Video: HPD arrests a man for video taping on a public street

[editor]

Every now and again I get e-mailed press releases from the University of Houston chapter of "Students for Sensible Drug Policy." Normally I don't post their stuff here because they usually only send notices of events a few hours before they happen. I need more lead time than that. But that's another matter.

This afternoon I received a release from this group that linked to a video alleging to show a Houston police officer arresting a man for video taping police activity on his street.

The person being arrested keeps repeating that he has the constitutional right to make the video. And he may be entirely correct. However, the problem is that the video has no context. The person who uploaded it to YouTube edited out the beginning of the video. So we don't see the officer telling the guy to stop taping. We hear the narrator (arrestee) stating that the cop is handcuffing him for interfering with police business, but again -- without the beginning of the tape it's impossible to tell who is right and who is wrong. Was the guy interfering? We can't tell.

One thing I will say is that the officer appears calm and professional the entire time and as far as the viewers can tell, the video taping was never stopped by the police. In fact, the camcorder was handed off to another individual to continue recording the event.

So I include the video here as a piece for those of you interested in Houston police, and maybe someone out there has more information than what is shown in the YouTube posting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMpGYGzTmOc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMpGYGzTmOc

Update

Here's a statement from the UH student group about what happened:

-----------

HOUSTON, TX, FEBRUARY 23, 2010: Around 1:30 AM on Sunday February 22nd, Students for Sensible Drug Policy Board of Directors member and Univ. of Houston chapter founder Michael Blunk was detained for recording a police officer with his video camera. Despite multiple laws in Texas that allow for single-party consent for recording and a Supreme Court ruling asserting a citizen’s right to record video of a police officer, the police officer in the incident repeatedly said that Blunk was interfering with police business. Blunk was formally charged with Public Intoxication, but was never given a breathalyzer or a field sobriety test, and he claims he had only 3 drinks that night, with multiple witnesses confirming this. Blunk was in jail for a full 24 hours due to this incident, and has vowed to fight the charge once his court date arrives. “All I hope to do, is to ensure all citizens and police officers know of our rights to record audio and video on public streets.” – Michael Blunk

The incident began around 1:20 AM when a police officer showed up on a noise complaint on a fundraising party for the Star of Hope at 3714 Wheeler St. When Michael Blunk saw the police arrived he left his house at 3711 Wheeler St. to go over there. The officer was talking to a friend of Blunk’s when he proceeded to begin filming the incident with his cell phone camera.

The officer almost immediately blocked the camera with his hand, and repeatedly told Blunk that he was interfering with police activity. Blunk asserted that it was his legal right to record police officers doing their job, and that the Supreme Court has guaranteed this right. Soon after this the officer grabbed Blunk’s arm and handcuffed. Blunk handed his camera off to a friend who continued recording the encounter.

The officer never asked Michael Blunk to take a field sobriety test, or use a breathalyzer. Furthermore, Blunk’s Miranda rights were never read to him during this entire encounter. Blunk intends to fight the charge in court, by using his video as evidence. His hope is to educate the public and his friends about their rights as citizens, and to work to prevent someone else from having to go through this situation.

[kylejack]

This is really interesting to me. I know that police are allowed to set a reasonable perimeter so that they can do their jobs, but taping should be entirely legal except in rare circumstances. I'll be interested to see how this develops.

As to Miranda, they're not required to read the Miranda notification, they just void admissibility of any questions asked in an interrogation by failing to do so.

[RedScare]

It does appear that the guy was pretty close to the action. When bystanders get that close, the officer is forced into a position of watching both the suspect and the bystander, since they don't know what the bystander's motives really are. The Interference charge may well have been in response to that, not the camera. Of course, it is a moot point, since he was actually arrested for PI, not Interference. Field Sobriety tests and Intoxilyzer tests (not Breathalizer. Those have been gone for 20 years) are not required in a PI arrest, and are seldom performed as part of a PI arrest.

