, precisely, is a “PC Agenda”?

          You need to look BEHIND THE CURTAIN

          Oh, I see, [hushed voice] it’s a conspiracy!

          It’s usually a click

          “Clique”.

          • pinbalwyz

            Yeah, a click like the hammer of a .45 revolver being cocked. Lawyers are worse than bank robbers. Actually, banks and lawyers tend to be on the same team. They don’t write folk songs about lawyers.
            - amicuscuria.com/wordpress -

          • CanuckAmuck

            Thanks, stream-of-consciousness posts are always fun to read.

        • pinbalwyz

          Damn straight, JC!
          - amicuscuria.com/wordpress -

  • Guest

    Great. But why aren’t the DA and prosecutor yet charged with violation of oath of office for being traitors to their oath to support the Constitution of the United States?

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

      Oh geez, another whackjob.

      1. They aren’t charged with violation of oath of office because there is no such crime in Minnesota.

      2. They also don’t meet the constitutional definition of treason.

      3. Ask the sheriff’s office and the district attorney’s office. Did anyone even try to file a criminal complaint?

      • Difdi

        Tampering with and/or destroying evidence, on the other hand, IS a crime in Minnesota.

      • Guest

        1. In Minnesota they call it “Misconduct of public officer or employee.”

        CC §609.43 Max. 1 year imprisonment; Max. fine $3,000

        “Failure to perform functions of job; performing functions unlawfully; intentionally injuring others under the color of official authority; making a false return, certificate, official report, or other like document”

        2. I see you haven’t broken your lying habit of renaming another person’s use of the word traitor, to treason. Why does the word traitor bother you so much, and make you a consistent liar? Is it because when you were a cop you were a traitor to your oath to “support the Constitution of the United States?”

        • stk33

          ” I see you haven’t broken your lying habit of renaming another person’s use of the word traitor, to treason.”

          It’s not such an unreasonable habit:
          ========================
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traitor?s=t
          traitor
          noun
          (…)2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
          ========================

          • Guest

            1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traitor?s=t

          • James

            He always misquotes everybody to serve his propaganda. You have to take his behavior as an organic whole. He is actually the traitor to PINAC and practices his treason in words, pictures, and hatred for the nice Americans who come here. And if you dare to disagree, he tries to defame you. We got a word for that in New Hampshire: Scumbag

            He was probably hired to come here as a professional disruptor. Sabe?

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

          I don’t like liars, zealots, and people who make things up as they go.

          Treason has been defined in law for centuries, because of what people just like you had done in England. Anything that they didn’t like became treason, and anyone they didn’t like became traitors.

          People like that led the Inquisition, witch hunts, and purges throughout history.

          I swore an oath to the Constitution to protect our citizens from people like you who would deprive them of life and liberty because you disagree with them. From people that would mislabel people and punish people as traitors when in fact they are not.

          • Guest

            If you are a traitor to your oath, then you are, in fact, a traitor. I know you know this. I can tell you’re not as obtuse as you try to portray yourself in between your bouts of pretentious know-it-all posts.

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

            Here’s your sign.

          • HangEmHigh

            Boy, you got that right. heh heh

          • Fascist Slayer

            You fascist in that decaying rot hole you call a free country do nothing but change definitions in order to contort and bend to your will. “It’s not torture”, “it’s enhanced interrogation”. “It’s not printing money from thin air”, “it’s QE1, 2, and 3″. “It’s not a war”, “It’s a kinetic intervention”. “It’s
            not spying”, “it’s just phone metadata”. “It’s not a tax”, “It’s a penalty”. “It’s not amnesty, “it’s a deferred action process”. “It’s not a violation of free speech”, “It’s a free speech zone”. “It’s not a strip search”, It’s an X-Ray Body Scanner”. I assume in your case when you say “I swore an oath to the Constitution”, that’s fascist secret code talk for “It’s not a concentration camp”, “It’s a freedom camp”.

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

            You’re an idiot.

            But as long as you want to slay liberal socialists (you know, fascists), we’ll tolerate you.

          • Fascist Slayer

            No worries CUNT. Russia will be along soon to clean up the mess. After all they did do all the heavy lifting during WWII, I’m pretty sure they’re going to rise again to the occasion.

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

            I’m curious.

            When you were conceived, did your dad happen to tell your mom his name?

          • Fascist Slayer

            I’m curious is that the best comeback an Excop -LawStudent can come up with?

            I’m embarrassed for you bitch.

          • Comprende

            You just don’t know him, bro. That IS the best he can do.

          • Knuckles McGee

            “.. we’ll tolerate you.”

            You don’t speak for the rest of us. Like somebody here appointed you to represent the site. Who the fuck are YOU? The man is obviously not an idiot, but you might be. No, actually its a certainty.

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

            We’ll tolerate you too. He’s obviously an idiot and a whackjob. Ergo, there is a strong probability that you are too.

          • Knuckles

            Well you can always blow me. Ergo, use your lips to commit fellatio.

