They want both sides of that coin. Qualified immunity when it just suits them. But remember there is so much corruption in the Police that in truth it should fix be verified that the police officers are human and are not corrupt which is pretty hard to say they are not certain farm animals now.
@UCMS9_RAuMMcT0m4Ay2yUwNQ ... How many judges are actually remaining neutral? In my neck of the woods we had a judge who's daughter was killed by a drunk driver and when you check into the cases they resided over prior to that incident they were a bit more lenient on the drunk drivers after that incident they were pushing more jail time and alcohol classes and drivers license suspensions for longer time periods. The question is should a judge that has had a personal trauma be trying cases of a similar nature? Should a judge that had a family member murdered reside over murder trials? Could that trauma give the judge a bias towards one side in objections and evidence being presented regardless of it being a jury trial?
It could be at least theoretically possible to be a public official for one purpose while not being a public official in terms of other laws because different laws have different purposes. The protection offered by QI and the lack of protection under the defamation law strike me as very closely related so I think it's a pretty desperate argument, but your arguments don't have to be good to be used in court.
The fact that cops want all of the protections of law enforcement *without any of the accountability* is very terrifying & hypocritical. "With great power comes great responsibility."
Cops: "We have Qualified Immunity because we're public officials." Also cops: "We were defamed because we're not public officials." Me: PICK ONE, YOU MORONS!!! I'm very happy the court ruled against the cops in this case.
Government officials have many times argued the exact opposite of what they argued before if it helps their case. Any judge that doesn't know the law and or signs a warrant that is unconstitutional should be removed. Any cop that submits or lies to the court should not be allowed to fill out any official documents or testify in court.
Knowing that the charges would be unconstitutional and proceeding with it anyways, the officers need to be criminally charged. They unlawfully detained him unlawfully arrested him unlawfully incarcerated him, at least one felony each there. They should also be charged with federal charges of deprivation of rights in the color of law. They have no business wearing the badge, ever!
@@therrydicule the government and police BORROW the power to enforce laws from the people. They are to be held to a higher standard. Minimum 10 year sentences with 100% time to be served.
@@ajjohn8729 Personally, I tend to put emphasis on punishing a more people for that behavior, but with less on the sentence. 3 or 4 years would be enough for me, assuming that the same is done with any cops who do similar things, and assuming that every police department that get caught with a story like that something get orders of reorganization. I would honestly like McKinsey and to go over that police department and do an independent report, with carte blanche (maybe the entire PD got what McInsey would call an issue of corporate culture and that need a cultural shift). Here's why I'm thinking like that: a photo radar with smaller - but still significant - fines is more effective at slowing people down than a few cops catching a few random people speeding and giving huge fines. Albeit, everyone hates photo radars, they works. Plus, in my analogy, we might start looking for the design of the road.
@@therrydicule Good point about jail time. Loosing their qualified immunity will mean that they can be sued personally rather than the tax payer paying for their (what looks to be) revenge arrest.
There goes the cops' qualified immunity. They KNEW the arrest was going to be illegal BEFORE the arrest. So, WHY ARE THEY NOT FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR KIDNAPPING, ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT?!
When it comes to the fact that they had a warrant…signed by a judge…doesn’t that “incriminate” the judge for not knowing the law…should he not get rebuked also…
The second you said "They found out he was being critical of them and started and investigation", that should bring everyone to attention. The idea that cops think its ok to being investigating people because they get criticism should alarm everyone.
@@billyjoejimbob75 Conspiracy to commit deprivation of 1st amendment rights under color of law is a federal felony. An organization - or branch of that organization - that exists primarily to do that actually would invoke the RICO Act.
As soon as I saw that this happened in La I knew it would be true. But then, I once spent 6 months in Baton Rouge, and as a result I know that the state is corrupt from top to bottom. To me the only surprise is that the judge handed down an honest ruling
I was thinking the entire time, "If the officers are putting this much effort into arresting this guy, they aren't working on the case he's complaining about which makes him right!" I know it can be tough to have thick skin when people are putting you down, but these officers just went way too far in retaliation.
