This video tells a complete story of illegal police actions and how the wronged parties won $$$ only three days after filing the lawsuit. The city agreed to settle out of court, after only 3 days, because the illegal acts of the police were so clear. That was fast. Kudos to the city for doing the right thing and not wasting time and money on fighting a lawsuit they could not win. Too many governments fight lawsuits they should not, causing more time, money and stress to all, unnecessarily.
False arrest, illegal search and poor investigative process by the police lead to a slam dunk, fast settlement of $151,000 which would have never been, had not the lawsuit been filed. When you’ve been wronged you can approach the wrongdoer privately to see if they will make things right or you can file a lawsuit or you can do nothing. Like dealing with a schoolyard bully they will keep harming you because they know they can continue without consequence.
Sadly, the POLICE and STATE can do ANYTHING ILLEGAL to you, as often as THEY want, until you sue.
It’s a sad, present, state of affairs and very few people want to sue, or deal with the courts and lawyers, but filing a lawsuit is the best defence against corruption and incompetence of POLICE and GOVERNMENT actors.
Sources:
- Official complaint: http://bit.ly/31VkleO
- Navarette v. California: http://bit.ly/30TJFR0
- Terry frisk guidelines: http://bit.ly/2ViyKiF
- Fox19 coverage: http://bit.ly/2AQV21i
- Independent coverage: http://bit.ly/2Vlp1bg
- The Enquirer coverage: http://bit.ly/31TIKkS
- Inside Edition coverage: http://bit.ly/2OnE2HY
TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO (Google auto generated, not edited)
OFFICERS SUED FOR $151,000 OVER DETENTION OF A REALTOR
welcome to audit the audit where we sort
out the who and what and the right and
wrong of police interactions this
episode covers 911 probable cause and
investigatory negligence and is brought
to us by general generals channel be
sure to check out the description below
and give them the credit that they
deserve let’s dive right in and audit
the interaction on November 17th 2018
realtor Gerry Isum and prospective home
buyer Anthony Edwards were viewing a
home in the West Prince Hill subdivision
in Cincinnati Ohio after entering the
residence using the lockbox that mr.
Isum had access to the neighbor across
the street retired Cincinnati Police
Officer Thomas Brannigan called 911 for
sale but it’s not an open house today
and I just seen two male black subjects
forced the front door open after
receiving the call the dispatcher put
out a notice for officers to respond to
a breaking and entering
B&E; one zero nine three morado drive to
males forced entry into the front door
and a further at this time 1093 Murata
drive 32:21 before approaching the
residence officers made contact with mr.
Branigan to confirm what he had
witnessed officers then attempt to make
contact with mr. Isum and mr. Edwards
this is the body-cam of officer Rosa
Valentino note that officer Valentino
has already drawn her weapon although no
immediate threat has presented itself
and she has no reason to believe that
either mr. item or mr. Edwards has a
weapon or is armed in any way officer
Valentino is the only officer on the
scene that ever draws her weapon
during this interaction at this point officers
have been informed that mr. Isum is a
realtor and that he and mr. Edwards have
an appointment to see the house
in the 2014 case of Navarrete V California the
Supreme Court held that information
offered in the form of a tip can be used
to support reasonable suspicion and
justify an investigatory stop the court
firmly rejected the argument that
reasonable cause for an investigative
stop can only be based on the officers
personal observation rather than on
information supplied by another person
the court favored the reliability of
certain citizens and circumstances over
others and pointed to factors that could
contribute to the authenticity of
information offered by 9-1-1 callers the
court held that statements about an
event made soon after perceiving that
event are especially trustworthy because
they leave open only a small amount of
time for deliberate or conscious
misrepresentation a similar rationale
applies to a statement relating to a
startling event made while the declarant
was under the stress of excitement that
it caused unsurprisingly 9-1-1 calls
that would otherwise
be inadmissible hearsay have often been
admitted on those grounds given that mr.
Branigan is a retired officer who has
received proper police training and is
also familiar with the area it is likely
that a court would consider his
information more reliable than an
average citizens and declare that mr.
Brannigan’s observations justified an
investigatory stop officer Valentino
decides to handcuff mr. Isum until they
can confirm the nature of their business
on the property despite already being
told why the men were there noticed that
the officers only needed mr. Brannigan’s
testimony as justification to suspect
mr. Isum and mr. Edwards of committing a
crime
but mr. Isum and mr. Edwards
testimony that they belong there is not
enough to dispel the officer suspicions
the officers are assuming that mr. Isom
and mr. Edwards are guilty and expect
them to prove their innocence rather
than responding to a call in an attempt
to ascertain what actually happened i
have made a video that discusses the
guilty until proven innocent doctrine in
more detail which i will link in the
info card above it is clear that mr.
