[Music] Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. This episode covers reckless endangerment, resisting, and mental health defenses and is brought to us by Code Blue Cams Channel. Be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve. On April 29th, 2022, the Vernon County Sheriff's Office of Wisconsin received several reports that a gold SUV was traveling around 70 mph in a downtown area in Westby, Wisconsin and was passing vehicles in the left oncoming lane as well as vehicles parked to the right. About 10 minutes after receiving these reports, Chief Philip Welch of the Village of [ __ ] Valley Police Department observed the vehicle traveling 106 mph in a 30 mph zone and pulled over the driver, who was identified as 35-year-old student Amanda McKague. The encounter was captured on Chief Welch's body camera. 146, call across. She came into town 106 mph and I'm westbound at County B. Never mind, you pulled over at 900 block, 900 block Central. [Music] Turn the car off and step out right now. Turn the car off and step out. Why? Why? Step out of the car. Who are you? Step out of the car. 146, step out of the car right now. Get out of the car. of this car. What do you have a fob or what? I don't know. I'm trying to comply with you. What Your compliance is going to be getting out of the car. I'm not going to get out of this car. Okay. You are under arrest For what? for reckless endangerment. For what? It's a felony crime. Who am I endangering? Come out of the car. I ENDANGERING? WHO AM I ENDANGERING? PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. STEP OUT of the car. Please explain to me who I'm endangering. Step out of the car. Please explain to me who I'm endangering. Are you taking me to jail right now? Yes, ma'am. [ __ ] Valley? Yes, ma'am. Miss McKague repeatedly refuses to exit the vehicle and Chief Welch informs her that she is under arrest for felony reckless endangerment. As provided by Section 941.30 of the Wisconsin statutes, an individual commits first-degree reckless endangerment when they recklessly endanger another safety, {quote} "under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life." Additionally, the statute also states that, {quote} "whoever recklessly endangers another safety commits second-degree reckless endangerment." As a Wisconsin Court of Appeals stated 2015 case of State versus Williams, to prove reckless endangerment, the government must prove that, {quote} "the defendant endangered the safety of another human being through, {quote} criminally reckless conduct." Now, according to Section 939.24 of the Wisconsin statutes, an individual acts with, {quote} "criminal recklessness" when they create, {quote} "an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another human being and are aware that their conduct created that risk." Section 939.22 of the Wisconsin statutes defines the term great bodily harm as, {quote} "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury." And courts have determined that driving at a high rate of speed and other types of dangerous driving behavior can constitute violations of the reckless endangerment statute. For instance, in the 1998 case of State versus Lechner, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin determined that a driver engaged in, {quote} "reckless conduct" when, {quote} "a witness observed the vehicle driven by the defendant swerving in and out of traffic at a rate of speed well above the posted limit." And, now quoting again, "on at least two separate occasions, the defendant drove his vehicle across the double yellow center line of the highway, accelerated, and passed a different vehicle." The court concluded that, {quote} "each time he drove his vehicle across the center lane of the highway, passed a different vehicle, and abruptly reentered the traffic lane, the defendant created a separate unreasonable and substantial risk of harm to a different human being, the driver of the vehicle he had just passed and cut off on the highway." Given this precedent, it is likely that a court would find that Miss McKague recklessly endangered other drivers when she weaved in and out of traffic and passed other occupied vehicles while driving at a high rate of speed. So, do you have an identification with you? I'm sorry, I didn't catch what you said catch what you said. I told you his name. What's his name? He does not have any identification. And you're not going to arrest him. Where you coming from today? What? My house, driving to school. I really don't have time for this. That was between us, wasn't it? I'm sick of white men, I'm sick of officers. I don't have time for I really don't. I'm trying to go to school, I'm trying to go to work. I'm not going to your jail. I just want a ticket, please. When you get out of the car and hand me your keys, we can move forward. I don't have keys. You have a fob. I don't. You have something that operates this vehicle. Yeah, I do, you're right. But I don't have it on me. When you get out of the vehicle, we can move forward. have it on me. When you get out of the vehicle, we can move forward. I'm not getting out of this car. I'm going to stand here till you do. [Applause] [Music] Ouch! God. After repeatedly ignoring Chief Welch's commands to exit the vehicle, Miss McKague appears to attempt to drive away and Chief Welch enters the vehicle to physically stop her from doing so. Under