Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Pentax K-30: a pretty package of a camera
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Iowa Man Convicted In Videotaping Case Needs To File Appeal
An Iowa man who was video recording a traffic stop from his front yard was convicted of interfering with an investigation.
Justin Norman, 28, now faces up to 30 days in jail.
Hopefully, he'll appeal the case because the above video shows he was hardly interfering.
Unfortunately, the Des Moines Register refused to post or link to the video in its story.
Norman was a passenger in Kirk Brown's car when police pulled them over for having an open trunk in July.
The 12-minute video shows Brown having an attitude with the cops, aka contempt of cop, which probably led to the officers arresting Norman.
And it probably helped the prosecutor convince the jury that Norman was anti-cop and deserved to be arrested, even though from a legal standpoint, he was not breaking the law.
Iowa law defines interference as someone who "resists" or "obstructs" and makes it clear that this does not include "verbal harassment."
719.1 Interference with official acts.
1. A person who knowingly resists or obstructs anyone known by the person to be a peace officer, emergency medical care provider under chapter 147A, or fire fighter, whether paid or volunteer, in the performance of any act which is within the scope of the lawful duty or authority of that officer, emergency medical care provider under chapter 147A, or fire fighter, whether paid or volunteer, or who knowingly resists or obstructs the service or execution by any authorized person of any civil or criminal process or order of any court, commits a serious misdemeanor. However, if a person commits an interference with official acts, as defined in this subsection, and in so doing inflicts bodily injury other than serious injury, that person commits an aggravated misdemeanor. If a person commits an interference with official acts, as defined in this subsection, and in so doing inflicts or attempts to inflict serious injury, or displays a dangerous weapon, as defined in section 702.7, or is armed with a firearm, that person commits a class "D" felony.
2. A person under the custody, control, or supervision of the department of corrections who knowingly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a correctional officer, agent, employee, or contractor, whether paid or volunteer, in the performance of the person's official duties, commits a serious misdemeanor. If a person violates this subsection and in so doing commits an assault, as defined in section 708.1, the person commits an aggravated misdemeanor. If a person violates this subsection and in so doing inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury other than serious injury to another, displays a dangerous weapon, as defined in section 702.7, or is armed with a firearm, the person commits a class "D" felony. If a person violates this subsection and uses or attempts to use a dangerous weapon, as defined in section 702.7, or inflicts serious injury to another, the person commits a class "C" felony.
3. The terms "resist" and "obstruct", as used in this section, do not include verbal harassment unless the verbal harassment is accompanied by a present ability and apparent intention to execute a verbal threat physically.
This reminds me of my experience where a jury found me guilty of resisting arrest, even though the evidence did not support this.
I appealed my case and had the conviction reversed. Hopefully, Norman will do the same.
Comments
Went to College with Chief Judy Bradshaw.
I have called and left a message asking her to return my call.
I'm looking for comment.
When, and if she returns my call I'll update with her comments.
http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/4740066-Iowa-videographe...
Sorry for the link. The video? I could be wrong. At work :)
Iroc, cool.
*yawn*
No misconduct observed at all. It's obvious the police didn't have a problem being filmed. They just wanted the guy with the camera to keep away a safe distance. It doesn't matter if it is a front yard or in the middle of a parking lot. The police have the legal right to maintain the scene of a traffic stop without letting a bunch of tools wander in and out of the area.
And why did the second guy feel the need to get a camera out anyway? He knew there was already someone filming. I guess he just wanted to be a dick and try to screw with the police some more.
This is a perfect video to show rookies to let them see the kinds of morons we deal with out there. Good job on the part of the officers.
So what about my property rights? Not important? Officer "safety" trumps all other factors?
And this maintain the scene BS is just that BS, he was in HIS yard, the scene where the 2 guys were, I don't see him leave his yard at any point.
You are basically arguing that he could legally order that guy anywhere he wanted.
Lets challenge the stop in the first place, no probably cause, open trunk is not inherently illegal here in Iowa and they were home anyway. The guy got cuffed seconds after telling the guy to not stop filming and to ignore the cop.
Iowa law specifies this:
719.1 Section 3. The terms “resist” and “obstruct”, as used in this section, do not include verbal harassment unless the verbal harassment is accompanied by a present ability and apparent intention to execute a verbal threat physically.
