Tag Archives: reasonable suspicion

Man Legally Filming in Public Harassed, Illegally Detained, and Arrested (Multiple Times) by Las Vegas Police

Filming in Public Las Vegas Metro Harassment

Video shows a man, who is legally filming in a public space, being repeatedly harassed, illegally detained, and unlawfully arrested multiple times by police officers from the LVMPD.

If you have videos, stories, upcoming events/protests, or personal interactions with the police (and/or “justice” system) that you would like to share, send them to us and we will do everything we can to bring it to the attention of the world. In addition, you can visit the Nevada Cop Block resources section for information and links to the rights of citizens when dealing with police, during which you should always be filming.

The video embedded below, which was posted to YouTube by Las Vegas attorney Stephen Stubbs, pretty much speaks for itself. (Especially with the text that has been added to it.) Within the video, consisting of a series of different encounters over a course of several days in late October (2017), a Las Vegas man is out filming public areas at or near various police substations. Each time, he is stopped by members of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, illegally detained, harassed, and on at least two occasions unlawfully arrested.

In spite of what the police say in the video, the Nevada “Duty to Identify” statute (NRS 171.123) only requires a person that has been legally detained to give their first and last names. They are not required to give any other information, such as an address or birth date. Not to mention the fact that the man in the video was never actually legally detained in the first place.

Police parking lots are public property and are open to the general public. The “no trespassing” signs that are referenced in the video only apply to a restricted area behind the building that is gated off. Filming areas that are visible from public spaces is absolutely legal and has been ruled to be a First Amendment protected activity by several courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Watching the video, it’s incredibly obvious that the stated “Reasonable Suspicion” the officers are using to justify their detention of the man are nothing but very flimsy excuses to harass him. As already stated, he isn’t trespassing and filming in public is legal so there was no legal cause to stop him for being in the parking lot. Also, even if “aggressively approaching” their car is even an actual cause to detain someone, that clearly didn’t happen on the video.

Regardless of the fact that he wasn’t legally detained during any of those instances, the man on the video still complies under duress and tells them his name. Therefore, they absolutely have no reason to subsequently arrest him for not telling them his birth date (which he actually does tell them before the final arrest) or any other information beyond his legal name.

The reality, widely known among Las Vegas residents, that this video illustrates is that the LVMPD are just a bunch of bullies who will not hesitate to harass and retaliate against anyone that doesn’t follow their orders, even when those orders are flagrantly unlawful. And contrary to their statements on the video, they quite obviously have not learned much of anything from their past behavior.

Also, while it should be surprising that supervising officers ranking as high as lieutenant are not just involved in the harassment and illegal actions depicted in this video, but actually initiating it, it isn’t for anyone that knows how Las Vegas area police operate. Metro is corrupt and out of control from top to bottom.

And as is commonly the case whenever the LVMPD are in the process of harassing and/or arresting someone on some minor (or non-existent) crime, the dozen or so cops that show up at the end are a great display of how desperately short-handed the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is these days.

Related Content on NVCopBlock.org:

Caldwell County, NC Sheriff’s Deputy Demands ID From Couple Suspiciously Eating Lunch

North Carolina Deputy ID Couple Suspiciously Eating Lunch

Caldwell County (NC) Sheriff’s Deputy Victor Misenheimer approached a couple eating lunch in their car and falsely claimed they are required to provide ID to any police officer upon demand.

Note: The video and description included within this post was shared with Nevada Cop Block via reader submission. If you have videos, stories, upcoming events/protests, or personal interactions with the police (and/or “justice” system) that you would like to share, send them to us and we will do everything we can to bring it to the attention of the world. In addition, you can visit the Nevada Cop Block resources section for information and links to the rights of citizens when dealing with police, during which you should always be filming.

Chad Love, who submitted the video, states in his description below that he and his girlfriend were sitting in their car within a public park eating lunch when Deputy Misenheimer deemed that suspicious and began harassing them. Regardless of Misenheimer’s personal opinion, legally that is not a reasonable suspicion of them having committed a crime.

In addition, as Love also states in that description, North Carolina is not a “Stop and ID” state. (Misenheimer even aknowledges that it isn’t in the video.) In states without Stop and ID statutes, you are actually not required to identify yourself, even when there is reasonable suspicion. The reasonable suspicion requirement applies to when you can be lawfully detained by the police.

In states with Stop and ID statutes, being lawfully detained is what allows the police to compel you to identify yourself (otherwise you can be arrested for obstruction). However, if there is no Stop and Id statute in your state, you are not legally required to identify yourself unless you are actually being arrested (which would require probable cause).

(Also, “articulable suspicion,” which Deputy Misenheimer mentions in the video, is not really a thing. What he is confusing it with is the requirement that a reasonable suspicion has to be based on articulable facts. Essentially, what that means is they have to be able to explain a basis for the suspicion, not just state that they were suspicious of something.)

