Louisiana Police once again Arrest PINAC Reader for Video Recording them in Public

Two days after Theresa Richard filed a complaint against a Louisiana police officer for threatening to arrest her for video recording him in public, that same officer arrested her for video recording him in public.

Obviously, the Crowley Police Department has yet to learn its lesson from the last time it arrested her for video recording them in public.

It’s pretty much Deja Vu in the Bayou all over again.

Only this time they charged her with felony public intimidation and retaliation after she assured officer S. Thibodeaux she will continue to hold him accountable no matter how many times he tries to intimidate her.

The charge, which carries a sentence of up to five years, states the following:

A. Public intimidation is the use of violence, force, or threats upon any of the following persons, with the intent to influence his conduct in relation to his position, employment, or duty:

(1) Public officer or public employee.

“When I got to jail, I told him I would not stop complaining about him until he is no longer a cop,”  Richard explained in a telephone interview with Photography is Not a Crime Thursday morning, only hours after her release. “That is when he added the second charge.”

She then asked what he’s going to do when they drop her charges again.

“He just laughed and said, ‘nothing, I will still be drawing a paycheck.'”

She was initially charged with interfering with a law enforcement investigation, another baseless charge. In December, she was charged with Louisiana’s version of trespassing, remaining after forbidden, which ended up getting dismissed, but not before we gave them a healthy dose of the PINAC Wrath.

This time, the problem started when she was trying to help her developmentally disabled friend, Farrell, with an issue he has been having with a neighbor who keeps complaining to police about him.

Farrell, who lives alone on a fixed income, has been arrested or cited for loud music, disturbing the peace and littering, but only because the cops just take his neighbor’s word as to what happens, never bothering to get his side.

So Richard, who has become a huge advocate for photographer rights, even driving down to South Florida last January with her husband to attend our right to record conference, provided her friend with a cheap video camera, telling him to record his interactions with the crazy neighbor.


Theresa Richard
Theresa Richard, sporting a PINAC Nation shirt, which probably doesn’t bode well in her tiny Louisiana town of Crowley (click on photo to order).


But that just led to officer Thibodeaux threatening to charge him with criminal mischief, even though the video below shows he was wordlessly video recording from his front porch.

In the video, you can also hear Richard argue with Thibodeaux about the Constitutionality of video recording in public where he sarcastically asks her to show him where in the Constitution does it say citizens have the right to record, proving incapable of comprehending how case law in this country works, not to mention oblivious to the “Freedom of the Press” phrase guaranteed to all spelled out in the First Amendment.

That incident took place last week, which led to Richard filing a complaint with a sergeant on Monday that Thibodeaux had violated her right to record in public.

On Wednesday, Thibodeaux arrested her after she refused to stop video recording him in public, spending five hours in jail.

This time, at least, they returned her phone upon release. But only because she spent hours in her cell educating them about the legal circumstances in which they can actually do that.

“They said they were going to keep it as evidence, but I told them it has to be used in the commission of a crime like upskirting or (child) pornography,” she said. “I told them they need exigent circumstances. I offered to let them make a copy.”

It doesn’t even appear that they did that, probably realizing they are not going to convict her, but satisfied that they were able to disrupt her life for a few hours.

Now it’s our turn. Call (337) 788-4114.

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.

Check Also

Antoine Scott, left, was shot and killed by San Antonio police officer John Lee, who mistook his cell phone for a gun.

Texas Cop Shoots Man to Death After Confusing Cell Phone for Gun

Once again, another highly trained officer of the law shot and killed a man after …

  • dickgosinya48

    In Louisiana, I wouldn’t be surprised. Most all cops in that state need to catch a bullet. After Katrina and the fallout with the NOPD, one would think these morons would have learned some lessons.

    • inquisitor

      They have learned…crime pays.

