Tag Archives: arrest

Update: “Illegal” Uber Driver Arrested For Filming – Protest Taking Place Now

As was reported here at CopBlock.org a couple days ago, via Ian Freeman from FreeKeene.com (by way of Derrick J.), Christpher David, an Uber driver in Portsmouth NH who has been protesting a ban on independent driver services instigated by cab companies to avoid competition, recently had a warrant issued for the bogus charge of “wiretapping” for filming in public. In reality, it’s rather obvious that the charge is simply an act of intimidation and retaliation.

Today police showed up at David’s house to carry out that warrant and place him under arrest for the “crime” of wanting to provide a service to someone desiring that service and feed his family, including his very pregnant wife, in the  process. As detailed in the posts below (the original post is from VoicesOfLiberty.com, the update is from Freekeene.com), David was not home when they came by, but later decided to turn himself in.

He has since been released on his own recognizance. A protest against his arrest and the larger issue of the banning of Uber drivers is taking place right now. An embedded link to the Bambooser account of “Shire Guy” has been included below where a livestream (as well as recorded versions) of the protest can be seen.

Police Come for Uber Driver While He’s Out Buying Baby Food

November 6, 2015—Dover, New Hampshire police came to the home of Uber driver Christopher David to arrest him today. His partner was at home, pregnant with their son, who could arrive at any moment. David was out buying baby food. The arrest could very well prevent him from witnessing the birth of his son. The charge? Class B felony wiretapping, for recording a bouncer in public who was attempting to bully David into stopping his work as an Uber driver.

The City of Portsmouth, uberNew Hampshire, under pressure from several taxi companies, recently banned Uber from operating in the city, threatening to fine and arrest any drivers who continued to operate. The first citation was issued to Stephanie Franz, a 63-year-old grandmother and school bus driver. Christopher David started the Free Uber campaign to protest the ban.

On one occasion, David was giving rides in Portsmouth to bar patrons seeking a safe ride home when he was confronted by a bouncer employed by Daniel Street Tavern. The bouncer attempted to bully David into ceasing his work, who in turn recorded the incident. It’s important to note here that David was in his own vehicle at the time, and both parties were on a public street with no expectation of privacy. Nevertheless, the bouncer called the police and decided to press charges of a class B felony for wiretapping, resulting in a warrant being issued for David’s arrest, which Dover police served at his residence.

This is a clear attempt on the part of law enforcement to silence activism protests against the anti-Uber ordinance. Over the last several weeks, Free Uber activists have covered the town with flyers calling out the mayor, city council, and heads of crony cab companies for their efforts to ban Uber in Portsmouth. This arrest warrant is a clear attempt to silence Christopher David for spearheading the Free Uber campaign. Unfortunately, his partner and (as of yet) unborn son will have to suffer.

UPDATE: David has decided to turn himself in, and hopes to be out on bail in time to witness his son’s birth.

Activists in Portsmouth Protest Uber Driver Arrests

free chrisFreeUber.org founder Christopher David was released on personal recognizance today after turning himself in at the Portsmouth Police Department. Activists plan to protest the continued harassment of Uber drivers tonight, and Shire Dude will be livestreaming this protest.

Expect updates every hour, on the hour.

Austin PD Officer Assaults and Interferes With Photographer

APD Officers involved:

Brewer #5607
Allegretti #7756
Hoke #7304
Cummings #7080
Aalbers #7591

With the amount of negative press that officers from the Austin Police Department are getting these days, one would think they would do everything they could to change their public image.  However, in yet another video by The Battousai they continued to demonstrate their hate for people exercising their constitutional rights.

Batt was filming a traffic stop that led to a DUI investigation.  He was filming from a public sidewalk, was over 30 feet away from the scene, and was not interfering with the officers at any time.  The stop began with just one officer and the driver being investigated.  Once the officer saw that he was being recorded, four more officers soon rolled up on the scene.

At 5:23 into the video, an officer identified as Officer Brewer, Badge #5607 approaches Batt and asks him to move back another 20 feet.  He tells the officer that he is on a public sidewalk and is far enough away from the scene and that he is not interfering. Brewer then assaults Battousai when he puts hands on him and pulls him onto private property.  Batt tells the officer several times to remove his hands from him.  He tells the officer that he is not going to stand on private property and moves back to the sidewalk.

Throughout the video, another officer; Officer Allegretti Badge #7756, keeps looking back to see where the camera is and then moves to block his shot.  Because of this, he has to keep moving to get a shot of the scene.  Brewer tells him to quit moving around and he tells the officer that if the officer would stop interfering with his photography, he wouldn’t have to keep moving.

According to APD Policy:


(b1):  In areas open to the public, officers shall allow bystanders the same access for photography as is given to members of the news.  Officers shall be aware that:  3.  Public settings include parks, sidewalks, streets, and locations of public protests; but that protection extends also to an individual’s home or business, common areas of public or private facilities and buildings, and any other public or private facility at which the individual has a legal right to be present.