In most states, including North Carolina, the one exception that allows police to demand ID from someone occurs when they are driving. Legally, the police can demand identification from the driver of a car. That is based on the requirement to have a driver’s license when driving.

So, that would be the one instance in which Deputy Mizenheimer is correct in relation to Chad’s girlfriend having to provide ID because she’s the driver. However, based on the fact he doesn’t cite that as a reason and argues (incorrectly) about reasonable suspicion, Misenheimer doesn’t seem to actually know why that is. Regardless, he clearly doesn’t understand that it does not also apply to the passenger of a car.

Incidentally, whether you are a driver and/or have been legally detained, you are not required to tell the police anything beyond your identity. At all times, you have and should exercise the right to remain silent. Talking to the police is never a good idea and if the police are looking for a reason to arrest you more than likely all you are going to do is help them find one.

Obviously, there aren’t any “crimes” more serious than two people eating in their car at a public park in need of investigation out there in Caldwell County, NC. We should all thank Deputy Victor Misenheimer for the bravery he displayed on this video in heroically confronting these dangerous criminals.

Date of Incident: September 2nd, 2017
Officer Involved: Deputy Victor Misenheimer
Department Involved: Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office
Department Phone No.: (828) 758-2324
Sheriff Alan C. Jones: (828)754-1518
Facebook: Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office on FB
Twitter: North Carolina Sheriff’s Association

My girlfriend and I were sitting at the park in Sawmills, NC minding our own business. We had been at the park for about twenty minutes while we ate lunch. This occurred on Saturday September 2, 2017 at approximately 12:00 PM.

Deputy Misenheimer of the Caldwell County Sheriff’s Department decided to stop behind our car while we ate lunch. The deputy approached the vehicle and asked what we were doing and why. We advised him that we were eating lunch.

The deputy then asked for ID’s from my girlfriend, who was driving, and also from me. I advised him we hadn’t done anything and we don’t have to provide identification. My girlfriend complied with his request. While it’s not on the video, the officer threatened to arrest me under the resist, delay and obstruct an officer statute.

I asked what was his reasonable suspicion that we had committed a crime or were about to. The deputy then proceeded to to treat us like criminals. I did not give my ID and have logged a complaint with the sheriff’s department.

If you agree that this stop borderlines harassment, please contact the department at 828-754-1518 and let Sheriff Alan C. Jones know. Remember, if you don’t stand for your rights, they will continue to be violated. I have no problem with the deputy interacting with us, but North Carolina is not a stop and identify state and he made it seem like my refusal to provide ID was against the law.

This is government tyranny. The same thing we fought England over. Now is the time to stop this! I would have agreed with the officer in regards to there being reasonable suspicion if things had been different. For example, the time of day or night, it being Saturday, as well as the fact that there were other people using the park (none of that should be considered suspicious).

The officer stated we were suspicious. It’s a public park at noon on a Saturday. How is that suspicious? Especially, if we are visibly eating.

– Chad Love

Related Content on NVCopBlock.org:

  1. Video – Detained by Nevada Police for “Suspiciously” Sitting in a Car
  2. Body Cam Video: Alabama Mother Unlawfully Arrested After Saying “Fuck The Police”
  3. Submit Your Own Story of Police Abuse/Corruption
  4. Help Wanted! How You Can Become Involved With NVCopBlock
  5. #FTP – How and Why You Should Always Film The Police
  6. Press Passes for Independent Media and Freelance Journalists
  7. How to File a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Request
  8. “Let Me See Your I.D.” Stop and Identify Statutes – Know Your Rights
  9. Beware of Gang Activity in Your Neighborhood!
  10. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: The LVMPD’s Killer Reputation
  11. A Video Compilation of Las Vegas Area Police Brutality
  12. Donate to the Cause – Help Us Help You Fight The Power

Video – Detained by Nevada Police for “Suspiciously” Sitting in a Car

Henderson Nevada Police Detain Couple for Suspiciously Sitting in a Car

A police officer in Henderson, Nevada detained a couple (who were looking for a lost cat) because he deemed them sitting in a car to be a suspicious act.

Note: The video included within this post was shared with Nevada Cop Block via reader submission. If you have videos, stories, upcoming events/protests, or personal interactions with the police (and/or “justice” system) that you would like to share, send them to us and we will do everything we can to bring it to the attention of the world. In addition, you can visit the Nevada Cop Block resources section for information and links to the rights of citizens when dealing with police, during which you should always be filming.

Apparently (based on the conversation in the video), the people shown being detained here were out looking for a lost cat in Henderson, Nevada (a suburb of Las Vegas). This officer from the Henderson Police Department decided that them simply being parked on a public street constituted suspicion of a crime.

