foreign [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 assault fighting words and resisting and is brought To Us by pepperoni audits's Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on September 9th 2022 First Amendment auditor Joshua Roberts who's the owner of the pepperoni audits YouTube channel was filming outside of Dove Technologies in Florence South Carolina when two workers left the building and approached him as he continued to film right now what was that I can't hear you you don't have my signed authorization to have my patient can I have your signed authorization this guy's coming up aggressive everyone can I help you no can we can you help us yo get away from me buddy oh no dude who are you away from me dude why why are you here oh you're here I suggest you leave me alone uh you're on private property uh I suggest you do something about that then and get back inside really yeah really you like going around people like this you know that's fun Don't Touch My Buddy let's oh go ahead oh so do it do it that's on camera back to what are we doing here back the buddy you touched you get tased get the back inside what's going on here why do you come up and grab me your vehicle yeah you did yeah you did Buddy no you come up to me get in my face I'll do something Buddy get inside call 911 get inside whoa dude whoa dude you just come up and grab people what the is wrong with you your homie did don't hey my homie this is this is private property you say here this is an easement I'm not on your property you see that that belongs to the city and why why are you here Mr Roberts tells the workers that he's on an easement and not on private property because the utility poles on the property Belong To The City well according to Florence County's geographic information system or GIS data it does appear that Mr Roberts is on public property it is important to note that the fact that the government has placed utility polls on a certain property does not necessarily mean that the property is open to the public for instance in some circumstances the government May obtain a so-called utility easement which allows the government to place utility polls on private property without transforming the ownership or the otherwise private nature of the property for this reason contrary to this common misconception in the auditor Community the location of utility polls alone cannot be used as a reliable indicator that an individual is on public property so let me ask you a question does that give you the right to come up and grab my camera and almost break it hey you assaulted me buddy call your husband yeah call your husband fat boy oh man whoa this guy's great get in tubby I'm out in public recording and you come up and grab somebody dude I'm with myself oh and you're about to owe me a new camera lens yeah buddy I got your name too you're gonna get it you're gonna get a nice little talking to with the police you come back out here and touch me you won't like it oh nothing just gonna assault it out here that's about it good to solve it yeah by one of their workers what will happen I was just out here taking some pictures and one of the guys came out here saying he didn't want to be filmed and he ran up to me started circling me grabbed my camera started pushing up on me and it's all videotaped you have it on video oh it's all recorded because I do want to press charges on him was there something involving a taser oh I pulled it out in self-defense okay when you come out at me like that and you're about to destroy my stuff and put new bodily harm to me you're yeah I'm right I'm gonna pull a taser on someone Mr Roberts argues that one of the workers assaulted him by grabbing his camera and pushing him and that he pulled out his taser in self-defense in order to protect himself and his property according to section 16-3-600 of the South Carolina code quote a person commits the offense of assault and battery in the third degree of the person unlawfully injures another person or offers or attempts to injure another person with the present ability to do so as the court of appeals of South Carolina explained in the 2022 case of State versus Robinson quote our Juris Prudence has never required an actual physical injury to a victim's person to constitute an assault and battery and there's no requirement that a victim is quote physically harmed or violently injured likewise the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over South Carolina summarized in the 2019 case of United States versus Drummond that quote a violent injury for the purposes of an assault conviction requires no violence is commonly understood or a threat of physical harm arm or injury at all rather an assault encompasses any touching of the person or an individual in a rude or angry manner without justification given this broad description of the type of touching that can constitute an assault a court could easily conclude that the worker pushing Mr Roberts was a sufficiently offensive form of physical touch for the worker to be convicted of third degree assault additionally under section 16-11-510 of the South Carolina code quote it is unlawful for a person to willfully and maliciously injure or destroy any kind class article or description of personal property or the goods and channels of another under this statute it is not enough to show that an individual damaged or destroyed the personal property of another instead in order to sustain a conviction the state must prove that the individual did so with a quote willful and malicious mental state as the court of appeals of South Carolina noted in the 2016 case of State versus Hobart Black's Law Dictionary defines willful as quote voluntary and intentional but not necessarily malicious and defines malicious as quote substantially certain to cause injury or quote without just cause or excuse here it could certainly be argued that the worker had the required mental state in grabbing Mr Roberts's camera to justify a conviction under Section 16-11-510 although it's unclear from the footage whether the camera was actually damaged and it clearly was not destroyed as Mr Roberts was able to continue to film The Encounter you need to tell that guy he needs not put hands on people it's a short little fat guy oh yeah we're gonna do a report on him too I just need to give this Deputy your information for me