(c) As long as the photographing or recording takes place in a setting at which the individual has a legal right to be present and does not interfere with an officer’s safety or lawful duties, officer’s shall not inform or instruct people that photographing or recording of police officers, police activity or individuals who are the subject of police action (such as a Terry stop or an arrest) is not allowed; requires a permit; or requires the officer’s consent. Additionally, officers shall not:

1. Order that person to cease such activity;

2. Demand that person’s identification;

3. Demand that the person state a reason why he or she is taking photographs or recording;

4. Detain that person;

5. Intentionally block or obstruct cameras or recording devices; or

6. In any way threaten, intimidate or otherwise discourage an individual from recording officer’s enforcement activities.

Several of the officers present seemed to interact professionally with Battousai, but it’s quite apparent that Officer Brewer and Officer Allegretti are in need of retraining on the department’s policy when interacting with the public.  If these officer have nothing to hide, why do they seem to lose their minds every time a person films them?

The Battousai is a real professional when dealing with officer when he goes out and films them.  He is always polite and never puts himself into the situation.  His only interactions are when they approach him or when they are finished with their stop so that he can get names and badge numbers.  Don’t let his being polite confuse you into thinking it’s weakness.  This man knows the local laws and does not back down when one of these officers tries to challenge him on his actions.

Check out some of his other videos below:

Battousai also included the link to a story involving field sobriety tests that you may find informative:  Passing a Field Sobriety Test


Michigan Woman Arrested for Renewing Dog License Late

In Kalamazoo, Michigan a woman was arrested because she didn’t renew the license for her dog before it expired. Although it’s likely the charges will be dismissed, Becky Rehr will be facing a possibility of 90 days in jail and $100 fine today (July 7th), when she appears in court for the misdemeanor crime of being too busy to pay a small tax on time.

Rehr, who had no previous record except a single traffic ticket, had stopped by the Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s office on June 23rd to show them a receipt proving she had in fact paid for the dog license, including a late fee, after having received a notice that a warrant had been issued for failure to renew the license by its due date. However, instead of it being a quick trip to clear things up, she instead ended up being arrested, booked, and thrown into a holding cell:

While her 14-year-old daughter waited in the car, Rehr followed the clerk out of the reception area. To her horror, she found that she was not being led to an office, but to the booking area of the county jail, where she was fingerprinted, had a mug shot taken and was put in a holding area with jail inmates.

“They frisked me and put me in this intake cell with all these inmates in orange jumpsuits,” Rehr said. “I was pretty nervous.”

It took three hours before she was released on $100 bond, allowing her to return to her daughter, still waiting in the car.

Unlicensed Dog Anarchy

This is probably what would happen.

Apparently, Michigan takes unlicensed dogs very seriously. Even though they are “not looking to punish people,” according to Steve Lawrence, the director of Kalamazoo County Animal Control, they issue four to five warrants a month, on the average, for the owners of dogs whose licenses have expired.

Of course, you can’t let scofflaws (and their little dogs, too) roam the streets, even if they’ve already payed the original fee, plus a late charge, and the reason that they were late in renewing the license was because they work long hours as a surgical nurse and are also taking care of two teenage children by their self, while the father is away on business.

That sort of lawlessness would probably result in some sort of scary anarchy, where everyone was running around with dogs whose names weren’t readily identifiable by looking at their collar.

Click Banner to visit the CB Library

Click Banner to visit the CB Library

Why Dustin McCaskill’s Arrest Actually Validates Cop Block’s Accountability

Dustin MccaskillRecently, it was reported that Dustin McCaskill was arrested here in Las Vegas for making threats on Facebook. There is some room for arguments about whether the First Amendment applies in this case, but unlike some other recent cases, Dustin has made specific and persistent threats for well over a year.

One of the things mentioned in the article is that these threats were made on Dustin’s “Colorado Cop Block” Facebook page, which has apparently been removed by someone (possibly FB, but as far as I know, the person and exact reason is not known, at this time). There is a bit of context that needs to be added there. Because of violent threats of the same nature both against police and other citizens on Dustin’s previous CB page, “Southern Oklahoma Cop Block,” which was eventually removed by FB as a result of the threats, Cop Block publicly disassociated itself from Dustin and SOCB last year (almost exactly one year ago). Not only was a post made on the main page explaining the reasons for that action, but SOCB was removed from the directory of official CB pages and content generated by that page was no longer accepted for reposts, either on the site or the main Cop Block FB page.

Later, after Dustin moved to Colorado, he again tried to use Cop Block’s notoriety to gain attention for himself, by creating the “Colorado Cop Block” page. This was even after he had himself claimed he didn’t want to be associated with Cop Block and had only kept “Southern Oklahoma Cop Block” as the title of his page because he wasn’t allowed by Facebook to change it. He also had created several anti-Cop Block pages, including one named “Cop Block Exposed” (which actually predated the Cop Block Exposed page that got a bit of attention recently by “exposing” really easy to find information and pictures about some of the members of CB and prompted him to complain about his page being the “original” CBX page).

