Robbins v Des Moines Case No 19 2492 Oral Arguments
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- UPDATE: THE PEOPLE OF DES MOINES FORK OVER $125,000 TO SETTLE THIS CASE
Oral Arguments in the case of Robbins v Des Moines (No 19 2492) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, heard Sept. 9, 2020.
In the federal Eighth Circuit court decision the defendant-cops were permitted to maintain their qualified immunity status for a couple reasons: 1. Scott Greene, a convicted cop killer, had filmed an encounter with police once, in another part of the city, 19 days before stalking and murdering two officers in Des Moines and Urbandale in the dark of night; and 2. Mr. Robbins was being cagey about the reason he filmed officers and their illegally parked cars back in May of 2018. However, based on the same record, the appeals court rejected the city’s motion for “qualified immunity” on the Fourth Amendment claim, acknowledging Robbins had committed no crime to justify the arrest & lengthy property seizure (citing State v. Smithson, that “interference with official acts” requires active interference). As a result of the appeals court decision, the district court then granted Robbins summary judgment on his Fourth-Amendment claim, pressuring the city to finally settle the case in December, 2022, causing the people of Des Moines to fork over $125,000. As is settlement boilerplate, the city gets to maintain that its officers dindunuffin. And as far as we can see, none of the 8-10 officers that made the scene that day, received any discipline for failing to uphold the constitutions of the United States and the State of Iowa, per their oaths of office. One would hope at least one of the cops, especially one of the two lieutenants, or the sergeant, or the detective, would have stepped up to say this isn’t right, Robbins acted well within the law, let’s give him his property back. But, alas, the silence was deafening. After several opportunities to walk it back, after rejecting an offer to settle for $25,000, our city instead dug in its heels and chose to do battle against one of its residents, armed with the full knowledge of the police misconduct they were defending, hoping to hide behind “qualified immunity” from accountability. It’s shameful and disgusting. And to put a cherry on the matter, more boilerplate filth from City Manager Scott Sanders’ office: “We disagree with the court,” essentially siding with his subordinates and against the residents he purports to serve. We’ll remember that Sanders serves at the pleasure of the city council when re-election season rolls back around.
![[UNCUT] "เสรีพิศุทธ์" แฉยับ! งัดหลักฐานใหม่ชั้น 14 ได้นอนคุกสมใจแน่!! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 2 ก.ย.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/O1SSg4p9Izs/mqdefault.jpg)
From the moment Youngblood said "so you are one of them "that should lost his qualifying immunity he knew exactly what he was doing from there. Retaliation.
Why didn't his lawyer argue that point initially? He lost the ability to bring it up in rebuttal by not addressing it. /smh
Yea this all peeves me!
This Lawyer missed several points. Is taking pictures a felony or misdemeanor. He is allowed by the first amendment to take pictures. This judge is a disgrace.
@@frequencyx9131 8th Circuit court of appeals upheld the qualified immunity for the officers on the grounds that two officers had been murdered by a suspect that was known to film police. However they also ruled that the officers did NOT qualify for qualified immunity on the charges of violating the 4th amendment stating:
Under the facts of this case, the governmental interest, presumably to dispel whatever suspicion the officers had about Robbins, does not outweigh the intrusion to Robbins. The seizure was unreasonable in the absence of arguable probable cause. See Place, 462 U.S. at 707-10.
The defendants alternatively argue that Robbins’s uncooperativeness gave them probable cause to seize his property. This argument fails for the reasons stated above. The defendant officers violated Robbins’s clearly established right to be free of unreasonable seizures of his property, see id., and are not entitled to qualified immunity.
One of who?????
Mr Robbins is 100% guilty for challenging “egos” of those hiding behind “qualified immunity” ! !
More like all those cops were engaging in "AMBUSH BEHAVIOR" against a man with a camera
And one violating him right away.. by going through his pockets...
Literally pissing in his constitutional born given rights...
They do t like being filmef
All judges should be required to go to college like other people, and take things like sociology, philosophy and nonverbal communication. That way judges could spot lying police and their lying union (gangland) lawyers.
They had to get that magazine out of his camera!!!
Absolutely 💯 Truth
"I don't think that the use of the word 'arrest' constitutes an arrest."
... try walking away the next time an officer tells you you're under arrest...
Right? Tell those handcuffs that I'm not under arrest. Lunacy.
Yeah, try walking away, it's called escape, fleeing, obstruction and on and on
He asked was he under arrest 1 said yes🤦🏾♀️🤦🏾♀️ how was he not
@@terminator6596 don't forget resisting arrest
@@shannongriffin63 yeah, you never try to just walk away. Even when being detained.
