from a former Clark County sheriff's officer being sentenced to 60 days in jail for violating Bond conditions and offending the judge with his actions and later receiving a 12-year prison term to a Michigan State Police Officer arraigned on charges of second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter here are five times evil cops were instantly owned in the courtroom starting with the shocking contempt ruling in Clark County do not try to deceive me defy me you will not like the consequences today is that day take him into custody this is former officer Jamie nol from the Clark County Sheriff's Office in April 2024 officer nol faced the court in a case where multiple Firearms were discovered in his residence the discovery of the weapons was a violation of the bond conditions set by the court and therefore he was found in contempt of court officer Noel was originally arrested on November 8th 2023 facing 15 felony charges which included theft official misconduct corrupt business influence ghost employment and obstruction of justice witness the judge's intense reaction as officer null is found in contempt of court I told Mr n don't do anything stupid do not try to deceive me defy me you will not like the consequences today is that day you are not the law you don't interpret the law you don't enforce the law you're not above the law I find that you have that you are in contempt of this court take him into custody no no that's enough I'll find you guys in dis in contempt for disrupting the proceedings and you'll be there right there with him now what is an appropriate sanction the question is I can sentence him up to 180 days without a trial or I can sentence him to a day or I can release him you know what I think the answer is 60 days in that's what I think it the answer is today now Mr Wilder Mr or Mr Roes I apologize Mr boes your lead before he is released I I'll take your suggestion I want an independent individual to scour that household to determine that there's no further weapons I find it Mr earle's original argument that he was trying to make that I sustain an officer an officer of the law every time I go into court I hear I didn't know it was there I didn't know it was there it really didn't you've heard that a million times you've heard a million times and yet you still take them into custody would be my guess every officer in the world has heard I didn't know it was there it's my friends I'm not buying it it was your birth it's your responsibility and today the court will enforce that take him on the judge looked clearly offended by Officer n's actions he then carefully deliberated on the appropriate punishment and ultimately sentenced officer null to 60 days in jail furthermore the judge mandated an independent inspection of Noel's household to verify the absence of any weapons he rejected officer nl's defense at first instance which relied on the common claim of being unaware of prohibited items the judge firmly then emphasized that the responsibility rested squarely on officer Noel he was taken into custody there after the discovery of firearms later in August 2024 he was sentenced to 12 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to charges relating to corrupt business influence and theft if you think this was the only evil cop who got owned in the courtroom wait until you watch this next case I do agree that a personal recognizance bond is appropriate I am going to set a $250,000 personal recognizance bond in this matter with standard Bond conditions this is former officer Brian Keeley from the Michigan State Police in June 2024 officer Keeley appeared in court after officer key was arraigned on charges connected to the death of Samuel dejon Cornelius Sterling the charges in including second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter stemmed from a vehicle related incident on April 17th 2024 the judge's questions focused on ensuring officer Keeley understood the charges confirmed his plea and addressed his legal and procedural rights including the waiver of Time Guidelines additional questions evaluated his background criminal history and arguments related to the bond watch how officer Brian and his attorney respond to such questions does he have griev in his record what does his record look like you're telling me that there are no prior instances of this nature in his history no I reviewed his personel file your honor I've talked to um the people that know him there is no grievances in regards to excessive use of force at any other point in time any motor vehicle accident on to this point as a matter of fact he received the gold reward from the Michigan State Police for having 12 years of accident free fault accidents and operation of um police vehicles um he is a man of Faith attends church regularly um and he is not a person that I am concerned that is not going to appear or is a danger to anyone and how long has he been on the force he was a trooper for 25 years he was 25 26 um at the time that this happened he resides in Grand Rapids he resides in Ottawa County if we were going to correct that with the court once we I do have Grand Rapids address on file for him and so the things that the court considers are risk to Public Safety willingness to appear in Stan trial prior criminal record and as it is detective Sergeant key turned himself in willingly does appear willing to appear and stand trial in this matter has little to know no criminal record and certainly nothing that leads me to believe that there is a risk to Public Safety that is representative of the conduct alleged in this matter I do agree that a personal recognizance bond is appropriate I am going to set a $250,000 personal recognizance bond in this matter with standard Bond conditions I understand he is suspended from his duties at this time a little bit of limbo asked to where he's he has filed for his retirement the Michigan State Police have released the media that he has retired okay um from the department but he's he was suspended without pay until the missig state police made that announcement toia and so while this case is pending you may not leave the state of Michigan you must update your address with the court and then continue to keep it current with the court you may not of course commit any crimes while on Bond and you must show up on time for your court appearances which are K she's a good judge that's the only thing I'm say you you Lu she's a great judge great amazing but you thank you ma'am June 17th at 1:00 p.m. is your probable cause conference date June 24th at 2:00 in the afternoon is the date currently set for preliminary examination anything further in this matter Council