It's silly that "I thought I was following the law" is absolute protection from all consequences for police, the rest of us are told "ignorance is no excuse"
That's one of the biggest FARCES in all of the worlds law arguments! Not knowing something gets people off of the courts hooks often! All of the time actually?
The amount of lawsuits filed against cops is beyond imagination and most are bogus along with attempts to remove them from patrol duty. They should be protected from such lawsuits. With that said, there needs to be reforms brought to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity only protects against civil suits and NOT against criminal charges
Qualified immunity seems circular. "Oh, you can't sue us even though we violated your rights because these exact same circumstances have never been litigated, and since you can't sue us these circumstances will never be litigated, so we can do it again!"
That's not exactly how qualified immunity works. The act itself has to qualify for immunity and technically when the legislators decides what qualifies for immunity they do consider if it should qualify for immunity. Your argument is circular cause in essence you are saying I shouldn't prosecute you for murder even though I can prove you murdered, because if it weren't for murder being illegal I couldn't prosecute you so I should let you go to murder again. Best option when someone makes a mistake let it go if you don't think they are going to do it again otherwards stand your ground and even if you lose they are less likely to do it again to avoid the hassle.
Why are cops required to be put on notice of laws before being criminally charged but not citizens? Simple answer is everyone would have a get out of jail free card like the police do.
The policy is designed to encourage aggressive policing. They assume if police didn't know whether or not they would get into trouble, they would err on the side of caution.
A warning might be a good idea for breaking any law that didn't harm someone else (because you know if you're harming someone, but probably don't know all the countless laws that you are breaking).
Because the Police ARE NOT making those decisions based upon what an actual written law is, but how the numerous Courts that look at it after are going to decide on it later, which very often even the US Supreme Court splits 5 to 4.
I feel it should bother if not scare people how easy it is for police to charge you with a crime. It is borderline impossible to charge an officer for a crime, even if you have evidence of said crime!!
Wrong. Were you not listening? The police consulted an attorney, then went to a judge for a warrant, and then the evidence was presented to a grand jury (which is made up of citizens) to determine if there was reasonable evidence to file charges before the charges were brought.
@@MrTeff999Try to do that against a police officer is what I mean. See how long it takes for all that to happen when you need to file charges against a police officer or someone else like an elected official. See how the state attorney sets up a grand jury for you. All it takes is a cop or 2 to say something about you and the ball gets rolling.
He committed a crime he just got away with it. Police are not scary at all. He was imitating officers and pretending to be the city. That's not funny. That's not cool and that is illegal.
Let us not overlook this one thing: many people could not tell the difference between the genuine police web site and the satire web site. People thought that the satire was real. So perhaps the police department is indeed a joke.
@@WeThePeepHole333 Sure it could look official at a glance, but it would be satire when you read it. When people read absurd satire and believe it's real info about police, then something is wrong.
That mean the people was to lazy to find out their own truth. Just like people to lazy to find out if Fox News is real news or not. Most people thinks that Fox News is real news because they don't look into rather or not they are real news. Here how you tell the different. Real News can not lie. Entertainment channel can lie all they want to.
Legal advice normally looks like is there a way in which we can interpret this as unlawful? lawyer normally says technically you could under these stautes they don't advise whether it's lawful they advise how it can be interpreted.
I'm gonna need a very clear reason why nobody bothered to look up the applicable laws and realized that they were violating Uniform Code of Law Enforcement by winging it based on the opinion of a city employee with no legal authority.
Would be interesting to look at what it cost each and every person in legal fees and costs before deciding that "nobody won or lost". I'm betting that no-one except Novac lost a damn cent
And if the district court decides it was a frivolous lawsuit and the Sixth Circuit affirms, Novak would have to reimburse the officers and the city for _their_ legal costs!
I do wonder if someone has argued since a person is in pretrial custody, and later found guilty, then gets credit for that time served, and gets fined, and court costs as part of punishment. Why cannot someone who spends time in jail, and/or under bail conditions get a monetary credit in damages when found not guilty?