When she says the officers "pat him down", I notice she neglected to mention that the officer patting him down went into his pockets and removed his phone from his back pocket. That's a big Terry no-no, 4th Amendment violation.
And partially disrobed.
Such a blatant disregard of the 4th Amendment and they glazed over it.
I come back to this video quite often as a resident of this State to remind myself how much this State *hates* the idea of Freedom
Yep, that was the most jarring part of the LEO's personal interaction, sticking his hand in two of the photographers' pockets removing his cell phone and later seizing all his personal property & creating a list.
Terry _is_ a 4th Amendment violation. It gave the police the authority to stop you on the street and feel you up based on the flimsiest of excuses.
This was an obvious Constitutional violation from the get go. Everything the police did from the initial contact on was criminal conduct.
But, judges are loathe to find fault with the police, and will give them benefits of the doubt they would never entertain for us Proles.
& the judge didn't correct her & say, "U didn't simply pat him down for weapons. U illegally went into his pocket & seized his property". I was actually waiting for that is so many words
19:56 "I don't think that the use of the word "(you are under) arrest" creates an arrest"..... that woman is batshit crazy.
Batshit
Jahahahajhajaj corona :v
It must be nice that the pigs get to justify their actions afterwards, in any way they please, while us peasants are held to what we say on the spot. Disgusting
EXACTLY..I always lost my shit when she said that. Where did she buy her law license from? The law school or schools that she attended should be very ashamed & disappointed. Not more than her though
@@jameskeller8485 until the pigs realize they might not make it home after they violate rights it won't change.
she should be DISBARRED !!!!!! she is corrupt and incompetent
The police lawyer doesn't even believe her defense... It's pretty clear in her voice
Taking cases like this is self career harm
She was so happy when her time expired. 😂
She did fantastic job for those laser cops
Well spotted.
It is unconstitutional to force someone to speak, especially when they haven’t committed a crime.
Honestly, as someone who may go nonverbal in extremely stressful situations, it's just crazy to know that If I just took a photo of a cop doing something illegal, they could detain me, interrogate me, touche all over, steal my stuff, and arrest me all because I would be stressed and unable to speak, thus "SUSPICIOUS."
To no one's surprise, it's essentially illegal to be disabled/ neurodivergent in most of the US.
Not in a civil trial such as this. There is no 5th Amendment right to remain silent. In a civil trial, refusing to testify is evidence of liability.
Amazing, being a free american is 'suspicious' .
The question of arrest is this; would any reasonable person believe they were under arrest in those circumstances? My answer would be YES.
Exactly. He asked several times if he was detained. They said no AND told him he couldn’t leave.
The bigger question is if he decided he wasn't and just tried to leave would it be likely that he would have been arrested for resisting arrest
The cop went into the victim’s pocket and removed his deadly cell phone. Would someone stop the woman from lying to the court. Someone needs to correct the record.
She can't even lie without stuttering. lol
Pat him down, totally incorrect. Full hand digging into the pocket isn't a pat down
Right and kept saying nothing on record in the court. The video is in record. That was a intrusion. Into his pockets.
The cop first butt grab. When grabbed phone. Continues to ask where's your id
Think this judge is doing that very well
DON'T SETTLE THIS! Set a precedence! Thank GOD for reasonable, constitutional judges.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that filming or taking photographs in itself cannot be deemed suspicious!!!
*That may not matter here. The 8th circuit appellate court isn't exactly filled with well reasoned legal scholars.*
kyle, i dont think so. can you name the case?
@@fortyyearfitness *Go hit West. It's been reaffirmed to the point where you need to shep the cases now.*
@@measl not that I know of by the Supreme Court. Various circuit courts have found filming police in public is constitutional, but not the Supreme Court. And certainly that “taking photos cannot be deemed suspicious”. I don’t know where he got that from, I certainly can’t find it. No such Supreme Court ruling exists.
@@fortyyearfitness *I don't have the cite in front of me, but he is using the exact quote - or so close I can't tell the difference. The context wasn't filming, it was a Terry stop based on photography being "inherently suspicious" at the location in question. Clearly, taking pix must be factored into the totality of circumstances, however, there is affirmative case law from every circuit and SCOTUS saying that the act of taking pix, by itself, cannot be used as the basis for reasonable suspicion.*
Sent by Lack Luster . Glad to hear that the Officer won't be getting qualified immunity
It amazes me this even made it to trial. They should've tried to settle long ago. The 4th Amendment issues are overwhelming.