Some of Dustin's less than wise advice.

Some of Dustin’s less than wise advice to South Florida Cop Block on Facebook.

It didn’t take long before he was posting violent threats again and had actually escalated to the type of things that got him arrested. So, it also wasn’t long before another post publicly disassociating Cop Block from Dustin and his pages was posted. Instead of listening to that advice about avoiding aggressive behavior, Dustin ran around Facebook posting insults and threats to the admins (myself included) of any of the affiliate pages he could find that had shared that post and stating that admitting to the FBI that he made those threats, as well as the threats themselves, were “the way to get things done” or some variation of that.

We can have discussions about when and if people should defend themselves against aggression by the cops, which is something Cop Block has done in the past, as evidenced by the “controversial” (mostly among people that have never watched it) Larken Rose video “When Should You Shoot a Cop?,” which discusses that very issue. Also, as stated, there is some level of argument that can be made about the First Amendment protection of speech vs. actions. However, making public threats (that Dustin obviously wasn’t even capable of carrying out) isn’t actually the way to get anything done, but more realistically, just a good way to get yourself put in prison, where you can’t do shit but sit and stare at a wall, or maybe even get murdered yourself.

The real moral to this entire story is that, unlike the police, Cop Block does blow the whistle on people that are potentially dangerous and that aren’t upholding the purpose and principles of Cop Block as an organization. Rather than making excuses for and covering up for Dustin, when we saw that he might likely do something that would reflect badly on all of us and prevent us from doing the positive mission that we set about to do, we publicly disassociated ourselves from him and warned others that he did not represent us or our goals as an organization. As has been stated numerous times, Cop Block is committed to non-aggression in our efforts to eliminate police abuses and aggression from them against others.

In addition, as I personally stated in a post the morning before I and three other individuals were arrested for peacefully and legally protesting the incredible lack of accountability by the LVMPD in August of 2013, it would benefit police themselves if they would exercise the same sort of responsibility when members of their group do things that will reflect badly on them and hinder their ability to accomplish their “mission,” instead of reacting with even more aggression toward those who rightfully point out those transgressions.

The transgressions of individuals reflect badly on a group at an inverse level dictated by the positive actions that a group takes to address those actions. When a group covers up for and enables an individual to continue negative behavior, the actions of those individuals rightfully reflects badly on the entire group. When a group does the right thing, then people understand that no group can keep every individual that has ever been involved with that group from doing something bad. “Bad Apples” have to be removed before they spoil the whole barrel, not used as an excuse that allows the rot to continue.

Cop Block can point to a legitimate and consistent history of holding our bad apples accountable for their adverse actions, while the police have a long and constant tradition of protecting theirs from any sort of repercussions for their actions, regardless of how bad or deadly they might be.

Kelly W. Patterson – admin of Nevada Cop Block  and Cop Block Press Passes (as well as a contributing writer on CopBlock.org and primary writer/editor for NVCopBlock.org)

“Let Me See Your I.D.” Stop and Identify Statutes – Know Your Rights

Stop and ID Statutes Map States Nevada Cop Block

Everyone should know their rights regardless, but it’s even more essential that you do if you intend to go out and film the police. Therefore, you should know if the state you live in has passed “stop and identify” statutes. If that is the case, then you should also know what is and isn’t required under such laws.

In 24 states police may require you to identify yourself. (If they have reasonable suspicion that you’re involved in criminal activity.)

“Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that allow police to detain persons and request such persons to identify themselves, and arrest them if they do not.

Except when driving, the requirement to identify oneself does not require a person who has been detained to provide physical identification. Verbally giving identifying information is sufficient to satisfy that requirement.

In the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual (“contact” or “conversation”), detention (often called a Terry stop), or arrest. “Stop and identify” laws pertain to detentions.


At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. However, the person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.

Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business. A person can usually determine whether or not the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”


Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Embedded below are videos from Flex Your Rights describing what reasonable suspicion is and when you are required to provide ID to the police. Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[10] However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information. (As of February 2011, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name.)


A detention requires only that police have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity. However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause for the arrest. But it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest. After making an arrest, police may search a person, his or her belongings.

Variations in “stop and identify” laws

  • Five states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
  • Fourteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:
  • In Montana, police “may request” identifying information;
  • In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information;
  • In Colorado, police “may require” identifying information of a person.
  • Identifying information varies, but typically includes
  • Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions;
  • In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado).
  • Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s “true full name”.
  • Nevada’s law, which requires a person to “identify himself or herself”, apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.
  • In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.
  • Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.
  • Virginia makes it a non-jailable misdemeanor to refuse to identify oneself to a conservator of the peace when one is at the scene of a breach of the peace witnessed by that conservator.

What is Reasonable Suspicion?

When Are You Required to Provide ID to the Police?