    • Joe DeGregorio

      No, our cops here in Baton Rouge, Both the BRPD and EBRSO treat people with a lot more dignity than this backwoods Swamp Cop.
      I can’t say the same for NOPD or these other hole in the wall towns but they better get their shit straight before people start dealing with them on their own..Cajuns have a unique way of dealing with people like this. trust me, Skeat will screw with the wrong coon ass one day and get his ass waxed for being a jackboot.

  • Todd Rumpleforeskin MacRae

    They must work pa
    rt time at the VA

  • Kirkus1964

    Why does the video look like it is from a 1963 home movie?

    • JWE

      I think they had it on a low light setting, which washed it out a bit. Latter on it looks like they corrected it.

  • JWE

    I went to the YouTube channel that these were posted on, and view some of the other video on this. I swear it look like, on the last one; one of these cops had prison tattoos on his right arm.

  • Kirkus1964

    These cops are like something out of Deliverance.

    • JWE

      You’re not exactly a saint either.

      • JWE

        I see my troll is back

  • steveo

    This is what happens when a State doesn’t have proper due process. Leos and prosecutors and judges start making up the rules, rather than case law. There is definitely something to be said for stare decisis. No stare decisis in Louisana, I wouldn’t live there.

    • $910553

      I hate to break this to you, but this shit is STANDARD fare in ANY state around this country these days.

      • MoBetter2

        You’re exactly right, matism! It is called “Punishment By Process” – the jackbooted azzwipes know the charges they lodge are bogus but they arrest anyway, inconvenience the citizen, handcuff them, intimidate them, subject them to the whole detain/arrest/handcuff/transport/booking processes, cause them to incur legal costs by requiring the assistance of an attorney, and otherwise just turn their lives upside-down. The thugs-with-badges realize there is no downside for them, only for the innocent citizen whose rights they have violated and who they have ‘thugged’ into jail, knowing most people will be intimidated by the entire process and will simply give up pursuing any justice, because they don’t want to be victimized again by the knuckle-dragging thugs in uniform.

    • theaton

      This is what happens when the people don’t give a damn. If the officers aren’t challenged, they can’t/won’t be held accountable.

  • http://www.policemisconduct.net Film The Police Always

    Well the problem here is not only this young ignorant cop who feels he owns the people and can violate a citizens rights whenever he feels he wants too, the problem lies with the Chief of Police. It’s his leadership, or lack thereof that is causing this continuing malicious arrest. He’s got a personal vendetta out for her because she holds them accountable. It’s pretty obvious that this young cop needs a lesson on civil rights and the CONSTITUTION, and the Chiefs lack of leadership and this cop is going to cause this town and their police department a black eye and a $$$ settlement.

    I suggest that Ms.Richard start searching for a civil rights lawyer and file a Title 42 1983 claim against them. That will get their attention.

    • inquisitor

      Someone needs to kick this kids ass and beat the smart out of it.

      • Roscoe Roskovitch

        Somebody needs to give you a reverse lobotomy so your brain can operate at a normal level.

        • inquisitor

          So…you are like, his dad? Lover? Commanding officer? All three?

    • inquisitor

      M-18s should be legal as lawn decoration.
      “Front toward enemy”.

    • steveo

      cases like this have to go to the federal court because LA doesn’t care about the Bill of Rights.

      • $910553

        In cases like this you can forget the Federal courts as well.

  • harry balzanya

    “I need you to” is not a lawful order, it is cop trick language if she obeyed him and then filed suit he would say I never gave you a order you consented, well he never issued a actual order she had no order to obey, charging someone for commiting to report violations is itself a crime.

  • inquisitor

    Interfering = stepping out of your parked car, on your private property, while your hands are occupied, holding a camera while filming twenty-five feet from an officer questioning a retard.

  • Liberaltarian

    If you don’t sue, then there’s no consequences for their misbehavior. Even if you lose a lawsuit, you can make things unpleasant enough for them to deter future misconduct.

    ETA: Better camera work next time please. If you’re going to film the cops, then film them and not the sky.

  • Sue

    Two people trying to educate each other on something they are not quite clear about themselves is always amusing.

