North Dakota Supreme Court: An Officer's Camera Is More Trustworthy Than His BS Testimony

from the fuzz-getting-caught-by-the-fuzz dept

While body-worn cameras have mainly proven to be a boon for prosecutors, rather than the all-purpose accountability tools many of us thought they would be [raises hand sheepishly], the mere existence of more recordings is still a net gain for the general public.

When cops are doing the recording, there's always a chance footage that disputes their narrative or discredits their testimony may go missing (or never recorded at all). But sometimes everything remains intact and, to officers' dismay, works against them when they're lying about stuff. Courts have always tended to give cops more credence than defendants in criminal trials, but the increase in recordings has freed courts to defer to the witness with no skin in the game: the recording device.

This doesn't always happen. Sometimes judges would rather believe cops than their own eyes. It happened in this case. Fortunately for the person challenging a stop that resulted in criminal charges, the second court to review the video decided the recording was far more credible than the officer. (via FourthAmendment.com)

A stop that resulted in DUI charges for Michael Boger was predicated on the officer's claim that the rear license plate wasn't illuminated. While it may have been true that Boger was under the influence and behind the wheel, it helps to remember that law enforcement isn't an ends-based operation. The means count, especially if we want the Constitution to mean anything.

Officers need to have a reason to pull over people and subject them to at least temporary detention. Courts aren't necessarily opposed to a little pretext. But the pretext needs to hold up. And if it's going to hold up, the stated reason for the stop needs to be credible, rather than immediately undercut by an officer's own body camera.

Here's how and why the stop was initiated, as recounted in the North Dakota Supreme Court's decision [PDF]:

Prior to the traffic stop, the arresting officer was traveling eastbound on Burdick Expressway in his patrol vehicle when he was passed by Boger’s vehicle traveling westbound on the same road. As Boger’s vehicle passed, the officer testified he looked in his driver’s side rear-view mirror and noticed Boger’s rear license plate area was not illuminated. The officer turned around to follow Boger’s vehicle. Once behind Boger’s vehicle, the officer testified he observed the rear license plate was still not illuminated. After approximately five to seven seconds of following Boger’s vehicle, the officer initiated a traffic stop.

The officer testified the rear license plate was not illuminated when he first observed Boger’s vehicle, was not illuminated when he was following Boger’s vehicle, and the license plate illumination light was not functioning during the traffic stop.

The officer's body camera footage of the stop was entered into evidence. It did not show what the officer testified to under oath.

The video recorded by the officer’s body-worn camera stands in direct conflict with this testimony. As the officer approaches the rear of Boger’s vehicle, the video clearly depicts the rear bumper and license plate for five seconds beginning at the indicated time of T05:38:35Z.1 There is a single white light immediately to the right of the license plate that is fully illuminated. The rear of the vehicle, including the license plate and the light, appear clean.

The ND Supreme Court even includes some frame grabs, which clearly show the license plate light is operational and lit.

The district court ignored all of this, citing the law (which requires it to be "visible from 50 feet away") and the officer's insistence that the light observed lighting the license plate originated from another source. It came up with this rationale for the stop, providing the cop with an argument he had failed to articulate.

“Based upon the testimony of [the officer], the alleged illumination did not render the rear license plate clearly legible to [the officer] as the vehicles passed each other.”

Bullshit, says the state Supreme Court. The cop never said anything about it being visible from several feet away. He claimed the light was not functioning at all -- something completely contradicted by his own body camera footage. He also said nothing about it being illegible. All he said was the license plate was not illuminated by a license plate light. The video shows the license plate light was operational and lighting the license plate.

The officer’s testimony is inconsistent with the body camera video. The still images from the video clearly show the officer’s testimony is contrary to the video evidence. The images show a license plate light bright enough to reflect off the dark surface below the light.

When there are material factual disputes, it's time to roll the tape.

The video evidence in this case clearly rebuts the officer’s testimony. We agree with the Indiana Supreme Court that in situations “where the video evidence indisputably contradicts the trial court’s findings, relying on such evidence and reversing the trial court’s findings do not constitute reweighing.” Love, 73 N.E.3d at 699. We conclude the court’s finding that the license plate was not illuminated is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

And there's no good faith reward waiting for the officer at the end of this decision. While reasonable mistakes of law can sometimes salvage bad stops, it's not happening here.