Much of this BS would stop if only one thing was enacted. Upon a dismissal, acquittal or other non guilty discharge of a case the state must pay the accused attorney's fees and costs. Give the state a little skin in the game.
I remember a case that the state tried to destroy an innocent man's life, attempted to destroy witnesses in order to get false testimony and cost him I believe 125 million in legal fees. He was find not guilty and the court said you can't recover any money because your corporation makes too much money. The goal of the prosecution was to win a contest. I found the case Howard Root founder of Vascular Solutions spent 25 million not 125 million for the defense of himself and all his employees. His story can be found on RUclips. Worth watching because to learn of the tactics of government hired attorneys.
The state is the taxpayers. The one thing American taxpayers are happy to spend money on is fucking up the lives of people they don't like. (Well, that and subsidizing billionaires. So two things.)
What's the point in having "civil rights" if the courts dismiss every violation? Also, he was 100% punished by being forced to pay for a defense attorney in his criminal case, while 100% of the officers and government attorneys time was paid for by taxpayers, including the defendant himself.
@@ryanmay3022 That would be ceased through extrajudicial means before it even got off the ground. The situation is much more bleak than people want to admit.
@@ClockworkGearhead the courts nor the federal government have no say in whether a Cobven3tion of States happens. The only role the federal government is LIMITED and SPECIFIC
Seems the District Court has it’s head up their own asses: “Seizing his phone and laptop did not block his means of communication” is not what the Fourth Amendment states. It states a citizen has a right to be secure in THEIR property. With the court’s logic, they can seize your home because you can live with somebody else. It is not a case that a person can make up for their loss by utilizing that of somebody else’s, the right is one’s own effects.
I am curious as of how did they show any disruption or impairment of police functions as they clearly were able to take complaints as usual and go after him with warrants, as usual, without any unusual police impairment or disruption?
They were distracted because their frigile ego's were hurt. Its sad the police wasted resources persuing this. Its even more sad the public has little to no recourse.
And there is the dirty bit. There is no lower bound established for 'disruption.' If the law didn't stipulate 'with an electronic device,' sneezing while an officer is talking to someone would carry the same weight. Yes, it would get thrown out later, but you can't beat the ride if they choose to take exception.
Unfortunately, there are many people who have no idea what parody is. If they see it online or in print, they think it's real. Years ago, I was handed a piece of paper saying BAN DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide). It listed several terrifying hazards of DHMO, and included a (probably fake) address in Santa Cruz, CA to write to. I passed it around to a bunch of smart people I knew, and they were shocked to learn that DHMO can cause brake failure in cars, respiratory distress and death in people, etc. I was shocked that they didn't see how funny it was.
Parma is a mayor's court and they are known for excessive tickets for victimless crimes because it is easy income. It is one of those cities you avoid like the plague if you have window tint
I am an attorney and once served on a grand jury. Only the prosecutor gets to present to the grand jury, they do not include any exculpatory evidence, and it is one-sided. Most grand jury‘s simply rubberstamp what the prosecutor wants. The fact that a grand jury found cause to proceed is essentially meaningless
The idea that probable cause functions as it's intended in these days is hysterical. It's pretty clear the department never bothered to stop and ask themselves what function does the Facebook page provide that he's disrupting?
A number of people called in to the police department to ask about the page. Excessive numbers of phone calls could overwhelm the department switchboard. If that happened, it WOULD be disruption of department operations. Imagine not being able to get through to your local police department to report an actual crime in progress-- and then learning the problem was due to some guy posting a confusing social media page!
They sought a legal opinion from DOJ and got a judge to sign a warrant. How much more did they need to do to satisfy you? I get it, you hate the police, but come on. At least bring valid complaints to the table.
@@bukka6697 you think the bar for getting a warrant is high? I'm not sure you've been paying attention to some of the ridiculous shit judges will sign off on.
They did stop, and they did ask their legal department. The cops were told to move forward what are supposed to be legal professionals. This is one case where placing blame on the cops is misguided.
Is distracting them from posting photos on Facebook bragging about their "huge" drug bust of 2 joints and 37 dollars really a "police function" that can be disrupted? Honestly who could justifiably believe that.
