Angio Graham

I am a personal friend of the victim of this video. He is a community activist who films public events. One of his causes is police mistreatment of cyclists by pulling them over and violating their 4th Amendment rights.

He has been featured on national news shows because 3 months ago he was arrested and spent 4 days in jail for filming the police who had pulled a car over.

Here is a video of him from this week where he rode his bike passed a stoped police car and the officer asked him a question, the cyclist ignored the questio and then the cop gunned his engine and rammed the bike forcing him into the curb. The officer clearly says in the video "i pulled you over because you were riding in the middle of the road".

Keep in mind that he has been pulled over many times before on his bike for walking his bike "without a light" and "walking his bike on a sidewalk" and other bogus trumped up charges.

He has so far won $15,000 in lawsuits and his last arrest is currently being negotiated.

Chris516

This cop in the tape should go to the Comedy Store in Los Angeles. Because, He was a comedy of errors.

Near the end of the video, when he was reading what Ofc. Nicholas wrote, the first word was 'Bicycle'.

It did seem slightly combative on both parts. But, I am glad he didn't get arrested for disorderly conduct.

But Ofc. Nicholas didn't need to ram his bike to effect a stop.

dynodonn 

With all the attention that the cyclist, in the OP video, is getting from law enforcement, I would have front and rear frame mounted cameras complimenting the helmet cam. At least the cyclist would have had a clear video of the officer ramming his bicycle. The cyclist's helmet cam video is too unsteady for my tastes.

kmv2

whoa its like watching COPS but from the other side of the lens.

CB HI

The only smart thing this cop did was to not issue a ticket when he realized he really did not understand the law and was in over his head.

Illegal Terry Stop.

The cop was also flat out wrong in claiming that it is illegal to not carry an ID card in public (see other thread on this).

Cop also did an illegal search.

Looigi

A heck of a way to make a living...

kmv2

https://youtu.be/eZnvS9Nfndg?t=1m27s

nashvillwill

Ill be honest with you, the video does nothing. The only worth element is the audio. It never clearly shows the police car "ramming" the cyclist. True, the officer was quite aggressive and made some ridiculous claims, but I don't think your friend was quite a saint. He was not cooperating and was quite aggresive himself. Typically, when an officer says "stop", if your response is "no", things probably won't go so smoothly.

digger

That's my take on this situation.

Whiteknight

We are now seeing similar things with police stops in this city. The city pushed 80 long-time cops out into early retirement and replaced them with new hires at far lower wages. There are now problems with these young cops being overly aggressive and ignoring the rules involved in what is commonly called a Terry stop. Our Pennsylvania judicial court system has a web site were court rulings are posted and available to any one. Criminal cases being ruled on in the state superior courts. Look at rulings involving suppression hearings if you want a good understanding of your rights in such matters. I have had to print one ruling for a number of neighbors who have had problems with police even though they had broken no law. I have witnesses two stops at a local Wawa that left me angry at how the officers treated people who were doing more than stopping into the store for a coffee. A year ago we had one right out in front of my house early one morning when a neighbor came home sick from work. I wrote a letter to the town mayor and police chief pointing out that sort of police work is totally unacceptable. That if his officers insist on behaving like an occupying army they will be treated as such. The incident was investigated by their internal affairs and of course covered up but now when police come onto this block of homes they behave in a more acceptable manner.
In my bike bag, on the rear rack, I carry a copy of the motor vehicle code where it applies to bicycles and a copy of the court ruling governing a terry stop. Use them as handouts to others on bikes who ask me about problems with the police on their rides.

Matariki

Yeah the cop made some mistakes, but the rider was clearly planning to provoke through his confrontational behaviour. The video is poor and so we cannot assume that the cyclist was behaving like a saint prior to the stop, my bet is that he was baiting the officer.

Mr. Saulmon certainly was treated badly in the past by the PD and he does not want to let it go. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the relationship between him and law enforcement to become unhealthy and this is bound to hurt both sides as well as have a negative effect on the community. We have a Civilian Police Review Board in my city whose official duties are to examine problems like this. Is there some group like this where he lives? It seems like tackling things in a more constructive way would be more successful.

Obviously he thinks that his way is the only option for him. I feel sorry for him and the way this thing seems to be consuming him.

I-Like-To-Bike

Curly Sue and partner as portrayed in the clip also are "community activists filming public events," just like the OP's pal.

Angio Graham

There is no law that requires citizens to "cooperate" with police. In fact, citizens specifically have constitutional protections against police intrusion into their lives.

The officer in this video never gave an order to "stop". The officer pulled alongside and initiated a voluntary and consensual conversation where he asked the cyclist "are you good" ? The cyclist responded by asking back "are you good" ? This is a common tactic by police where they FAKE an interest or concern for a citizens safety. They do this all the time when people are filming them.

The officer then asked the cyclist if he could talk to him. The cyclist said "no". That is a constitutional right. Its called the 5th Amendment "right to remain silent".

The officer then initiated a violent and dangerous action with his car to stop the cyclist absent of ANY probable cause and then proceeded to illegaly search the cyclist.

This is all illegal.

Angio Graham

When did the cyclist confront the officer ?

The officer didnt make "mistakes", he violated the constitutional rights of an innocent citizen and damn near killed him with his car.

I seem to recall a few threads in this forum about drivers getting too close to cyclists. Apparently alot of cyclists thinks its okay for cops to ram their cars into cyclists if the cyclist asserts their constitutional rights.

digger

We don't know what happened before the video started.

