This week the international media has reported on the development of a rather interesting confluence of incidents concerning police behaviour in the US. Each of these involve initial misconduct by law enforcement officers followed by intimidation and ultimately arrest of witnesses who recorded the police actions legally.
 |
| Police Film London's Student Protests- Cleaner Croydon |
The more serious incident, which has been widely reported internationally and is now known as the Miami Beach Memorial Day Shooting, involves the killing of 22 year old Raymond Herisse in Florida this past Memorial Day holiday. While Mr. Herisse sat in his vehicle, having parked at an intersection after being chased by police, several officers surrounded the vehicle and at a moment's notice rained a fatal barrage of gunfire. With an annual Memorial Day celebration in full swing, the streets were full, and the reckless and excessive use of firepower by police resulted in 4 innocent bystanders receiving gunshot wounds. Reports discussing the extent of gunfire count more than 100 shots fired by at least 12 police officers.
Beyond the aforementioned, it is still difficult to parse the facts from fiction, as reports in some cases conflict. It was alleged by police that Herisse had refused earlier to stop his vehicle for police and had nearly struck several pedestrian officers. While Carlos Noriega of the Miami PD made a video statement to media regarding Herisse's attempt to strike officers with his vehicle, he did not mention any injuries to fellow officers, while some press outlets have reported that 1 and others up to 4 more officers were struck by Herisse. However, none of coverage reviewed by this author offers any detail concerning the name(s) of the injured officer(s), the seriousness of injury(ies) or whether there was treatment at the scene or in hospital; details which corroborate any vague or conflicting information, and which are normally reported as standard journalistic practice. It was also alleged by at least one witness that Herisse had fired a gun while driving wildly through the streets, though when Police fatally shot the 22 year-old, they were apparently not aware of these reports, or even the identity of Mr. Herisse. The police have not explained why it took almost 3 days to report that a gun had been found "hidden" in Herisse's car, while having relatively immediately made public Herisse's criminal record.
The killing has caused an uproar in Miami. At least one of the wounded bystanders is taking legal action. But where the story becomes more bizarre is the police reaction to bystanders recording the events. A Local 10 TV camera man's camera was confiscated by police. Reports of other cameras being confiscated have emerged as well. Video from these sources has not been released to the public. However, thanks to citizen videographer Narces Benoit, one useful video of the incident did evade police capture. Benoit's video shows the shooting from behind several firing officers. The video also shows that immediately after the shooting, Benoit is ordered to leave the area, and then pursued by officers as he returns to his nearby vehicle. He is then ordered to hand over his camera, while he and his partner were held at gunpoint by at least one officer. Benoit was able to pull the memory card from his camera-phone and hide it in his mouth sometime while being removed from his vehicle and put face-down by police on the pavement, having his camera smashed and returned to his pocket, being handcuffed, being arrested and being taken for questioning as a "suspect."
The pretext of his possible involvement as a "suspect" in the Herisse shooting seems absurd, considering the context of the Herisse incident being the culmination of a car chase which originated elsewhere, and especially in the light of Benoit's video. In the video, which Mr. Benoit sold to CNN and can still be viewed uncut on youtube, police can been seen and heard demanding Benoit's camera as they follow him and approach his truck. The intent of the officers is clearly to confiscate Benoit's video evidence of the shooting.
The pretext of his possible involvement as a "suspect" in the Herisse shooting seems absurd, considering the context of the Herisse incident being the culmination of a car chase which originated elsewhere, and especially in the light of Benoit's video. In the video, which Mr. Benoit sold to CNN and can still be viewed uncut on youtube, police can been seen and heard demanding Benoit's camera as they follow him and approach his truck. The intent of the officers is clearly to confiscate Benoit's video evidence of the shooting.
The legality of such a seizure is certainly questionable, and puts the police in a quandary. If police have probable cause that there is evidence of a crime recorded on a camera, most courts will uphold their right to seize that evidence at the scene. Police could therefore only legally seize his camera if they suspected themselves of a crime. What is proper and (less and less?) commonplace when a crime is recorded by a 3rd party such as Mr. Benoit or for instance a gas pump security camera, is that the evidence is either offered to police voluntarily by its owner when police take their statement as a witness, or the evidence is taken into police custody through means of warrant or subpoena.
The illegality of the attempt by police to destroy evidence and the personal property of a citizen is in no case questionable, nor is the attempt to intimidate him as a witness through his false arrest and questioning. It is quite clear in this case that the police have in several instances illegally seized private property, destroyed private property and obstructed justice by suppressing evidence of their actions: 12 officers fired 100 bullets at one man in a parked car on a crowded street, wounding 4 bystanders. In the light of high incidence of Miami Police shootings, some have called Herisse's killing as a "public execution." While some may call this a stretch, if "public safety" and "serve and protect" are the watchwords of the Police, they have failed the people of Miami abysmally.