if I may your honor given the the facts and circumstances of this case in the charge um in discussions with the AG's office they were expecting me to ask the court um if we could enter onto the record a 21-day waiver um at this point so if there is an inurement down the road we don't have to worry about putting that on the record at a later time and the law and court rules do require that the probable cause conference and preliminary examination be set within certain Time Guidelines Mr key I'm certain that your attorney explained those to you are you voluntarily waving your right to have those hearings held within those specific Time Guidelines and then we will enter that waiver onto the record are you asking to have either are both of those moved at this time I I think we can do the probable cause judge and let me talk to the prosecution and then we'll be able to determine whether or not we'll be able to goard on that date all right Officer key pleaded not guilty to all charges and was granted a $250,000 personal recognizance bond with standard conditions these conditions included restrictions on leaving the state requiring him to update his address with the court and attending all hearings the court emphasized the seriousness of the charges and imp osed stringent Bond conditions accordingly the case is still ongoing and has not been concluded yet if you think this was the maximum evil cops can get instantly owned in the courtroom then you probably haven't watched this next case and so to the extent that uh officer Massie used force that was not necessary this force was not uh was non-trivial and violated Mis Mina's constitutional right and because this was clearly established in 2016 as it is today we respectfully asked this court to affirm if the court does not have any further questions this is Officer Macy from the Tucson Police Department on January 22nd 2020 officer Macy's attorney was attending the court hearing where he faced severe opposition from his counterpart who is just a young law student officer Massie employed excessive force by shoving a woman's face into a palm tree during an arrest the case focuses on the legality of the officer actions and whether the use of force was excessive and unconstitutional a young attorney has challenged officer massie's qualified immunity arguing that the officer's actions crossed legal boundaries may it please the court good morning my name is Damen Gallagher and I'm here for mmina the appal I'd like to start at the point that judge Malloy noted that this case is coming down to whether it's a pine tree or a palm tree and that simply is not the law within the Supreme Court nor this circuit as it was clearly established in 2016 as it is today that an officer may not employ non-trivial Force against an individual who is not resisting arrested nor passively resisting arrest so how do we determine whether it's non-trivial force is it I mean can we look to the injuries is that determinative or is it not determinative your honor in evaluating whether or not the force is Tri trivial or non-trivial it of course is a reasonable uh reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment but um typically in the excessive force context it's evaluating whether or not that force was necessary and and the degree of that force was necessary in effectuating that arrest and here it was non-trivial because officer Massie had mmina within his custody when he was handcuffing her and once he pinched his hands in the handcuffing that's when he retaliated against her by thrusting or shoving or whichever verb this court chooses to adopt uh choose and and threw her into a tree where as this court has noted uh she was bleeding and had scrapes on her face and shoulders they were investigating tax fraud I believe which this court classified is nonviolent um and so yes Jor it could be a factor but because here at most I mean it is a misdemeanor um but one we we do believe that mmina didn't violate this law and officer Massie in his deposition admitted that uh he never asked her for her name he only asked for her ID um and therefore not even uh violating the law and so to the extent that uh officer Massie used force that was not necessary this force was not uh was non-trivial and violated M Mina's Constitution right and because this was clearly established in 2016 as it is today we respectfully asked this court to affirm if the court does not have any further questions okay thank you very much I do have one further question and this is for the courtroom you're a law student that's correct your honor and where are you a law student uh I'm a third-year student at William and Mary Law School okay thank you very much and uh we would like to compliment you on the quality of your presentation I'll compliment you to but you do this for a living [Music] thank you your honor thank you two minutes on the clock please very quickly your honor um he mentioned Grava and uh Meredith both bystander cases I just want to make clear Grava itself said there's a difference between a bystander and someone who is quote integrally involved in the volatile situation to which officers were responding Meredith I'm with you I I agree with you on that although um again I guess I just asked you the question she's charged with not showing her ID that seems pretty low on the totem pole maybe not a bystander right but maybe one step above a bystander sure but they're investigating possible domestic violence and underage not not from her oh she's on the median with her with no but I mean are they s oh yeah I see when they go when they go to when they go to the median and need to get her off the median those are the crimes I would just very quickly your honor um anban case called Matos vagano that this court has decided where uh domestic violence is the vola volatility of those situations is recognized and the great danger of them is recognized so we this is not just she didn't show ID there was there were serious matters to be looked at uh I'd also mention just Parker that Parker only said in 2018 that a shove would not be there was nothing to say it would be be a constitutional violation clearly in 2016 that's that's also the case so we're always back to this second prong and that's where we think we win um I will I will finish with uh simply saying um I also want to compliment my opponent for his argument um the we think the the evidence if you look at Mina um Mina's uh testimony there is no case law that says there was constitutional violation here that would have put uh the officer on notice and we ask that you reverse um and uh I simply want to say that however uncomfortable I was I enjoyed our colloquy thank you