And, as kylejack said, any moron who complains of Miranda when he wasn't even questioned is an idiot. In fact, most cops do NOT read Miranda, and also do not question you. They simply shut up and let you talk. It's amazing what some of these people will say, thinking it will get them out of the arrest. Since it is not a result of questioning, it is ALL admissible.

[kylejack]

Yeah, the guy went about it totally wrong. Better would have been to step back about ten feet and continue taping, if this is what he wants to do. If the cop continued to insist he was "interfering" he could ask the cop to clarify what he wants him to stop doing.

Yelling at the cop when you're drunk is just about the worst way to go about it.

[editor]

My thoughts are along the lines of yours. I don't understand why this guy had to run across the street and stick a camera into the action. He couldn't just stay on his porch? Or say 15 feet back?

He is correct that he has the right to film what's happening on the street. But he doesn't have the right to rush up to a police scene and demand answers like he's Walter Cronkite or something. It's dark, the cop is working with another person, so I can understand how the cop might fear for his safety when some guy comes rushing to the scene who's not part of what's going on.

Some people just look for trouble.

[AtticaFlinch]

But he doesn't have the right to rush up to a police scene and demand answers like he's Walter Cronkite or something.

Does he not? Isn't he perfectly within his rights doing that very thing? I understand cops are granted a certain latitude in enforcement due to the stresses of their jobs, and I also understand it's imprudent to crowd a cop with a camera, but is that action still not legal? Was the PI a trumped up charge falsely concocted by the cop to deal with the meddling kid? It wouldn't be the first time a cop made crap up. Those old school beat-em-up cops need to be wary these days. Cameras are everywhere, and if they're concerned about being caught doing illegal or unethical crap, they better not do it. That's a hell of a lot less difficult than trying to stop the cameras from rolling.

[barracuda]

Does he not? Isn't he perfectly within his rights doing that very thing? I understand cops are granted a certain latitude in enforcement due to the stresses of their jobs, and I also understand it's imprudent to crowd a cop with a camera, but is that action still not legal? Was the PI a trumped up charge falsely concocted by the cop to deal with the meddling kid? It wouldn't be the first time a cop made crap up. Those old school beat-em-up cops need to be wary these days. Cameras are everywhere, and if they're concerned about being caught doing illegal or unethical crap, they better not do it. That's a hell of a lot less difficult than trying to stop the cameras from rolling.

I thought police had the right to restrict access to a police scene. The intoxication charge was probably just the easiest way to handle the subject and maintain control of the scene. I don't blame the cop for the arrest, since he repeatedly tells the subject that he's interfering and asks him to pull back. It doesn't seem that the camera has anything to do with the arrest, but refusing to step outside the police scene while being intoxicated may have provoked the charge.

[AtticaFlinch]

I thought police had the right to restrict access to a police scene.

I know you're right with a crime scene. That's why they cordon those off with that yellow tape.

I don't think the same applies to a scene where a cop is arresting somebody though. It's stupid for the guy to do have done what he did, just as it would have been stupid for him to dip his arm in antelope blood and wave it around two feet from a lion's face. But, isn't that still legal?

[kylejack]

If you want to play the semantics game, the guy was intoxicated in public and was arrested for it.

[editor]

Does he not? Isn't he perfectly within his rights doing that very thing?

No one has the "right" to invade any other person's personal space. That appears to be what's happening here. And the police officer has an obligation to be in control of the scene. That's his job. This person doesn't have the right to interfere with that job.

He has the right to ask questions, if done in a civil manner and in a way that doesn't put the cop on the defensive. But the cop also has a right not to answer those questions.

I know you're right with a crime scene. That's why they cordon those off with that yellow tape.

The tape is meaningless. A crime scene can legally still exist even if it hasn't been cordoned off. All it does is keep the looky-loos at bay.

I don't think the same applies to a scene where a cop is arresting somebody though. It's stupid for the guy to do have done what he did, just as it would have been stupid for him to dip his arm in antelope blood and wave it around two feet from a lion's face. But, isn't that still legal?

If waving a bloody arm in front of the cop distracts or prevents the cop from doing his job, then no.