The illegality of the attempt by police to destroy evidence and the personal property of a citizen is in no case questionable, nor is the attempt to intimidate him as a witness through his false arrest and questioning. It is quite clear in this case that the police have in several instances illegally seized private property, destroyed private property and obstructed justice by suppressing evidence of their actions: 12 officers fired 100 bullets at one man in a parked car on a crowded street, wounding 4 bystanders. In the light of high incidence of Miami Police shootings, some have called Herisse's killing as a "public execution." While some may call this a stretch, if "public safety" and "serve and protect" are the watchwords of the Police, they have failed the people of Miami abysmally.
The confrontation begins with a rather banal effort at intimidation when an officer insinuates that Ms. Good does not have the right to record them from the sidewalk, regardless of her not being on the sidewalk, and such not being illegal. Ms. Good then stands her ground as the police officer accuses her of "seeming anti-police," and the officer tries to establish the ridiculous pretext that he doesn't feel safe with her standing behind him, even though she is in front of him, on her own property, while he is on the other side of a car on the street, and while there are 2 other unoccupied attending officers.
The officer then approaches Ms. Good, and changing tack, attempts to use Ms. Good's recording against her by making reference to "what you've said to me before you started taping..." as being grounds for his ordering her indoors. The officer continues to demand that Ms. Good return inside her house for the reason that he doesn't feel safe with her standing behind himself and the other officers during a traffic stop, in continual disregard of what is obvious to everyone; that Ms. Good is at a safe distance, she is not threatening, she is not behind him, and the traffic stop is concluded.
In the video, one can hear the anxiety and confusion rising in Ms. Good's voice as it becomes clearer that the police officer is intent on having the last word and bending her to his will. As Ms. Good attempts to reconcile the nonsense the officer has accused her of, he begins to threaten her with arrest. He continues to accuse her of "standing behind" him and "not listening to our orders." One must wonder how to correctly follow this officer's orders when he makes the Orwellian demand that she not stand behind him during the traffic stop when she is standing in front of him after the traffic stop. Ms. Good continues to stand her ground, remarking that she will not go inside because she "need(s) the fresh air right now," a quip perhaps at once sardonic and revealing of her bemusement and befuddlement.
After another threat she is arrested. The camera is then passed to one of a few people standing beside Ms. Good; who then film the woman's arrest; and who evidently and in contrast to Ms. Good, have the right to stand behind, or in front of officers during or after a traffic stop. They can be heard muttering to themselves as Ms. Good is brought towards the police cruiser in obvious disbelief of her treatment. She cries out: "What in the world? I'm sorry! I was standing in my front yard, concerned about what was going on in my neighborhood! And you're arresting me?! What the hell is going on?!" The officer delivers her to a cruiser that has just arrived on scene. Apparently Rochester Police require backup in removing ladies with video cameras from their front-yards.
Witnesses then recorded themselves with the camera after police left the scene. One witness states that she phoned 911 on the Police, the irony of which is pitiful. The witnesses also note the officer's doublespeak regarding the sidewalk, the traffic stop and being behind the officer. Statements to the media concerning the incident by the relevant Police Union President are nonsense, describing the officer's arrest of a woman well within her rights, on her own property, after his concluding a traffic stop as "using great restraint, maintaining composure, acting professional, clearly giving very clear and concise orders to an individual who just simply didn't comply."
These are demonstrably measures to intimidate those who would dare photograph or record police officers, some of whom are perhaps far too comfortable with their own lack of standards, ethics and understanding of the law to bother improving them for the sake of public relations. Such was in evidence after a 2010 court ruling in Maryland, where the judge concluded "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public... when we exercise that power in a public forum, we should not expect our activity to be shielded from public scrutiny."
The rather extraordinary case from Maryland involved a motorcyclist who was stopped in traffic on a busy off-ramp after recording himself speeding on the highway with a camera attached to his helmet. Anthony Graber's video shows an unmarked car suddenly boxing him in, and a plain clothed man exiting the vehicle, pulling a gun, and demanding Mr. Graber get off the motorbike. At first it appears to be a brazen day-light robbery, until the man verbally identifies himself as police. Mr. Graber accepted the consequences of his actions on the bike, and posted the video of his ride and his rather unusual arrest a week later on youtube in April 2010. Soon after, the police raided his parents's home, confiscated his camera, computers and external hard-drives, and stunned Graber with charges of violating state wire-tapping laws which threatened the 25 year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard with up to 16 years in prison.
Judge Pitt, who dismissed the charges against Graber, as have many other judges in similar cases, clearly asserted that laws concerning the unwitting recording of private conversations do not apply to police officers being recorded performing a public service in public, where they have no legal expectation of privacy. Yet, in spite of legal precedents being set across the US in this regard, police continue to arrest people at gun point on trumped-up charges for doing just that. Police are often fond of saying, "if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to be afraid of." One might wonder, is that simply a turn of phrase they use to get one to give up one's rights? Or, do they have for themselves things they'd prefer be kept hidden? Perhaps it's both.
Read and watch video about Raymond Herisse / Narces Benoit affair in Miami
Watch Benoit’s raw footage
About Emily Good in Rochester NY
About Anthony Graber in Maryland