@DallasStarsFan read the constitution
It didn’t make it to trial. This argument is the appeal of summary judgment.
I think the issue is that the city lawyers wanted to make some money so they filed for a summary judgement. The district court had a high quality judges who decided that it was such a great idea to violate 1st Amendment rights... ACLU intervened and it went into the Appeal Court...unless the Appeal Court decided to overturn the entire legal precedent including the decisions of the very same Appeals court.
@@tedlis517 What ended up happening with this?
@@FeelingPeculiar thats exactly what im wondering ?
I love how the judge chews them out for holding the camera unlawfully for days where without counsel, they would have held it for months or years.
Thank you for taking this as far as you possibly can. Man I hope this ends with disqualified qualified immunity.
disqualified qualified immunity can only happen by removing stalwarts from Congress.. Go vote America for justice. this can happen to you all
we need made new progressive Congress and get Rid of those old white men gate keeping and hijacking democracy. This is not Russia or China for Christ sake. this is the United States of America.
In Iowa? Never will that happen all they do is violate rights
They didn't just pat him down they searched and emptied his pockets, that's more than a frisk or pat down
Yep. Blew right through a Terry stop real quick.
@@HonestTakeOnStupid 😆🤣
They wanted his wallet to see ID they asked him why dont you have a ID on you?
The "in this day and age" bullsht is not gonna fly.
My response: You mean the day and age where cops are killing unarmed brown people?
@@Matthew4Nineteen Mathew, there is no evidence that police kill brown more than white. See Harvard study by black professor. He was "surprised" but he proved it.
They shoot far too many of all of us for insufficient cause.
@@555Trout I know that but you miss the point of the statement. It's a response to the "in this day and age" cops use that instantly demonstrates how ridiculous that statement is. Think of it as a reductio ad absurdum.
@@Matthew4Nineteen 10-4
Exactly we US citizens are not terrorist we fought against it. They want to bring that bullshit statement of this time in age when 911 happened 20 years ago. This time in age cameras 📸 have open a pandora box of police corruption
They took his camera as retaliation to the stop.
@@YearsOVDecay1 yeah that lawyer really screwed up. To me, this is ine of, if not THE, biggest points of this case. By mot arguing that at the initial trial, he lost the ability to argue it on appeal.
she keeps saying they only gave him a pat down... they went into his pockets
Right ✅
Yes and I'm baffled as to why this was not a major point of contention. That blue boy stuck his fat fingers into his pocket and retrieved item(s); I think his wallet. We all know what a Terry is. A light pat of the outer clothing to check for weapons if the subject is believed to be armed AND dangerous. But don't forget arrested doesn't mean arrested according to Mrs Defense Fuck.
@@christopherscott8853 The illegal search is also how they obtained Robbins' cell phone...
@@satchelraidincoming636 We should all be defending ourselves. Hire a good paralegal for research. When you hire a lawyer you are declaring yourself incompetent and just look at what the attorney overlooked or ignored here.
@@christopherscott8853 The problem with trying to defend yourself is that the tiniest procedural error can fuck you over, and if the other legal team knows you are not a professional lawyer, then they will try to bury you in motions and bs paper work.
The detective did not suspect Robbins of stalking or ambushing them, he clearly and repeatedly stated he suspected him being there to 'challenge authority'.
21:18 "they patted his pockets down"
i'm pretty sure on the video they actually go in his pockets
You are not wrong
They definitely did. This was no stop and frisk
Oh yah, she's avoiding that for a reason. It's not a pat down, it's a search and seizure. That's why the judge revoked their qualified immunity.
Just absolutely insane here in the BS that comes out of this lawyers mouth. Does she even realize what kind of Precedence that would set if we went off of her theory of an officer telling you you're under arrest doesn't necessarily mean you are under arrest?
U have to understand that a defense lawyer have to defend their client not incriminating them.
That's why I can understand the lawyer behavior, but the judges are a different they have to be imparcial and follow the law not their feelings.
@@pak3ton impartial judges? That's a funny joke.
I feel, all the clowns, that made this illegal arrest should be fired, a long time ago ! They have a badge, and feel they can make laws & mandate orders to citizens, even though not lawful. A shameful police department. It all starts at the top of command.
Clearly a retaliatory arrest for videoing illegally parked police cars...any idiot can see that...the corruption is strong with these officers...
They need to face criminal charges.
He needs to change his lawyer. He missed many important parts of the incident.
He did pretty well he missed a couple of issues but probably hasn't dealt with this before
Just because something is suspicious doesn’t make it illegal.