While video confirmation of mistakes do not render the mistake of fact per se objectively unreasonable, this mistake of fact would have had to persist from the initial contact with the driver through the length of the stop. Based on the record presented to the district court, we conclude a mistake of fact regarding whether the rear license plate was illuminated was objectively unreasonable.

The stop is unjustified and the defendant will be allowed to withdraw his conditional guilty plea. That's what should happen when testimony is contradicted by recordings, especially those made and controlled by the law enforcement officer providing the testimony. And there's a message being sent to lower courts: when determining the credibility of witnesses, you're doing no one any favors by deciding cops are more trustworthy than their cameras.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, body cameras, north dakota, police testimony

North Dakota's New Anti-230 Bill Would Let Nazis Sue You For Reporting Their Content To Twitter

from the i-just-can't-even dept

Earlier this month, we wrote about how various Republicans in state legislatures were introducing blatantly unconstitutional bills that tried to do away with Section 230 and which all attempted to block the ability of websites to do any content moderation. Many of the bills were nearly identical (and may have come from Chris Sevier, the profoundly troubled individual, who somehow keeps convincing state legislators to introduce blatantly unconstitutional bills that attack speech online). One of the bills we mentioned was from North Dakota. Lawyer Akiva Cohen points out that the North Dakota bill has been updated... and (incredibly) made even more blatantly unconstitutional.

Most notably, the new amendment from Rep. Tom Kading, would not only gut Section 230, but would stop any website from doing any moderation of any user for their viewpoints. Any viewpoints. Anywhere (even off platform). And then... it adds in a private cause of action, saying that would allow a user to sue any website for moderation:

That says:

A user residing in, doing business in, sharing expression in, or receiving expression in this state may bring a civil action in any court of this state against a social media platform or interactive computer service for violation of this chapter against the user, and upon finding the defendant has violated or is violating the user's rights under this chapter, the court shall award:

1. Declaratory relief;
2. Injunctive relief;
3. Treble damages or, at the plaintiff's option, statutory damages of up to fifty thousand dollars; and
4. Costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

That's already bad, but it gets worse, because it also creates a private cause of action against anyone "aiding and abetting" the moderation:

That one says:

A user residing in, doing business in, sharing expression in, or receiving expression in this state may bring a civil action in any court of this state against any person who aids or abets a violation of this chapter against the user, and upon finding the defendant has violated or is violating the user's rights under this chapter, the court shall award:

1. Declaratory relief;
2. Injunctive relief;
3. Treble damages or, at the plaintiff's option, statutory damages of up to fifty thousand dollars; and
4. Costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

In other words, if you report a Nazi to Twitter, the Nazi can sue you for $50,000. Plus attorney's fees. What the actual fuck are they doing up there in North Dakota? And has it eaten their brains?

The only saving grace of this disastrously unconstitutional bill is that it moots itself. That's because it also has a clause that says that it "does not subject a social media platform or interactive computer service to any remedy or cause of action from which the social media platform or interactive computer service is protected by federal law."

So, um... Section 230 is federal law and it protects against literally everything in this bill. In other words, the only thing this bill serves as is a weird poison pill that if Section 230 is repealed or otherwise modified, then it might allow anyone in North Dakota to sue users for reporting their content to a social media platform.

Jerry Lambe, over at Law & Crime, reached out to Rep. Kading to ask about this bill and Kading's response is so ridiculous that it calls into question how this guy got elected.

“Social media may still censor within the constraints of Section 230. For example censorship of obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable content is completely appropriate under the bill,” he said in an email to Law&Crime. “If the neo-Nazi was censored for such, then the bill would not apply. Though section 230 gives broad protection, it does not protect against censorship outside the scope noted or prohibit regulation if consistent with the section. The bill does not affect any reporting actions.”