When asked on the video what crime it was that he suspected they were committing, his answer (repeatedly) was, “I’m not going to play your game” (presumably that game where he is actually required to state a crime someone is suspected of when they are being detained) and also to claim that asking why you are being detained constitutes “baiting a police officer.”

Outside of the basic questions of whether being in a parked car should by itself be considered a suspicious act worthy of police investigation (spoiler: no), this video is pretty indicative of the state of policing today. On full display is the rude, even hostile behavior common among police officers and the inevitable result of such behavior. The genuine fear and distrust that the people in the video display is well earned and not at all unreasonable these days.

Eventually, the couple were released without being issued any citations. I’m not sure whether they found the cat, but will update this post if I find out any additional info on its status.

Other Posts Related to Henderson, NV.

  1. After Henderson Police Beat Man in Diabetic Shock, NV Residents Pay for It
  2. “Let Me See Your I.D.” Stop and Identify Statutes – Know Your Rights
  3. Lawsuit: Henderson Nevada Police Break Into And Illegally Occupy Family’s Private Home
  4. A Video Compilation of Las Vegas Area Police Brutality
  5. Henderson, NV Police Violate Civil Rights Three Times in Three Days
  6. Henderson Cop Caught on Video Kicking Man In Diabetic Shock In Head Five Times Promoted

LVMPD Police Illegally Detain Then Falsely Arrest Las Vegas Man For Not Telling Them His Birthdate

LVMPD Illegal Detention False Arrest Las Vegas Federal Courthouse

Note: This post was shared with Nevada Cop Block via reader submission. If you have videos, stories, or personal interactions with the police (and/or “justice” system) that you would like to share, send them to us and we will do everything we can to bring it to the attention of the world.

Update: I’ve been told that the name of the officer who is wearing the body camera is Officer J. Deel. Also, the officer who orders that Mr. Martinez be (falsely) arrested is named Officer Jenkins. A third officer, who appears on camera at the end while he is being placed in the car, is named Officer Hernandez. (Other officers, who currently have not been identified, were also present.)

In the body camera footage (which was recorded by Officer J. Deel) embedded below, police officers from the LVMPD​ illegally detain then falsely arrest Joshua Martinez outside of the Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas​. Initially they approach and ask him for his birthdate, claiming that he is required to identify himself because they “are assisting the federal marshals within the courthouse.” Their only explanation for why he is supposedly required to identify himself to them is because when he tried to enter the courthouse the marshals asked him for ID, which he did not give them.

However, in order for someone to have to identify themselves to the police, they need to be legally detained first. In order to be legally detained, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that that person has committed a crime, is currently committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime. Even if there is a requirement to show ID in order to enter a building (I’ve personally been to the courthouse many times and can’t recall having ever been required to do so), not having that ID or opting against showing it to them is not a crime. It simply means they won’t allow you inside. So that does not satisfy the requirement for reasonable suspicion of a crime.

In the meantime, during the video, they readily admit several times that they are not accusing him of having committed a crime. In addition, they admit that he is on public property and confirm that he has not been trespassed from the property by the federal marshals. Contrary to what they claim while demanding the information that Martinez is under no legal obligation to provide, they are by their own admission not investigating him for having committed a crime.

Since they in fact never legally detained him, he is not under any obligation to identify himself to them. They also never ordered him to leave the courthouse property. So, he’s not disobeying any lawful orders. Therefore their charge of obstruction and the resulting arrest is false and illegal. Cops lie a lot and try to trick you into giving up your rights, but they also often don’t know the laws they are enforcing. This actually looks like the latter case.

See the original (raw) body cam video here at Joshua Martinez’ YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/riA0TcO7QnE

Houston Cop Claims to be “Three Percenter” While Illegally Detaining Man Open Carrying Rifle

Open Carry Houston Police Illegal Detention

A Houston Police Officer claims to be a “Three Percenter” while in the process of harassing and illegally detaining a man for open carrying a rifle.

The following video was shared with Nevada Cop Block anonymously, via the NVCopBlock.org Submissions Page. The video consists of a video uploaded to youtube by Open Carry Texas, which as the name implies is a group that advocates for citizens rights to open carry firearms based in Texas. The incident depicted within the video took place in February of 2015, according to the description posted with it on Youtube.

In the video, a man walking down the street is approached by a Houston police officer in a vehicle. After asking and being told that he is not being detained, he continues walking without stopping. That officer then pulls his car back in front of him to block his path and steps out brandishing an AR-15 of his own.

Even while claiming to be a “Three Percenter” (a group that believes strongly in resisting Constitutional abuses by the government), the officer threatens to “escalate this another way” while holding the rifle and, when told by the man that he does not consent to questions, refers to his answer as “Constitutional crap.” He then proceeds to demand ID from the man in order to make sure he isn’t a felon and that he is legally allowed to openly carry a weapon on “his streets.”