Hence why he asked the officers if suspicion is a felony or a misdemeanor lol
Vice Versa, something illegal may not be suspicious at first.
The fact blart said "oh, you're one of those" proves it wasn't suspicious. Lawyer dropped that ball though. Dropped a few actually.
Yeah but the point to proper law enforcement was if he had followed one police officer to the police parking lot then was later seen outside of the same police officers church watching him then he would have probable cause.
Is "Suspicion", a misdemeanor or felony? SCOTUS has ruled that people have NO, reasonable exception to privacy while in PUBLIC!
The Judge sounds like someone who should go back to LAW SCHOOL....
He had a pretty good idea of the law
19:58 "I don't think the use of the word arrest creates an arrest" I guess being surrounded by cops, detained, frisked, bent over a car and told you're under arrest, isn't an arrest. lol, no wonder the courts took away their qualified immunity. I hope he sues the pants off them.
So they did lose qualified immunity? I've been looking for the outcome.
I need more. Please give us more!! The city's attorney sucks. She continues to try to criminalize legal behaviors!!
that's all she has available to her. she IS supposed to try her best.
18:15 a license plate is publicly displayed same as car. You can not get any information from plate without access to DMV records. It is displayed to allow both public and police to identify illegal activity.
Making someone uncomfortable is a felony, or a misdemeanor?
Rigghhht
I think that would fall under capital crime... Death penalty.....lol
Your question makes cops feel uncomfortable, therefore... BOTH!
@@aixaburlison4 lol
10:00 This judge’s responses are disturbing
Downright scary. Needs to be removed from the bench.
I was looking for this comment. I was stunned, especially at the claim that nowadays with the ubiquity of portable cameras (in any form), using them is more suspicious. Like...what.
She forgot to tell the judge, the cop went ( INTO ) his pocket !!!!!!!
NO SHE LIED
...she didn't forget....
No, the judge noted it.
She misrepresented and the judge didn't like it
That judge said that that case from the 70s doesn’t apply today but then went on to ask why things he had seen when he had first taken the bench could not be applied to today. This is what we have to deal with in the legal system
Judges should have term limits. This judge sounds like someone from the "Jim Crow" system
@@AQtePie lady, don't inject your liberal wackadoodle opinion onto this case. All people were white so piss off.
The prosecution in this case should be ashamed of herself. To blow this up to ambush or stalking is outrageous. She knows dam well these cops retaliated. This is why we need to defund the police, DA and judges.
Defending them does nothing. Put them in jail for a mandatory 5 years for each crime they committed and each count of rights they violated.
Stfu you liberal pos. I hear your BLM meeting starting. Your probably the first to call the Police when needed.
Defunding the police will do nothing. Making the actual police officer liable is a start
@@revolution2405 It will do something as we have seen in the cities (Democrat ran) that have defunded the Police. Record breaking crime thats literally at an historical high....
@@billrogers3139 Internet tough guy. Writing checks with his mouth his butt can't cash. You're probably the kind of person that SWATS someone because your cowardice prevents you from doing anything yourself.
Robbins attorney used the 1979(5th Circuit) case of Brown v Texas, but didn't use a Much more current & specific case of Turner v Driver in December 2016. Why?
It is clearly established that a "hunch" or "taking photographs in Public"(a constitutionally protected activity) are not enough to establish "suspicion" or "Probable Cause".
Wrong circuit to use the ruling?
@@Manageode--Yep, you are correct. Your response never showed in my Notifications. I've learned quite a bit from the 1A Audit channels in the past year.
He only gave the camera back after his lawyers asked the cops for it back
The court acts like hiring attorneys is no big deal and no one mentions that it is a big burden. (I guess it would not be overly burdensome to a lawyer.)
If they never searched his camera, then how can they keep arguing and assuming what he was taking pictures of? Smh
"Telling someone they are under arrest doesn't mean they are under arrest". WTF?
Doesn't it make it worse for these cops if he WASN'T arrested? If not arrested, then they cannot search his pockets AT ALL. So if the judges say, "Ok, he wasn't arrested. Guilty of 4th Amendment violations. "
I gotta try that one if I ever am told that. "You're under arrest." "No I'm not. Just because you say that doesn't mean that. Silly cop. I'm free to go." ha ha
My mind was blown at that point too 🤯
They lost that argument - lawful detention, unlawful arrest search and seizure. case sent back to the district court.
Makes absolutely 0 sense!! I dare ANY PERSON to just walk away after a cop states " your under ARREST" and see what happens to that person!!!
