警察の過剰な力の行使に対する50万ドルの和解
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong
00:11of police interactions.
00:13This episode covers interfering with a traffic stop, officer training, and remaining silent,
00:19and is brought to us by Michael Roberts' channel.
00:21Be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve.
00:25Let's dive right in and audit the interaction.
00:28On January 26, 2017, Denver resident Kristen Stonskas was driving home from work when she
00:35was stopped by two officers from the Denver Police Department just outside of her home
00:40in Denver, Colorado.
00:42After the officers activate their lights and sirens, Ms. Stonskas drives a bit further
00:47to pull into the driveway of her home, where her partner, Quinnell Steele, is waiting.
01:17Colorado
01:44has no specific code for interfering with a traffic stop.
01:49However, according to Colorado Revised Statute 18-8-104, the crime of obstructing a peace
01:56officer occurs when an individual knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement
02:02of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer by using or threatening
02:07to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle.
02:12Obstructing the enforcement of penal law or the preservation of peace is a broad phrase
02:16which could certainly be applied to a traffic stop.
02:19Mr. Steele's roaming and hostile presence could be perceived by the officers as a safety
02:24concern and ignoring the officers' orders to maintain a safe distance would likely constitute
02:30interference in a courtroom.
02:53None of the officers have stated why Ms. Stonskas was stopped and her willingness to
02:58admit to the possibility of a crime having been committed only serves to further incriminate
03:03her.
03:04If the reason for her stop was indeed a swift turn across oncoming traffic, then the very
03:09nature of this crime is subjective and hinges on the observations of the officers.
03:14Ms. Stonskas' acknowledgment that the officers may have interpreted her turn as illegal suggests
03:20that she herself questioned the legitimacy of the turn, and it is likely that the prosecution
03:26could use her statements against her.
03:28Nonetheless, even if the turn was legal, the 2014 Supreme Court case of High End v. North
03:34Carolina decided that officers are allowed to make sensible mistakes while in the line
03:39of duty, and that an illegitimate stop may be justified if the officers' misconceptions
03:45or mistakes were reasonable.
03:47Since the High End decision, several cases have invoked the High End opinion to vindicate
03:52officers who mistakenly stopped citizens, even in cases where the citizen was arrested
03:57on charges not relating to the original stop.
04:01For example, if an officer stops a citizen for making an illegal turn, but ultimately
04:06arrests the citizen for possession of a controlled substance, only to discover later that the
04:11original turn was in fact legal, the High End decision offers the prosecution a means
04:17to validate the possession charge while acknowledging the illegitimacy of the original stop.
04:22In the 2015 case of Mason v. Virginia, D. Arthur Kelsey, who was a judge on Virginia's
04:29Court of Criminal Appeals at the time, wrote, quote,
04:33So dense is the modern web of motor vehicle regulations that every motorist is likely
04:39to get caught in it every time he drives to the grocery store, which alludes to the notion
04:44that officers retain the power to pull over any driver at any time for any reason.
04:50The High End decision illustrates the importance of remaining silent and not surrendering any
04:55potentially incriminating information to police officers, which Ms. Stonskis utterly failed
05:01to do.
05:02Why don't y'all do some real work?
05:03Like, I mean, there's motherfuckers getting killed around this motherfucker.
05:04Come on with that.
05:05Do you do that shit?
05:06What's up?
05:07Let me show you some proof of that shit.
05:08Thank you.
05:09Yeah, I do.
05:10Unnecessary.
05:11Code 9.
05:12Thank you, though.
05:13You can back up, please.
05:14I'm just trying to get you.
05:15Back up, please.
05:16I just need a driver's license and your insurance.
05:17I'll give it to him.
05:18You can back up.
05:19Why do you think I'm being aggressive?
05:20Back up.
05:21Back up, please.
05:22I live here.
05:23Back up.
05:24You're digging into a car.
05:25I'm going to look.
05:26I'm going to look here.
05:27Well, I don't know that because I've never been in that car.
05:28I will give him my stuff.
05:29You need to back up away from me.
05:30I will give him my stuff.
05:31I will give him my stuff.
05:32I will give him my stuff.
05:33I will give him my stuff.
05:34I will give him my stuff.
05:36Well, I don't know that because I've never been in that car.
05:37I will give him my stuff.
05:38You need to back up away from me.
05:39Okay.
05:40You need to back up.
05:41Grab your driver's license.
05:42You need to back up.
05:43Grab your driver's license.
05:44I will if you back the f*** up.
05:45Okay, I'm going to step.
05:46Yeah, step the f*** back.
05:47Officers are trained to always keep a suspect's hands in sight, and when the totality of circumstances
05:48are considered, it is clear that Ms. Stonskis' actions pose a legitimate safety concern to
05:49the officers.
05:50Although there have been many cases which end up in the hands of the police, it is
05:51clear that Ms. Stonskis' actions pose a legitimate safety concern to the officers.
05:52Although there have been many cases which end up in the hands of the police, it is clear
05:53that Ms. Stonskis' actions pose a legitimate safety concern to the officers.