But the telling point is the Razor guy didn't get arrested or charged when he didn't back off. And under the code which Carlos put up and I verified at: http://search.legis.state.ia.us/nxt/gateway.dll/ic?f=templates&fn=defaul...
There was no law breached, which requires a physical act, not a verbal one. By law the cops violated his civil rights, the fact that a jury bought it has no relevance, no law was broken. The fact that they released him and told him he could go is not all that important to me, he was part of it.
I noticed he said they were "evasive", hm, I refuse to answer questions I don't have any legal requirement to answer, funny the supreme court actually ruled on this DIRECTLY. Exercise of a constitutionally protected right cannot be used as probable cause, ie the provided id which only the driver could be required to do, anything else is beyond the scope that they have the right to require.
"So what about my property rights? Not important? Officer "safety" trumps all other factors?"
In many situations it does. I've been in people's homes for domestic disturbances and I've controlled where people could go even though they were not under arrest. The courts are okay with certain restrictions as long as they are reasonable. Not letting a guy walk up into the middle of your stop is reasonable.
As for the PC for the stop, I am afraid I am not familiar with the statute about driving with an open trunk. Of course we don't know any other details of why they were stopped so there could be other factors. Either way, the arrest affidavit for the arrest has to detail the reason for the initial stop. It was obviously approved by a judge and the subject was found guilty so I am fairly confident that the officers had some legal stop. I will grant you that if the stop was illegal then all arrests resulting from that stop are invalid. I'm just not sure that is the case here.
"There was no law breached, which requires a physical act, not a verbal one. By law the cops violated his civil rights, the fact that a jury bought it has no relevance, no law was broken. The fact that they released him and told him he could go is not all that important to me, he was part of it."
Too bad a jury disagreed with you.
If you watched the video the ONLY thing the officer could even think about claiming was safety and in the circumstances even that is ludicrous. They already let the guy go so obviously he was such a danger to them.
And lets be real JL, the jury isn't the final word unless he lets it be.. And juries make mistakes all the time..
I'm the person who got arrested in the video. Thanks for your responses. I'll make a general response here, first addressing an earlier question from Johnny Law: "And why did the second guy feel the need to get a camera out anyway?"
I regularly shoot video of anti-torture protests in West Des Moines and make short films. You can see these on my YouTube account. ( http://www.youtube.com/JustinNorman ) One thing I've learned is that when you're filming with a shoddy camera and no boom mic, the built-in microphone is usually insufficient in picking up audio unless you are pretty close to the people speaking. As you can tell from the unedited version of the video ( here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXyJoY6cveo ) I was right in assuming that Todd's FlipCam wasn't going to pick up much of the conversation over the sound of the cops' engines running from that distance, which is why I subtitled it later, as I have many of the videos of protests that have been by noisy streets. I brought my camera out and stood an arm's length closer than Todd. When I was arrested, all I had to do was turn and hand the camera to him. No stepping necessary from either of us. This is a trivial amount of distance forward, but can make a serious difference in audio quality.
Now, let's assume that this "officer safety" business has a bit of credibility and address it. I've heard it said that I could have grabbed a gun while inside getting my camera and the officers wouldn't know. On that note, they also wouldn't know if Todd had a gun, since he was never searched and also went inside to get his video camera. If I had a gun inside and had a desire to shoot the cops (I had neither), I could have just as easily fired at them from three feet back as I could from the position that was deemed "unsafe" (which, by the way, was still further back than Kirk was from the officer). Heck, I could have fired from the window of my house. Maintaining a "safe distance" was clearly not the issue here.
And as for being mouthy to cops, you see that in the entire 12+ minute video, I said three things directed at the cops prior to my arrest: "You don't need to worry, pal, I'm not going to act like you", "Yeah, I'd like my ID back", and "And you as well". The vast majority of mouthiness came from the driver, Kirk Brown, as pointed out by the article's author. While most people love to badmouth cops behind their backs when they get a ticket, Kirk chose to be upfront about it. I don't see any reason he should be looked at with disdain for speaking his mind to the cops' faces. It's honest, even if you disagree with his opinion.