I think we need an injection of RedScare here.

[EMME]

Doubting the Mardi Gras beads helped him any.

Several months ago, I called the police on my neighbor when he was beating up his live-in girlfriend. For the next several days, each time I would walk down the street to go to my other neighbor's house to feed her dogs, he would yell at me from his porch, "stay out of my business" or "stay off my land." I ignored him. Then one day, I rushed home because I was very late for feeding her dogs, and my street was lined with police cars. They were there to protect the young lady while she got her things out of the house. I parked and as I was walking up the street, lo and behold, said neighbor did his usual yelling at me...so I turned to the officer in the car that was at that time, right next to me, to simply ask what I could do to stop the harrassment. His immediate response was, "Maam, if you don't get in your house, and stop stirring up trouble, I am going to throw you in jail." I walked on up the street to take care of the dogs, and when I wanted to walk home, I was fearful they would arrest me. I called 911 and asked the sargent on duty come to the scene and he was very apologetic, explaining the officer had listened to only one side of the story.

I was livid at the time, but seeing this video and hearing your responses, I realize that indeed they need to keep control of the scene. This guy could have stepped several feet or yards back and continued his videotaping. He just really wanted to push his own agenda, IMO.

As an aside, a couple days later the mystery was solved about him telling me to stay off his property when I never go near it. He called the police telling them that when he leaves his house, "I go in it and go through his things." Now, I will grant you that I can be and am usually a pretty nosy neighbor, but I don't go that far. HA!

[AtticaFlinch]

No one has the "right" to invade any other person's personal space.

Well... it's not socially accepted, but illegal? Somehow I doubt that.

That appears to be what's happening here. And the police officer has an obligation to be in control of the scene. That's his job. This person doesn't have the right to interfere with that job.

But is he interfering or just being pesky? A fly at the dinner table doesn't prohibit you from eating.

He has the right to ask questions, if done in a civil manner and in a way that doesn't put the cop on the defensive. But the cop also has a right not to answer those questions.

I agree. That's not what I was saying.

The tape is meaningless. A crime scene can legally still exist even if it hasn't been cordoned off. All it does is keep the looky-loos at bay.

Are you sure about that. I know the what-if game is fairly useless at times, but what if there's no police tape surrounding an active crime scene, and all the cops are off on a donut break and some random pedestrian walks through it. Is that pedestrian breaking a law? Wouldn't the tape be absolutely necessary? Plus, I bet that tape does less to keep away the looky-loos and actually acts more as a magnet. There's just something about carnage that attracts everyone's eyes.

If waving a bloody arm in front of the cop distracts or prevents the cop from doing his job, then no.

If that happened, I would definitely expect the cop to do something. That wouldn't be interfering with his job. That would be his job. Blood soaked arms should attract more of the cop's attention than his PI citation quota.

I think we need an injection of RedScare here.

Now that sounds illegal.

[ricco67]

Well... it's not socially accepted, but illegal? Somehow I doubt that.

Just because its legal to do something, doesn't always mean you should go ahead and it.

its of very little comfort If you wind up as a/in corpse/jail because of something you did WAS legal.

People are showing less sense in social situations every day.

[RedScare]

Attica seems to think that police investigations are social events, and police officers who fail to interact with an inquisitive citizenry are just being rude. It most assuredly is not. A crime scene is whatever the police officer reasonably decides it is. There is no requirement to hang yellow tape. There are two reasons for this. Nosy citizens...or dedicated news reporters...can trample and otherwise disturb critical evidence. The citizen's right to observe the police doing their work does NOT trump the victim's right to a thorough and professional investigation. The fact that the crime scene is not a murder scene does not change the principle of securing a crime scene.

The second reason for securing crime scenes is safety. The police do not know who this drunk with a phone camera is. We know today that he was not armed. The police did not know that at the time that the drunk interfered with the officer's investigation. Again, the public's right to observe the scene does not override a police officer's safety. It should be obvious to Attica and everyone else that the fewer people involved in a crime scene the better.