I don't agree with anything these cops did here, but I know, as well as pretty much Any adult... that if the pigs say your under arrest... your UNDER ARREST...! if he had walked away after that, they would have gone hands on, tackled him, beat him, and would have been screaming " stop resisting!" The whole time!! Hit the thumbs down if you don't believe me! Lol
I just want to set the record straight: I am not anti-police. I am anti to the current form of law enforcement we have today. For far too long I have believed that the police have the ability to adjust the law, to serve it in any form they see fit. And what bothers me most is the fact that when one police officer does wrong, there are VERY few officers who will stand up for what is right and come forward about the abuses perpetrated by their fellow officers. A lot of officers would say they wouldn’t rat on their brother. But in my opinion, this makes those officers equally responsible under the law as an accomplice.
That's right they use the Rico act specifically for the same type of behavior against criminals it's time we use it against them!
If your law enforcement and don't follow said law, you are just an over paid POS!
FOH with you fake outrage. Y'all stood by for years and police were violating and murdering black people in droves. Now you act like this is new. Miss me with that BS.
You're probably remembering back to the day when cops were, or used to be, 'empowered' as PEACE OFFICERS - given GREAT DISCRETION (as to not arrest, etc.) to ensure that the PEACE was not broken. In todays context of eternal 'municipal budget shortfalls', it now seems to be that the activity of the police is simply and PRIMARILY to enhance municipal 'financial balance statements' --- one can easily verify such a claim by perusing any municiipal issued financial statements. PDs are simply but greatly devolved into 'profit centers'.
This is just sickening! Copsplain, Judgesplain, and defense attorney spin! BARF... Thank God we are FREE!
The cops lawyer didn't believe a word she was saying.
In a truly free society, no one needs to remind you that you're free.
@@runfayalife In a Free Society... everything would not be Illegal!
@@MarsMan1 if you think we are free you’re sorely mistaken. we have not been free since the invention of civilization.
Free? How do you define police state ?
they should have cited the homeland security memo, saying that filming on its own should not be deemed suspicious, that would have been it done.
So now if a cop says your under arrest doesn’t mean that you are??
If a cop lies to you you're required to believe him apparently. Better have those cameras rolling!!!!!!!!
I can’t believe that first Judge. OMG! How is this case any different from Turner vs Driver? The fact that the lower District Court sided with the PD is disturbing.
These officials live in a world of perpetual and never ending paranoia.
@DallasStarsFan Nice, give me yours as well. I'm gonna check your out through those windows.
@DallasStarsFan I needs it for my research.
@DallasStarsFan The police station is not his home. You have no expectation of privacy if you are in public. You still can act suspiciously. Police have guns and qualified immunity and they are the ones that are scared. We are scare of them. I am pro good police. Bullies like these are criminal in uniforms. Take away their Qualify Immunity because they are using it to commit crimes with impunity.
@DallasStarsFan I hear you on million dollar networth thing. But the idea is not to maybe get rich from from police brutality but stop police brutality. If they know that their pension is on the line, that their personal bankruptcy is on the line, that their personal ruins is on the line, they will think twice before they commit crimes against citizens. If they lose their Immunity they will know that they are not above the law.
They rake in nearly 6 figures and a fat pension while living above the law not a bad scam
The judge was very quick to tell plaintiff's lawyer he was out of time but let the defendant's lawyer ramble on long past her time with nothing said.
...except her lies
If carrying a camera is now the standard by which one can be stripped of their Fourth Amendment protections, then in 2020 when we all carry smart phones, we have no more Fourth Amendment protections.
If this decision isn't reversed, they should burn the courthouse down.
Good luck.
We as citizens allow this to happen weather we want to admit it or not. The courts are put in place for justice and to uphold the constitution. Our justice system is fucked and until there is real accountability for judges,coos,and politicians, then our society will continue to be stripped slowly of our rights. Fight or become a slave to the state
@@nathandaniel3291 You are absolutely correct! We've become contented, fat, lazy, and apathetic. The Libertarians are the only ones sounding the alarm.
@@nathandaniel3291 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled partially in favour of Robbins stripping qualified immunity from the officers for the violation of the 4th amendment. I guess the system works sometimes.
All these coments are wrong...
We didn’t let that happen....
We have been forcibly adoctrinated since elementary to fear, fallow all the officers orders and never challenged them because of the fear of getting arrested...
I dont know you, but never in elementary, middle or even high school, i never learned the constitution because i guess its not important and you have to learn it by yourself or exclusively learn about it in law school according to police...