    If this is her “thing” she should be better prepared with copies of the case law as he is right, the constitution was written before video recording existed. It’s the courts that have interpreted the constitution yet she wasn’t prepared to explain that.

    That’s what happens when people just blindly follow a “leader.” in her case the leader is PINAC, and in his it’s whichever uninformed officer trained him.

    • inquisitor

      I challenge part of your assertion…

      How can you substantiate that her “leader was PINAC” when you consider PINAC has never falsely interpreted the law based upon a false premise, but actually promotes the laws accurately?
      If her leader was PINAC as you insinuate, then she would have gotten it technically right as PINAC has done, does and continues to do so.
      Perhaps if she truly chooses PINAC blindly as her leader she will actually get it right.

      The only way your correlation could have merit is if you can cite or refer to an example of PINAC misrepresenting the law or being incorrect in a similar fashion as this woman.
      If there is not example to speak of then your correlation and insinuation false flat on its face in your association concerning PINAC.

      cum hoc ergo propter hoc

      I will further add that she is under no obligation to have to cite case law to prevent an officer from citing or arresting her as she has the presumption of innocence. It all falls on the ignorance of the law or abuse of authority by the officer. Unless she has truly broken the law and is guilty of said offense.

      • Sue

        Not at all. Just because someone is “following” a “leader” doesn’t mean they are going to be perfect “students.”

        PINAC might get the law perfectly each and every time. It’s up to their followers though to educate themselves properly… first to verify that PINAC is correct, then to insure they understand the details themselves (which she obviously did not).

        It’s certainly not PINACS fault, nor their responsibility, if their followers are too intellectually lazy, or uneducated, to do either of those things.

        • Sue

          PS: I certainly agree with you that it’s not her responsibility to prevent the officer from arresting her… however why would someone want to be arrested if they could prevent it by being more prepared… especially if they know their particular police department is ignorant on a particular issue?

          By being more prepared she could be performing a public service. Perhaps the officer (who seemed like a nice enough guy… just uninformed), would take the information back to the Department who might review it and retrain their officers (especially if they see the number of departments being sued over this particular issue).

        • inquisitor

          Your second post contradicts your first in this regard…

          In your first post you had attributed the causation of her actual error was attributed to her blindly following a leader that you designated as PINAC.

          “…yet she wasn’t prepared to explain that.

          That’s what happens when people just blindly follow a “leader.” in her case the leader is PINAC”.

          You have not provided anything tangible to prove that assertion.
          What she has done is “incorrectly” followed a correct example as set by PINAC. You have not shown that her “blind” following of PINAC as a leader was responsible for her error over say, just her being stupid in her own right.

          In your second post you declare the error is her own based upon her own deficits and not based upon her association or using PINAC as a leader for that example.
          Which I agree with.
          I believe your second post has clarified your position for me.
          Whereas your first post sounds like bullshit in this regard.

          • Sue

            I guess that rests on your interpretation of “blindly.” If you want to nit pick at individual words, however, I believe that “blindly” following is why she didn’t take the time to verify and learn the details herself.

          • inquisitor


            It rests on YOUR meaning of “blindly”.
            Asking for clarification as to your meaning, which is unknown to anyone except yourself, is nitpicking?
            And if that is your definition as to what you meant by using blindly then your original assertion that this is what happens when someone blindly follows a leader like PINAC has not been convincingly delivered.
            Her following PINAC did not contribute or have anything to do with her error as you originally suggested. Her error was her own and only her own. There is no connection that you have shown…in the slightest.

            And I further take issue with your characterizations that she is a “follower” or that PINAC is her “leader” or the source for which she was supposed to receive proper instruction on case and Constitutional law when dealing with a LEO.

            You simply made a false association whatever you meant by it.

            I think we are done here.

      • Guest

        PS: I certainly agree with her that it’s not her responsibility to prevent the officer from arresting her… however why would someone want to be arrested if they could prevent it by being more prepared… especially if they know their particular police department is ignorant on a particular issue?