If a public office cannot take criticism then they need to resign. Sound like there should be an invasion of privacy charge for illegally obtaining his emails.
It certainly sounds like "unreasonable search and seizure". So they violated another one of his constitutional rights probably. I mean if any form of search were unseasonable, it would be searching someone because they don't like you.
While I'm glad the man's lawsuit can move forward I genuinely hope at some point we'll be able to enact laws holding cops criminally responsible when they behave in such brazen manner.
It's ridiculous that they can write tickets to be decided by a judge in court, but the law doesn't allow judges to decide if a cop should be held liable for their actions; at least let the department be held liable.
There is so much wrongdoing going on in this story that I'm dumb-founded. At a MINIMUM everyone involved should be immediately fired. They should be civilly sued into poverty and those at the top should be wearing prison garb.
It would be great if the guy held a press conference and goes into the facts of how hard that department worked to destroy his life simply because he was critical of them.
The defense argued that the police officer wasn't a public official? I though qualified immunity applied to public officials so their own argument would remove qualified immunity.
No no, you don't understand! He's a public official in every sense that would grant qualified immunity, but not in any way that would make him personally liable. It's a delicate balance, fairly enforced by courts. Without it, cops would be utterly hand-tied and couldn't arrest anyone! He said, sarcastically.
Except for the Chief or any executive of a police agency, regular cops are simple personnel and NOT officials - they're not professionals per the courts, either.
What's the point of having a judge sign a warrant if they don't know the laws are valid as well? Aren't they supposed to be a check on that? Judges should be held accountable just like the police if a mistake like this is discovered later. If a cop is expect to know the law I'd expect a judge to know it as well.
Supposedly, the officer references the law code/statue. In this instance, the statue is indeed present, however it has been ruled unconditional later. So the legislature has the responsibility to remove it. But of course.... They are too busy makimg new laws
Steve had sufficient information in the video indicating that the information supplied in the petition for a warrant presented to the judge was intentionally misleading, by omitting certain key details.
@@thomasbonse but the omitted details don’t change the underlying fact that the law itself was unconstitutional. The judge should have noticed that they are using criminal defamation and realized there are issues with the constitutionality of that law…at the bare minimum, he/she should have looked into it further, if not outright reject the warrant. Judge was clearly either ignorant of the law or was just rubber stamping warrants without considering them…in either case it’s not good.
I’m a retired Palm Beach County Prosecutor. The Officers wanted to make this fellow as miserable as possible, knowing that the law was unconstitutional so that the prosecutors would not prosecute the man. So it was totally retaliatory done to inconvenience him. They wanted to use their power to make him as miserable as possible. BTW the police can put lots of pressure on individual prosecutors. When I was a prosecutor, the Palm Beach Sheriff tried to have me fired because over the course of three years, I had refused to prosecute five people where I determined that either the defendant was innocent or there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case. I was anal retentive and used to keep voluminous detailed notes in every case that was brought to me, so I was able to show my boss, David Bludworth, that I made the correct calls in each case. I was invited to the meeting he had with the Sheriff where he knocked down every argument they raised using my notes. I was not fired and shortly thereafter I was made a Judge.
So you're a judge? How does it work do you apply to be a judge or do you get asked if you want to become a judge? How much do judges get paid is it like a weekly salary or is it on a per trial basis?
@@justicedemocrat9357 In Florida there’s two ways to become a trial Judge ( as opposed to an Appellate Judge), get appointed by the Governor or run for the office politically. To get appointed you have to be politically connected and kiss the correct butts. (It didn’t use to be so bad, but Republican Governors have politicized the hell out of it) Running for office is more honest and much less corrupt because it’s out in the open so it’s a bit less screwed up. I ran for the office against a highly political Judge who was stupid and had a nick name, “Send ‘em home Jerome” as he let dangerous criminals out without requiring them to pay a bond and they then committed more crimes. I spent my whole life savings running against him and won. Judges get paid well, my last salary in 2003 was $112,000 per year (worth $180000 in today’s dollars) which seemed really great to me as I got paid $35,000 as a Prosecutor. I get a great pension. I didn’t take the job because of its pay. Lawyers at my level of experience get much more in private practice. I wanted to be a Judge since as a boy whenever we played baseball I would arrange to be the umpire whenever there was uneven numbers to make up a team.