thank you thank both sides for for their for their very good arguments Mina versus Massie submitted the court ultimately denies qualified immunity for officer Massie and the young attorney's presentation is praised for effectively presenting the case officer massie's use of force was deemed excessive and unjustified his legal arguments were seen as weak and insufficient in countering the compelling evidence presented by the victim's attorney the judges ultimately found his actions to be unconstitutional if you think this was the height of evil cops getting instantly owned in the courtroom then you probably haven't heard of this next case and you had your gun drawn the whole time you were giving commands right once I started ordering him and he refused to show me his hands yes I eventually it escalated where I pulled my gun yes ma'am and he was awake correct what's that ma'am Mr Floyd was awake was he awake during this incident yes he was conscious yes this is Officer Derek schin from the Minneapolis Police Department in April 2021 officer chovin is answerable to the court related to a case that unfolded on May 6th 2019 involving an individual named George Floyd the officer approached George Floyd with his gun drawn Mr Floyd was instructed to undo his seat belt raise his hands in the air and place the on the dashboard he was later apprehended by Officer chovin however watch how officer chovin is about to get owned through repeated questions that exposed discrepancies in his narrative you testified that you were the officer who approached the passenger side of the vehicle you approached George Floyd on May 6th of 2019 is that right that's correct yes and you had your gun drawn when you approached Mr Floyd isn't that right yes I pulled it yes and when you approached Mr Floyd he said don't shoot me man I don't want to get shot right something like that yes you told him to undo his seat belt correct that's correct yes ma'am and he did that right yes he did and then you said Put Your Hands where I can see them correct yes and then he put his hands in the air yes and then you told him to put his hands on the dash is that right that's correct and that was when you grabbed his hand and forcibly put it on the dashboard of the vehicle correct fall yes and then the other officer with you on the other side of vehicle changed that to put your hands on your head correct that's correct and then he put his hands on his head right that's correct yes and there was one officer who said they were going to tase him right that's what I heard yes and you were yelling pretty loud correct yes I was yes it it escalated real quick some profanity as well correct yes and you had your gun drawn the whole time you were giving commands right once I started ordering him and he refused to show me his hands yes eventually it escalated where I pulled my gun yes ma'am and he was awake correct what's that ma'am Mr Floyd was awake was he awake during this incident yes he was conscious yes he didn't appear to be in medical distress to you when you were pulling him out of the car is that right he was talking to you he was standing up is that right um I don't know if it was specifically sometimes he was talking sometimes he was mumbling uh he was incoherent in my mind a lot of the time during erant but you got him out of the car and you handcuffed him right that's correct ma'am and he stood next to the car right yes ma'am he asked you not to beat him up correct that's correct yes he was able to walk right yes he was he continued to talk to you you while you were interacting with Mr Floyd he didn't collapse on the ground correct wait a minute what was the question can you speak up a little louder ma'am while you were interacting with Mr Floyd he didn't collapse on the ground correct no he did not well the answer is stricken the objection is sustained you were asking questions about what the other officers were doing correct that's correct your attention was focused on Mr Floyd correct yes it was and Mr Mr Floyd didn't drop dead while you were interacting with him correct no thank you nothing for during the interaction between officer chovin and George Floyd several discrepancies arose in officer chauvin's narrative these included the use of excessive force despite Mr Floyd being compliant the minimization of Mr Floyd's distress and incoherence and the dismissal of his repeated please for air Witnesses and body camera footage contradicted officer chauvin's account revealing a prolonged and aggressive restraint that ultimately contributed to Mr Floyd's death these inconsistencies were Central to the case and were thoroughly examined during the trial later officer chovin was sentenced to 22.5 years in prison for the murder of George Floyd if you think this was the last evil cop who got instantly owned in the courtroom then you probably haven't watched this next case Okay Bond will be set $110,000 personal Bond no contact with victim judge Sher mday attorney me Chrisman and first pre-trial uh November 3rd at 9:00 a.m. this is Officer stall from the Cleveland Police Department on October 19th 2022 officer Brian stole and officer Tyler mson appeared in court to face multiple charges including tampering with evidence assault and theft the group faces charges stemming from two incidents starting on March 31st 2022 involving a traffic stop in East Cleveland body camera footage contradicts claims that the victim hit a police car showing instead that the victim parked and complied officers and including wood and stole allegedly used excessive force with stole assaulting the victim while Munson assisted in handcuffing him morning morning pleas Christman on behalf of bran sto your H receive the indictment 24 hours he wav the reading and not guilty okay Bond will be set $10,000 personal Bond no contact with victim judge Sher mday attorney me Chrisman and first pre-trial uh November 3rd at 9:00 a.m. thank you case number 67478 n James Harris in the courtroom case proceeding by information as a pining Cas on V of Judge Ryan Corgan sorry both pleaded not guilty to these charges and the court set a $10,000 bond for each of them in court off officer Brian stall and officer Tyler Munson faced damning evidence including body camera footage that contradicted their claims and exposed their excessive use of force the footage showed the victim complying with officers and highlighted unjustified actions such as officer stole assaulting the victim and mson assisting and handcuffing the update on this case is unknown it's shocking to see cops crossing their bounds and then being set right by the court if you enjoyed this video make sure to leave a like And subscribe for more goodbye