[music] >> On the afternoon of June 3rd, 2022, officers with the Seattle Police Department were dispatched to the Northwest African American Museum in Seattle, Washington after a security guard reported a trespasser on the property. According to a police report from the incident, the security guard advised that a padlock securing the property's entry gate had gone missing overnight and that an individual inside the fenced entrance was refusing to leave. The officers made contact with that individual, Earl Debnam, who was seated in a wheelchair near the building's main doorway. The interaction that followed was captured on an officer body camera. >> Is it Amari? >> Wheelchair. I haven't had a chance to talk to him yet. Uh, he said that Yeah, he would you know, it's all fenced off. I said there's a a lock that's not there anymore. Says he's not going to leave cuz he owns the property. So, I've >> That's Amari, Jerry. >> Okay. Cool. What's the court order say? >> So, he's not allowed >> I've been to him yet? >> Oh, yeah. He got This is the one >> sue Yeah, I remember hearing about it. >> This is the one where they came and had it towed his in King County. >> Yeah. >> I mean, he's not allowed to be within 2,000 ft of this place. >> Okay. I tried to pull it up on CA, but it didn't pull up on there. >> I talked to uh Tolman. And he said and we read the thing cuz there's even like instructions at the precinct. >> Oh, okay. >> So, we can arrest him for trespassing or obstruction. >> Okay. Okay. >> I guess uh I I I think that's the last resort. >> Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. >> So, he knows he's had a copy of this order. >> Okay. >> Seemed like what worked last time is to tell him COVID is still raging in the jail and it might kill him if he ends up in there. >> Okay. >> But, he knows. I mean >> Okay. >> Hello, miss. We're going to go talk to him, okay? >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Amari! You still got a copy of your order? No, this one. Yeah, this is neat, but The problem is this, the order you've got, you should have a copy of it says you can't be within 2,000 ft of here. And I know you know that cuz this was hand delivered. This order, this one. When they took you and your all your stuff out of here last time, you were told never to come back. The judge. Listen, he's pissed. Listen to this. I'll read it. Says, "Now therefore it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff, this place, is the lawful owner of the premises, and the defendants, that'd be you, are guilty of unlawful and forcible forcible detainer, and have no right to possession of the premises." No, this is the one they used to get to get you off of here last time. We keep a copy of it at the precinct now cuz we figured you were going to try to come back. Cuz you you must have a copy here somewhere, yeah? Why wouldn't you keep it? You can look at all your binders. You want to keep this one? We got a bunch of them. So, you got to get 2,000 ft away from here. Well, it doesn't matter if you agree with it. A judge has ordered it. You've already been to court for it. Or at least your representatives have. Sounded like that was the second or third time that judge has had to tell you to stay off the property. >> Believing Mr. Debnam to be an individual named Omari Tahir Garrett, the officers confront him with a copy of a court order and tell him that he must move at least 2,000 ft away from the property. Now, the court order in question was the product of a long-running ownership dispute over the premises, a former school building that now houses the Northwest African American Museum and an affiliated housing development known as Urban League Village. An organization called the African American Heritage Museum and Cultural Center, whose members include Mr. Garrett and Mr. Debnam, had long asserted that the property rightfully belongs to it while Urban League Village LLC holds legal title. In March of 2021, after Mr. Garrett and other members of the organization occupied the property, Urban League Village filed an unlawful detainer action, which is the illegal process that a property owner uses to remove occupants who have no right to possession in the King County Superior Court. On November 19th, 2021, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Urban League Village, ruling that Urban League Village was the lawful owner of the premises and that the defendants, identified as Mr. Garrett and {quote} all other trespassers, were guilty of unlawful and forcible detainer and had no right to possession of the property. The court permanently barred the defendants from the premises and further found that Mr. Garrett specifically was a threat to the residents and tenants of the premises. On that basis, the court prohibited Mr. Garrett from coming within 2,000 ft of the property. The order also authorized law enforcement officers to remove defendants who refused to comply with its terms. Despite these rulings, the African American Heritage Museum and Cultural Center has continued to assert that it is the true and rightful