I told everyone in our family about your site. I do not know of any other person who actually explains the law like you do. You are a great resource of knowledge.
@@shekharmoona544 Judges don't have to be members of the bar. The Bar Associations try to push the idea that judges should be lawyers, but there's no such requirement. Furthermore, the defendants DELIBERATELY MISLEAD the judge by omitting the pertinent fact that the DA had already notified them that the were asking for an arrest warrant for something which is not illegal.
If we were in the DDR, there would be a protected right to an abortion, and race/gender discrimination would be aggressively targeted. We are in far, *far* worse shape.
If the d.a had any integrity at all, they would have charged the c.o. who gave the order to arrest the man after being told they couldnt, with kidnapping and false imprisonmen.
Its difficult to argue the cops weren't being retaliatory, and counting on qualified immunity to protect them. They didn't expect the arrest to stand, since they already knew it was unconstitutional. So it was a deliberate means of harassment.
@@deusvult6920 Say that to Fresno PD they harassed and killed a man who had told everyone on facebook the PD had a vendetta with him and were going to kill him. a few days later they declared his death a suicide and the body was covered with around 40+ stab wounds all over his body. The worst part is it was captured on video how practically the whole department was stalking his residence for days, even weeks and even with all that nothing has been done that I am aware of. So far most articles about the case have been memory holed. John Liang was the guys name.
The One Fact that made me go WTF is the DA TOLD them it is Against the constitution And you can not do that. And if you do you Will be violating his Rights!
Qualified Immunity needs to be absolutely abolished. It allows government employees to act with reckless disregard for the law and the rights of the public who they supposedly protect, but instead prey upon ad wolves prey upon sheep.
What I want to know is what line a police officer has to cross for misconduct of this sort to become a criminal matter. These three police officers have admitted to committing crimes against this man, on the public record. They're serious crimes too, not jaywalking or looking at a cop cross-eyed. They used false or misleading information to obtain a warrant from a court, and then they abused their police authority to forcibly seize a man in a way they explicitly knew was a violation of the man's constitutional rights. Where is the legal line past which they don't get away with these crimes anymore? Just because they're at a job that sometimes requires violence and seizures of persons or property doesn't mean they get to use those powers at will and without consequences. Imagine a world where the police can just drive around robbing banks and kidnapping people off the streets, and all the victims can do is sue them civilly and pray the court has a whit of sense. Let's be real. This isn't just a civil matter between the victim and the officers. The fact that they behaved like this toward _anyone_ and didn't end up in a jail cell has broad implications for every person subject to their jurisdiction.
Sheriff: DA, We want to arrest this guy for mean words about us. DA: That is unconstitutional. Sheriff: Judge, We want to arrest this guy for mean words about us. Judge: Here’s your warrant. Sheriff: DA, we got a warrant and arrested this guy for mean words about us so now you can prosecute him. DA: That is still unconstitutional, stupid. Sheriff: Judge, can we get qualified immunity now that we broke the law. Judge: No and see if I ever issue a warrant on your word again, if you still have your job or freedom.
So they arrested him and told his basically ruined his life and they knew it would be dropped in court …. Did they believe qualified immunity would protect them ?
And why hasn’t the sheriff and deputies been charged yet? Why hasn’t the judge that signed off on the warrant held them in contempt and charged them with the DA for falsifying court documents? Because corruption, corruption, corruption…
There is zero chance they didn't realize that defamation is a civil matter and not a criminal offense. They just thought they were going to intimidate somebody into shutting up and get away with it because most people would be so intimidated by the mere process of being arrested that they'll do whatever they need to do to get the nightmare to end and be able to go back to living their lives.
I strongly get the feeling that the judge would have looked at the Sheriff's Department in this case and asked, "ARE YOU HIGH?!" Alas, he is far too professional.