        By being more prepared she could be performing a public service. Perhaps the officer (who seemed like a nice enough guy… just uninformed), would take the information back to the Department who might review it and retrain their officers (especially if they see the number of departments being sued over this particular issue).

        • inquisitor

          “The officer seemed like a nice enough guy…just uninformed???!!!”

          Now I wholeheartedly hold your judgment in severe doubt.
          You can’t hear the obnoxious, authoritarian and snarky tone?
          Coupled with arresting someone for interfering when they clearly are not and in retaliation for a previous incident?

          • Sue

            Didn’t see any arrest on the video so can’t comment on that… only what I did see. And, frankly all police officers tend to talk in that overly polite way when they are trying to defuse a situation.

          • inquisitor


            You did not see any arrest on the video?

            Video #1 starting @:38 all the way through to 1:35 the officer is arresting her which can be ascertained from both the video, the audio and the written article by Carlos concerning this story.

            You have three avenues of proof an arrest was made and you did not see any arrest on the video?

            Me thinks we are done here as your ability to properly analyze a situation accurately has damaged your credibility beyond repair.
            You are dismissed from my presence.

            And I quote your generalization…

            “And, frankly all police officers tend to talk in that overly polite way when they are trying to defuse a situation.”

            Sue, there are medications available to you provided through a qualified mental health professional.

          • Sue

            Funny… you sure do love to argue don’t you? But yes, I missed the first video because I didn’t realize they were two different ones.

          • inquisitor

            I don’t “love” to argue.
            I love for things or people to make sense.
            So you did not watch the video, nor did you read the story where Carlos mentions the arrest?
            Talk about “blindly”.
            Are you now not somewhat guilty of the same offense for which you condemn this woman?
            Me thinks……yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

          • Sue

            I did read that part of the article, but the only thing you were challenging me on was my comment that the officer seemed pretty polite.

            I just watched the first video and, again, the officer seemed nice, polite and professional. He is wrong about the law on videotaping… however it looks like he arrested her for interfering (he asked her to get back into her car and she refused), not specifically for using the video. In fact, he obviously didn’t interfere with the making of video, right? Because… if he did… we would not be watching it.

            While I certainly agree that people SHOULD video the police as much as possible, they should also do so without directly interfering with what the police are doing. Some of these arrests are simply where people have crossed that line.

            A police officer has to be aware of, and asses, all threats around him. Someone might just be using a video… but someone might also jump in with a weapon at any second. Asking people to step back, get in their car, etc., is not unreasonable in itself.

          • inquisitor

            No. That is not the only thing I challenged you on.
            There were three issues, at least, that I challenged you on.

            You comments indicate you believe this lady was “directly” or interfering with this officer.

            Do you agree this woman was guilty of interfering with the investigation of this police officer?

            Do you agree she committed this crime and the arrest was justified?

          • Sue

            Since the video tape appears to have begun somewhere after the interaction began, and since we can’t know what she might have said or done before the tape began, it’s hard to judge from this. However the officer had a right to ask her to get back in her car, she didn’t comply, and instead just continued to argue with him. Whether that arises to the level of “interfering” is for the court to decide.

            However I do, in general, have a problem with people who “bait” the police, so they can attempt to be some YouTube star, then “cry foul” when the cops get fed up with them.

            I don’t know if that is the case with this woman or not, I only saw the two video tapes and we don’t have direct, impartial, knowledge of the interactions that occurred over time that were not caught on video.

            However she obviously does not have “clean hands” in this. Clean hands would be that she complied with the officers direction to get back in the car (whether it was an order or a request). He didn’t ask her to stop video taping… just get back in the car. She could have done that and just continued to video out the window. Instead she wanted to argue with him, preventing him from talking to her neighbor and doing his job.

            This officer appears to be very polite and professional. I’m not even sure you can truthfully say that she was arrested for video-ing him. It looks more like she was arrested for basically being a pain in the ass… technically “interfering.”