owner of the museum. And when the officers found Mr. Debnam inside the fence, they believed they were dealing with Mr. Garrett in direct violation of the court's order. >> You didn't cut a lock off that gate, did you? Yeah, how did that lock come off? She said it was locked up. >> Does that not make it burglary? >> Well, unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you and I agree with it. What matters is is I don't want you to end up in jail and catch COVID like all them other folks. So, let's get you up out of here. >> Well, if you want to go to jail, hop up head to my car then. >> Yep. >> So, come on. Let's go. You want to go to jail? Let's go. Come on. >> What's that? You wanted to go to jail. So, come on. Let's go then. We're just going to do what you asked. Now, I got to put my gloves on. >> All right. >> Do you have anything Do you have any weapons on you? Any needles, knives, anything like that? >> Can I have a cigarette? You want to jail. So, you're ready? We're going to walk up to my car. Come on. I can't walk. >> Well, we'll use your chair. >> Yep. Let's wheel you over there then. >> Luckily, you came with your own transportation. >> Come on. Yeah, let me lock this. Okay, come on. So, sit down. Sit down. Careful. You're doing good. >> There you go. Yes, let's slide you up. Come on. Okay. Come on. Yeah. On the way, perfect. Was there one on there before? >> Yes, there was. I don't know what happened to it. He said he didn't cut the chain off. >> He doesn't have anything to cut the lock with, so I'm not sure how >> I didn't see >> Maybe it got cut before that or something. That's That's why he maybe did >> last time you saw it locked? >> It would have been last night. >> Last night? >> Yes, ma'am. And I don't believe he would be strong enough to cut it. >> I mean, he's over here. So, yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Somebody cut it for him. He's got a bunch of activist friends that let him in here, too, so. Yep. >> Head home and you take that paperwork. And then you decide if you ever want to come back here, cuz then you'd have a better understanding that you come back, you'll go to jail. So, what would you like to do? Do you want to go to jail today? >> Well, we don't want to take you to jail. We want you to go about in peace. >> We just want you to go back to your house. That's That's what we want and not come back here. Cuz you're not allowed to come back here. >> I'll sleep over here. >> Cuz uh I mean, they're going to I don't think they're going to accept them. Maybe. Maybe. I mean, it's a judge's order, so. But I mean, well, I eventually accept them. >> I'm leaving. Are you going to arrest me or what? >> Well, we're trying to That's what you want. >> If you don't want to go home, your only other choice is to arrest you, cuz you violated the order. So, we're kind of giving you an option, like you could just go home and this could be resolved today. I'm going to document that you're out here. >> I'm leaving. >> All right. well, we're going to arrest you in a minute, all right? Here's the most important part. Defendant Omari Garrett, that's you, is a threat to the residents and tenants of the premises and is therefore permanently barred and enjoined from being within 2,000 ft of the premises located at 2300 South Massachusetts, Seattle, Washington 98144. Prohibiting defendant Omari Garrett from being within 2,000 ft of the premises is necessary for enforcement of the judgment and to restore possession of the premises to the plaintiff. So right here it says the Sheriff, Seattle Police Department law enforcement, or any peace officers are authorized to remove you who refuse to comply with this order. >> I'm not Omari. >> Yeah, you are. >> I'm not Omari. >> You're not. Where's your ID? Because the thing you handed me here says Omari. >> I'm Earl Dednam. >> You handed me this. >> Earl Dednam, Earl Dednam. >> You said that's you. >> Earl Dednam, Earl Dednam. >> You're all these people? >> No. >> Which one are you? You're this one cuz I've met you before. >> Earl Dednam, Earl Dednam. Earl Dednam. >> You're Earl Dednam? That's one of your aliases on this order. James Garrett? Yeah. Omari here? How about you just do the right thing and go home? >> I'm doing the right thing by being in here. >> You're doing the illegal thing by being here. >> Okay. >> So my my supervisor is going to come out and we're going to screen this, all right? How about I call you an access van and you head home? >> No, no, no, no. >> You actually want to go to jail? >> No, I won't go to jail. I'll go to I need I did nothing wrong. >> But you But you did. >> I did nothing wrong. What >> If you did nothing wrong, why why do you want to go to jail? Like why why why would you want to do that today? >> I want to go to the fire department. >> What if If I call an Access Van, I'll just How about we just put you on that, and they take you home? How about we do that? >> Officer, you can arrest me. >> Well, how about we do this? >> No, no, no. >> I get you an Access Van, you get home, and we come arrest you from your house. Would that be Would that be all right? Then you can get something to eat and drink before you go. >> No, no, no, no, no. You can arrest me. I did nothing wrong. The you What do you care and >> Tell me what he wants to do. Let's see what he wants to do then. Do you want to read Do you want me to read you your Miranda warning so you know it's official? Then you give him this information. Would that make you feel better? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Let me read you your Miranda warning so you know that you're under arrest. Okay? So then you're officially under arrest, and then you can do that. Then we can go from there. Sound good? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have this right You Excuse me, you have the right at this time to talk to a lawyer and have a lawyer present with you while you'll be questioned Okay, that's fine. You can you can you can you can if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you for any question if you wish. Okay, sounds good. Do you understand the rights? Well, okay. So, you're under arrest for violation of this order, okay? We're going to refer the case to the prosecutor's office, so you're officially under arrest, okay? Now, instead of being booked into jail, which isn't fun, we're going to send you home, and the prosecutor will be in touch with you about the charges for this arrest. Does that sound good? Yeah. Yes, they'll be in touch with Probably this week. Hopefully. That's next week, since it's Friday. Somebody will be in contact with you. Okay, perfect. What is the phone number for Access-A-Ride? 206 Okay. 5 Okay. Perfect. And where are you going? What is your address? Yeah, what's the address down there? Well, they need to know it before they'll send a bus, right? That's the name you used to get up here? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Let's Let's try that, then. Okay. Yeah, I'll call them right now. Okay. I'm going to give you a case number. They know that you're officially arrested, okay? My supervisor will come here to screen it. And you're going to be investigated It's called an investigation and release. Copy of will be your copy. You can keep it. After you have another one, there's going to be another for you, okay? >> Did you already have a bus scheduled? >> Yeah. >> For 5:00? >> Yeah. >> Under the Earl Debnam name? >> Under the Earl Debnam name. >> Okay. >> I don't believe in arguing. I don't believe in arguing. Earl Debnam. >> When did you quit using Amari Garrett? >> Amari is is my son. >> Mr. Debnam repeatedly advises the officers that he is not Mr. Garrett, but the officers do not believe him, telling him that his name appears as an alias on the court order, advising him of his Miranda warnings, and placing him under arrest. Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer may make a warrantless arrest when it is supported by probable cause, meaning the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense. Now, the Supreme Court addressed arrests based on mistaken identity in the 1971 case of Hill v. California, holding that when the police have probable cause to arrest one party and reasonably mistake a second party for the first, the arrest of the second party is valid. In the Hill case, officers with probable cause to arrest a robbery suspect named Archie Hill went to his apartment and arrested the individual who answered the door because he matched the physical description of Mr. Hill. The court upheld the constitutionality of the arrest despite the fact that the arrestee told the officers that his name was Miller and produced identification confirming this, noting that aliases and false identifications are not uncommon and that sufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. Officers are, therefore, not required to accept an individual's assertion of their own name at face value. Though, the reasonableness of a mistaken identity remains the controlling constitutional question. Well, here, the body camera footage does not demonstrate precisely why the officers believed that Mr. Debnam was actually Mr. Garrett. The order lists Omari to here and James C. Garrett as Mr. Garrett alias's and does not contain the name Earl Debnam. Mr. Debnam repeatedly and accurately identified himself in the document that he showed the officers, which was a Washington Secretary of State annual report for the African American Heritage Museum and Cultural Center listed him and Mr. Garrett as two of the 12 governors of the organization, rather than as the same individual. Accordingly, the arrest would not be upheld under the mistaken identity doctrine unless a court concluded that it was reasonable for the officers to mistake Mr. Debnam for Mr. Garrett. >> Earl Debnam. >> What's that? >> Earl Debnam. >> Aren't you a junior and a senior? >> Earl Debnam, D E B N A L. >> Got you. I heard I heard it. I got it written down. >> I That's Earl A. Junior and senior. >> Huh? I'm on hold. Yes. >> Is it a phone tree or hold? >> It's just long wait times. >> Where were they supposed to pick you up at? Right here? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can I get in my car? All right, let me go. >> So, that's not him. >> We're Yeah, we're >> Coming? >> 4 hours. >> 4 hours? >> So, >> What's he doing? Just sitting on the sidewalk? >> No, he was up in there. We We brought him out to here. >> How did he get in there? >> Well, it was locked until last night. The security said it was locked last night with a padlock, and that padlock is gone. >> Did they lock it back up? >> No, it's It was not open. It was padlocked. So, she was out looking for her boss to try to find a lock to put on it. They don't have one yet. >> Yeah, I said they lock it up and >> We got him here. That's him, right? Amari Garrett? He keeps saying he's Earl Debnam. >> Well, the the issue is that's not Amari Garrett. >> That's Earl Debnam trying the same thing? >> I said Amari Garrett, but that's not what the wristband says. >> So, he's got this. Can I borrow this? >> Yeah. >> This is his new one. >> How How you doing, sir? >> This is what he handed me today. >> You got You got to stay out of the the fence, Earl. >> I'll go through with that. >> How come you want to go in the fence? >> I'll go through with that. I'll go through with that. >> Cuz why? It's the governor. Which one? You got a picture? >> Of Amari? Yeah. >> Toman's saying that's not Amari Garrett. >> Oh, okay. Now I understand. Oh, okay. >> So, he's saying it's his kid. So, he's just removing him where not supposed to be. >> Yeah, can I just walk it out? >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Amari cut the lock then? >> Hey Earl, >> Hey Earl, let let me let me I just want to talk to you for 1 second. >> You can't go in the fence. >> You could be arrested for trespassing. You don't want to go to jail right now cuz there's COVID everywhere. Like you look kind of frail maybe. I'll really I just want to advise you I'm recording. You don't want to catch COVID. Have you had COVID before? >> No. >> It's bad stuff. >> this this is it. This is the defendants including Mr. Garrett. So, it's talking about his whole little organization. >> You can't go in the fence. >> So, there's no change I don't think. >> No. >> The officer's supervisor advises that Mr. Debnam is not Mr. Garrett, but the officers determined that the correction does not change anything. First, it should be noted that the court order for the property dispute names Mr. Garrett and {quote} all other trespassers as defendants and permanently bars them from possessing or entering the property with only the 2,000-ft restriction applying to Mr. Garrett specifically. So, if Mr. Debnam was one of the trespassers bound by the order, his entry violated its terms even though the distance restriction did not apply to him. However, even if Mr. Debnam was not bound by the order, his conduct implicated Seattle's criminal trespass laws regardless of his identity. Section 12A.08.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which mirrors sections 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080 of the Revised Code of Washington, provides that an individual commits criminal trespass in the first-degree by knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in a building and commits criminal trespass in the second-degree by knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in or upon the premises of another under circumstances not constituting first-degree trespass. Now, section 9A.04.110 of the Revised Code of Washington defines the term building to include, in addition to its ordinary meaning, any fenced area. However, in the 2017 case of State v. Joseph, the Washington Supreme Court explained that first-degree criminal trespass reaches only unlawful entries into structures that are buildings in the ordinary sense of the word, while trespasses into areas that qualify as buildings only under the expanded statutory definition, such as fenced areas and vehicles, constitute the lesser offense of second-degree criminal trespass. Now, here, the court had already adjudicated Urban League Village to be the lawful owner of the property. Mr. Debnam had entered the fenced area through a gate whose padlock had been removed, and he had refused to leave after both the security guard and the officers directed him to do so. Accordingly, a court would likely conclude that the officers had probable cause to believe that Mr. Debnam was trespassing, regardless of his identity or his status in the civil case. Though, because he remained within the fenced entrance, his conduct would likely constitute criminal trespass in the second degree, rather than the first, absent evidence that's not apparent from the footage that he entered the building itself. >> You got any uh health problems we should let them know about? You got diabetes or anything? Earl? >> No. >> No, okay. Looks like you're you're kind of sweaty, so I just want to make sure you're don't need fire to come look at you. >> You follow us? >> Yes. >> We're we're going to get you We're going to get you somewhere. They're going to help you out, get some food and stuff, all right? It worked. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> You going to take the post? I don't >> Access will take 4 hours. We're going to do it the quicker way. I'm going to leave you a copy of that order so that you can read it real careful. >> Yeah. >> You want to go to Highline Hospital? >> Yeah. >> The hospital, okay. Would you rather go to Harborview or Highline? Okay, sounds like it's closer to your house. That picture looks familiar. 112 >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah? >> Yeah. >> That's your address? >> Yeah. >> What's the name of the place? >> I got family home. >> According to the police report, Mr. Debnam stated that he was not feeling well and he requested to go to the hospital. So, he was transported to the hospital by ambulance and the officers advised him that charges would be referred to the prosecutor. On June 22nd, 2022, the Seattle City Attorney's Office charged Mr. Debnam in Seattle Municipal Court with one count of criminal trespass in the first degree. Mr. Debnam pleaded not guilty and remained out of custody on his personal recognizance while the case proceeded. On January 13th, 2023, the court granted the city's motion to dismiss the charge without prejudice for lack of a civilian witness. And as of the date of writing this episode, the charge has not been refiled. Overall, the Seattle officers get a C for persisting in a mistaken identification despite repeated and verifiable corrections and misrepresenting the contents of the court order that they were enforcing while also maintaining a patient and de-escalatory approach towards an elderly and vulnerable individual. Throughout the encounter, the officers made genuine efforts to resolve the situation without an arrest. They repeatedly offered to arrange transportation home. They declined to book an elderly individual in a wheelchair into jail. And they secured medical transport when Mr. Debnam reported feeling unwell, all of which reflected sound discretionary judgment and a measured use of authority. Now, on the other hand, their handling of Mr. Debnam's identity was far less defensible. An arrest premised on mistaken identity is constitutional only when the mistake is objectively reasonable, and reasonableness depends in large part on the verification steps that an officer takes when confronted with contrary information. Mr. Debnam accurately identified himself from the outset, and the order in the officer's hands listed aliases that did not include his name. And yet, the officers dismissed both of these corrections and proceeded with the arrest. The officers also affirmatively told Mr. Debnam that his name appeared on the order when it did not. And officers who invoked the authority of a court order, they're expected to know and accurately represent its actual terms. Ultimately, these deficiencies were mitigated by the existence of an independent and valid basis to arrest Mr. Debnam for trespassing, which is why reflects carelessness rather than an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty without legal cause. However, the officers' refusal to accept or verify Mr. Debnam's identity is difficult to justify, particularly where an elderly individual seated in a wheelchair presented no risk of flight, and the officers had ample opportunity to confirm who he was before acting. Now, Mr. Debnam, he also gets a C for knowingly entering property that a court had determined he had no right to occupy, and for repeatedly declining opportunities to resolve the encounter without an arrest, while nonetheless conducting himself with honesty and composure throughout the interaction. Whatever the sincerity of Mr. Debnam's belief in his organization's claim to the property, that claim had been fully litigated and rejected, and a court order does not lose its force because one of the parties continues to disagree with it. By entering the fenced area and refusing to leave when asked by the property security guard, and then by the officers, Mr. Debnam engaged in an act of trespass. And his insistence on being arrested rather than accepting a ride home, that converted an encounter that the officers were actively trying to diffuse into a criminal referral. At the same time, his conduct during the encounter itself was respectable in several respects. He truthfully and consistently identified himself. He corrected the officers' misidentification without hostility. He never raised his voice or physically resisted. And he cooperated fully once the arrest was made. His composure stands in stark contrast to the weakness of his legal position. And had his underlying claim to the property carried any legal force, his demeanor would have served him well. This interaction highlights that ownership disputes are resolved through the judicial process rather than through continued occupation. And that an individual's good faith beliefs, they do not suspend the legal consequences of defying a final court judgment. 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 Audit the Court if you're interested in exploring the legal nuance beyond the body cam. >> [music] [music]