Finally, how is it possible that I was such a distraction to the police that not one of five officers managed to write the $300 ticket for Kirk's trunk within the half hour they were there? The officers' estimation of the amount of time they were there was even longer, some saying 45 minutes. Even if the officers were so scared out of their minds that they needed four cops to watch us, the other one could have written the ticket within 5-10 minutes and been done. But alas...
On the note of whether or not police can legally instruct people to do whatever they want on threat of arrest, see the case "State of Iowa v. Smithson" in which a cop ordered Smithson to turn down the music in an Iowa venue. Instead of doing that, Smithson led the crowd in a vulgar anti-law-enforcement chant. He was arrested for interference, convicted by a jury, but then won his appeal. People are not legally obligated to do every single thing a cop says.
Welcome to the site Justin.
One thing you may want to be aware of, Never, NEVER, EVER direct any statements to Johnny Law. He is a HACK Cop Spokesman for all cops everywhere. Cops never error in his eyes and all members of the public are morons who need beaten into submission.
Ignore anything he posts as you would any other troll.
and File an appeal.
@Iroc Oops. Took your warning too late. Good to know, though. I will be filing an appeal. Thanks!
@Justin
Yeah you could have sniped the cops with a high powered rifle from the house. Hell you could have gotten on the roof and thrown hand grenades. Just because an officer can't control all the dangers on a stop doesn't mean that he should discard all officer safety and let an obviously hostile subject who just came out of his house stand right next to them.
Asking to step back to increase the reactionary gap between you and the officer was perfectly reasonable. Would it have been that hard to take a step back? You still would have gotten the video and the officer would have been satisfied. Instead you chose ignore the officer. That's fine but I'm not sure why you are so surprised that you have to face the consequences.
And yeah you only said three things directly to the officers but you said plenty when they were trying to get your friend to back up. I heard you yell at him several times that he should ignore the officers. So you weren't standing there all meek and mild. You were actively trying to disrupt their activities and that is why you got put in the back of their car the first time.
You can bitch that the officers took so long but you and your friends caused that delay. They had two mouthy occupants of the vehicle that parked in front of their house. Other people had started to come out of the house as well. These types of things can go bad for the police so of course they had additional officers show up to assist. If you guys had just been cooperative, the time spent would have been halved. Instead you guys wanted to insult them and hoot and holler with your cameras. And then you blame them for being a little more careful. Classic.
The bottom line is that it was a simple traffic stop that you and your buddies escalated by being a couple of hotheads. Your friend committed a traffic violation. How about dealing with that like an adult instead of trying to spin it into some civil disobedience?
I understand that it is standard procedure for police to convince anyone arrested that it is his or her own actions that got them there - an idiotic method used for transferring guilt from officers to arrestees no matter what the circumstances, but you still ignored my question. How is it that five officers could not have written a ticket within 30 minutes? Obviously, Todd was not considered a threat, so they had (if they wanted) two officers to watch Kirk and another two officers to watch me, while the other one wrote the ticket. Somehow the cops all had ADD to such a degree that my actions were a distraction for the entire 30+ minute traffic stop? What about the time I was in the car? There are only three officers visible for most of this video. What are the other two doing?
Could I have stepped back? Sure, but like I said, the audio would've been terrible, which it is on Todd's footage, as I pointed out. So time-consuming subtitling was necessary for publication later. Did I tell Todd to ignore the cops' orders? Yep, because, as in the court case I cited, it is not illegal to ignore police orders. Being a frequent protester, I've researched my rights and know them. Also, the law of interference, as cited in the article specifically states that "the terms "resist" and "obstruct", as used in this section, do not include verbal harassment unless the verbal harassment is accompanied by a present ability and apparent intention to execute a verbal threat physically." So citing my comments to Todd Razor as evidence of my interference is completely off the mark.
You also ignored that I pointed out I could have just as easily attacked the officer from three feet back as I could have at the distance deemed unsafe (although safety was never mentioned by any officer during this arrest). A quick search finds that it takes the average built male approximately 1.5 seconds to run 20 feet. Todd and I were between 10-15 feet away from the officer. Had I chosen to attack, the officer would have had fragments of seconds to protect himself. Of course, they could have easily searched me again as well. And of course, that officer had four armed cops to protect him. And of course, they had already checked my record via their computer while I was in the car, and found that I had no criminal history whatsoever. The cops could have chosen to deal with this like adults, but instead they let their anger over Kirk's remarks get to them and hauled me off to jail as retribution. A round of applause for their bravery, keeping dangerous men like myself off the streets. Just think of all the corpses there would have been had I been set free!