            Thanks for playing

          • paschn

            Let’s not forget the dirty little trick-with-words the swine Eisenhower used to prevent the ICRC from interfering with his mass-murder of almost 2,000,000 Germans AFTER the war. Just change their designation from P.O.W. to “Disarmed Enemy Forces”, (D.E.F.), and tell the ICRC to f**k off. Of course there’s no need of that any longer, that (used to be), apolitical organization has been taken over by congress. How uniquely American, turn semantics into a tool for slaughter.

          • Fascist Slayer

          • Mellow Jessica

            That was terrible. For class I had to read about the forced expulsions of Germans from East Prussia or Upper Silesia or somewhere after WW2 and it really messed me up to see how terribly the Allies behaved.

          • Fascist Slayer Admirer

            Very insightful comment. My kind of guy.

          • Fascist Slayer

            OH MY GOD…. I love you.. I’m wrapping my arms around you and giving you the biggest hug ever!!!

          • GCHQ

            Yeah Yeah Yeah ^ STFU blowhard

      • Robo

        18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law

        It is treason to violate your oath to protect & defend the Constitution.

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

          No, it’s not.

          Treason is defined in both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions. By your definition, it is treason to mislabel actions as treason when the Constitution says that they are not.

          18 USC § 242 doesn’t fit either.

          • ShockNLaw

            You are truly hopeless. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
            Tisk Tisk

      • Your Ex-Wife

        WHY MUST YOU ALWAYS RIDICULE PEOPLE?
        - just make your point, dumbass

      • Amazed

        You mean you had to come back here 3 whole times to click the Thumbs Up?

      • JdL

        Oh geez, another whackjob.

        Displaying your usual level of maturity, I see. Yet, you somehow manage to descend even LOWER as the exchange goes on.

        You trying for for some kind of record? I think you may have already “won”.

    • jcfromnj

      All these issues need to kicked upstairs to the DA and Attorney General for review, and you need to an INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION TO get the ball rolling. Your in the clear now and , you can put Officer Shit for Brains on the record and any of her cronies that were in on this part of the mix.The Internal Affairs Complaints usually remain in their 201 file and follow them around for their carreer. I’ve done Internal Affairs complaints and it’s a win-win even if they are “Not Sustained” which is usually the case. If you can get them to perjure themselves, that will fuel an 1983 Law suit. Done that TOO…

    • stk33

      “…why aren’t the DA and prosecutor yet charged…”

      By whom?

      • Guest

        Good question. And good point.

      • James M Morriss

        The victims in these cases must file federal criminal and civil charges. You know, the beleaguered, unfunded, ignorant victims.

        But, remember lawyers are “officers of the court” and it takes much $$$ to sway their alliances. So if a case doesn’t bring cash or fame it is hard to find help. The victims tend to get the “It’s not worth the hassles.” speech. As we have seen the ACLU is not much better.

  • ray brown

    I’d always wondered how they got that ambulance under that canopy where he was sitting on the bench.

  • Ernie Menard

    One of the things that bothers me about cases like this is the tremendous waste of resources that were used to prosecute this guy for something he right a to do. This ought to come out of the cops pay.

    • Guest

      It’s the traitorous DA who decides whether or not to charge and prosecute.

      • matism

        Which is why this country’s “Legal” system is every bit as corrupt, foul, and treasonous as its “Law Enforcement”.

        • pinbalwyz

          BINGO!

    • OhSnapDJB

      It actually can. He would have to file a “1983 Claim” BUT he would have to prove that his civil rights were violated (which the ACLU lawyer should be able to do by filing charges with the FBI under the ” Color of Law”)

      • stk33

        This will not work. You won’t prove that the cops knowingly conspired to do something that later DA found worthy a trial, over which the jury deliberated for 1.5 hours, and which easily might have the opposite outcome if the jury was different.

  • jcfromnj

    I take back every negative I have said about the ACLU, they are ALMOST as useless as tit’s on bull. They are just as bad as the greasy public servants that you have to deal with, they are only responsive when the heat is on and they have no other option…..been there and done that with the ACLU

  • paschn

    Excellent! Perhaps some of our fellows here have/are learning of the power in Jury Nullification?
    The founding fathers felt it was the last defense against an out-of-control government;

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/08/01/justice-often-served-by-jury-nullification/

    Learning of and practicing this could lead to the end of the IRS’s, (private, Cayman Island based collection agency for the FED RES), illegal demand for and collection of unconstitutional “wage tax” being foisted upon us for decades to pay the interest on the debt caused by the PRIVATE FED RES being allowed to charge interest for printing our own money. The “Grace Commission” reported that not one nickel was used to operate our government;

    http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/list-gra.htm

    More and more evidence is coming out that the amendment allowing this treachery was NEVER ratified by the needed 2/3 of the states. Wage earners were NEVER meant to pay taxes on their wages.

    • Tijuana Joe

      Jury Nullification would be if he violated the law but the law is stupid.
      This would be more like “What law did he break?”

    • jmacabeus

      another wildly off topic rant from mr N$A

  • jwalsh

    Sweet!

