According to Mike Barnhart, he was just shooting some video of the Douglas County Sheriff blocking the road.
The cops falsely claimed there was a “crime scene” and attacked Mr. Barhhart. Somehow the South Lake Tahoe Police SLTPD, El Dorado Sheriff EDSO got involved and Mike Barnhart was arrested and charged for obstruction and resisting arrest.
The whole thing is in the Justice Court, Judge Richard Glasson presiding, at the Stateline, NV courthouse.
Supreme Court Inaction Boosts Right To Record Police Officers
The Huffington Post | By Radley Balko Posted: 11/27/2012
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping law. The broadly written law — the most stringent in the country — makes it a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission, punishable by four to 15 years in prison.
Many states have similar “all-party consent” laws, which mean one must get the permission of all parties to a conversation before recording it. But in all of those states — except for Massachusetts and Illinois — the laws include a provision that the parties being recorded must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be a crime to record them.
The Illinois law once included such a provision, but it was removed by the state legislature in response to an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that threw out the conviction of a man accused of recording police from the back of a squad car. That ruling found that police on the job have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Illinois and Massachusetts laws have been used to arrest people who attempt to record on-duty police officers and other public officials. In one of the more notorious cases, Chicago resident Tiawanda Moore was arrested in 2010 when she attempted to use her cell phone to record officers in a Chicago police station.
Moore had come to the station to report an alleged sexual assault by a Chicago cop, and says she became frustrated when internal affairs officers allegedly bullied her and attempted to talk her out of filing the report. Moore was eventually acquitted.
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is planning a police accountability project in Chicago that will involve recording police while they’re on duty. The organization wanted to be sure its employees and volunteers wouldn’t be charged with felonies.
The 7th Circuit Court found a specific First Amendment right to record police officers. It’s the second federal appeals court to strike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights.
That decision also found a broad First Amendment right to record on-duty government officials in public: “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.'” And in fact, in that it strips police who make such arrests of their immunity from lawsuits, it’s an even stronger opinion. Of course, the police themselves rarely pay damages in such suits — taxpayers do.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari in the case doesn’t necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court’s ruling. But it does mean that at least six of the current justices weren’t so opposed to the ruling that they felt the case needed to be heard.
The 1st and 7th circuit decisions mean that it is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. Unfortunately, people are still being arrested for it. Police officers who want to make an arrest to intimidate would-be videographers can always use broadly written laws that prohibit public disorder, interfering with a police officer, or similar ordinances that give law enforcement wide discretion.
The charges are almost always either subsequently dropped or dismissed in court, but by then the innocent person has been illegally detained, arrested, sometimes jailed, and possibly paid expensive legal fees.
Journalist Carlos Miller, who has been arrested multiple times for recording police, documents such cases on a daily basis. He has also documented countless cases in which police officers have deleted incriminating video from cell phones — a crime in and of itself.
Former Nevada Assemblyman Steven Brooks has been arrested in California (warning graphic)
BARSTOW, Calif. (AP) — 04/02/2013 Authorities say a former Nevada lawmaker who has had repeated trouble with the law is due in a California court after police say he led them on a freeway chase on the road from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. Continue reading
Please see the updates here:
Justin Brothers Bail Bonds illegally broke into home illegally used a taser on Ty Robben. Ty Robben is now suing the Justin Brothers Bail Bonds company out of Carson City, Nevada. Mr. Robben was tased 3 times after 5 bounty hunters illegally entered his home with no warrant pursuant to California penal code 847.5.
The bounty hunters also face a litany of criminal charges including burglary, assault, battery (with deadly weapons), trespassing, stalking, harassment, conspiracy, vandalism, kidnapping, false imprisonment, breach of peace, and failure to obtain a warrant.
Mr. Robben was not a fugitive and the bounty hunters had no legal reason to try to arrest him or cross State lines from Carson City, Nevada into South Lake Tahoe California to unlawfully break into his Lake Tahoe home.
Tasers are consider lethal weapons and they kill people. Similar taser lawsuits address the seriousness of taser use.
Taser safety issues
Critics argue that Tasers and other high-voltage stun devices can cause cardiac arrhythmia in susceptible subjects, possibly leading to heart attack or death in minutes by ventricular fibrillation, which leads to cardiac arrest and—if not treated immediately—to sudden death. People susceptible to this outcome are sometimes healthy and unaware of their susceptibility.
Although the medical conditions or use of illegal drugs among some of the casualties may have been the proximate cause of death, the electric shock of the Taser can significantly heighten such risk for subjects in an at-risk category.