You guys took considerable effort to harass and distract the officers and yet you have the nerve to complain that they took too long? If you were worried about the time frame you should have kept your mouth shut at the scene so they could do their job without having to worry about your theatrics.
"Could I have stepped back? Sure, but like I said, the audio would've been terrible, which it is on Todd's footage, as I pointed out."
The police have no obligation to ensure that you get good quality footage for youtube.
"Did I tell Todd to ignore the cops' orders? Yep, because, as in the court case I cited, it is not illegal to ignore police orders."
Really? Can you ignore the order of a police officer when he tells you get out of the car on a traffic stop? Or when he tells you to turn around and put your hands behind your back? That naive attitude is what got you arrested. Good thing your friend had more sense or he would have gone too.
"You also ignored that I pointed out I could have just as easily attacked the officer from three feet back as I could have at the distance deemed unsafe (although safety was never mentioned by any officer during this arrest)."
And you ignored my response that even though an officer can't make a traffic stop 100% safe, that doesn't mean he should ignore all officer safety issues. 3 feet away is still better than standing right next to him. Or are you complaining that the officer didn't make you stand far enough away?
"Of course, they could have easily searched me again as well."
And you would be screaming about that instead. You were released so you were no longer part of the stop until you interjected yourself back into it.
"The cops could have chosen to deal with this like adults, but instead they let their anger over Kirk's remarks get to them and hauled me off to jail as retribution."
The cops handled the stop like professionals. You and your friends are the ones who handled it like children.
"A round of applause for their bravery, keeping dangerous men like myself off the streets."
And a round of applause for your guys who bravely stood up for the right to violate traffic laws without suffering the consequences. True freedom fighters!
Did this video get shown at your trial? I'm curious about what arguments the prosecution used to get a conviction.
And yet again, you work wonders in your failure to address how five cops could not write a ticket within 30 minutes. Any cop who has tried to blame this on the "theatrics" of myself and Kirk has failed to show how all five cops were occupied with our activities for the entire 30 minutes. Clearly, they only think one (two at times) out of those five cops is necessary to watch us.
I figured you'd be smart enough to understand that when I said "orders" I was not referring to "all orders at any time, ever", but alas, I must explain myself. Obviously, there are some police orders that must be obeyed, and those would be the orders that are congruent with laws (e.g. "Hand over your ID"). But you'd be an idiot to think that citizens are legally obligated to do anything a cop says. Cops have told me they'd arrest me if I continued using a bullhorn in a place where it was completely legal. I've continued using the bullhorn in front of them, and they've never once arrested me because they have the sense to understand their hollow threats are backed by no laws whatsoever.
Yes, I sure did ignore your response about three feet further away being safer than where I stood. Oh wait, I specifically addressed that by noting that the average built male can run 20 feet in 1.5 seconds, meaning the three-foot distance was trivial and the cop was either a moron if he thought I was a threat, or, more realistically, he just didn't think either Todd or I were threats.
"And you would be screaming about that instead" - I do love all of the over-the-top references to my responses. Perhaps I should start referring to your remarks as "screaming" and "whining" as well. Wahhh, the poor cops got name-called. Cops are paid for by tax dollars, and their duty is to protect citizens. That night, they protected no one.
Yes, the video was shown at the trial, and I'm sure you can find the prosecutor's quote if you dig around the Des Moines Register site.
You did not get arrested for name calling. You did not get arrested for videotaping. You did not get arrested for being an asshole with a bullhorn. You got arrested for refusing to move back while the police were doing their job.
They probably should have had you move back even further but either way, they have the legal authority to keep you out of their traffic stop.
You thought you could anything you wanted and you found out differently. It's as simple as that.
And I've never argued otherwise. This arrest was never about me filming or mouthing off, but commenters in favor of my arrest have pointed out both of those things as being part of the reason for it happening.
The reason for my arrest was, as you said, my refusal to step back, although I would argue that the officer's aggravation with Kirk played into it. But being charged with interference means I somehow impaired the ability of five cops to do what they were there to do. Until someone manages to give a logical explanation for that, it remains bizarre and entertaining to me, which is why I posted the video.