  • Fascist Slayer

    WHAT??? A 90 minute jury deliberation?? I’m going to play nice and hope that an hour and 20 of that was lunch, and that it actually only took 10 minutes for them to write not guilty on all the forms, gather all their belongings and proceed back into the court room.

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

      90 minutes is fairly fast.

      • Fascist Slayer

        Don’t ever comment to me again. Got it.

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

          I’ll comment to whom I want, when I want.

          If you don’t like it, too bad.

          Got it? Good.

          • Commie Slayer

            Up yours Asshole. Bite this big one or shut up. Got it.

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

            Cool. Someone who is projecting his own desires.

            The LGBT section is thataway.

          • AJ

            You oughta know.

  • James M Morriss

    Jury nullification is great for the guy, but it does nothing much for the cause in the short run. The LEOs/DA just think they got a bad jury and the arrest/charges were OK. It will take many cases over a long time before they get the idea they can’t win, even then they will see any conviction as a green light to keep charging.
    What needs to happen is to file the “prior restraint”, “color of law”, etc, suits EVERY TIME. The LEOs and DAs need to be stripped of their “qualified immunity” and forced to pay out of their own pockets. There is a reason you only touch the hot stove once, IT HURTS. Until these asses feel some sort of pain they will continue their flagrant use of frivolous arrests/charges to intimidate and control us.

    • jcfromnj

      There have been some cases that LEO’s have had to pay out of their own pockets, very few of the hundreds of case’s that I’ve poured thru has”qualified immunity”held up in favor of the LEO’s….It’s just a self created fiction that can be easily pierced.Once you get into almost any court of record, the lawyers eat through that fiction.

  • ARtP

    http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/6916799-Jury-acquits-Minn-man-who-videotaped-police-ambulance-crew/

    “Man got within three feet of a paramedic trying to do a medical assessment of a drunken man and continued recording after the paramedic asked him to stop.”

    A couple lines later it says he was at 35 feet. Which is it?

    What really gets me is the camera was in police possession, the video is deleted and the deputy who stole it has the gall to say, “we’ll never know exactly what happened to it.”

    • jcfromnj

      It’s just a LEO Rag, everything that comes out of that site is suspect….

    • Kirkus1964

      I thought that even deleted files were retrievable with certain software.

  • Robo

    He should’ve placed her under citizen’s arrest for theft, and

    18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law

    • matism

      He would be dead if he had tried to do so.

      • inquisitor

        …deprivation of rights under color of “his blood”…running out of his body.

    • CanuckAmuck

      Yeah, you try that some time. Let us know how it goes.

      • Guest

        You don’t have to physically restrain the cop, or physically threaten him in any way. But you can still place him under a citizen’s arrest, nonetheless. You can simply tell him, “I’m placing you under citizen’s arrest. I will not attempt to physically touch, restrain, or detain you in any way. But I order you to immediately call for other police to come here, and for you to surrender yourself to their custody.”

        He may look at you like you’re from Mars, and laugh hysterically. But it sure would feel good to say it out loud to one of these traitorous pieces of shit.

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

      ROTFLMAO.

      Yeah.

      Let me know how that works for you.

      As bugs would say, what a maroon….

      • Wild Bill

        You might be right. Why not just pull a gun on him? That better?

        Idiot.

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

          People do it all the time.

          It’s called “suicide by cop.”

          Retard.

          • AJ

            Except for the cops who are dead.

            Imbecile.

  • aikimoe

    Congrats not only to Henderson, but to you, Carlos. PINAC makes a real difference. Thanks.

  • Ian Battles

    Now, are any of the government officials involved in this campaign of harassment against this citizen going to face any sort of consequences?

    • Guest

      One consequence we can effect is to put articles and videos about how they are traitors to their oath to “support the Constitution of the United States” all over the internet. Include their names, photos, and public office contact information.

    • pinbalwyz

      Sue The Bastards! The best defense is a good offense. It is true, no pain, no gain. True patriots need to do more than merely talk a good game. Suing is exhausting and a hassle, but it’s better than dying, which many of our founding fathers had to do to defend this country and the principles upon which it was founded.
      - amicuscuria.com/wordpress -

  • Montana Bob

    The MN ACLU is absolutely useless. I’ve been being harassed by my local PD for months now. I documented everything with video, audio, photos and even GPS coordinates. I have an officer on video telling me clearly the only reason he pulled me over is because his LT told him to “hang around my house and pull me over”, no PC stated not RAS. Nothing. These guys know the law, they cherry pick cases based on PR. Utterly disgusting. Thank God for PINAC.

    • Guest TT

      You might try contacting the Rutherford Institute. They sue on behalf of people with constitutional rights violations & I think they get donations from patriotic folks. Good luck.

      Rutherford.org

  • Frodo

    When is henderson getting his $200,000 check from the city? It’ll help with his campaign finances, and for when they arrest him again for filming.

Javascript is currently disabled. This website functions better with Javascript. Please enable Javascript in your browser.
Internet Explorer is out-of-date. Please upgrade your browser or install Google Chrome Frame for an improved web browsing experience.