            There are a LOT of asshat cops out there that deserve attention. This officer just appears to be doing his job. He might be poorly trained in constitutional rights and the law surrounding videos, but it sounds like she is making it her personal mission to pick a fight and harass him. I’d say it’s evenly tied as to who is right or wrong.

          • inquisitor

            Thank you for your response Sue.
            I have acquired all I need concerning your perspective and shall not be inquiring any further concerning any additional elaboration.

          • Kerfuffulator

            Not showing immediate and full obesiance to a request (not a lawful order) is called Patriotic, not “unclean hands”.

          • harry balzanya

            He did not have the authority to order a lawfully present citizen who was not being detained to sit in her car. He was required to tell herba safe distance In witch she could continue to film or if she chose leaveorcor walk further away. Forcing her to sit car was a illegal detention. Arresting her without ever giving a lawful order was a criminal offense.

          • guest

            Clean hands would mean she would just obey a request?
            You are not seeing straight.
            Go ahead and kiss boots all you like but don’t expect others to be so lame

          • Dealer04

            The cop was flat out wrong and your standing up for his ability to “order” her to do whatever he chooses is as well. There is no law against being a pain in the ass, you shouldn’t be so accepting of the asshole cop’s behavior.

        • Guest

          Everything you say to the police will be used against you. She, you, me and everyone should say nothing to the police, except, “I’m exercising my right to remain silent.”

  • http://www.policemisconduct.net Film The Police Always

    I’d also file with the FBI. Getting this retaliatory cop and his departments name on the books is a good thing. This was definitely a FALSE ARREST w/ FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law

    Don’t wait Theresa. Also, start following this cop and FILM HIM. Sure wish I lived a bit closer because I’d be there in a nano second.

  • J.b. Roberts

    The sad thing is , these Police Dept. do not hire the best and brightest and then spend all of their budget on toys like MRAPs and SWAT tools and SWAT training, with almost no money spent training them to deal with law abiding people. They also have a US against THEM mentality and view anyone not wearing a badge as a potential adversary and thus a problem.

    • inquisitor

      But they have been trained to deal with law abiding people.
      They have been trained to regard them at best as belligerents and at worst as enemy combatants and potential terrorists.

  • Daniel Wood

    I just called, and as soon as I said I was recording the call I was automatically transfered to the voicemail of the assistant to the chief of police.

    • inquisitor

      Did you leave a message?

      • Daniel Wood

        Sure did, gave them a piece of my mind. Anybody else call?

        • $910553

          I figure it’s best if I not do so…

  • harry balzanya

    I think human rights organizations and oath keepers need to begin boycotting the Crowley international rice festival. It seems if they are allowing blatent constitutional violations the world should react with facebook posts tweets and such aimed at the festival. Thats my opinion.

  • Ronny
  • Christopher Best

    She needs to be careful. Threatening to get a cop fired *was* an arrestable offense under the “Public Intimidation” law in Louisiana back when I lived there and I had friends in the State and local Police. She’s already in the right, she doesn’t need to hurt herself by making threats…

    • theaton

      She didn’t threaten to get him fired. She said she was going to continue until he was no longer an officer. That could be when he retires or quits.

      • inquisitor

        Or he is convicted of criminal activity.

    • Guest

      “Threatening to get a cop fired” is not a crime and never has been a crime in any US state, for any ordinary person who is not in a position of power over police officers. It could be a crime if for example a police superior, or the Mayor, or Governor “threatened to get a cop fired.” However, I have no doubt that the vile traitorous piece of shit cops in Louisiana have arrested people for this and will continue to arrest people for this. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the piece of shit traitorous DAs and prosecutors charged and prosecuted people for this. I wouldn’t be surprised if the piece of shit traitorous judges allowed it all to happen.

  • jwalsh

    Left a VM with the Chief of Police.

  • inbredjed

    It’s obvious that Officer Thibodeaux parents are cousins.

  • James Richard, Sr.