There is law that governs this. While speech only does not constitute interference, physically interrupting the officer does.

Sec. 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:

(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

(2) a person who is employed to provide emergency medical services including the transportation of ill or injured persons while the person is performing that duty;

(3) a fire fighter, while the fire fighter is fighting a fire or investigating the cause of a fire;

(4) an animal under the supervision of a peace officer, corrections officer, or jailer, if the person knows the animal is being used for law enforcement, corrections, prison or jail security, or investigative purposes;

(5) the transmission of a communication over a citizen's band radio channel, the purpose of which communication is to inform or inquire about an emergency;

(6) an officer with responsibility for animal control in a county or municipality, while the officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted under Chapter 821 or 822, Health and Safety Code; or

(7) a person who:

(A) has responsibility for assessing, enacting, or enforcing public health, environmental, radiation, or safety measures for the state or a county or municipality;

( is investigating a particular site as part of the person's responsibilities under Paragraph (A);

© is acting in accordance with policies and procedures related to the safety and security of the site described by Paragraph (; and

(D) is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted under the Agriculture Code, Health and Safety Code, Occupations Code, or Water Code.

( An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

© It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1) that the conduct engaged in by the defendant was intended to warn a person operating a motor vehicle of the presence of a peace officer who was enforcing Subtitle C, Title 7, Transportation Code.

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference alleged consisted of speech only.

(e) In this section, "emergency" means a condition or circumstance in which an individual is or is reasonably believed by the person transmitting the communication to be in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or in which property is or is reasonably believed by the person transmitting the communication to be in imminent danger of damage or destruction.

In this case, it appears from the video that the cameraman is impeding the investigation by getting too close to the scene in order to film it. When he ignores the officer's order to back up, he commits an offense, even if it is done negligently. Though he was not arrested for Interference, he could have been.

The better lesson here is that drunks should not intentionally place themselves in front of police officers, with or without camera phones.

[AtticaFlinch]

People are showing less sense in social situations every day.

I blame kids who walk across old men's lawns.

-Or-

Social mores evolve over time, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse (according only to those commenting from the bleachers like us). Regardless of your impression of the quality of the evolution, the fact remains the world changes. The ever present video camera coupled with the exceptionally odd desire to achieve 15 seconds of fame on Youtube has stretched the boundaries of etiquette from even my own early adulthood. It doesn't make it worse, and it doesn't make it better, and it doesn't indicate that people are showing less social sense. It just means they're showing a different social sense. A 20-year-old man today grew up in a completely digital world, and this is the world he feels most comfortable with. In this world, he's home and the cop was the interloper. In this world, his actions made perfect sense. In this world, the cop's actions were the oddity. In another 20 years, the whole world will be full of what you now consider senseless social situations, and at that time, cops who act as this one did will be viewed very oddly indeed.* And then, I'll probably be the guy defending his actions as a product of a different time. I do so enjoy playing Devil's advocate.

*Assuming we haven't moved totally into a violent police state and completely stripped of our rights by then.

[crunchtastic]

Social mores evolve over time, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse (according only to those commenting from the bleachers like us). Regardless of your impression of the quality of the evolution, the fact remains the world changes. The ever present video camera coupled with the exceptionally odd desire to achieve 15 seconds of fame on Youtube has stretched the boundaries of etiquette from even my own early adulthood. It doesn't make it worse, and it doesn't make it better, and it doesn't indicate that people are showing less social sense. It just means they're showing a different social sense. A 20-year-old man today grew up in a completely digital world, and this is the world he feels most comfortable with. In this world, he's home and the cop was the interloper. In this world, his actions made perfect sense. In this world, the cop's actions were the oddity. In another 20 years, the whole world will be full of what you now consider senseless social situations, and at that time, cops who act as this one did will be viewed very oddly indeed.* And then, I'll probably be the guy defending his actions as a product of a different time. I do so enjoy playing Devil's advocate.

Laying it on a little thick there with the cultural relativism trowel, huh?