Dude probably should have included a disclaimer on the website indicating it was satire, and instead of copy and pasting the “official site notification,” he should have created a notification similar to it but make a joke as well. Lol
Just to be clear, an inditement by a grand jury means next to nothing, at least in Ohio. Prosecuters regularly bring weak cases in front of grand juries when they first get seated because they tend to rubber stamp what ever is brought before them. Steve I love your channel, but like you said in the video every one is wrong.
I had 4 officers claim qualified immunity in a fed case and it didn’t hold up. Qualified immunity is not a catch all shield. They lost that case. As a former LEO I was pissed. It cost me 40k but I got it all back.
That’s a circular argument, the cops are arguing they have immunity based on the magistrate issuing the warrants shows probable cause but the magistrates are only acting on what they’ve been told by the police who claimed to have found probable cause in their investigation.
@maryjane9842 Seems like a bit of an overreach there, civil war over revamping a justice system. It's more of a corruption issue I'm guessing. There are surely easier ways to reduce corruption. It just needs the political will to do it.
At least in Ohio, if you criticize the police you are obstructing them, because they have to spend time trying to figure out how they can get revenge for the criticism.
Impersonating a police officer or department is not protected speech and could cause more than uncomfortable feelings. This could have caused harm. If I set up a website/FB page impersonating a police department, then I could post anything I wanted to, which some might perceive as official communication. But I don't believe this particular case went that far due to the nature of some of the posts (i.e. abortion vans). It was obvious to any reasonable person that it was satire and he was rightfully acquitted. But he should have been more clear that the site was a parody.
@@robg77 that they use a FB page as an official form of communication is of concern to begin with since they don't even control the page to begin with, they are merely granted access to it. The page is and remains the exclusive property of FB who can at any time for any reason cut their access to it. They really should have their own website (ideally a .gov style) which the FB page links to with its posts rather than relying on FB itself.
I swear I thought that was a parody, GOVERNMENT having a ‘ministry of truth’?!? Obama legalized propaganda with H.R. 4310, Section 1078. So they can’t be held liable for lying. Wouldn’t repealing their own bill accomplish more than some prissy Czar of Truth could ever do?😆
To Plaintiff's Lawyer According to the Department of Disinformation, the statements which you have been making in court in this case, to the effect that the Department of Disinformation is violating your client's civil rights, is disinformation. Therefore, in the. interest of the integrity of the Court, we are at this time revoking your licence to practice. The State Bar
Now that the dude was acquited, does it mean the right to mock a police department on Facebook is clearly established, and in a situation similar to this in the future, a lawsuit against the government could proceed? If not, when would such a right become clearly established?
The problem was that he impersonated the police department, causing disruption to the city's operations and alarming the public. He didn't get in trouble for merely criticizing the police. When does such a right become clearly established? Well, here in Ohio it does now, because the 6th circuit has rendered its opinions, that is how these borderline issues get settled. The first officers to deal with a gray area get a pass, while later officers are put on notice and are held to account.
11:30 If I ask Facebook to do something, I might be lucky to ever get a non automated response. If a police department “asks” Facebook to do something, that is an entirely different matter. I would argue that it was indeed not a “request” towards Facebook. If the police “requested” that I save camera footage at work for a case they were working on I would not look at that as a “request” but more of a “requirement”.
You could probably have a lawyer contact Facebook and request that they preserve records if you actually needed it for a legal case. And there is a big difference between preserving data, and turning it over. If they have to get a warrant or subpoena for that data, that is way more respect for privacy than social media normally has.
@@Br3ttM Notice the lawyer part there. The grunt in the bowels of facebook’s bureaucracy is going to look at that request and kick it up the chain till someone who knows a thing will take care of it. For my Joe Schmo request, again it’s lucky to get something other then an automated reply.
So, as long as a judge signs off on a warrant, the officers maintain qualified immunity? I can name countless cases where every step of the process acted directly against clearly established rights, from detectives, prosecutors, and judges to the jury and even appellate court, only to be overturned. If a judge disagrees with clearly established law, and they approve of a warrant, do the officers automatocally have qualified immunity?