all right you got body or something I don't have an ID yeah buddy you're gonna learn you can't come outside and grab people man that ain't right all right follows him to get is it free speech am I allowed to say stuff what do you have a freedom of speech but there's also something called breach of Peace okay I'd like to see you try that buddy those people put hands on me I'm the victim so you want you want to turn it around on me I'm not turning it around please do so what I'm telling you is you guys are known to be the biggest pieces okay in South Carolina what did I do wrong are you gonna let me talk go on ahead what I was saying is I don't need you yelling while I'm trying to talk this man that's going to cause him to yell calls a scene you get mad he's gonna get mad then escalate okay just talk to this Deputy let me tell you something I'm allowed to say whatever the hell I want if you yell across this parking lot while you have all these people standing around that is called breach of Peace you want to try that but I will lock you up you want to try that yes I will two deputies with the Florence County Sheriff's Office responded to the workers call and while they're investigating the incident one of them claims that if Mr Roberts yells at the workers across the parking lot he will be arrested for breach of Peace in South Carolina reach of the peace is a common law crime which means that it is defended by case law and not a statute according to the court of appeals of South Carolina in the 1996 case of State versus Pier quote the term breach of the peace is a generic one embracing a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and Tranquility in general terms it is a violation of public order a disturbance of the public Tranquility by any act or conduct inciting to violence the court also explained that quote although it includes a acts likely to produce violence in others actual violence is not an element of breach of peace and that quote whether conduct constitutes a breach of the piece depends on the time place and Nearness of other persons similarly section 16-17-530 of the South Carolina code which defines the offense of disorderly conduct states that quote any person who shall be found at any public place conducting himself in a disorderly or boisterous manner or Who quote uses obscene or profane language on any highway or at any public place or gathering or in hearing distance of any Schoolhouse or church shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor although Mr Roberts's conduct in yelling across the parking lot may appear on the surface to fall within the definition of breach of peace or disorderly conduct as the Supreme Court held in the 1964 case of Henry vs City of Rock Hill quote the 14th Amendment does not permit a state to make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views and the government cannot Define a criminal offense so as to permit conviction if an individual speech quote stirred people to anger invited public dispute or brought about a condition of unrest however the court of appeals of South Carolina held in the 2002 case of city of Landrum versus Sarat that an individual could be convicted of disorderly conduct for loudly yelling profanities at two individuals and calling them names because the remarks along with the loud manner in which they were spoken constituted so-called fighting words under the fighting word Doctrine outlined by the Supreme Court in the 1942 case of chaplinsky versus New Hampshire fighting words or words that quote by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace are not afforded the protection of the First Amendment and therefore can be criminalized although Mr Roberts did use profanity during his interaction with the workers and the deputies he did not use any profanity when he shouted across the parking lot and even if he had it is highly unlikely that a court would conclude that Mr Roberts's suggestion that the workers were going to learn that they can't lay hands on other individuals would incite an average person to violence therefore a court would most likely determine that Mr Roberts's conduct did not constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct as he was engaging in speech that was protected by the First Amendment try it try it name and badge number Corporal triggers name and badge numbers rigors 233 all right go do my assault charge you need to go talk to them and you better file charges if I'm giving you my information what's your day bro if you don't believe me you guys will get complaints and this will be all over you whatever you need to do man they have to run me first everyone they can't run the actual criminal can you go tell him go question the guy you assaulted me he's gonna conduct his investigation do you see him up there no he's not he's inside hiding what was he wearing yeah the blue shirt short uh dark hair fat so what was the call about coming up here harassing employees and pulling a taser on someone they tell you they circled me and surrounded me the part where they assaulted me they forgot they let that out I'll start with the two gentlemen that came out and all their information is going to be entered into the reporters as well as your statement you gave to Stephanie I made them aware that yes you can view video from a public area which the roadway is public but if you cross over I've checked the property lines I don't need directives you go on the property you're going to go to jail if you smoke crack that's not good man all right do I get a report or something oh great this guy here you go buddy all right my name badge number beside it and your case number as well you can get a copy of the report in 35 minutes today have a good day thank you see how the cop tried to spin in and say I was in their parking lot how you doing sir come on today buddy I had some dude inside oh you're getting really close man oh yeah yeah I like to get close I like to talk to people can you stop no no sir I want to talk to you what's going on my friend stop getting so close to me what's going on man dude stop approaching me sir I'm alive dude give me some space dude go intern give me some space no give me some ow recipes for you absolutely oh yeah very nice dude very nice enjoy the lawsuit enjoy paying for my camera too absolutely you're getting resistant arrest resisting I'm not moving well