The fact that not even police officers know our basic rights, PROOFS MY POINT...
@@isailopez4132 You do make an excellent point. And I agree with your position. But, wouldn't you also agree that we've allowed the government to seize control too? In fact, many people actually want the state to have even more power. They falsely believe that if they invest the state with more authority, our lives will be better and easier. They simply fail to understand that a state empowered to "do good" is also thusly empowered to enslave us. Most don't see the threat. While government misinforms and indoctrinates us at every turn, at some point we must take responsibility for educating ourselves and resisting our captors efforts at furthering our subjugation. However, your comment does have merit.
Timing played a factor here. His camera wasn't seized until he was told to leave. That being said, it clearly establishes they had no interest in the contents on the camera. It was clearly for retaliation.
What is the name of the lawyer arguing that anyone carrying a smartphone can be frisked under Terry because they're engaging in "ambush activity?"
That those words came out of her mouth, in a court of law, infront of several judges... just revealing. No Justice... No peace... FTP.
@DallasStarsFan It seems in YOUR bootlicking world, it should be illegal to give a kid vitamins (or any other unharmful item.)
Ive always believed that anyone up to no good wouldn't be taking pictures out in the open for everyone to see them
@DallasStarsFan You'll have to connect those dots for me as I'm not able to follow your dizzying logic. How did you go from smartphones to poisonous snakes? LOL
@DallasStarsFan There's nothing nefarious about using a phone to take photos of what is plainly visible for all to see. You're a clown.
Illegal seizure of property is called "armed robbery."
Complete corruption
Right the 1st amendment is now considered terrorist activities wtf
From the police department to the courts!!! All corrupt!🤬
This judge is not well versed on these issues(Audits) and is unaware of many well established cases. The Police lawyer admits that a woman felt uncomfortable when recorded and called a cop, so cops were doing feelings enforcement on behalf of a fellow civilian employee of the police station. Sounds like they were going to ID him no matter what. I've Checked your Channel Media Watch but can't seem to find an update on what was finally decided by this appeals court. Do you have one?
Holy shit. 'I don't think the use of the word 'arrest' creates an arrest." LOL. Only a lawyer.
Who are they kidding? Any reasonable human when told by law enforcement that they are under arrest would believe he/she is arrested! Do we need to actually question this? The founding father would throw this out!
Not only that, she made up the excuse that using a camera is stalking and ambush activity. That's the reason that the cops can frisk him and steal his gear.
@@thengine7 terrorist activity and ambush activity?!?! LOL This isn't Nam.
@DallasStarsFan shes saying that the cops were wrong by saying that he was arrested then he wasn't. How is that boot licking.
@DallasStarsFan To detain is arrested . Learn English. One and the same, and l live in Texas.
“Suspicious” is subjective. The question we should be asking is - why are cops so triggered by a man with a camera? That’s the definition of suspicious.
Strength to you Mr Robbins. I am shocked how these defence lawyers are twisting the truth.
the Lt. said "You Are Under Arrest"......this was said just after the plain clothes Sgt. said "Just Leave You are Free to Go"
This is one of the reasons six or seven cops on one silly little detainment are so dangerous and such a waste of taxpayer dollars. They are like the five blind guys with the elephant.
That judge is out of touch as the cops are
Imagine the jury. 🙃
They are worst than a cop, all these years they had cover up the wrong doings of their children (cops)
That stuttering “this day and age” judge is scary for our rights.
I was just thinking this judge is already trying to fend for cops even with the evidence
Absolutely. He has NO IDEA of what the Constitution even stands for, thinks cops should just be able to detain, arrest, ID, and force answering of questions, because of "This day and age".
Yeah f*** that guy
Most judges are former prosecutors so they're literally boot lickers and Sovereign Citizens.
For the State's lawyer to suggest that the victim convey to the pigs, "I'm taking pictures because I take issue with the way police illegally park...", would have removed their suspicion and avoided the illegal detention, unlawful arrest, and unlawful search and seizure. The judge even admits that would have made it worse for the victim. lol
29:33 Yes, definitely my fav. Suggesting even he sees some retaliatory nature by the cops
he sure did this judge as most judges know what has happened .
There all this is- ego . They were mad he caught them illegally parking and recording it. This case shouldn’t have gone this far.
"Out of time." Jesus, it's not like there's justice at stake or anything. I get that there's only so many hours in the day, but cutting someone off mid-sentence when they're presenting an argument for an appeal... Makes it seem like they're more interested in getting to lunch than hearing this case.
She must have watched a different video lol.