I’m not a fan of vague, catch all laws. “Disrupting Police Operations (by Computer, or otherwise)”? And with “no lower bound”. That could be almost anything. Certainly any kind of of protest could theoretically disrupt something.
That's not what they were arguing, its actually even stupider. The disruption was other people been idiots and calling the police station to query them about the parody page. Arguably the other people disrupted policing because they are stupid morons who can't tell a real and parody website appart. Also a FB page should never be deemed the official website for any official organisation. They should have their own website, and their FB page should merely act as a way to link to it and should not be used for any official announcements (atleast not ones that don't link to the official site also announcing the same thing). This is all because at the end of the day, FB owns the FB page, not them, you don't own your social media, you are merely permitted to use services provided by SM companies, who retain full ownership.
IMO this person (who thought himself so very clever) shouldn’t have set-up an exact Facebook police page. His ego was out there, more than his right to free speech. Then he worried about getting in trouble, so he took it down and trouble did came knocking at his door. It all added up to a big wasted of time and money.
As a former member of a grand juror I'm really curious how this was laid out to the jury to get them to agree on charges. Funny thing about information given to grand jurors. It's always very one sided and very little is mentioned about people's rights. Btw. Many police departments don't run their social media accounts they have social media people who do that because they are usually younger and run sm the way only a youngster can. So saying he was impersonating police might be a big stretch when a police officer might not be doing their own sm accounts
It's also worth noting you don't own your SM accounts, the SM company does, they just let you use their services. A SM account should never be used for official communications by an official organisation. At most it should be used to direct people to actual official websites and highlight things going on there. Also the "disruption" arguement here is invalid. He never disrupted anything, the moronic members of the public contacting them did that, that they are too stupid to be able to spot a fake/scam site isn't his problem.
@@cgi2002 for some reason you think I was talking about who owns a SM account. Maybe legal aspects of sm is your thing but I do hope you read contracts better than you read my post which had ZERO to do with whatever the hell you ranted about. You know what, nevermind. Dense is a word that comes to mind trying to respond to you.
@@rockchildofthe60s69 notice how I said "it's also worth". I was adding onto what you said, not countering it or disputing it, more information is generally a good thing. However if you want countering, the "young person" your referring to is technically an employee of the police department, which means they are allowed to, if it's part of their job, represent the police department without been a police officer, they are not impersonating the police, they are acting as a legal representative of the police with all the authority and responsibility that entails. However someone creating a non-parody SM page would technically be impersonatong the police as they do not have the protections of been a police department employee. The laws regarding impersonation generally isn't limited to just impersonating a police officer, it also covers other law enforcement employees, their facilities, vehicles and documentation. Sometimes there may be a caveat regarding attempting to deceive, but it's not nessersarily a requirement, it depends on local laws.
@@cgi2002 OK I am not reading your sa trying to justify your ridiculous post. You just don't want to say you are ranting at me because you thought you..hell I don't know what you are thinking but you really should either learn to read or learn to say you screwed up when you screwed up. Now just stop talking to me
@@rockchildofthe60s69 I apologise if I managed to somehow annoy you, it was never my intent. I merely attempted to add more to what you said, and then pointed out the potential flaw in what you said afterwards. So sorry if trying to discuss something offends you, but it does explain why you were selected for a grand jury, you don't want the full arguement, you just want the part that fits your viewpoint, which is how the people putting together grand juries want them.
I suspect this isnt the last we have heard of this case. But I could be wrong. This case is further proof that qualified immunity needs to die in fire, and right now.
Qualified Immunity is so broken. The ONLY version that should be kept is when someone saves someone's life, aka Good Samaritan Law. Maybe 3 strikes law for Cops, they only get 3 QI's, then it's outta their pocket
Disagree that this case is a reason for that. Yes, QI needs to be done away with ASAP, but the cops reasonably believed that they were ok due to the law director's bad take on the issue. They didn't just go off half cocked as usual, they actually sought input from a law professional.