Once the man states that he doesn’t have ID on him and is still unwilling to wave his right to remain silent, he is illegally detained,has his weapon taken from him, and is forced to sit handcuffed in the back of the cop’s car while he calls a district attorney to get advise on what he should do. During the 15 -20 minutes that transpires in the car, the officer clearly shows that he has no understanding of the Constitution or the laws he is supposed to be upholding.

Obviously, that begins with the idea that someone has to arbitrarily prove that they aren’t a felon in order to legally carry a weapon by providing their ID to police. (The excuse that he had scared citizens calling him is irrelevant. The fact that other citizens don’t understand the law doesn’t give police the right to illegally detain and harass people acting in a lawful manner.) He even readily admits to the dispatcher that the man has committed no crime. At one point, he even states that he had no reasonable suspicion to even detain, let alone arrest the man.

Eventually, the man is released since he hasn’t actually done anything illegal, but not before he has been illegally detained and harassed for at least 25 minutes while handcuffed in the back of a hot police car. In the process, the cop’s claims to be “on your side” and a “Three Percenter” were exposed as either incredibly lazy lies or equally ridiculous delusions.

If you have a video, personal story involving police misconduct and/or abuse, or commentary about a law enforcement related news story, we would be happy to have you submit it and publish it on Nevada Cop Block.

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Alberta Canada Checkpoint (Check Stop) Refusal and Assertion of Rights

The following video post was shared with the CopBlock Network anonymously by a reader, using the (very creative) pseudonym “Sub Mitter.” It was sent in to us via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page.

Although there was no description included with the video, it is pretty self explanatory. In the video, a man driving through a checkpoint (they’re called “check stops” in Canada) in Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, where he is asked if he has been drinking and also to provide a driver’s license. He informs the officer conducting the stop that he won’t answer any questions. At that point the officer tells him to drive to a secondary inspection area.

The driver responds by asking if he is being detained. The officer says that he is and quotes a law that says he is authorized to determine if drivers have been drinking and also if they have a valid driver’s license. There’s then some back and forth about whether the police need to have a suspicion that a driver is drunk before they are compelled to submit to further investigation regarding that. Next, the driver asks if he is required to show a driver’s license without a requirement for suspicion. The officer replies that he is and the man then shows him his driver’s license.

Shortly after, and still without having answered the question about whether he had been drinking, the driver is released and continues on his way.

Date of Checkpoint: November 26th, 2016
Department Involved: Medicine Hat (Alberta, Canada) Police Service
Professional Standards Supervisor: (403) 502-8917
Department Facebook Page: Medicine Hat Police Service
Department Twitter Profile: @medhatpolice
Department Instagram Account: Medicine Hat Police Service

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

If you have a video, personal story involving police misconduct and/or abuse, or commentary about a law enforcement related news story, we would be happy to have you submit it. You can find some advice on how to get your submission published on the CopBlock Network within this post.

Michigan Police Harass Black Man Claiming He “Fit the Description” of a White Man

The following post and accompanying video were shared with the CopBlock Network by a reader named Brian (no last name provided), via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page.

Along with the video, Brian stated:

“They harassed me, because I, ‘fit the description’ of a black male in black clothes. The real description was of a white male.”

Date of Incident: August 23, 2013
Department Involved: Canton (MI) Police Department
Department Phone Number: (734) 394-5400
Department Email: Email Canton Police Department
Facebook Page: Canton Police Department on FB
Twitter Account: @CantonPSD

In a description included on the video, Brian explains that he was heading from his house to the gym when he noticed that he was being surrounded by police cars, including an undercover vehicle. Soon after a uniformed officer and undercover officer in plain clothes (who refused to identify himself) approached and began demanding ID from Brian.

Brian further states that he told them that he was not required to give them ID unless they had reasonable suspicion of him having committed a crime to detain. They then responded by telling him that he “fit the description” of someone that had been reported as exposing himself to women in the area. According to the officers, that description was “a black 20 year old male wearing black shorts, a black shirt, and a medalion.”

However, Brian indicates that he later found an official report from the Canton Police Department, which included the description of the person(s) suspected of exposing themselves. That description actually included two people, both of whom are white and significantly different in appearance to Brian’s physical characteristics.

Within that description and also numerous times on the video footage itself, Brian also states that when he refused to provide his ID and instead asked to speak to a supervisor, the original two officers acted aggressively toward him and appeared ready to assault him. He equates the fact that did not happen to his having began filming them shortly after.

It’s certainly not impossible that a third person who was black had been reported exposing himself that day. However, it’s also not an uncommon tactic for the police to claim someone fits the description of a suspect they are looking for to justify stopping someone they have decided they want to harass. In fact, cops have even been caught using fake 911 calls to manufacture a reason to perform illegal searches.