She definitely watched the wrong video or she needs glasses
Wow, this defense lawyer should change careers. She'd be an amazing fictional author.
Thd cops said that they were gonna take his cameras till they could come up with a reason to charge him
Right! I can't believe they can so blatantly conspire against him on camera with no consequences.
@@zinknot its like they were obvious that they were on camera
@@zinknot but they kept saying that they were on camera like it was gonna protect them when the hold time it was the camera that wA gonna help the other guy
@@billybadtoes Makes me think they're so used to getting away with bad things ON BODYCAM that they think it'll go their way every time.
She keeps implying that he "should have said" something. A person shouldn't have to say anything at all to be left alone doing lawful behavior!
Of course I'm not blaming her for the arguments she is making. It is her job to make the best arguments she can for her side, and she is doing a good job of that considering what she is having to defend.
On the one hand, I'd agree that a person shouldn't have to say anything especially if it is their right to do so, however, dispelling a belief goes a long way to quashing them.
For instance... If he does not dispel the assertions, he leaves himself open to them. From that point, the cop can continue adding more to it until they have 3 circumstantial pieces of information that establishes what they need to take it to the next level.
That said, since the cop says "oh, you're one of those" even before he gets out of the vehicle, he knew perfectly well this wasn't all the bullshit about "high crime" in the back lot of a police station (absurd hyperbole), stolen vehicles, assassination attempts, etc.
her job as an officer of the court is to seek justice even if it doesn’t help her case or those whom she represents.
'I don't think the use of the word 'arrest' creates an arrest.' You are under Custodial Arrest as soon as they detail you....
"detail"?
Yes it does the cops can’t say you are arrested and you aren’t arrested. When you are under custodial arrest that is a detainment and they say detained.
@@kurtwetzel154 I wish that were true. But cops are allowed to lie to your face! They can LIE ABOUT ANYTHING and you just have to eat it, until the video comes out!!!
9:40 WTF? Not fully cooperating and answering every Q from a cop is PC for detainment? TYRANT SAYS WHAT? What if he said nothing? Then felony?
How could the district get this wrong!
A Biblical term comes to mind..."courts of the unjust"
That is a freaking lie he went through his pocket and put everything on the hood of the car
Me as the judge : You effed up. Give him his sh!t back!
So,
This is why civilians with badges are getting rid of 80% guns.
It's gonna be like Iraq here soon...
🔫☠⚖
So much for innocent until proven guilty. My lord is this really a court of law. Police are now allowed in Des Moines to treat everyone as though they are criminals. They did not pat him down. They went into his pockets and pulled items out.
One of my fav parts Judge "that would have made it worse for him, probably"hmm suggesting cops being egotistical and retalitoty 29:33 for 15 secs
"In this day and age".......well in 2019 police killed 1004 members of the public while 42 officers were killed on duty by gunfire. Some of those were shot by "friendly fire". Who is in most danger???
COPS should NEVER have qualified immunity. They should be subjected to twice the fines/sentences as the average citizen. These cops should be fired immediately and sent to prison.
What the hell kind of judge says it could be used to destroy police property and injure cops and that it’s pretty suspicious in 2020???
a judge who is so out of touch with reality that he doesn't know that almost everyone have a camera in their pockets, these days.
I think hes just playing devils advocate actually
@@melly6645 I think you're right. A judicial case of mine was reviewed by the Quebec Court of Appeals, with 3 judges sitting, and 2 of the judges actually behaved that way. I was surprised at first but their very very conservative and anti-freedom questions but concluded shortly after that they were playing the devil's advocate. Good point.
The one still using a flip phone. When the system can't reach a logical answer to a simple issue, they do themselves a great disservice. To "protect" a stupid act by cops and obscure it in court, you now get a tremendous loss (more loss) of faith in the system.
And today your courtroom stupidity gets wide dissemination, compounding that loss. All because you want to cover a stupid cops ass? It's stuff like this where you're just fueling the fire that's going to keep burning it all down.
They took things out of his pocket. She’s an officer of the court and she lied about the search.
Not only she lied. She lied under oath..
LMAO, defence trying to state there's little or no damages to be had in this case. LOL.
From the start never at any time evade questions. That officer molested that man grabbed his butt, unwanted touching.
I hope that cop doesn't have any kids. He's a sadistic pervert.
This judge is definately pro thin blue line flag .
This judge needs to leave the bench
I think the judges acted quite fair here and if anything they were a bit harder on the cops lawyer than the civilians!!