As for "you found out differently", we'll see. It's not over yet. Either way, I'm sure we can agree that the justice system isn't perfect. It's just that you'll think it's a failure of the system if I win the appeal, and I'll think it's a failure if I lose. Glorious, isn't it? In any case, nice debating with you.
JL,
I couldn't find any statutes that says someone can be arrested for being an "asshole with a bullhorn."
Can you find it for me?
double post sorry
@Elliot
He went back into the house once he was let go. He could have gotten anything out of there so he was an unknown threat again. It's perfectly reasonable to keep him a safe distance away.
@JL
And the distances we were talking about here would not have changed the outcome had he chosen to get a gun or a knife.
And you seem to be unwilling to answer his question WHY this took over 30 minutes, even with the lip it shouldn't have taken more than 15.
Welcome to a free society where the people don't bow and scrape to your authority..
Cheers.
The man was in his own front yard. That's private property. Where was the officer's warrant? Without probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, the officer needed a warrant to enter private property and make an arrest. And he didn't have any of the three.
In a castle doctrine state, the man would have been legally justified to use force in defense of himself and his property, against an illegal act of violence. Badges don't place anyone above the law. In some castle doctrine states, simple trespassing at night permits a deadly force response.
Am I anti-cop? No. I'm anti-criminal. The problem is, some criminals managed to make it through childhood and the police academy without being busted for anything that would disqualify them from being a cop.
If I go to pull someone over and they keep driving until they reach their house, it doesn't mean I can't finish my stop. Your front yard isn't home base and if you reach it, it doesn't mean you are off the hook for whatever traffic violation you commit.
You are mixing up searching a person's home with detaining a person for a traffic violation. In fact your comment is proof that people shouldn't listen to sidewalk lawyers.
Fallowing someone who has or is committing a crime onto private property is not the same as ordering someone who has done nothing wrong off there property.
If the cops want to take over the property they need to put up crime scene tape.
Quit being dramatic. They didn't order them off the property. They ordered them to take a couple of steps back. Hardly the same thing.
Castle Doctrine is state to state and Iowa is not a Castle state (according to wikipedia)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Also for the most part Castle Doctrine only refers to some ones home hence Castle.
The officer is trespassing and making an unlawful arrest for that the videographer can defend himself.
castle doctrine is not really relevant in this discussion. Even without a castle doctrine law in Iowa we have ZERO duty to retreat while on our property.
And unfortunately, I checked, case law says that resisting an illegal arrest is still resisting arrest..
Given a few of the scenes we've seen play out I might consider resisting if the officer is out of control enough that I could reasonably believe my life was in danger..
There was no probable cause for the traffic stop.
It is not illegal to drive a vehicle with an unlatched trunk in Iowa, only with unsecured cargo in that unlatched trunk.
Iowa only requires vehicle inspections on a vehicle purchased with a salvaged title in order to change it to a prior salvaged title so it can be tagged.
You can drive it without bumpers, hoods or doors as long as you wear a seatbelt and display the tags where they can be seen, if you so desire.
There is no law for being a mouthy Moron.
While the police may have handled the situation by the book, they caused the situation.
Voicing your opinion to the officer is not interference when you are involved in the stop and detained as a passenger in the vehicle.
He was not told that he was free to leave until AFTER he had been cuffed then released.
When he returned with the camera he stood NEXT to the person already filming, Yet this person was not arrested for interference. Why? because the second person with the camera wasn't talking shit and was never asked to stop, in fact was invited to film the questioning.
Contempt of Cop, it is so obvious.
The Judge should have decided in his favor, that boy needed a better lawyer.
He should have filed a complaint right after leaving the jail to bring it to the attention of the Chief.
He should have uploaded the video right away.
"He was not told that he was free to leave until AFTER he had been cuffed then released.
When he returned with the camera he stood NEXT to the person already filming, Yet this person was not arrested for interference. Why? because the second person with the camera wasn't talking shit and was never asked to stop, in fact was invited to film the questioning.
Contempt of Cop, it is so obvious."
The officers didn't arrest the other person filming because he backed up when directed. The second guy continued to walk forward past the first person with the camera. If he had simply listened, he could have videotaped as much as he wanted.
