Unlawful Arrest & Cop GETS RIPPED in court!
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 Take a break for me real fast and y'all have driver's license or IDs on you.
00:04 >> I ain't gonna submit no ID.
00:05 Listen, you call the police right now.
00:07 Listen, I ain't got time for this.
00:08 I've been on the way.
00:08 I don't mean to be rude.
00:10 >> Okay, no, you do need to give me your ID or driver's license.
00:14 >> Alabama law fits in a scheme of laws that were passed
00:19 decades ago throughout the country called stop and identify laws.
00:22 These laws were discussed by the US Supreme Court in high
00:26 Bowl v Six Judicial District and they made clear two things.
00:30 One, the Fourth Amendment is a limit on governmental authority,
00:34 what officers can do.
00:35 And this court said they can ask people to identify themselves in the context of
00:40 a Terry search, but they said state law establishes the citizens' obligations.
00:47 Now in Nevada, that statute had been interpreted
00:51 to only require a person to provide their name.
00:54 Now here, this statute doesn't need any interpretation.
00:59 >> Isn't this a reasonable mistake though?
01:01 Let's just say that on the part of the officer.
01:03 >> Well, that's what I wanna talk about.
01:05 Is it a reasonable mistake applying the law?
01:07 The only issue that plaintiff believe there's any question about factually or
01:12 really legally is this section 15530,
01:15 which says what a citizen's obligations are under Alabama law.
01:20 It says an officer, if he has reasonable suspicion, may demand of him his name,
01:26 address, and an explanation of his actions.
01:29 >> Well, that's a correct statement of the law, but the question is,
01:32 was it reasonable for an officer in Officer McCabe's position to think that he
01:36 was refusing to provide his name when he said he wasn't going to provide ID?
01:41 >> So if this statute was ambiguous and
01:44 says something like the citizen has to identify himself,
01:47 then maybe an officer might think, identify gives me the option of
01:51 demanding a driver's license.
01:53 But Alabama law says it in letter, may demand of his his name,
01:57 his address, and explanation of his actions.
02:00 The statute is not ambiguous.
02:02 >> So you say you don't need a case, you're just relying on the statute itself.
02:06 >> Correct.
02:07 >> And so he couldn't ask for his driver's license.
02:10 So I mean, that's the clearly established law, period.
02:13 >> Let me ask you something.
02:14 Do you agree that the police officers were mistaken on the law here?
02:18 I mean, it is clear.
02:19 You read it, it is clear.
02:21 >> I will respond to that question this way, Judge.
02:23 This is not an obvious clarity case.
02:25 This court has to determine whether the law is clear in light of existing precedent.
02:30 There is no existing precedent defining the contours of 15-530.
02:36 >> He says he doesn't need it because he's got a clear statute.
02:39 The statute is clear.
02:41 >> I respectfully disagree.
02:43 I think that reasonable people could disagree whether or
02:46 not you have to only use those magic words that Mr. Sherrod says.
02:51 >> A reasonable officer trained to be a police officer ought to know that you can
02:55 conduct a Terry stop and ask someone for their name and identifying information.
03:01 But you can't stop somebody on the street and
03:03 just ask them for their driver's license.
03:05 Unless it's for your safety, because they've been driving a car.
03:09 If I'm focusing on 15-530, the statute that essentially codifies Terry, and
03:14 it says that an officer may demand name, address, and explanation of actions.
03:19 There's no case out there that I'm aware, Alabama Supreme Court case or
03:22 otherwise, that says thou shall only use those words and only those words.
03:26 And to the extent you deviate from it, you have violated clearly established law.
03:30 >> Trained city of Hoover police officer reasonably ought to know that you can't
03:37 stop someone on the street and ask them for their driver's license.
03:40 You're saying that an officer can make that mistake.
03:43 The critical word is reasonable, right?
03:47 >> I would agree that it needs to be a reasonable mistake, yes, sir.
03:49 But again, I think that the vast majority of officers out there conducting Terry
03:54 stops are not going up there and saying, sir, may I have your name, address, and
03:58 will you explain your actions?
03:59 I think that they're gonna say, can I see some identification?
04:01 That is a reasonable request of a police officer.
04:03 I would even add, ID is broad enough to include one's name or
04:08 at least a reasonable police officer could think so.
04:10 >> There's no issue with the officer asking for ID.
04:15 That's not against the rules.
04:17 Officers do ask for ID on the street of pedestrians all the time.
04:21 The question is, does it violate Alabama law for the person not to provide it?
04:26 The high court said they could ask for ID.
04:28 They just couldn't arrest him under Nevada law merely for failing to provide that.
04:33 >> What are y'all doing?
04:34 >> I'm just checking the description.
04:36 >> What are y'all doing?
04:38 >> Getting a car.
04:39 >> Is this your car?
04:40 >> We're gonna drive all day.
04:42 >> One of my customers.
04:44 >> One of your customers?
04:45 >> No, I'm kidding.
