警察の過剰な力の行使に対する50万ドルの和解

TareqTV

7/2/2024

Transcript

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.

警察の過剰な力の行使に対する50万ドルの和解

Category

Transcript

Recommended