If anything, this case would be the rare few where QI is reasonable. The action of the individual is quite excessive on its face, the police did seek legal counsel. There is nothing they could reasonably do to be more certain. I've always been of the opinion that QI needs to be significantly weakened but not removed, precisely due to stuff like this. Very few things in life should be all or nothing--all in the way it currently works and nothing in the way people like you think.
Tbh the suit here is misaimed, those judges and the lawyer should be I included in its targets. They are the ones who actively started this mess. Also the arguement of judges disagreeing, on a sample size of 2. I can find you 2 people who think the moon is actually made of cheese, it doesn't mean everyone else agrees.
@@cgi2002 the problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that in addition to legislators, prosecutors and judges are absolutely immune from lawsuits when it comes to their judicial decision-making
I can't help but think the people who drafted qualified immunity are shaking their heads at what it's turned into. Perhaps not, since I'm not amazingly familiar with its roots, but the sheer pettiness it protects now is an affront to justice. This is not a situation where qualified immunity should be sacrosanct. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse of violating the law -- any law, no matter how minor or out of touch with the current year it is. But for a police officer, it's more of a guideline.
The police are the only people for whom ignorance **IS** an excuse for violating the law, and when they violate the law they can put on a pretty convincing appearance of ignorance or stupidity, or both. If I ever run for office, I'll do so on a single pair of issues: END QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; END CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE.
Nobody wants to fix it, all they have to do is have a review board for every case with a government official. We don't have to get rid of QI just make it a case by case situation
The main problem with QI is the language. The fact that it is only forfeited if there was a prior precedent is what makes it problematic. How can you have precedent of something if technically there can't be any precedent of said thing the first time it was argued in court? Getting rid of the precedent clause may make QI still work, and those that abuse it can be held accountable.
The ONLY thing that qualified immunity should cover is when the police can legitimately prove they reasonably believed someone's life depended on a split-second decision. Let an armed man flee into a neighborhood or shoot him in the back? You don't want to take two minutes reviewing the latest rulings. Going to break down someone's door and search their house because you think you may have heard someone say something that could potentially be construed as incriminating? Go do your due diligence to make sure you've got enough. If you don't, you're liable.
It's a gray area due to the extra work that he did to try and make it seem like the real police page. But my first thought was "Play stupid games and win stupid prizes." On that note- Why do police departments have a Facebook page?
So they can boast about their haul of illegal fireworks... which was initiated by another jurisdiction who traced it to a warehouse in my city, then got my city's PD involved. Meanwhile, my neighbors are able to rain hot debris and trash all over my property, and my city's police department is incapable of stopping them. Can't see fireworks launching into the sky at night, apparently. Another local PD has been using Facebook to crow about their arrests of catalytic converter thieves.
@@exrobowidow1617 I feel you. Nobody ever seems to aim fireworks toward their own property. I have the same issue. And if the cops come.. they just stop and deny. Then they treat you like you are somehow the bad guy for calling out their extremely rude behavior.
What a waste of time and money. I think sending a notice to Facebook that this page was intentionally impersonating the real page and shut it down, or put up notice that it's parody or change the page
Unless they can prove the calls coming into the call center about the fake page prevented the call center from answering other calls there was no probable cause. Therefore there was no disruption to the police so asking for the arrest warrant in the first place doesn't stand up so everything from that point on was malicious. He should absolutely be able to sue everyone involved.
7:24 Sounds like that statute is bad law, if satire is a violation of that statute, then that statute violates the first amendment, pretty bloody clearly. 17:02 Granting them qualified immunity *does* mean that their actions are "justified" or "should be condoned" in the eyes of the court. The court may say the opposite of that, but they're implicitly endorsing such conduct.
Brookside Police Department(Alabama) deleted their Facebook page after the media scandal broke out. People were relentlessly trolling it. Someone started a new one to give people a place to keep the trolling going. I’ve been waiting on something like this to happen to the person that created the new page.
Facebook shouldn't be allowing government entities to have pages in the first place. This means that taxpayers are funding jobs where government lackeys can be on social media all day whilst at work! It's wholly uneffical, if not downright illegal.