In this particular instance, the cops never bring the alleged victim over to visually identify Brian (which is often done from within a police vehicle to ensure anonymity), nor is any other type of evidence produced to substantiate their claims of suspicion. Instead, the dozen or so cops that have shown up to harass Brian simply leave once the supervisor has (finally) shown up and spoken to him.

If you have a video, personal story involving police misconduct and/or abuse, or commentary about a law enforcement related news story, we would be happy to have you submit it. You can find some advice on how to get your submission published on the CopBlock Network within this post.

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Make Sure You Know How to Assert Your Rights When Harassed and/or Profiled by Police

The following video and the description accompanying it were shared with the CopBlock Network by Rudy Gonzalez Jr., via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page.

This submission is one of the better videos I’ve seen showing how to calmly, yet firmly, assert your rights and handle yourself when being harassed by the police. And obviously the first thing he does right is filming his interaction with the officers. It begins with Officer Deleon stating that he needs to see Gonzalez’ ID to make sure he “isn’t an illegal alien.” Deleon further states that this is based on the fact that Gonzalez is walking close to a border fence at night.

This is a pretty blatant case of profiling, based on the fact that Gonzalez is of Latino origin. I have very little doubt that if someone of another ethnicity were doing the same that it would be unlikely they would be stopped to check if they are in the country legally. Gonzalez subtly points that out by asking Deleon why he suspects that he is in the country illegally. And of course, much like someone shouldn’t have to prove that they “belong” in a certain neighborhood based on their appearance, people shouldn’t have to arbitrarily prove that they are a citizen (without even going into the many abuses justified and perpetuated by border controls and the hysteria surrounding them) based solely on their appearance, either.

A rather interesting exchange is when Officer Deleon begins asking Gonzalez questions about whether he has any weapons on him and responds to Gonzalez asking for his name and badge number by asking for his name. Each time, Gonzalez asserts his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent by stating, “I don’t answer questions.” In a frustrated voice, Deleon says, “you like to ask questions, though.” As a matter of fact, that is the exact proper way people should handle being questioned by police. The best course of action is to refuse to answer any questions and any conversation that you have with a cop should be to question them about the legalities of the situation in order to clarify if they are being accused of a crime. (Also, in order to get them on record stating what, if any, crime they think you might have committed or admitting that they don’t have any reason to suspect you of a crime.)

Toward the end of the video, Gonzalez turns the tables a bit and begins asking Officer Deleon if he and Officer Spinoza are “illegals.” He follows that up by stating that he needs Deleon to show him three forms of ID to establish if he is in the country legally. The real cherry on top of the whole exchange is when Deleon responds by again requesting ID from Gonzalez.

Gonzalez correctly explains that, unlike police officers, citizens aren’t required to provide ID unless they are suspected of committing a crime (and therefore legally detained) citing the Brown vs. Texas case. Another, more recent, case that pertains to requirements to produce ID is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police could arrest someone for refusing to identify themselves, but only if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone has or was in the process of committing a crime.

In both cases, it was also ruled that citizens are not required to produce physical ID unless they are driving. They are only required to verbally identify themselves. In addition, the requirement even with reasonable suspicion only applies to states that have “stop and identify” statutes. Currently, there are twenty-four such states. The other states require an arrest in order to compel someone to provide identifying information.

Shortly after that, Gonzalez asks, “are you accusing me of committing a crime” and then when Deleon responds that he isn’t asks the Magic Question that lets you know whether you are being detained or just being harassed – “am I being detained?” When Officer Deleon states that he is not being detained, Gonzalez follows up with “then I’m free to go?” Once again Officer Deleon confirms that he is free to go and therefore not being detained. At that point, Gonzalez does the smart thing and simply leaves.

Date of Incident: December 08, 2016
Officers Involved: Officer Deleon Badge #208, Officer Spinoza Badge #858
Department Involved: San Luis (AZ) Police Department
Department Phone No.:
Department Contact Page:
Contact Us

Video Description (via Youtube):

I was walking home from my job in San Luis, AZ at 1:31am on December 08, 2016. While between San Luis and Gadsden, I was approached by a police officer who accused me of being an illegal immigrant. This is the video and audio documentation.

– Rudy Gonzalez Jr.

If you have a video, personal story involving police misconduct and/or abuse, or commentary about a law enforcement related news story, we would be happy to have you submit it. You can find some advice on how to get your submission published on the CopBlock Network within this post.

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

British Transport Police Officers Kidnap and Assault UK Copblocker For Filming Police

The following post and accompanying video were shared with the CopBlock Network by Marcus Potter, who has submitted numerous other videos to the CopBlock Network, as well. It was shared via the CopBlock Submissions Page.