when I want to put my hands on you pulled away from me yeah because you have no right to arrest me you're under arrest you have to write you kept approaching me you're sorry you had to write the attorney have him or president before any questions asked you decide any time to exercise these rights are not making more statements do you understand these rights I don't answer any more questions without a lawyer uh president absolutely all right Sergeant Paul Morrison responds to the scene and approaches Mr Roberts who asks him several times to not stand so close to him and tries to step away when Mr Roberts directs a profanity at him Sergeant Morrison tackles Mr Roberts to the ground and tells him he's under arrest for resisting because he pulled away from him and Mr Roberts argues that he did so because Sergeant Morrison had no right to arrest him under section 16-9-320 of the South Carolina code quote it is unlawful for a person knowingly and willfully to resist an arrest being made by one whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer although an individual can be convicted for non-violently resisting an arrest if Sergeant Morrison was attempting to arrest Mr Roberts he never informed Mr Roberts that was his intention or took any action that should have put Mr Roberts on notice that he was under arrest therefore a court would blightly conclude that Mr Roberts could not be convicted of knowingly and willfully resisting an arrest likewise Sergeant Morrison had no lawful basis to arrest Mr Roberts at the time he approached him and it has been long established in South Carolina that individuals are not required to submit to unlawful arrests and that individuals have the right to resist an unlawful arrest the Supreme Court of South Carolina summarized prior case law on the subject in the 2001 case of State versus McGowan explaining that quote an unlawful arrest or an attempt to make an unlawful arrest stands upon the same footing as any other non-felonious assault or as a common assault and battery the person who is so unlawfully arrested or against whom such an unlawful attempt is directed is not bound to yield and may resist force with Force but he is not authorized to go beyond the line of force proportion to the character of The Assault or he in turn becomes a wrongdoer it is important to keep in mind that this case law is specific to South Carolina and many states do not recognize a citizen's right to resist an unlawful arrest however in this this situation Mr Roberts would have a right to resist an unlawful arrest and because he did not use any physical Force At All by stepping away from Sergeant Morrison there would be no question of disproportionate resistance if a court concluded that Mr Roberts was resisting an unlawful arrest so here's the thing he pulled it out in us he attacked me it's on camera all right well we're going to log all this in too good do it after sergeant Morrison placed Mr Roberts under arrest he was taken to jail and booked however it does not appear that any criminal charges were filed against Mr Roberts and after he was released he filed a formal complaint with the Florence County Sheriff's Office as a result of the complaint the department opened an internal affairs investigation and internal records indicate that Sergeant Morrison resigned on September 15 2022. Sheriff TJ Joy issued a press release about the incident stating that quote the internal affairs investigation determined numerous fcso policy violations during the incident as a result of the investigation Sergeant Morrison is no longer employed by the Florence County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Joy also noted that quote the matter has been referred to the 12th circuit solicitor's office but as of the date of this episode no criminal charges have been initiated against Sergeant Morrison additionally Mr Roberts alleged that it after the incident Sergeant Morrison deleted the video footage of the encounter from his camera fortunately Mr Roberts was able to recover the footage and post it to YouTube along with a short video that appears to have been shot in the police cruiser after his arrest which Mr Roberts alleged Sergeant Morrison took while deleting the videos the Florence County Sheriff's office has not specifically addressed the issue of the deleted videos in any public statements overall Sergeant Morrison gets an F for unlawfully arresting Mr Roberts without probable cause using unnecessary force and conducting the illegal arrest and attempting to cover his tracks by deleting Mr Roberts's video footage of the encounter while Sergeant Morrison claimed that he was arresting Mr Roberts for resisting arrest he had no legitimate reason to arrest Mr Roberts in the first place and it seems clear that he actually arrested Mr Roberts for refusing to submit to his arbitrary displays of overreaching authority this type of police behavior is not only completely unacceptable but it's also dangerous and I commend the Florence County Sheriff's Office for swiftly investigating and dealing with this situation although I do question the Department's decision to allow Sergeant Morrison to resign rather than terminate him the other Florence County deputies get a c because although one threatened to arrest Mr Roberts for breach of the peace in a situation that likely would not support such a conviction they ultimately affirmed Mr Roberts's right to film in public and educated the workers about his first amendment rights although they appeared annoyed with Mr Roberts and occasionally responded unprofessionally to his antagonistic remarks they ultimately reached the right conclusion and supported his right to film Mr Roberts gets a b-plus because although his aggressive and antagonistic Behavior towards the workers and the officers alike certainly did not help the situation and he demonstrated a misunderstanding about the nature of utility easements he was well within his first amendment rights throughout the encounter and repeatedly stood up to the officers attempting to violate his first and Fourth Amendment rights that being said his mean-spirited comments about the workers appearance were immature and in my opinion detracted from his credibility as a professional and respectable auditor let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic 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]