As Ari Cohn points out, this is both incoherent and suggests that Kading has no clue about how Section 230 or the 1st Amendment actually work. The 1st Amendment is what gives websites the right to remove whatever content they want. Section 230 just helps them get out of lawsuits over those removals faster. On top of that, the list that Kading mentions from "obscene" to "otherwise objectionable" is only in Section (c)(2) of the law, which almost never shows up in court cases. Courts have made it clear that Section (c)(1), which has no such limitations, is what enables cases to be dismissed regarding moderation choices.

You'd think that maybe someone like Kading would have bothered to learn some of this before (1) introducing a bill or (2) responding to a reporter's question about the bill. But apparently, that's not the kind of state elected official Tom Kading is.

North Dakota citizens: stop electing censorial, ignorant legislators who want to attack the 1st Amendment.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, aiding and abetting, content moderation, free speech, nazis, north dakota, reporting, section 230, tom kading

Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate

from the that's-not-going-to-go-well dept

A bunch of Republican state legislators across the country are apparently unconcerned with either the 1st Amendment (or reality) have decided that they need to stop social media companies from engaging in any sort of content moderation. Earlier this week, Florida Man Governor Ron DeSantis proposed just such a law, which would be struck down as unconstitutional with amazing speed. The bill, dubbed the "Transparency in Technology Act" would do a bunch of things laid out in this infographic the Florida GOP sent around, almost all of which the state has no authority to do. On the content moderation front, it would require set standards for content moderation that can't easily be changed and require the company apply those standards consistently.

That's what lots of people ask for without realizing that's an impossible ask. "Consistency" is not nearly as clear as people seem to think it is. Every scenario is different, and context plays a huge role in determining these things -- but people who complain about inconsistent enforcement never seem to recognize the wider context, and always focus in on some superficial similarity about the content, and insist that different outcomes mean inconsistency. It also ignores the scale of the problem. It also fails to take into account that policies have to keep being updated, because the issues that trust and safety teams face constantly are changing.

This bill would be like passing a law saying that the state of Florida must clearly define all its laws, can't pass new laws, and must apply the law consistently. That's not possible.

Even more ridiculous (and more unconstitutional) is that the bill would bar any moderation (or removal) of any political candidate. Of course, this would just mean that any troll who wants to be a total asshole online would register to run for office. Remember, it was rumored that well known online troll Laura Loomer supposedly ran for Congress in part because of she believed that it would force Twitter to give her her account back (which did not happen).

Of course, it's easy to just point at Florida and say "there goes Florida again..." but it's actually Republican legislators in a whole bunch of states. And this wasn't even the first such bill in Florida. A week or so earlier, Republican state Senator Joe Gruters introduced a bill called the "Stop Social Media Censorship Act" which bars any moderation of "religious or political speech."

Gruters may have introduced the bill, but it doesn't look like he wrote it. Because in Kentucky, Republican Senators Robby Mills and Phillip Wheeler introduced a nearly identical bill. Oh, and over in Oklahoma, Republican Senator Rob Standridge also introduced an identical bill. In Arizona, it's Senator Sonny Borrelli who has introduced very similar legislation, though his looks a little different, and (insanely) would try to put into law that a social media website is "deemed to be a publisher" and "deemed not to be a platform" which is, you know, not a thing that actually matters. In North Dakota, there's Republican State Rep. Tom Kading who's similar bill also includes the nonsense publisher/platform distinction.

All of these bills are (1) nonsense, (2) pre-empted by federal law, and (3) blatantly unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. A quick lesson for state legislators: the 1st Amendment means that the government (that's you!) cannot compel private parties (that includes social media companies!) that they have to host speech with which they disagree with. There's plenty of case law on this, but I'll point you to West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette which establishes quite clearly that the government cannot compel speech under the 1st Amendment. On top of that, I'll point people to the relatively recent ruling, written by Brett Kavanaugh (remember, Republicans, you supported this guy) and signed by all of the Conservative Justices, in the Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck case, in which it was made clear that social media websites are not state actors, and cannot be compelled to host speech. As Kavanaugh wrote in that ruling:

In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.