Most of the incident described by Marcus is not shown on the video because it took place while he was in custody and having been told that he was under arrest. He describes how the London police used the pretense of him being a terrorist in order to justify an illegal detainment, search, and attempt by PC Gearing to actually arrest him because she did not like that he was filming police in public. Based on Marcus’ other videos, this seems to be a pretty common tactic employed by the police in London.

Date of Incident: May 15, 2016
Officers Involved: Police Constable Gearing 2688, Police Sgt Barnes, Inspector Hewitt
Department Involved: British Transport Police
Department Phone No.: +44800405040
Department Email: [email protected]

I was filming Kings Cross Railway Station in London, at which point a female police officer, PC Gearing 2688, approached me and asked if she could see what was on my phone under the Terrorism Act. I refused and she demanded to see what was on my phone. She also required my name and address under section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002. I handed over the phone and she then handed it back as she couldn’t see what was on there. I showed her what was on there and Gearing then said that I could either give my name and address or that she would arrest me under the Terrorism Act.

At this point I stood my ground and refused to give my details. As a result, I was arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and informed that the arrest was necessary to enable a prompt and effective investigation and ascertain my name and address. Gearing unlawfully handcuffed me in the front palm to palm position. She then requested a prisoner transport van to take me to custody. She later removed the handcuffs and instead took hold of me.

A prisoner transport van arrived along with her supervisor, Police Sgt. Barnes and the inspector in charge of the football reserves, Inspector Hewitt. I was asked to remove my bag slowly and did so. I was then searched by Sgt. Barnes and placed in the rear of the van by an unknown male police officer (who I will refer to as PC X). Whilst doing so, PC X grabbed my left arm so tightly that it (sic) was present for a week afterwards and I shouted, “this is assault” to which he replied, “You are under arrest. You do not have to say anything so I’d suggest you don’t. Get in the back.”

I complied with the unlawful order and got in the rear of the police van. Shortly afterwards, I was asked to remove my shoes so that an officer could unlawfully search them. I complied with this unlawful order and was then given my shoes back. I was told that I could put them back on and did so, at which point the cage door was shut but the rear van doors remained open. I heard Insp. Hewitt have a conversation with Gearing in which he informed her that before arresting anyone for terrorism she should check with Special Branch that the arrest is necessary because protocols mandate that any prisoner arrested on suspicion of Terrorism is taken to an empty custody suite, is under the constant watch of the Custody Sgt., and is kept in a tent and that keeping a prisoner in these conditions should be avoided if possible. Gearing replied that she was unable to do so because she had asked me for my details, but been refused to provide them. She made it clear to Hewitt that she had made it clear to me that if I failed to provide my details I would both be committing an offense under section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and providing her with a necessity to arrest under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In the meantime, Barnes was rifling through my rucksack and found a credit card that I was carrying along with a notebook containing the collar numbers of Police Community Support Officers and train tickets. Barnes pointed these out to Gearing and provided her with my name. She then rang Special Branch to run her checks and provided them with my name and approximate age. She was then told that my arrest was not necessary. After a further search of my phone by Barnes, Gearing de-arrested me and I was handed back my rucksack and mobile phone.

– Marcus Potter

London Metro Police Unlawfully Detain and Search Man Filming at Wembley Stadium

The following post and accompanying video were shared with the CopBlock Network by Marcus Potter, who has submitted numerous other videos to the CopBlock Network, as well. It was shared via the CopBlock Submissions Page.

Date of Incident: August 27,2016
Officers Involved: Police Constable Lizzie Hopkins 759QK, PC Gemma Harrow 283QK, Chief Inspector Steven Wright
Department Involved: Metropolitan Police Service
Department Phone No.: +44 20 7230 1212
Department Email Address: [email protected].pnn.police.uk

I was videotaping police officers outside Wembley Stadium and saw a marked Metropolitan Police Service car driving towards me. I switched my camera on and recorded the car. Shortly after the car came to a stop in front of me.

A female police officer, who I now know to be PC Lizzie Hopkins 759QK, asked me, “are you alright? “and another female police officer, who I now know to be PC Gemma Harrow 283QK, asked me to put my video camera down. I refused to do so and PC Hopkins asked me, “Is there any particular reason why you’re filming?” I explained that “Now you’ve stopped me I’m filming for my safety” and she explained that she was “just wondering why” I was filming “that building” (Wembley Stadium).

I explained to PC Hopkins that “I have an interest in the police and I like to video record police officers”. PC Harrow said to me “Sir, can you just put that down a minute so I can talk to you? You’re outside a stadium and we need to make sure there’s a reason why you’re filming. So what’s the reason?” I explained again that “I have an interest in the police.” to which PC Harrow replied “But we weren’t driving up here before you were filming were you?” I refused to answer her question and explained to PC Harrow that “I don’t remember. It’s on my camera.” She said “OK. Well what I suggest is. What’s with the high vis jacket?” to which I replied “That’s because I’m meeting a friend possibly and I’ve told him that I’ll be wearing it.” to which HARROW replied “OK” and asked me “What are you doing in this area? Have you got tickets to the match?” I said “Thanks, bye.” and giggled slightly.