06:03Although there have been many cases which analyze an officer's ability to control
06:07the movement of detained civilians, most cases which contest the validity of an officer's
06:13safety concerns and relative orders are considered on a case-by-case basis.
06:18Courts are often forced to delegate a balance between an officer's safety and an individual's
06:24liberty, and most courts hold officer safety to a high standard.
06:28It is always a good idea to keep your hands in sight at all times when interacting with
06:33an officer, and it is very likely that a court would determine that the officer's concern
06:38about Ms. Stonskis' actions were legitimate and warranted.
07:37It is also very likely that Ms. Stonskis' actions were legitimate and warranted.
08:06It is also very likely that Ms. Stonskis' actions were legitimate and warranted.
08:35It is also very likely that Ms. Stonskis' actions were legitimate and warranted.
09:05It is also very likely that Ms. Stonskis' actions were legitimate and warranted.
09:30It is also very likely that Ms. Stonskis' actions were legitimate and warranted.
09:59It is also very likely that Ms. Stonskis' actions were legitimate and warranted.
10:29It is also very likely that Ms. Stonskis' actions were legitimate and warranted.
10:37Both Ms. Stonskis and Mr. Steele were taken to the ground, arrested, and sent to jail.
10:43Mr. Steele was charged with interfering with a peace officer and resisting arrest, and
10:48Ms. Stonskis was charged with second-degree assault, which is a felony.
10:52Ironically, Ms. Stonskis was never charged with the original infraction which prompted
10:57the stop.
10:59When Mr. Steele took his case to trial and was eventually found not guilty, all charges
11:04against Ms. Stonskis were dropped, but no disciplinary action was taken against any
11:09of the officers involved.
11:10The couple's attorney, Michael Fairhurst, stated that the scuffle resulted in a torn
11:15vertebrae in Ms. Stonskis' neck, and both Mr. Steele and Ms. Stonskis suffered from
11:21a traumatic brain injury, with Mr. Steele also suffering from a collapsed lung and a
11:26fractured rib.
11:28On September 16, 2019, over two years after the incident took place, the Denver City Council
11:35agreed to settle the case for $500,000.
11:39Following the encounter, Mr. Fairhurst bashed the Denver Police Department for a lack of
11:44discipline and accountability, and said that the department violated the Constitution.
11:49The Denver Police Union President, Nick Rogers, also chimed in, questioning the city's willingness
11:54to settle and declaring that the officers did nothing wrong.
11:58Overall, the officers of the Denver Police Department get an A-, because although this
12:03interaction ultimately dissolved into a physical altercation, it was not the officers who escalated
12:09the encounter.
12:10The officers managed to remain calm and keep their ego in check, despite the hostile and
12:15vulgar bombardment from Ms. Stonskis and Mr. Steele.
12:19However, while these officers didn't escalate the situation, they also did not actively
12:25work to de-escalate it either.
12:27It is difficult to fault them for that considering the behavior of Ms. Stonskis and Mr. Steele,
12:32and it is likely that nothing the officers could have said would have been well received.
12:37But de-escalation is a major aspect of police duties that is often neglected, and the officers'
12:43lack of communication failed to lull the hostility of the confrontation.
12:47In the end, these officers did not overstep the bounds of their authority, and aside from
12:52engaging in a debatably pointless dialogue, exercised a respectable degree of restraint
12:58and acted reasonably.
12:59Ms. Stonskis and Mr. Steele get an F- for escalating a minor traffic infraction into
13:05a physical dispute, displaying poor character and a lack of self-control, and not exercising
13:11their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
13:14There is no question that Ms. Stonskis and Mr. Steele's conduct was childish and uncalled
13:19for, but the most baffling aspect of this interaction is the City of Denver's willingness
13:25to settle this case without going to trial.
13:28The trend of cities doling out settlements to anyone who claims to be a victim of police
13:33misconduct could possibly have an adverse effect on the overall health of the compensation
13:38system that is currently in place, and many cities may see their insurance premiums sky
13:44rocket or be denied coverage altogether.
13:47This could result in taxpayers footing the bill for police misconduct directly, or in
13:52some cases, a complete disbandment of their respective police forces.
13:57Large uninsured settlements have the potential to bankrupt smaller municipalities, and in
14:022017, The Atlantic published an article detailing the power that insurance companies hold over
14:08local police departments and municipalities as a whole.
14:12While I do believe that Ms. Stonskis and Mr. Steele deserve reasonable compensation
14:17for the injuries they sustained during this encounter, recklessly handing out settlements
14:22may not always be the best option for cities, and perhaps cities should devote their funds
14:27to properly educating their officers rather than preparing for an inevitable lawsuit due
14:33to a lackluster training program.
14:35Let us know if there's an interaction or legal topic you would like us to cover in
14:39the comments below.
14:40Be sure to check out our Patreon for uncensored, ad-free, and exclusive content.
14:46Thank you for watching, and don't forget to like and subscribe for more police interaction
14:50content.