If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” ... Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” ... That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” ... The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property

Remember how, as Republicans, you guys used to always support private property rights and the right to exclude those you disagree with? It's that all over again, except now you're suddenly trying to argue the exact opposite.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a bunch more of these unconstitutional bills floating around, or that more will be introduced soon. Most of them are performative nonsense that no state legislature will actually pass. But if they do, just recognize that any legislature that does so is throwing away taxpayer money on a series of expensive lawsuits that will inevitably end with the law being tossed out as unconstitutional.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arizona, content moderation, florida, joe gruters, kentucky, north dakota, phillip wheeler, rob standridge, robby mills, ron desantis, section 230, sonny borrelli, states, tom kading

Judge Rejects 'Rioting' Charge Against Journalist For Reporting On Protestors, But Prosecutor Still Looking For New Charges

from the good-to-see dept

Last week it was announced that journalist Amy Goodman would go to North Dakota to face charges over her coverage of North Dakota oil pipeline protests that went viral. The idea that Goodman was charged with doing journalism was really ridiculous. The original charges focused on "trespassing" but once the local state's attorney, Ladd Erickson, realized that those clearly would not stick, he changed them to rioting. When asked to defend the arrest warrant and charges by a local newspaper, Erickson displayed a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment in saying that because Goodman's coverage was sympathetic to the protesters, it was fine to consider her a protester too.

Thankfully, a judge disagreed and rejected the rioting charge.

District Judge John Grinsteiner did not find probable cause to justify the charges filed on Friday October 14 by State’s Attorney Ladd R. Erickson. Those charges were presented after Erickson had withdrawn an earlier charge against Goodman of criminal trespass.

Bizarrely, it appears Erickson is planning to hit the law books to see if there's anything else he can find to charge Goodman:

She and her lawyers declared victory on Monday, but Ladd Erickson, a state prosecutor who is assisting the Morton County state’s attorney’s office in the case, said other charges were possible.

“I believe they want to keep the investigation open and see if there is any evidence in the unedited and unpublished videos that we could better detail in an affidavit for the judge,” he said via email. “The Democracy Now video that many people have seen doesn’t have much evidence value in it.”

That alone just seems like more intimidation -- planning to look at "unedited and unpublished videos" to try to find something to charge Goodman over. This is just blatant intimidation of the press, basically trying to get info on sources.

Of course, if the goal was to intimidate Goodman away from reporting on the protests, it appears to have failed. Goodman has pledged to continue to cover the story. The question remaining, though, is if Erickson gets any reprimand for clearly violating the constitutional rights of journalists? It remains deeply problematic that the charges and arrest warrant were ever issued in the first place.

Meanwhile, a documentary filmmaker, Deia Schlosberg, who was also in North Dakota filming protesters was also arrested and has been charged with a series of felony charges including "theft of property, conspiracy to theft of services and conspiracy to tampering with or damaging a public service." So, apparently Goodman isn't the only one targeted for doing First Amendment protected work in covering the stories of protesters.

Filed Under: amy goodman, journalism, ladd erickson, north dakota, protests, rioting

Prosecutors Changing Charges Against Reporter To 'Rioting' Because Her Coverage Was Sympathetic To Protestors

from the can-we-teach-you-a-little-about-the-first-amendment? dept

On Friday, we wrote about the ridiculous arrest warrant for reporter Amy Goodman for reporting on the protests over the North Dakota oil pipeline. At the time, the charges against Goodman were apparently for trespassing, but late on Friday, the state's attorney alerted Goodman's lawyer that they were now actually trying to charge her with rioting. Say what?

“I came back to North Dakota to fight a trespass charge. They saw that they could never make that charge stick, so now they want to charge me with rioting, " said Goodman. "I wasn’t trespassing, I wasn’t engaging in a riot, I was doing my job as a journalist by covering a violent attack on Native American protesters."

Apparently, the state's attorney, Ladd Erickson, figured out enough about the law to realize that trespassing charges would never stick because there needs to be notice before it's trespassing, and no notice was presented. But Erickson is still really, really confused about how the First Amendment works. He told a local newspaper that Goodman's reporting was illegal because it was sympathetic to the protestors. Really.

“She’s a protester, basically. Everything she reported on was from the position of justifying the protest actions,” said Erickson

That's uh, not how the First Amendment works. And it will be fascinating to see Erickson try to now justify the "riot" claims when the complaint itself admits that Goodman was interviewing protestors. Apparently the judge will decide later today if the riot charges will stand. One hopes that he understands the First Amendment more than the state's attorney.