@@SCARFACE69247 The warrant was signed by a local Louisiana magistrate. They never question anything that's put in front of them. The Judge who made the ruling is a Federal Judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Doesn't a judge have to sign an arrest warrant? If the DA told the cops the guy can't be arrested, shouldn't the judge have known too? I hope that judge doesn't try cases.
Mr. Lehto: In 1963 I was a young sailor stationed in Maine. One of the things I liked to do was look at the laws in that state that were old but still enforceable. I found one that I showed a Maine State Trooper friend who told me that realistically he would not enforce now. I agreed. The law was written about 1680 and it stated "A least one male member of each family shall bring a loaded firearm to church any time there is a gathering." Several years later the state went through the Criminal Code and deactivated those laws that were no longer relevant. They are still on the books but only for historical purposes.
Steve, this law in Louisiana was repealed in 2021. However, the man in the article was arrested while the law was still on the books. As a former resident of Louisiana I remember back in the 1980's where an associate of mine was threatened with arrest about something that he alleged about a former girlfriend. Nothing happened but it did make me interested in this law. After watching your video I did a little research on this law and found that once in the early 1960's the District Attorney of New Orleans was prosecuted and convicted of violating this law because he was critical of the backlog at the local Court. He criticized the judges and stated they were lazy. He appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court which affirmed his conviction. The District Attorney (Jim Garrison) later appealed to the U.S. Supreme court which reversed his conviction on constitutional grounds. The law was passed sometime in the early 1800's (I think 1825) to stop people from getting insulted and then having duels. Funny ironic twist: the Louisiana legislator or Congressman who proposed this law (Edward Livingston) was a former law partner for Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton when he lived in New York. This incident that you cited happened in St Tammany Parish. Something like this happened in Terrebonne Parish a few years ago. A resident there posted comments in his blog that were critical of the Sheriff's Department. The Department raided his house, seized his computers and arrested him. Of course the prosecution went nowhere and blogger sued in federal court and got a settlement of $250,000. So I think maybe the St Tammany Parish Sheriff's Department might be a little poorer after all this is settled. I found all of this information on a website called Louisiana Voice.
As I noted, the law remained on the books long after NYTimes v Sullivan, which rendered a portion of it ineffective. So, it was literally, ON THE BOOKS but it was not enforceable against someone accused to defaming a public figure.
When they got the warrant, knowing it was unconstitutional - as per DA, did they make a sworn statement? If so they lied under oath i.e committed perjury?
I wondered about this as well. If I was the judge that isseud warrants based on affidavits that were knowingly written with a lie of omission I would be dragging deputies into court for perjury so fast their heads would have been spinning.
Yes, the Commissioner who signed the warrant would be a local Judge. And an sworn affidavit is required. This is the St Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff, Randy Smith personally ordered the arrest... The DA and the Sheriff hate each other.
Didn’t they tell the Nazis It was Unconstitutional ,,,, To murder more than 6 million people,, But they did it anyway,, Do you see the similarities here?,, Why do we have a United States Constitution?,, It isn’t so the cops and wiped Their ass with it,,,
Maybe I missed it, but I thought the purpose of the Police having a Judge sign off on an arrest warrant was intended to be a safeguard against wrongful arrest warrants from being issued, so wouldn't the judge who signed off on his warrant have some culpability in this too?
It was stated that the cops made up a law violation code number, so if anything, the judge who signed the warrant was woefully ignorant of the law or just plainly incompetent in that the judge didn’t question what that made up law violation code number was.
If I didn't know better, I would think that these cops are TRYING to get sued! The DA told them that the arrest would be unconstitutional, *and they did it anyway!!!*
The fact that the cops arrested the man when they were advised not to by their own counsel demonstrates That they are clueless. They should be fired and sent to prison.
They are not clueless as this has already been proven to be knowing and willful violation of the law, hence the partial summary judgment. They just felt that they were above the law and wanted to send a message to that effect.
@@r2db The original statements were about how the cops were incompetent and weren't doing anything about the real investigation. In response to this, the cops decide to prioritize silencing criticism instead of continuing said investigation. Deprioritizing the investigation in favor of silencing criticism is indeed malicious, but it *also* is incompetence aka cluelessness.