@@GeorgeVCohea-dw7ou Why? Government entities need to have methods of interacting with the public and a large percent of the public prefer way of contact is Facebook.
@@arthurmarshall6825 As far as I am aware, no police station has been shut down, and it's a bit weird to ask for assistance or file a police report through a questionable third party website with very limited privacy control. Nah, it's just a poor excuse by some nil-brained government drone to be on social media all day without drawing attention to themselves. If you need to interact with the police remotely, the numbers are 911 or 311 as the particular circumstance most appropriately fits.
@@arthurmarshall6825 IF a government entity really feels they have to have a Facebook page, all it should do is serve as a pointer to their .gov website.
@@MonkeyJedi99 But it's such a great place for the local police to brag about their latest haul of catalytic converter thieves! And for the Health Department to keep everyone up to date on the latest C*D-19 "information."
More circular logic in the legal system as all of them are unnecessarily assumed to be right, independent, and their integrity is never questioned at first despite those in these positions having demonstrated a lack of one or all characteristics time and time again.
I like how they don’t address the cozy relationships between the judges and law enforcement. Just because two different judges signed off on an unconstitutional arrest doesn’t mean the police are innocent. In fact, it may be an indication that the judges are guilty as well. Of course they won’t be investigated. Because, duh, they have a cozy relationship with those who would be charged with investigating them. Long story short, it’s a sycophantic circle jerk between the cops and judges.
I think Qualified Immunity here is correct. They judges warrants are pretty powerful defense. I hate qualified immunity, but it is the rule of law here, and if you apply logic, then in this case, they did what they were told the law required them to do.
Rule of law is incorrect in reference to qualified immunity. There is no law properly enacted that allows or sets up qualified immunity. It was generated by the Supreme Court that has zero law enactment powers.
What is up with all the sovcits in the comments? Sovcits, frauditors, Moors, and flat-earthers have no ability to apply logic. They have difficulties trying to apply butter to bread. They are selfish individuals who want to do whatever they want without any repercussions.
Wrong. A retired police officer on here posts on things like this. He says it very easy to get a warrant. "Good Luck America" is the name. The officer just says " I think a crime has been commited" Judge say , Okay here is your warrant."
If the page was clearly a spoof then no harm done. Free speech. Going out of the way to make the page easily confused with the real McCoy, that's a problem. All of this seems to be seriously mishandled. And who ends up picking up the tab, the taxpayers. This kind of thing is tiresome.
I could be wrong, but it seems like the law they used to arrest him should be the focus. Using a computer to disrupt the police, seems like it was intended for hacking like. How many calls did they really have to answer his fake page really rise to that level.
Yes, the spirit of the law , but we know how they are able to twist the true meaning of a law to fit their narrative. They are allowed to do this all the time. A good judge wouldn't allow it regardless of the outcome. In this case they all needed to stick together or they would all be wrong, the good old boys clubs seem strong all over.
If Novak spent 4 days in jail before he could raise bail, he has a case, whatever the Sixth Circus opines. The law the Parma cops uses seems to be a lot like the charge "obstruction of governmental administration." A catch-all crime, like disorderly conduct. Had the cops been a little smarter (IQ over 90), they would have issued Novak a desk appearance ticket for him to show up in court. But the Parma police wanted to make an example of Novak and the taxpayers there now foot the legal bills.
from my feely standpoint, if you don't mark somewhere that it's satire and then copy the statement that says "this is the official police page" then you deserve some trouble
You cannot parade around as a law enforcement officer. Dressed as one in the local law enforcement officers. Did anyone think the page was the official page?
I wanted to Express my gratitude to you and your members for the enjoyment, knowledge, and entertainment you bring to me. So many eye opening and thought provoking things are amazing. Thank you all so much!!
That isn't a valid argument. 'Well, the judge granted the probable cause warrant.' Judges basically rubber stamp these. Its like saying the greeter at walmart let you leave, so you had permission to shoplift.
Then sue the judge for not doing his job properly. The argument is that the *police* is not at fault. And for once, I'd say that's reasonable. If you think some other party are failing, go after them.