The officer asked, "you all good?" and that statement smacks of some sort of incident that occured before the video started. The officer sounded incredulous when he said "you all good?" but received an angry response and asked the cyclist to pull over for a conversation.

I doubt the officer tried to ram the cyclist, likely the officer pulled ahead, stopped in front of the cyclist and the cyclist became over dramatic in how close the officer was.

The officer did not seem angry to me, but I do agree his assessment of the law, with respect to bicycles, is incorrect.

At 2:27 the cyclist said, "go ahead and check my back pocket."

At 3:07 there was a discussion regarding a radio (police scanner?) and the cyclist said, "I'm into investigating police departments."

At 3:43 the cyclists was leading the officer (yes, who quoted the law wrong) into stating "far to the right as possible." Then the cyclist launched into a practiced tirade about "far to the rigth as practicable" and the exceptions to that.

At 4:48, the cyclist said "that's my job" when the officer asked why he was giving him such a hard time. The cyclist then said, "I'm a civil rights activist."

At 8:15 in the video we see the cyclists "trophy wall" containing police reports and what we here in Canada call Summary Offence Tickets (SOTs).
Then the statement, "I put work into some kind of change in the way they treat people on bikes."

The cyclists tone, word choices and his trophy wall gives me the impression that he rides around looking for these types of incidents to happen.

If you look for it, you'll find it.

As Looigi stated, "it's a heck of a way to make a living."

If indeed the cyclist is trying to change the way police view people on bikes, then I suggest more honey and less vinegar.

kmv2

See, I don't see or (sorry) believe that..

They're arguing about legal statutes in the video. If I had just been hit by a car, I'd probably be talking about that more.

Plus, the cop asked him to pull over, he said "No (expletive expletive, etc..)" and he got forcefully pulled over. Ego on the cops part probably came into play, but OTOH as a keeper of the peace if you see some guy yelling (at police!) and swearing in the middle of the road, do you just leave him be? Or is there something else going on that might be your job to investigate..

Also, in the latter half of the video he's trying to fabricate some story about the cop being a narcotics addict? Seriously?

This is as bad as cops dressing as hookers and then arresting Johns. Don't ask for trouble and trouble will most likely stay away.

Being asked by a police officer to pull over and being assaulted by a private citizen are not the same.

Angio Graham

Here is another video where he is arrested. Note the "hey buddy, can I help you" move by the police. The police DO NOT want to help citizens filming them, they want to ARREST citizens filming them.

When he answers "no thank you" the cop immediatly asks for ID. This is illegal and a clear example of the cops motive.

This is why the city is going to pay about $100,000 in this case.

kmv2

sweet. another win.
cop baiting was a success!

Does he ever lose money in all these cop baiting cases or does his business have some kind of insurance to cover that?

spare_wheel

this morning i was following a police car on SW Broadway in the middle of the lane with the Broadway cycle track to my right. the cop noticed me and the crafty bugger repeatedly slowed down to 5-10 mph. he knew he could not get me on the mandatory sidepath law so he was trying to nail me on a following too close violation. i waved at him when i passed him in the bike lane at the 405 ramp/broadway intersection. my attitude when it comes to being pulled over for taking the lane is: make my day police officer.

Angio Graham

Well yes he has lost money a few times and lost his liberty a few times and lost his constitutional rights a few times.

He has had cameras confiscated and damaged. His bikes have been damaged and he has spent time in jail for NOT breaking any laws.

When you use the term "cop baiting" I assume you just dont want to use the term "freedom of the press" ?

Or maybe instead of "cop baiting" you could say "innocent civilian exposes criminal elements in government"

gcottay

It seems our fellow cyclist was looking for some trouble and, as is usually the case, found it.

Whiteknight

I fail to understand how he was "baiting" the cop. The cop claimed he was taking the middle of the lane. In that state taking the lane may be perfectly legal. The only way the cop could legally stop the cyclist is if the cyclist violated a motor vehicle code.

The cop was running a con when he asked the rider if he was OK. He was trying an end run on the rules of a Terry stop.

From Commonwealth v Pratt, PA Super. 2007
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has led to the development of three categories of interactions between citizens and police. The first of these is a "mere encounter" (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or respond. The second, an "investigative detention" must be supported by a reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest. Finally, an arrest or "custodial detention" must be supported by probable cause.

From Terry v. Ohio
However, a mere hunch is not enough, the police officer must have an articulable reason to stop the individual.


So the cop used his "concern" for the riders well being to try a fishing expedition.

If this individual is well known to the local police as a trouble maker, for them, they will also play this care game to harass that person. The idea being that after a certain amount of harassment he/she will leave the police alone.

digger

So why film a traffic stop in the first place?

In my opinion, the officer, not knowing who this person was, decided to ensure no harm was about to befall him or his partner and arrested and handcuffed the guy who was filming.

So this guy gets $100,000 in this instance? Is this the standard rate of pay for someone who's "job" is a "civil rights activist"?

You're first post was about the money, as is this ^ post. Heck of a way to make a living.

Angio Graham

Transparency. Observing and monitoring government is a vital function of a free republic. That is why the founding fathers wrote the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights that ALL Americans have a right to free press.

A police officer does NOT have the right to handcuff and arrest someone because they dont know who they are and decide to ensure they are free from harm.

Why do cyclists mount Go Pros on their bikes ? Are they baiting cars into hitting them ? Are they baiting police officers into arresting them ?

Chris516

I would agree with this, if it didn't seem to me, that the cop was, too.