@@geraldstone8396 From what I understand, the Sheriff's Office withheld material facts of the case in their affadavit for the arrest warrant, including the fact that the DA had advised them that what they were doing was considered unconstitutional. Without the facts that were withheld, the judge made a probable cause decision based on the information given.
This case is also an example of warrants being rubber stamped by judges. Did the judge or judges that signed to arrests and search warrants actually read or understand what was printed on the paper?
Hey, Steve, if judges just sign off on warrants without checking if the warrant is legal? then what's the point exactly? I get that the fact that the law was unconstitutional was left out on the affidavit, but isn't it literally the Judge's job to know that?
The only thing I can think is they found a young magistrate or the like who would be less experienced and since they weren't ruling on a case, just signing off on a warrant, they might not even think about going through case law. I'm not excusing it, just not 100% sure what happened and it may have been a mistake...a big one but still a mistake.
there is no way a Judge can know every bit of case law. The issue here though is this Judge was embarrassed by these cops and I would hate to be any of these cops and need something from this Judge.
@@benmoore1097 judges get absolute immunity. It's a problem, as you see here, but it makes it impossible to sue them unless you have evidence they did something knowingly wrong with malice.
@@jimmieburleigh9549 so in the middle of the night is a good time you want to slip things through? Probably wouldn't happen after judge had his morning coffee, I'm sure...👌 Rubber Stamp.🪠 And the paper it's written on🧻🚽
@@jimmieburleigh9549 Or he was playing golf and had a kind of Ferris Bueler setup back at the office. A mannequin with a literal rubber stamp in it's hand tied with a long string to the doorknob.
Thank You Steve for the GREAT explanation! Jerry Rogers. JUSTICE FOR NANETTE! Beyond Bardstown-Lacombe is a terrific podcast the will give further insight into the crime. JUSTICE FOR NANETTE 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
What kind of Lawyer did the Defendants have to have all of their defence arguments shot down so swiftly and spectacularly? Surely there must have been a conversation between defendants and council that went along the lines of “there is no possible way these arguments are going to fly” at some point before this hearing?
why did the judge issue the arrest warrant in the first place if the law was unenforceable. Should that judge have known about the law? and what about the judge facing indiscretion charge for allowing the warrant in the first place?
Judges are not given all of the details and do not forget cops are legally allowed to lie. The cops omitted information that would have given a red flag to the judge to not allow the arrest warrant to be issued. When a judge is not given proper information they must do what they think is proper based upon what is presented not what is assumed.
A similar case in Florida. "Amagansett press" filming close to a school, the federal court said the law was unconstitutional and unenforceable and is still on the books. The da dismissed the case.
I love that the former officer said they don’t know what they are doing, they hear about it, want to arrest him in retaliation, are told it’s unlawful to do that by the prosecutor, then do it anyway. Thus proving they truly have no idea what they are doing. I’d try to find a way to bring that up in court.
Here's how to tell if a person is dumb or smart: if you tell a dumb person he's dumb, he gets mad or defensive. If you tell a smart person he's dumb, he just shrugs it off.
Hold on: They're claiming qualified immunity which *only protects **_public officials_** !* Then they claim that the deputies *aren't* public officials, which means that the qualified immunity wouldn't apply and the rest of that defense disappears..
4:48 "They claim that the retaliation claim is unfounded" And this just turned the "defamation" from opinionative into fact. These bozos are, in fact, clueless. The retaliation claim is about how you arrested him for badmouthing you... _Because that's exactly what you did._
@@jonahtaivalkoski322 The supposed defamatory statement made was about the cops supposed incompetence. The arguments presented in support of the arrest on behalf of these cops are self-contradictory to the extent that they speak to the incompetence of the cops. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, meaning, that it *cannot* be defamation if the cops are, in fact, incompetent.
What concerns me is that law enforcement can dig into a person's digital footprint and snoop around even without warrants by using cell site simulators.
This is the St Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office. Sheriff Randy Smith ordered the arrest. The entire Parish (County) is littered with License Plate Readers and they track people every day. They can search the database and track your movements any time they want...