This guy got himself arrested. This video can only hurt his case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04
Hopefully Justin Norman will appeal. If it hits the Federal Circuit it's likely the cops are toast. There is already a precedent that pierces qualified immunity when cops arrest someone for videotaping. If anyone wants to see what cops think of the public check out policeone. Look at the threads on videotaping and lawful protest (most cops posting there believe the first amendment right to protest is or should be illegal). Most police there share a methods of attempting to get around the law in cases the court has ruled was an arrest was unlawful or a an action by police illegal. Unfortunately the site doesn't allow the public to post. Only verified LEOs. All you see, with rare exceptions, is the police talking about controlling the public. What ever happened to serving and protecting the public? Guess that's an foreign concept in today's militarized police departments.
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf
as a test, I just created an account on Police One. They have a civilian category.
A quick review of the site shows that very little is about controlling the public. It looks like a geeky site where cops get together to talk shop, weapons, training, etc. They even have a whole section devoted to cop misconduct/internal affairs.
Check the news comments at the bottom of the page. You can't post there unless you are law enforcement. The news commentary by users is where the attitude comes out particularly in use of force situations. Most will defend other LEOs regardless of prior court rulings. Case in point is the recent UC Davis pepper spraying incident. The 9th Circuit has previously held it unconstitutional to use pepper spray on non violent protesters yet most LEOs who responded to an article on the subject could care less. Read some of the old news articles on photographing/videotaping police and you will find officers coming up with creative reasons to seize cameras and/or arrest the photographer.
they also had an interesting commentary with legal analysis from a retired cop/practicing attorney. In one part of the commentary they said some good has come from citizens videotaping because it has given departments evidence of bad behavior so bad cops can be terminated (the loss of job kind not the Arnold Schwarzenegger kind)
Thanks for sharing. In all fairness, the Des Moines Register did publish links to both the edited and unedited versions of the video in the print story it ran in the Sunday paper.
Hey Carlos, I got to read the story about your appeal recently. Very, very nice and encouraging. Amazing how absurd your original arrest was!
I'm a proponent for transparency in law enforcement and for citizens to have the right to film, photograph, or record audio of any public official in the process of doing their jobs. At no point should an officer be able to arrest someone for exercising their rights to record for whatever purpose.
That said... I have to agree with Johnny Law on this one.
1) Driving with your trunk open (in Iowa). I cannot find any specific law regarding this. However, one of three could VAGUELY fit. 321.381 regarding movement of an unsafe or improperly equipped vehicle. 321.438 states that you may not drive a vehicle where the windows (including the rear) do not give proper visibility. And 321.437 regarding a vehicle's mirrors giving proper visibility at least 200 feet to the rear.
IF the trunk lid was obstructing the driver's view to the rear of the vehicle, or if the officer's believed it to be a safety issue making the vehicle unsafe. Then a traffic stop could be warranted.
Regardless. If the traffic ticket was not challenged, it's a moot point. The officer's thought the stop was warranted and they made it. This isn't really the issue at hand, is it?
2) Timely discharge of the officer's duty to write the citation. There is no real "time limit" on writing a ticket. I've never seen a law that states a cop has to write a ticket in 30 minutes or less or you get your next one for free. I once sat in my car for 45 minutes while an officer studied the laws of the state because I flat refused to drill holes in my collector's car which had never had a bracket for a front plate. He was 100% correct that I needed to, but I caused him (and his sergeant) enough confusion and argued my case well enough that they eventually just told me not to violate any other statutes or they'd stick it to me good. But I spent quite some time sitting at the side of the road because of it. And I never even got out of my car and bad-mouthed him. In fact I thanked him more than once for not writing me a ticket. If you want to cause a scene, or hassle the officers, they can take as long as they want to fill out that little slip of paper.
3) Contempt of cop. If you disregard, dismiss, or outright defy an officer doing his duty in attempting to keep order at a traffic stop, or otherwise interfere when told otherwise... Expect to go to jail. You were told to step back. Nicely. He didn't threaten you with any weapon lethal or non-lethal. He merely asked for you to step back. Repeatedly. Yeah, maybe he was doing so SIMPLY because you and your buddies were being dicks, but that doesn't change the fact that it is HIS traffic stop and he has the right to keep a perimeter around it free of anything that can interfere with his ability to perform the job at hand. You were, in his opinion, interfering with his ability to do that job. And as such you were arrested. And convicted.