Brannigan’s opinion of what happened
here dictated the actions of the
officers and that the officers
demonstrated a complete disregard for
the alibis of mr. isome and mr. Edwards
ranking the observations of mr.
Brannigan far above the credentials and
reasonable explanation offered by mr.
Isum and mr. Edwards
[Applause]
until this point mr. Isum had been the
only one in handcuffs it wasn’t until
the officers grew tired of mr. Edwards
verbal protest that they decide he is
enough of a threat and that they have
enough evidence to place him into
handcuffs
[Music]
[Music]
although mr. Brannigan’s 9-1-1 call did
offer the officers reasonable suspicion
to conduct an investigatory detention it
did not grant the officers the probable
cause needed to conduct a search of mr.
items pockets the doctrine of the terry
frisk grants officers the authority to
conduct a pat-down search of individuals
they suspect may be armed and dangerous
but the terry frisk is extremely limited
in its scope and only applies to the
exterior of an individual an officer
cannot automatically frisk everyone
lawfully stopped under the Terry
doctrine in addition to reasonable
suspicion that criminal activity is
afoot the officer must also be able to
articulate reasonable suspicion that the
suspect is armed and dangerous officer
safety alone will not justify a frisk
the officer must be able to articulate
why officer safety was an issue and
exactly what risk or danger to the
officer or others existed officer
Valentino began her search by going
directly into the pockets of mr. Isum
without probable cause to do so
do you have the key to the water box
Hey
[Applause]
[Applause]
[Music]
it is not until a full search of the
residence and further consultation with
Sergeant Titus Fillmore is completed the
officer knocks instructs Officer
Valentino to remove the handcuffs from
mr. Isum and mr. Edwards
[Music]
it is important to note that officers
negligently allowed mr. Branigan to
freely roam the scene instead of
securing the location to conduct an
investigation
after releasing mr. Isum
and mr. Edwards the officers left the
scene without making an arrest or
investigating further on July 15th 2019
mr.
Isum and mr. Edwards filed a lawsuit
naming the city of Cincinnati as well as
officer Valentino officer Knox and
officer Pete the complaint alleged that
the officers violated the Fourth
Amendment rights of the two men and that
the city failed to properly train its
officers on the constitutional rights of
individuals approximately three days
after the complaint was filed the city
of Cincinnati agreed to pay mr. Isum and
mr. Edwards a total of a hundred and
fifty-one thousand dollars as well as
issue an official apology and implement
implicit bias training for all city
employees over all
officers Valentino
Knox and Pete get an F for detaining mr.
Isham and mr. Edwards without
considering the legitimacy of their
alibi conducting an illegal search of
the two men and negligently conducting
an investigation by allowing mr.
Brannigan to remain on the scene far too
often do law enforcement officers
abandon the objective obligations of an
investigation in favor of the
information that they received first
especially if it came from a retired
police officer an investigation hinges
on the acquisition of clues and the
equal consideration of all aspects of
the
Aereo in question the streamlining of
police duties and the improper training
of officers has created a divide between
the philosophical nature of law
enforcement and its practical
application on the streets many officers
simply want to get their job done and
move on to the next call which often
results in negligent investigations and
improper policing perhaps the greatest
failure of the officers involved in this
interaction was the utter disregard for
the fundamental principles of law
enforcement
mr. Edwards gets an A – and mr. Isum
gets an a-plus although both men
composed themselves relatively well
during this encounter mr. isome was
extremely collected and to remain silent
as much as possible mr. Edwards was
fairly calm for being unexpectedly held
at gunpoint but he was certainly more
vocal about his disdain for the
officer’s actions and chose not to
invoke his right to remain silent
this type of behavior can often lead to
further instigation and sometimes can
result in a loss of life or lawsuit due
to the reckless nature of emotionally
charged speech it is always best to
remain silent as much as possible within
reason
I commend mr. Isum and mr. Edwards for
taking legal action against the officers
and the city and for ultimately being an
agent of change in regards to the
implicit bias training undergone by the
public employees of Cincinnati
let us know if there’s an interaction or legal
topic you would like us to cover in the
comments below thank you for watching
and don’t forget to Like and subscribe
for more police interaction content