And people wonder why good cops will normally remain silent when witnessing bad cops act poorly. The saddest part is, the top position of the typical police department is held by a bad cop, and why the situation is the way it is.
Mr. Lehto, I have enjoyed your videos for many years, for you remind me of one of my Law professors at CMU. While I did not pursue a degree or career in law, I have enjoyed reading all the critical thinking that goes into the opinion of a case. My favorite video of yours (so far) is the one where who owns a river.
A man enforces laws with jurisdiction over the public, and his title is “officer” yet he claims he is not a public official. This is the norm for the people who have authority in our society. We are going down a bad road.
I'm sure that spin was from a lawyer who looked at the case and said, "You guys are screwed. I can try this novel defense, but I don't think it will work. But there is nothing else to try." And the defendants, bless their blue hearts, told him to go for it. No, they don't think they are not officials, they just tried for an angle that might have worked with some judges, but didn't work with this one.
@@TheRealScooterGuy well if the lawyer represents them, and they say “go for it” then the statement is their position in court. Bottom line is that they retaliated and used their authority to try and maliciously charge someone, claiming that they have privileges that the rest of us do not. Their hearts are not blue. They are black and they are not good law enforcement officers, or good people.
Very stressful being falsely arrested. I am having a hard time with what happened to us. Arresting both my husband & I over our own property has been rough. Permanent arrest record. We had no idea a unsafe structure affixed to our land could be a felony if we touched it.
My guess is the fact that the gentleman arrested and charged was a former employee with the department screams there was bad blood somewhere in the past and this was blatant misuse of power by law enforcement. What a shock.
If I were Judge I might have rendered the decision as follows: "I have never laughed so hard as when I read the Defendant's filings. Accordingly I find for the Plaintiff." I guess soon we'll see a case where the police find it expedient to claim they are not Police.
This is why sunset provisions should be built in to most laws other than violent offences. If the law is being used and enforced regularly, it can be renewed instead of sunsetting. If it isn't being used and/or has been struck down by a court it will fall off the books after a set time of non-renewal.
It is breath taking that law enforcement was told that what they were trying to do was illegal and they moved forward anyway. This episode further illustrates why the concept of "Qualified Immunity" needs to be thrown out. There is no legal justification for it and it was only created by the judiciary in a misguided attempt to shield law enforcement from liability!
A similar thing happened to Jason of Amagansett Press. He was video taping a UPS facility in the Florida panhandle, this facility is across the street from a school. The police were called and they arrested him for being within 500 feet of a school with no purpose for being there. Turns out the law they arrested him under had been declared unconstitutional by a Florida Judge who ordered that no law enforcement entity can enforce that law. His lawsuit is pending.
Excellent summary and highly informational - Thanks Steve, you are amazing with the clarity of your explanations. Is there any bandwagon we can join to rid the books of Qualified Immunity?
Louisiana has long held the "honor" of being the state with the highest conviction rate in the country. I have no doubt these Sheriffs thought they would get away with this and have their way in court. Law enforcement in this state have been handled with kid gloves for far to long.
I just realized this case is from my home town!! Smith is the current sheriff! Krentel was the wife of a fire chief. She was found in a burned out house. Circumstances were suspicious and her death has yet to be classified. There has been lots of shady "doings" surrounding this case.
The fact that the defendants cited a bogus statute no. in their request for data from the plaintiffs ISP proves they knew what they were doing was fraudulent and they did it anyways.
@@maxsdad538 I don't think you watched the whole video. The arrest was based on a non-applicable law, but the search warrant referenced a straight up fake statute number. 10:55
Some of the laws I have read that are still on the books really make you wonder WHAT IN THE HELL happened they made them feel the need to put it down to paper in the first place 🤦♀️🤦♀️
Given the on-point requirement to defeat Qualified Immunity, I’m expecting a cop to try claiming that unless a prior decision involved a cop with exactly the same name, it wouldn’t be on-point.
Exactly. Or, he was defaming the police through a Gmail account, and the other case was about a totally different guy who used Hotmail for some reason.