Harrow then spoke to Hopkins. Hopkins exited the car and introduced herself and Harrow to me using their first names. Hopkns explained “We are a little concerned as to why you’re here. It’s quite a sensitive area and there is an event going on in the stadium today. Obviously you’re standing here with your camera on and you’re filming people and you can’t really give us a real reason as to why you’re doing that.” I said to Hopkins, “correct.” and she asked me to repeat myself. I did so to which she replied, “I know you don’t have to give us a reason, but I feel that we wanna search you for anything that might be on you that we think’s inappropriate. Do you understand that?”

I confirmed that I did saying, “but I would like you give me all of GOWISELY (Grounds, Object, Warrant Card, Identification, Station, Entitlement, Legal power, You are detained) please”. Hopkins replied that “Of course you will get GOWISELY.” and explained that “We are going to search you under section 47A (3) (…) of the Terrorism Act. You have a large bag on you.” I am PC Hopkins from Wembley Police Station. This is PC…” to which Harrow said her surname. Hopkins repeated Harrow’s surname and provided her police station, Wembley. Hopkins explained that “I am searching you because you are in an area that is sensitive today. We’ve got a lot of people here, it’s a stadium. You can see my name” to which I replied “I can see your number, 759QK.” Hopkins then stated her collar number, 759QK and I pointed my camera at her colleague before reading her collar number, 283QK to the camera.

Hopkins said, “Yeah. At this moment in time you are detained for a search. Do you understand” to which I replied “Yes.”. Hopkins said “OK. So can (…) you pop that down for me for a second?” to which I replied “No. I can’t.” Hopkins replied “So you’re going to make this a little bit more difficult for us.” to which I replied “Yes.” Hopkins sarcastically replied “OK. Brilliant.” and said “OK. I’m going to take your bag off you” to which I replied that “I’ll take it off myself, if that’s OK.” Both officers thanked me and Hopkins said, “you do that.” She also asked me “Have you got any identification on you?” to which I replied “No comment.” and “Have you got anything that might harm me or my colleague while we do this?” I did not reply and Hopkins repeated her last question to which I replied, “Good question. Absolutely not.” Hopkins said “Wonderful, that’s always good.” and asked me “Do you live locally?” She also said “I’m not asking you for your details or anything like that because you’re obviously going to give me a no comment.” to which I replied “Yes, I guess I will.”

I giggled a bit whilst filming Harrow searching my bag and reading a document that I had with me explaining my right of liberty which contains part of Code C of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice. PC Hopkins asked me “What’s so funny?” to which I replied that “your reasonable suspicion is a bit shaky” to which she replied “no, it’s not really. This is a really important bit of infrastructure here in Wembley. And you’ve not been able to give us enough of a reason as to why you’re randomly filming people. So it isn’t.” I said “We’ll have to agree to disagree, that is why I’m laughing.” PC Hopkins continued explaining “If we feel it’s a little bit you know. With what’s going on in the world these days.” I said “Suspicious.” to which Hopkins replied, “Did I use the word suspicious? I felt it was unusual.” I said “No that’s something I’ve inferred because you’re detaining me for a search, so you do require reasonable suspicion for that do you not?” to which she replied “Of course I do.” She continued saying “This is our stop and account. Obviously you’re gonna be allowed to have one of these should you so wish once we’ve finished doing this. This is the record of our account for stopping and searching you. OK. If you want it. It’s entirely up to you. Which I will fill out. Terrorism, 47, 3, A, Pedestrians. And that will be our reasoning for that.” I said “OK.” She said “It’s not section one. It’s not section 23. Or anything like that. It’s section 47.”

Hopkins explained “It’s section 47A 3.” and asked, “have you got that enough on camera?” to which I replied, “yeah, thank you.” Hopkins said, “you’re not in a vehicle, so its not two and you’re not an occupant in a vehicle, so it’s not two as well. Alright?” I said “Yes.” Hopkins said, “I’m gonna start filling this out whilst my colleague.” Harrow said, “There’s his details Lizzie” and Hopkins thanked her. Harrow asked me “Do you like trains Mark?” to which I answered, “no comment.” and she replied “OK.” I asked Hopkins “Are you gonna do a name check by the way?” to which replied that she “will do yeah.” I said that I didn’t blame her. Hopkins explained that “it’s just par for our course” and asked “isn’t it?”

I agreed and Hopkins asked if I had any sun tan lotion on as “it’s a bit hot today.” I refused to tell her whether I did or not and asked Hopkins if she had any on. Hopkins explained that she always puts it on before she goes out and said “I don’t wanna burn.” I said, “I’m sure you don’t” and asked Hopkins, “do you actually reasonably suspect I am a terrorist?” She at this point made a very surprising admission that “no, that’s not what we’re doing”.