@@brettlawton9513 And you are a DA
@@brettlawton9513 Did you listen to the first 15 minutes of this video?
@@EtherGaming604 Although this seems like a set up I'll answer, yes, I listened to the entire clip in question!!
Cops reasonable suspicion of an "ambush" ends once they found out that the person wasn't carrying any form of weapon. They should just walk away from that point on. The whole case comes down to that illegal frisk and illegal seizure of camera which came from both illlegal detainment and ambiguous "under arrest" continuum.
Not just a frisk they went through his pockets
Instant sub without watching any of your videos. Lack luster sent me and his video was enough!
Great job. Strip QI now!
There was a 4th violation. They missed the bit where they went into his pockets before the eventual seizure of the phone.
'CA-MON ! LYING IS THE STANDARD, BOTH ...COPS, DEFENSE, ..........
That one cop said he knew exactly why he was there. To create drama so they were just trying to punish him for not kissing their boots!
This judge is insane. He sounds like he should be in an old age home, not sitting as a judge. Unreal!
Agreed...and I'm a nurse manager in an "old folks home". This judge is why there should be term limits for judges. Times change and this guy seems stuck in the early 2000's. 911 was over 20 years ago. The cops and judges need to realize it time to not blame everything on one horrible event.
Those old white racist judges are crazy bastards that needs to retired. They have a history of corruption.
This Jim Crow Judge needs to retire
When a cop lays hands on you, I think most reasonable people would assume, such a one is under arrest. Isn't that what you would assume if you drove by?
Not really
@@foxesnroses Arrest can have several aspects to it.
The defense lawyers were clueless. She wasn't even listening to the judge's statements.
The judge with the argument of " wouldn't identify , won't leave and wouldn't quit taking pictures " . This judge needs a lesson in the constitution . He is the type of judge that invented qualified immunity .
19:51 Attorney for State: “providing _false information,”_
I’ve watched the stop video 5x to make sure. And I’ll be honest. I can’t find it anywhere. Can someone show me where Robbins provided false information?
20:24 but the attorney provides false information. She claims “Pat down around his jeans.” The Officer actually went into his pocket, pulled out Robbins’ cell phone and even put it back. If patting outside the clothing means “going into pockets” then Glenn Cerio actually showers daily.
She says legal actions can at times be deemed reasonably suspicious, but it seems no one was able to articulate their reasonable suspicion of a crime.
These officers need to be Held personally accountable. I wish he would’ve been able to attach to their pensions
7:24 the judge pull the "in thing day and age" card LOL. He said it in a very wordy and long winded way but he said it
Just like the cops saying "there's been this and that happening" ....they ALWAYS say that and it's completely IRRELEVANT. It's never specific to an actual case, and it's nothing to do with the current case and it's violating a man's constitutional rights to use that excuse to detain someone.
THE CONTEMPORARY IRRELEVANT OBFUSCATION.......BS !@@glintinggold
All he did was legal and any judge that says otherwise should be disbarred.
So now is judge saying that police now can be their own informant, providing himself with a tip?
Amazes me how the police attorney refers to the 6 cops as" surrounded by people" and not police officers?
And the same lawyer because you have a Fifth Amendment rights, calls it evading questions he did not have to answer?
She also slipped in that he supposedly gave false and misleading answers. . . I didn't see that, and the plaintiff's attorney didn't try to rebut that. I may have to watch the video again.
So judge says Robbins picture could be used by a terrorist or vandals, then if the same groups got a foia request of officers cameras what stops them from using those or google maps?
Is their a point to any of it, or is judge defending police who were caught, by a camera, parking in a no parking zone?
This lawyer and all officers involved should be embarrassed by their behavior and have shown they are not fit to perform their jobs.
And crap like this will only make it worse.
They consider taking pictures as ambushing , assassination and murder and terrorist activities
War, this country needs war. This is our soil and it's time to take it back by force.
Officer: You are under arrest
Me: The use of the word "arrest" doesn't mean I am under arrest.
19:57
*I fear that having this in the 8th Circuit Appeals court could create bad precedent: our appellate court (I live in the 8th ct, and have been before the appellate court) is not known for great reasoning, nor for legitimate arguments. They are best known (to me) for making up whatever they want, and then finding a way to make it work. Not a good place for this action - still, I hope Robbins' counsel can make this work.*
That's pretty much what happened, right? If I'm understanding this correctly they ruled that, based on the cops' knowledge of previous criminal activity, detaining him was appropriate. What they lost qualified immunity for was taking his property and keeping it.
Whoever the judge is that is challenging the attorney needs to be removed.