Filed Under: amy goodman, first amendment, free speech, journalism, ladd erickson, north dakota, pipeline, protests, rioting, trespassing

Why Is North Dakota Arresting Journalists For Doing Journalism?

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Two years ago, we wrote about the ridiculousness of police arresting reporters for reporting in Ferguson, Missouri, even though courts had told police to knock it off. Even more ridiculous is that those reporters were eventually charged, leading to a ridiculous settlement earlier this year.

And yet... arresting journalists for doing journalism continues to be a thing. As you probably know, there have been a bunch of protests in North Dakota lately concerning the Dakota Access Pipeline. Back in September, after covering the protests and having some of her videos of an attack on the protestors go viral, famed Democracy Now reporter Amy Goodman found out an arrest warrant had been issued for her. It's pretty clear that this arrest warrant was solely because of the coverage reflecting poorly on officials.

On Thursday, Goodman said that she'll surrender to authorities next week. As Democracy Now points out, the criminal complaint against her is so transparently unconstitutional and so transparently about intimidating reporters, that it actually notes that "Amy Goodman can be seen on the video identifying herself and interviewing protesters about their involvement in the protest." Right. That's called journalism. Goodman was basically arrested for doing journalism that the powers-that-be dislike.

Organizations that fight for free speech for journalists are condemning all of this. The Committee to Protect Journalists notes that this is "a transparent attempt to intimidate reporters from covering protests of significant public interest" while the Freedom of the Press Foundation is demanding that North Dakota drop the charges.

And they may want to seriously consider dropping the charges and walking away. After all, Goodman was also arrested for covering protests back in 2008, and that eventually ended with the police and local governments having to pay her $100,000 for violating her civil rights.

Filed Under: amy goodman, arrest, first amendment, journalism, north dakota, pipeline, trespassing

Bill That Was Supposed To Limit Police Drone Activity Changed By Lobbyist To Enable Weaponized Drones

from the this-won't-go-wrong-at-all... dept

North Dakota state representative Rick Becker had a good idea with his House Bill 1328, which would forbid the use of drones by law enforcement in the state without a warrant. A few other states have been looking at similar proposals, after there have been growing concerns about police using drones for surveillance activities. Virginia, for example, recently passed a law that requires a warrant for police drone use. So, good idea, Rep. Becker.

Except... in stepped Bruce Burkett, a lobbyist from the North Dakota Peace Officer's Association, who "was allowed by the state house committee to amend HB 1328" to now make it about legalizing weaponized drones for police. Yes, a "peace officer" representative just made it possible to weaponize drones. The trick? He amended the bill to make it only about "lethal weapons," which now opens the door to what police like to refer to as "less than lethal" weapons like "rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, and Tasers" -- some of which have a history of leading to deaths, despite their "less than lethal" claims.

Even “less than lethal” weapons can kill though. At least 39 people have been killed by police Tasers in 2015 so far, according to The Guardian. Bean bags, rubber bullets, and flying tear gas canisters have also maimed, if not killed, in the U.S. and abroad.

Meanwhile, local police are still freaking out about the need to require a warrant. Check out this bit of police state nonsense:

Grand Forks County Sheriff Bob Rost said his department’s drones are only equipped with cameras and he doesn’t think he should need a warrant to go snooping.

“It was a bad bill to start with,” Rost told The Daily Beast. “We just thought the whole thing was ridiculous.”

Rost said he needs to use drones for surveillance in order to obtain a warrant in the first place.

Yes, we need to spy on your first, to then see if we should get a warrant to spy on you some more. That's not how this works.

And, now, while there will be warrant requirements for some uses -- though with broad exceptions including within 25 miles of the US/Canada border and for "exigent circumstances" -- the bill will (thanks to a lobbyist) allow the police to also experiment with weaponizing drones. If you thought the militarization of police wasn't screwed up enough, now you might need to worry about stun guns and rubber bullets hailing down from the sky...

Filed Under: bruce burkett, drones, north dakota, rick becker, warrants, weaponized drones