Section 946.41 of the Wisconsin statutes, {quote} "whoever knowingly resists or obstructs an officer while such officer is doing any act in an official capacity and with lawful authority is guilty of resisting or obstructing an officer." The Wisconsin Jury Instructions for this statute define resisting as opposing an officer by, {quote} "force or threat of force" and state that obstruction occurs when, {quote} "the conduct of the defendant prevents or makes more difficult the performance of the officer's duties." As the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin noted in the 2021 case of Stavano versus City of Eau Claire, several courts have concluded that the failure to comply with an officer's lawful order creates probable cause to arrest an individual for a violation of this statute. And in the 2000 case of State versus Lynch, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin held that an individual's flight from a lawful investigatory stop provided an officer with probable cause to arrest him for obstructing. Here, Miss McKague verbally refused to exit the vehicle numerous times and apparently attempted to drive away, which a court would almost certainly find was sufficient to at least establish probable cause for Chief Welch to arrest her for obstruction. Additionally, Section 346.04 of the Wisconsin statutes states that, {quote} "no operator of a vehicle, after having received a visible or audible signal to stop his or her vehicle from an officer, now quoting again, shall knowingly resist the officer by failing to stop his or her vehicle as promptly as safety reasonably permits." Although the plain language of the statute seems to apply only to a failure to stop when originally signaled to do so, in the 2018 case of State versus Smith, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin cited it to support the proposition that, {quote} "once seized by a police officer during a traffic stop, a driver may not leave until the traffic stop is finished." Therefore, it is possible that a court would conclude that Miss McKague violated this statute by attempting to drive off after Chief Welch ordered her to step out of the vehicle. Do you want your help? Yep, officer. You don't. Do you copy? 146 10-33. Get on the ground. with you. I'm not getting out of this car. I'm not getting ON THE GROUND. YEAH. UM UNLOCK my or unlock my doors from THE DRIVER DOOR. [Applause] GO TO THE PASSENGER SIDE. I HAVE A PAIR of handcuffs down in the on my belt on the floor. Put your hands behind your back. Thank you, sir. Do you feel better now cuffing me, officer? Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Excuse me. Does that make you feel better having me cuffed? Just stay on the ground. Stay on the ground. 146, you can slow down back up for 10-95. We have four. Hey, officer. Whatever your name is, you know raccoons are the smartest people? It's funny I'm getting arrested in [ __ ] Valley. All I asked was a I'll need 20. Won't need 181. I hope you die. I'm more than happy to search you. Go ahead. You piece of [ __ ] lowlife. Did you hear me? Do you have an identification with you, sir? Did you hear me, officer? Officer. Okay, I'm not going to Thank you. Call me. There's a book in my car. It says [ __ ] When Coon's are the smartest people. What's going on today? Are you her brother? Kind of, yeah. Is she upset about something? Mental health thing. You You You her or both of you? Um, her mainly. Okay. She's recognizing that she needs some mental help? Yes. Okay. She said she was going to go Saturday. She's been off her meds for 2 months. She's been off her meds for 2 months? Okay, I appreciate that. Chief Welch returns to Ms. McKague's car and speaks to the passenger, who informs him that Ms. McKague suffers from mental health issues and has not taken her medication for several months. Under Wisconsin law, there are several ways that Ms. McKague could argue that she was not legally responsible for her actions as a result of her mental health. First, under section 971.15 of the Wisconsin statutes, quote, "A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct or conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law." According to the jury instructions for this statute, "A mental disease or defect is defined as, quote, an abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects mental or emotional processes." The jury instructions also explain that, quote, "The term mental disease or defect identifies a legal standard that may not exactly match the medical terms used by mental health professionals and that in determining whether this defense should apply, the jury is, quote, not bound by medical labels, definitions, or conclusions as to what is or is not a mental disease or defect to which the witnesses may have referred. Therefore, if Ms. McKague could prove that her mental health issues prevented her from understanding the criminality of her conduct or controlling her behavior, she might be able to avoid criminal responsibility for her actions under this defense. Another defense that Ms. McKague could potentially use is to argue that her mental health prevented her from having the criminal mental state necessary to convict her of the crime she's charged with. For instance, if Ms. McKague was hypothetically charged with reckless endangerment for her driving behavior, she could argue that her mental health issues