It could have been a thousand years ago or more, and not much would have been fundamentally different. An impaired person interfered with the ability of another person (possessing authority and/or physical might) to accomplish a task. The impaired person generally loses.

[Fringe]

I gotta side with the cop on this one. I think he showed a lot of restraint in not kicking the guys ass. (I would have)

As for the PI charge, there is an old saying among cops. "You can beat the rap but not the ride".  It was the easiest way of taking him down. 

[AtticaFlinch]

Laying it on a little thick there with the cultural relativism trowel, huh?

Absolutely. I realize it's a stretch, but it still generates conversation.

Attica seems to think that police investigations are social events, and police officers who fail to interact with an inquisitive citizenry are just being rude.

So I probably shouldn't break out the disco ball next time I see a gaggle of cops?

[RedScare]

Social mores evolve over time, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse (according only to those commenting from the bleachers like us). Regardless of your impression of the quality of the evolution, the fact remains the world changes. The ever present video camera coupled with the exceptionally odd desire to achieve 15 seconds of fame on Youtube has stretched the boundaries of etiquette from even my own early adulthood. It doesn't make it worse, and it doesn't make it better, and it doesn't indicate that people are showing less social sense. It just means they're showing a different social sense. A 20-year-old man today grew up in a completely digital world, and this is the world he feels most comfortable with. In this world, he's home and the cop was the interloper. In this world, his actions made perfect sense. In this world, the cop's actions were the oddity. In another 20 years, the whole world will be full of what you now consider senseless social situations, and at that time, cops who act as this one did will be viewed very oddly indeed.* And then, I'll probably be the guy defending his actions as a product of a different time. I do so enjoy playing Devil's advocate.

*Assuming we haven't moved totally into a violent police state and completely stripped of our rights by then.

What a shame that you've wasted a perfectly good commentary on the social interaction of humanity on a simple case of a drunk interfering with a police officer's duties. What the drunk did and how the cop handled it are as old as the hills. The only difference is the presence of a video camera, so that we can watch what occurred. Citizens have attempted to intervene in the investigations or arrests of others for as long as cops have been investigating and arresting. Whether it is the passenger trying to help out his drunk driving friend, the abused spouse suddenly coming to the defense of her abusing husband, to the parent attempting to thwart the impending incarceration of their hoodlum son, people have tried to keep police from effecting arrests forever. The constant is that none of them are legally entitled to do so. To varying degrees, this same event probably occurred a dozen times that night. Most sober people backed away when the police officer told them to. This drunk did not. While being no fan of overzealous police officers, neither am I a fan of drunks who suddenly believe that they are entitled to interfere with police investigations due to their newly found 80 proof intelligence.

This is not a first amendment issue. This is not a right to video issue. This is not a case of changing social mores. This is a drunk putting his nose where it didn't belong, and lacking the sober sense to back up when told. Find a real injustice to rail against. This is simply drunken stupidity.

[Fringe]

This is simply drunken stupidity.

I agree.  I hate belligerent drunks.  This is why we should raise the drinking age to 30. 

[AtticaFlinch]

What a shame that you've wasted a perfectly good commentary on the social interaction of humanity on a simple case of a drunk interfering with a police officer's duties.

Have no fear, I'll dust off that little gem when an even less appropriate time presents itself.

Find a real injustice to rail against.

I don't know if you can accurately say I'm railing against this injustice. Initially I was seeking clarification, and now I'm just having some fun with it. It's a logic exercise for me, a fairly unsustainable one at that, but whatever. I was enjoying it nonetheless.

Anyhow, I concede defeat at this point. I think I've taken my position about as far as it can go.

[LegacyTree]

LOL, reminds me of that weird al song "dare to be stupid"

I miss Devo.

[crunchtastic]

I agree.  I hate belligerent drunks.  This is why we should raise the drinking age to 30. 

Awesome idea! It will make meeting younger guys at bars slightly less creepy if they're not young enough to actually be my own offspring.

Just kidding. I'm having a Stifler's Mom moment.