While they are not technically considered lethal, some authorities and non-governmental organizations question both the degree of safety presented by the weapon and the ethical implications of using a weapon that some, such as sections of Amnesty International, allege is inhumane. As a consequence, Amnesty International Canada and other civil liberties organizations have argued that a moratorium should be placed on Taser use until research can determine a way for them to be safely used. Amnesty International has documented over 334 deaths that occurred after the use of tasers. Amnesty International. Police sources question whether the taser was the actual cause of death in those cases, as many of the deaths occurred in people with serious medical conditions and/or severe drug intoxication, often to the point of excited delirium.
CBC News Tests Tasers – Proves Tasers Unsafe!
Tasers subject their victims to a 50,000 volt shock followed by 100 microsecond pulses of 1,200 volts. Since 2001, more than 500 people in the United States have died after law enforcement officers used this weapon against them. A study published this week by the American Heart Association’s Circulation Journal confirms that the misuse of a Taser can cause sudden cardiac arrest and death.
In theory, a Taser is intended to serve as a non-lethal method of control for law enforcement officers when they need to physically restrain a dangerous person. But as the new Circulation study demonstrates, Tasers cannot so simply be categorized as “non-lethal.” In addition, there are far too many instances in which officers have impulsively deployed Tasers against children, pregnant women and the mentally ill, even though the victims posed no real danger to either the officers or anyone else.
The new evidence that Tasers can cause cardiac arrest and death, coupled with the disturbing trend of officers using Tasers in flagrantly unnecessary situations, makes it all the more troubling that states do not uniformly or consistently govern or regulate officers’ use of Tasers. This means that Taser policies vary greatly between police departments, often leading to vague, outdated and inaccurate guidelines that result in misunderstanding about the misuse of these allegedly non-lethal weapons.
Taser training materials are mostly provided by Taser International, the private company that makes the weapon. Relying on a private, for-profit company that has a vested interest in promoting and selling their product for training guidelines is not only nonsensical, but dangerous. For example, though Taser International advises officers against administering a shock to the victim’s chest, it does not prohibit targeting this area. In fact, Taser minimizes the potential risk of death or cardiac trauma, instead emphasizing a need to insulate police officers – and itself – from the legal ramifications associated with a shock to the chest. The company goes on to recommend against aiming for the chest because “shots to the chest, particularly at close range, are frequently ineffective because of the lack of major muscle groups in the chest area.” It’s not difficult to see why relying on Taser International’s profit-seeking and liability-evading advice, rather than on rigorous and objective scientific evidence, is both unwise and unsafe.
The new Circulation study should provoke us all – including and most importantly law enforcement agencies – to revisit when the deployment of a Taser is worth its serious risks. To be sure, law enforcement officers have a legitimate interest in protecting themselves and the public during potentially violent encounters, and for the victim, a Taser is generally a less lethal alternative to a firearm. But history demonstrates that law enforcement agencies have failed to create and implement Taser training policies that effectively educate officers about the risks involved and ensure that officers only use Tasers when actually necessary. Law enforcement agencies should review and revise their Taser policies so that officers can make informed and responsible decisions about when using a Taser is warranted. Particularly given the increasing – and disturbing – popularity and indiscriminate use of Tasers, police departments around the country must ensure that they use these lethal weapons responsibly, ethically and as safely as possible.
Angela Jones, a Los Angeles woman, suffered cardiac arrest after being shocked with a Taser gun by police during a traffic stop in June. The incident, which was caught on video by a California Highway Patrol dashboard camera, has once again raised questions about the safety of the weapon.
CBC report on the latest example of senseless use of deadly force by police, compounded by the routine lie that the police had been attacked by the victim. Since we already know Robert had no drugs or alcohol in his system, how long will it be until he’s diagnosed as suffering from “excited delirium syndrome” – the phony disorder invented by the Taser lobby to deny the obvious fact Tasers often kill people.
Marin County has agreed to pay $1.9 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a man who accused sheriff’s deputies of shocking him with a Taser
Marin County has agreed to pay $1.9 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a man who accused sheriff’s deputies of shocking him with a Taser when he refused to go to the hospital after he fell. The county Board of Supervisors voted in closed session Tuesday to approve the settlement to Peter McFarland, 66, for an incident that “was not consistent with department policy,” said County Counsel Patrick Faulkner. “Federal law surrounding the use of Tasers is more restrictive today than it was in 2009, when deputies used a Taser to help take Peter McFarland in custody,” Faulkner said. Continue reading