As she did not reasonably suspect me of being a terrorist by her own admission, the search was unlawful as a search can only be carried out under the Terrorism Act 2000 either with a senior police officer’s authorization in the case of a search under section 47A (which was not in force at the time) or if the officer reasonably suspects that the person being stopped is a terrorist under section 43. I have since emailed Deputy Commissioner Sir Craig Mackey to ask which senior police officer authorized the use of the section 47A search power. I received a reply from the staff officer to Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt, Chief Inspector Steven Wright explaining that I was not searched under section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000, but in fact under section 43.

This reply said that “I have checked with the officer and she has confirmed that the search was conducted under Section 43 and not Section 47 of the Terrorism Act. She has admitted ticking the wrong box on the form given to you. The officer has apologized for any inconvenience that this may have caused but did state that your manner and intrusive filming probably contributed to the mistake.”

I said to Hopkins, “OK. Thanks for that.” and Harrow said, “you can make your own assumptions Mark.” to which I replied “yes, I can thank you.”. Harrow said, “you do that.” and I explained, “but that’s why I’m asking, because I’d rather not.” Harrow said that “as you’ve been detained for a search, I’m going to continue searching you, OK?” to which I rather foolishly replied “OK”. My right hand pocket was emptied by Harrow and she had a look at the contents which were my mobile phone, credit card, debit card and autism alert card. Harrow asked me, “is this your phone” and I confirmed that “it sure is.” Harrow explained that “I’m glad about that.” and explained that she would be putting some items back “in there” and asked “OK” to which I replied “yep” and asked, “are you going to search my phone, as well?” She explained that she was just checking to see if it turns on and that “we can do an IMEI check” to see if it’s stolen.

She then gave me my jacket and bag back. I said to both officers “expect to be YouTube stars by the way,” and then repeated myself after Harrow didn’t hear me. Hopkins said, “wonderful” to which I replied, “Really? You’d really like to be on YouTube would you?” Hopkins explained that she has been on YouTube a few times and it “doesn’t bother” her. I remarked that “usually when I get searched under the Terrorism Act it’s because you do have reasonable suspicion that I’m a terrorist.” Once again Hopkins explained that “No, I didn’t personally do that, no” to which I replied that “I just misunderstood there.” Hopkins asked me what part I misunderstood to which I replied, “the reasonable suspicion to conduct the search”.

She explained that “I’ve given you our reasons. You’re in a really sensitive area here and there’s thousands and thousands of people. I don’t and loads of people don’t either. You’re standing there with your video camera which you’re refusing to put down even for two seconds. You have your bag on the front. I don’t know why you have your bag on your front. You don’t have to have it on your back, you can carry it how you like obviously, but we don’t know what’s in your bag. We don’t have x-ray vision. There’s quite a bit of suspicion going on there.” I thanked her for her explanation and she asked “Do you understand” to which I explained that I did. Hopkins asked me how the search was conducted and whether I was happy with it. I rather foolishly said that yes I was “happy with it”.

She explained that she would continue filling her form out and asked me, “do you want a copy of it?” to which I replied that I did. Hopkins explained that if I didn’t want a copy I could go to a police station and collect it there within three months or six months. I explained that it is for three months and she confessed that “you can’t remember everything” and remarked that it used to be six months. Hopkins again asked me why I was wearing the high vis to which I replied that it was worn to “identify who I am to a friend.” She explained that she understood and asked if I am meeting someone. I confirmed that I was.

I stated that Harrow had my driving license and Hopkins explained that I would have it back. Harrow handed me my driving license, to which I thanked her. I asked if I was wanted, to which she said I was not. Hopkins said that she was pleased to hear that I said my experience was reasonable and advised me that “because of the location you’re in, thousands and thousands of people are in there. Someone may call us later if you’re filming again and we may have to come back later.” I asked what would happen to which Hopkins explained that “I don’t know” and clarified that someone might call the police later if they don’t know why I am filming. I clarified that I wanted to know what the police would do to which Hopkins said that she didn’t know as it might not be her.

Hopkins asked how I would define my self-defined ethnicity code to which I replied that I would not define it, as the Met are institutionally racist. She also asked me for my height which I refused to give. I giggled a bit. Hopkins asked if there was anything else I wanted her and Harrow to explain or do for me. I asked for the exact wording of the legislation to which Hopkins explained that she didn’t know it off the top of her head and that she like all police officers has to remember all sorts of things. She said that she explained her reason, gave me the section. I thanked her and said my farewell to both officers. I then began giggling a bit and continued filming the car until it drove out of sight, at which point I switched the camera off.

– Marcus Potter