04:46 [BLANK_AUDIO]
04:49 I was over here earlier.
04:52 >> Whose car is that?
04:54 >> It's mine.
04:54 >> The black one?
04:55 >> Yeah. >> We also premise the arrest on the basis
04:59 of 3269.
05:00 3269 is likewise not clear by its terms and case law makes it even less clear.
05:06 3269 is a statute that says it makes it a crime for
05:10 a driver to provide a driver's license upon demand by a police officer.
05:14 Under Alabama law, the term driver is not limited to one who is driving.
05:20 It is also based upon someone who is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
05:25 That is where the legal fuzziness comes in.
05:27 >> Could a reasonable officer think that here, Mr.
05:29 Edger was the driver of the vehicle?
05:32 >> A reasonable officer could wonder if he had been a driver of a vehicle.
05:36 Almost everybody walking around in this country had at one point-
05:40 >> If that's the case,
05:41 then wouldn't there be arguable probable cause?
05:43 >> No, because the statute specifically said if you were driving.
05:46 He was not driving.
05:48 The wheel was off the car he was working on.
05:50 The other car was shut down.
05:51 He was a mechanic working on a car.
05:54 >> Mr. Edger wasn't the driver of the car.
05:56 This wasn't his car.
05:57 He wasn't the driver.
05:58 He explained it to the officer.
05:59 He explained that to the officer.
06:01 Does the Fourth Amendment permit an officer to demand that he show his
06:06 driver's license?
06:07 >> I think an officer could reasonably conclude that you could.
06:09 I think that could be a reasonable mistake.
06:11 But I cannot point the court to any law that says you can or cannot.
06:15 I'm not arguing that he was a driver of the car that was on the jack.
06:18 >> Again, statutes that set forth citizens obligations by the state legislatures.
06:24 When they're clear, officers don't get to disregard what they say and
06:29 say it was a mistake.
06:30 This is simple.
06:31 He was not driving.
06:32 >> What if he's not driving but he's reasonably able to drive?
06:36 >> There could be scenarios, and there's lots of Alabama case law talking about
06:41 somebody that's effectively in control of a vehicle.
06:44 Like people trying to get out of DUIs who are actually sitting there in their car
06:47 with the keys in it.
06:48 I mean, there are all kinds of scenarios where you get close to the line.
06:52 But this is not close to any of the lines in the statute or
06:55 in the law interpreting that statute.
06:58 This is not all is driving or nearly driving.
07:01 This is a guy who's working on a disabled car.
07:03 The car's shut, car's not on, nobody is driving, the vehicles are parked.
07:08 >> I'm arguing that he was in actual physical control of the vehicle that he
07:11 arrived in.
07:12 When Officer McCabe arrived, she said, whose car is that?
07:16 And he admitted, that's mine.
07:18 And it was just feet away.
07:20 When we're talking about can reasonable mistakes be made,
07:22 I would urge the court to take a look at how ambiguous the law is surrounding
07:27 what is someone who's in actual physical control.
07:30 It speaks in terms of the power and ability to operate, move, park, or
07:34 direct whatever use or non-use is to be made of the motor vehicle.
07:37 And that can be based upon the totality of the circumstances.
07:40 And this court in Cantu also recognized that the officer doesn't have to see
07:44 them driving.
07:45 That black car was feet away from him.
07:47 >> The officer wouldn't have any reason to know.
07:49 Maybe the other person there was the driver.
07:52 >> Correct.
07:53 But either one of them, they were potentially drivers, future drivers,
07:57 past drivers.
07:58 They were not currently driving.
08:00 And no reasonable officer to believe they were driving.
08:02 >> The district court's opinion was the undisputed body camera footage makes
08:07 clear that Officer McCabe didn't ask Edger for his name and
08:12 Edger didn't refuse to explain his actions.
08:14 However, a reasonable but mistaken officer could have believed that
08:18 Edger's failure to provide his driver license violated Alabama Code Section 15-5-30.
08:26 The 11th Circuit Court reversed qualified immunity.
08:30 The Alabama statute is clear.
08:32 It lists only three things that the police may ask.
08:36 This is not an issue of magic words that must be uttered.
08:40 There is a difference between asking for a specific information, for
08:44 example, what is your name, or where do you live?
08:47 And demanding a physical license or ID.
08:50 The information contained in a driver license goes beyond the information
08:54 required to be revealed under 15-5-30.
08:58 Further, neither the parties nor our own research can identify any Alabama law
09:04 that generally requires the public to carry physical identification,
09:07 much less an Alabama law requiring them to produce it upon demand of a police officer.
09:13 There simply is no state law foundation for Officer McCabe's demand that Mr.
09:18 Edger produce physical identification.
09:21 It was thus clearly established at the time of Mr.
09:24 Edger's arrest that she could not demand he produce physical identification.
09:28 And because Officer McCabe's demand for an ID or a driver license went beyond
09:33 what the statute state law required of Mr.
09:36 Edger, she violated clearly established law.