This isn't Occupy Wall Street with bad cops pepper spraying innocent bystanders with cameras. This isn't rogue cops beating people with batons that want to film an injustice. This is a bunch of bros thinking they were going to stick it to the man because they didn't agree with their traffic stop. And one of them paid the price with potentially 30 days in the hole.
On point 2, if any of this was meant to be in response to my pointing out that the cops couldn't manage to write the ticket in 30 minutes, I think you missed my point. The point is that I was charged with "interference with official acts". What was the official act? Writing a ticket. Since I am being accused of causing them to be unable to write a ticket, I thought it would be good to point out just how ludicrous it was by noting the number of cops (5) and the amount of time they had available (30+ minutes, 45 by some of the cops' estimates) to complete this simple task.
On point 3, "if you disregard, dismiss, or outright defy on officer doing his duty", it does not mean you are doing something illegal. In my experience as a regular anti-torture and Occupy Wall Street protester, the police regularly command me to do things that they have no legal authority to do. "Delete the photos on your camera", "stop using the bullhorn or you're going to jail", etc. Earlier that day, I'd already received one of the usual threats from the cops (also on video). Using the invocation of my right to remain silent as probable cause to search me when I was merely a passenger in the car with the open trunk of course did not make me happy. Nonetheless, I kept quiet for most of the video.
Whether or not you think I'm a "bro" trying to "stick it to the man", you still haven't addressed how on earth I broke the law of "interference with official acts", the full text of which is quoted in the above article. The court case I referenced, which is State of Iowa v. Smithson, quite clearly shows that disobeying an officer's orders does not qualify as interference. In that case, Smithson refused to turn the music down so the cop could hear the person he was speaking with. In my case, I refused to step back further than the ten feet I was currently standing away from the officer so that I could pick up the audio of Kirk and him talking over the noisy engines. The officers argue I was a threat to their safety, even though they had checked my record and found that I have no criminal history, and even though if I had a weapon and desire to harm them, I could have just as easily executed an attack from three feet back as I could have from where I was standing...*and* even though they had as little of an idea of whether the other videographer was armed as they did regarding me.
Sentencing was today and I will do no jail time. I have filed an appeal.
Well I am glad you won't do any jail time. I think that would be a bit excessive actually. But I still stand by the fact that the officer can take as long as he wants to fill out the ticket (within reason... 8 hours would probably be excessive.) Thirty minutes (or even 45) isn't out of the realm of possibility when you also factor in the driver's need to be an ass as well. And any interference real or trumped up due to the driver's aggravating the issue, could easily be stated as "interference with official acts". The "official acts" being the traffic stop itself. That's not limited to just the writing of the ticket.
I agree with you that there is no legal time limit set on an officer writing a ticket. I'm just saying that 30+ minutes is more than long enough, considering only one of those five officers was talking to Kirk, and that guy wasn't trying to write a ticket. Clearly even if one cop, or even two, are somehow distracted by my standing there with a camera, that still leaves three officers available to carry out whatever duties they wish, ticket writing, and "maintaining a crime scene" included. As defined by law, I did not "resist" or "obstruct" anyone, so yes, the charge was trumped up. I ignored a command because I thought the command was a simple power play and I got arrested. Expected? Yes, this was unsurprising. Absurd when examined as a matter of law? Also yes.
Regardless of if we agree, thanks for your input.
JustinNorman, the text at the beginning of your video indicates that at first, the incident played out like a routine traffic stop, but then escalated because you and Kirk stopped answering questions that you felt were inappropriate. Am I correct in understanding that the police were punishing you for exercising fifth amendment rights to refuse to answer personal questions? What sort of questions did they ask that were inappropriate or "goofy?"
And, ok it's been five months, have you appealed? If so, how did it go?
The questions we thought were irrelevant included, "What have you guys been doing tonight?" and "What's your home phone number?" etc. The fact that I was questioned as a passenger made no sense to me when all they needed to do was write Kirk a ticket for the trunk, so I stopped answering questions.
I have appealed, yes, and I need to check with my lawyer on the status.
Post new comment