rendered her incapable of forming the criminal recklessness necessary to violate the statute by making her unaware of the risky nature of her conduct. In the 1985 case of State versus Flattum, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that, quote, "Testimony detailing the psychiatric and personal history of the defendant may be admitted, if relevant, to prove the defendant's intent to commit the crime charged." Accordingly, if Ms. McKague could prove that her mental state was such that she could not and did not form intent, it is possible she could succeed in this defense. However, even if an individual cannot completely avoid criminal responsibility based on their mental health issues, they may be able to obtain a reduced sentence upon conviction. Wisconsin's sentencing guidelines, which are codified in section 973.017 of the Wisconsin statutes, state that, quote, "When a court makes a sentencing decision concerning a person convicted of a criminal offense, the court shall consider any applicable mitigating factors, which would include mental health issues that may have contributed to their criminal actions." Now, we do not know enough about Ms. McKague's mental health issues to predict whether she could succeed in a mental health defense, but it is important to keep in mind that prevailing in this type of defense is challenging. And the mere fact that an individual has been diagnosed with a mental health issue does not mean that they will automatically be able to avoid criminal responsibility or even receive a lower sentence if convicted. I'll give this back to you. I just need your driver's license, okay? I'm keeping my hands visible. Yep, I believe that. Thank you so much, appreciate that. And are there any weapons in the car? Uh, yes. What's What's the weapon? A Bowie knife in the duffel bag. Appreciate that. So, what are you arresting me for today? Reckless endangerment. Okay. Can I take it off now? Take it away. You guys do it. 106 miles an hour. She was passing cars left and right in Westby. Can I get the ticket and go now? Or how do I get out of here? I'm asking you a question. Asking you to do your job. How do I get out? I need a ticket so I can leave. Please. I'm trying to get to school. And you're arresting me for no reason. Are you a diagnosed with any mental health disorder? I don't know. Are you supposed to be taking any medications? I don't know. After her arrest, Ms. McKague was transported to the Vernon County Detention Center, where she was held until June 28th after she did not post bond, which, according to a press release issued by the [ __ ] Valley Police Department on Facebook, was originally set at $3,000. Ms. McKague was charged with resisting by failing to stop, resisting or obstructing an officer, speeding on a city highway, second-degree recklessly endangering safety, unsafe passing on right, and operating left of center. And on November 29th, 2022, she pleaded no contest to the failing to stop, resisting or obstructing, and speeding charges. Ms. McKague's charges for reckless endangerment, unsafe passing, and operating left of center were dismissed, but, quote unquote, "read in," which means they could still be considered in sentencing. And she was sentenced to time served and received an additional fine. Court records also indicate that Ms. McKague was given a competency evaluation, and it appears she was found to be legally competent to proceed with her case. Overall, Chief Welch gets an A for maintaining a professional and respectful demeanor throughout the encounter, refusing to engage with Ms. McKague's repeated attempts to antagonize him, and only resorting to force after Ms. McKague attempted to flee. Even though a court would likely conclude that Chief Welch was within his authority to remove Ms. McKague from the vehicle after she repeatedly refused to comply, he instead chose to wait, giving her numerous opportunities to exit the vehicle of her own volition, and only decided to remove her by force once she tried to drive away, seemingly as a utilitarian means of preventing her from making additional attempts to flee. Additionally, although Chief Welch could have responded more clearly to Ms. McKague's questions about why she was being arrested, he was not legally required to do so. And for the most part, he treated both Ms. McKague and her passenger with as much dignity and respect as the situation allowed for. I commend Chief Welch for his patience and professionalism, and would encourage other officers to learn from his example. Ms. McKague gets an F for driving in an extremely reckless and dangerous manner, maintaining a hostile and confrontational demeanor throughout the encounter, refusing to comply with Chief Welch's orders, and attempting to flee in her vehicle. Although I am sympathetic to the fact that Ms. McKague suffers from mental health issues, her passenger admitted that she had stopped taking her medication. And if her mental health issues interfered with her decision-making to the extent that she could not drive safely, she should not have made the choice to get behind the wheel. That being said, I wish Ms. McKague nothing but the best, and I strongly urge her to seek treatment for whatever mental health problem she may be struggling with. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching, and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content. [Music]