    Why is it okay and legal for police to record the general public with dash cameras and body cameras, but it is not okay for the public to record the police with a smart phone as long as they are at a reasonable distance and are not interfering with the officer’s investigation?

    • rust

      You must be new here.

      To answer your question: Enforcers are above the law in all cases, and citizens can never be believed, even when there is videographic evidence supporting them.

  • sunshipballoons

    She is my new hero! Amazing.

  • Ordinary Citizen

    Lesson for the day: if you’re going to take a stand…a FIRM stand…on something which you believe is black letter law and beyond the shadow of a doubt, you’d better be able to cite it like your own middle name.

    Cops come into contact with all sorts of people every day going on and on about their ‘rights’ and many times, those people are simply wrong. Sometimes, of course, they’re right. But I’d hate to hazard a guess at the ratio.

    • Carlos_Miller

      The lesson is that you learn as you go along. She did great. It’s not her fault she was dealing with an imbecile cop.

      • PINAC Troll

        Speak for yourself you fucking hyprocrite piece of shit. It took you what 2 weeks or so just to try to figure out and block from your washed up pathetic hate site, your calling the cop an imbecile? You are just a bully that hates it when someone won’t take your shit stands up to you.

    • $910553

      Either that, or blow the pig’s head off like he deserves.

    • Kirkus1964

      Better to just keep your mouth shut and film. The cop wouldn’t believe her anyway. Debating with cops is pretty futile. It’s like debating with a five year-old.

      • Boomer

        That’s as spot on as it gets. Never argue law with a street cop. It’s a pointless exercise that you’re not going to win, specifically as they don’t have the training to accept that someone other than them knows the law much better than they do. Particularly if it nails down how out of the legal restrictions on their activity that their behavior has wandered. Shut up, keep filming, and never stop.

        • $910553

          Never try to teach a pig to think. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig…

    • inquisitor

      …and they shoot people to death for knowing less.

      • G

        and they would shoot people just for knowing more than they do.

    • G

      Cops should be able to cite the law like their own middle name. Telling a cop that he/she is doing to lose his job because of his/her misconduct is not threatening or initimdating a cop. Not by a long shot, yet the cops are unable to know what constitute intimidation or what is consider a threat acoording to what is stated in the law.
      Of course, cops don’t like it when ordinary people know the law better than they do.

  • Jim Morriss
  • Majikhat

    Louisiana, where “y’all” is singular and “all y’all” is plural. If none y’all don’t want to be video recorded from your neighbor’s lawn, all y’all shouldn’t go outside.

  • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

    I myself have been the victim of a nosy, busy body neighbor with malicious intent. It was a miserable and infuriating experience that tested my patience, and faith. At first this neighbor used our home owners association as her preferred tool of harassment, then when that wasn’t effective she started calling the police. It is also infuriating how the police automatically take the side of the complainant without even bothering to consider both sides of the story.

    Officer S. Thibodeaux, you are a lying immoral coward. Theresa you are courageous and an inspiration.

    • PINAC Troll

      You wonder why you are being investigated. It’s only a matter of time, enjoying every moment!

    • inquisitor

      I have had a similar experience myself. In Florida, the land of the gated community or housing development, there is always the King of the block.
      Heaven help you should you move in and find out later that the King is your neighbor.
      Good to ask the lawn guy who cuts the grass of multiple homes on your street or in your area where the King and his royal band of homeowner association assholes are located when scouting out a home to buy.
      Always be wary of the very first person that shows up to welcome you to the neighborhood. Always a high percentage potential that this is the King being nice while sizing you up.
      And if the King is an old retiree who wants peace and quiet, yet you have kids…well that just made the whole situation worse…’cuz now your are automatically on his shit list.

      • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

        You are spot on. This insipid neighbor that I had was the king of the block. Everybody congregated at her house and she told all the neighbors God only knows what lies about my family. The harassment started from the 1st day when she stuck her hand in my wife’s face and said ” talk to the hand”. She eventually embarrassed her self to the point that she moved. Most of the neighbors still won’t talk to us but thats ok because I like the privacy.
        BTW the 1st thing one of the “royal band” asked us as we were moving in was “are you renters or are you buyers” to which I responded
        “did your mother not teach you any manners or did you just forget”

  • Jim Morriss

    Officer Thibodeaux is an idiot, but to screw with her a second time is proof they will keep “trying on” laws until they get one that fits. I feel that they will watch until they catch her without a camrea an make it a he said/she said issue in court. We all know what happens then.

    • $910553

      Then it will be time to blow his pig head off, and kill his whore with him.

  • Frank Morris

    Ah done read me that constitution, and it don’t say nothing about no video cameras!

    • Charlie Grapski

      Very true. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about something that could not even be conceived in the 1780s. And we also tend to misuse the word “Constitution” often – conflating TWO DISTINCT “documents.”

      The Constitution, proper, is nothing more than a FRAMEWORK of government. As such – it would say nothing about such matters – beyond the philosophical roots it is established upon which were based, primarily, on LIMITING the abuses of power that “naturally” tend to be accrued by persons given such authority – and failing to understand or respect it.

      Secondly there is the “Bill of Rights” (and along with those ten items – a series of other amendments). It is perhaps unfortunate that the Bill of Rights was enacted via amendment to the Constitution – as it is at the root cause of the confusions. More importantly – the Bill of Rights, as was warned by Madison who reluctantly shepherded it through Congress (as the architect of the Constitution proper), did not list an EXCLUSIVE set of “rights” – but merely STRESSED SOME – which, he and others believed (but skeptics feared their assurances would not be enough), were ALREADY protected under the “constitution” (small “c”) – which is truly the idea of the constitution we often refer to – the full panoply of rights of persons and limits of authority/government. A constitution over two thousand years in the making – with the collective insights and understanding that came through many periods of history.

      What is NOT “in” the Constitution (nor the constitution) is the POWER and more – the AUTHORITY (legitimizing that power) of the State to limit the citizens in OVERSEEING in order to HOLD TO ACCOUNT those public SERVANTS that they have instilled, temporarily and under strict conditions, such powers in their hands.

      When the police cannot be trusted. When the law cannot be relied upon to be the guarantor of legitimacy – a free society no longer exists.

      • Charlie Grapski

        Not to mention – the modern concept of “police” itself did not exist.

        However – at the time of the Constitution – when public servants abused their authority and lost their legitimacy – they were, literally, tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

      • Frank Morris

        Agreed. I was quoting the dumbass cop in the video. Great work covering the murder scene in Albuquerque, BTW.

  • average citizen

    As this blatant abuse of a citizens Constitutional rights by a very low IQ thug, I had to do something which I doubt will be addressed…I wrote a very sarcastic letter , In the letter ( snail mail ) I asked him to explain why the cops in Crowley are above the Law and can harass and charge a citizen for a non-crime. As the so-called police dept wants ALL of your personal info to contact them. Not a good idea ! As it will more than likely be entered into the national domestic terrorist database maintained by the feds. Will have to see if Gov Jindal responds, definately not holding my breath…………………….

  • average citizen

    screwed up the previous post… should have said I wrote a sarcastic letter to Gov Jindal.

  • Joe DeGregorio

    Crowley PD’s facebook page…Feel free to rate and leave your comments..
    The Cops name is: Skeat Thibodeaux

  • pbenoit

    If the officer doesn’t want to be observed while conducting the investigation, why is he conducting the investigation outdoors in a public area?

    For those who will claim that the officer is protecting the privacy of the male being interviewed that’s obviously not accurate. The officer tells Ms. Richard to give the man her camera so that he may video their encounter.

    Ms. Richard was arrested because she didn’t get in her car when told to like a child. The officer decided that since he had the badge, whether lawfully or not the citizens of Crowley La, will listen to what the Crowley Police tell them to do.

    All in all, he taught Ms. Richard and the other citizens of Crowley La, an important lesson (you better listen when the Crowley Police Talk).