While I agree with this in principal, there's absolutely no consequences for bad judicial behavior. There's no recourse to hold them accountable and there's no consequences if this is actually the case. Legally speaking though, it's got judicial review and approval and that's all that's needed from the legal standpoint. There needs to be a mechanism where complaints against judges are taken seriously and have consequences for the judges; there are too many bad judges out there that really dont do their jobs or hold their position with any respect for the law at all. (even 1 is too many, in my opinion)
Steve would you have anything to say about the Johnny Depp - Amber Heard trial ? She admitted in her recorded tapes that she was physically abusive to him and when he said if there was to be physical abuse they had to separate. She was recorded ( by herself ) as saying she was not sure she could promise to be nonviolent as she would become So mad when they fought.
They didn't know what law he broke when they went to retaliate against him with the arrest. If they would of been able to put a law to name instead of following up after getting the warrant. It simply shouldnt stand.
Can you sue the judge for signing the initial warrant? I feel like if we could sue the judge or magistrate that sign these search and arrest warrants, they might read through them and sign them more carefully.
@@knerduno5942 I don’t think that the police lied, necessarily. It was up to the lawyers and judges to recognize that an arrest and seizure was not appropriate.
Very interesting case! I'm on the side of the person who was harassed by the cops - they had the page taken down, that should have been the end of the story.
Imagine having to spend 4 days in jail over a satirical facebook page making fun of the police. I thought that freedom of speech was the first right printed on the bill of rights!
Freedom of Speech IS the first Amendment, but as I understand it, it's not that the Facebook page was just satirical or critical of the police. If that's all it was, he could have had the page up for a hundred years. But he tried as hard as he could to make his page look like the real police department page, not an obvious satire, even to the copying of the statement that his page was the real police department page. That is just downright idiotically stupid. He should have made it look like an OBVIOUS satire, and people may have gotten some laughs from it!! What would happen to you or me if we made a replica of a federal government or state government or city/county Facebook or web page? We could be accused of scamming people; scammers imitate legitimate websites or Facebook pages in an effort to trick people. Why would he put himself in such obvious trouble? What if he tried to copy dollar bills and then claim they were "satirical"? "Oh, I put a little wingding down in the corner, everybody should know it's not real. . ." Would that be his defense?? I have no sympathy for him. Again, I am not saying he has no freedom of speech, and maybe the city could have taken him to civil court to explain why he can't imitate an official Facebook page and could have compelled him to take it down without arresting him. I don't know; I'm not a lawyer. But this guy could have gone about this in a better way and protected himself from all the fallout. He just did a really dumb thing. . .
@@Br3ttM You're telling me that _need_ a FB page? That it somehow interrupts their function as police if they don't have one? That what you're saying? And it's so important it can be used to nullify free speech protections? Okay, explain how.
@@ClockworkGearhead Doesn't matter why the police have a Facebook page; if they're allowed to have one, then they can have one. To imitate someone else's page to the extent of trying to make it look like that person's or agency's page is just really dumb, especially if it's the page of a government agency. Would someone put on a police uniform, try to make it look really official, and then go around doing stupid things? No; one could be arrested for impersonating a police officer, and that's a crime. Scammers try to claim they're the FBI or IRS or Sheriff's department when they call people; they try to make web pages that look like B of A or Wells Fargo so people will be fooled and hand over their money. That's not allowed, and neither should closely mimicking a government, or anyone else's web or Facebook page be allowed without a clear statement that said page is a parody and/or satire. I'm all for subtlety, and subtlety is allowed under free speech rules, but copying an official government page and claiming that it's the official page isn't subtle; it's just plain stupid.
What’s funny is you can actually approach the Facebook admin’s and have them take care of it. They now have the ability and likelihood to take down a fake spoofing page like this. Especially if it’s causing confusion of government services and emergency services especially.
Both the defendant and taxpayers paid but it was the Police and the DA who made the decisions to waste everybody's time and money. End Qualified Immunity and make the appropriate parties liable when abuse of the system occurs. Let the chips fall where they will. I bet you would see a great amount of constraint from the Police and DAs in future cases.
Exactly... The crime they were charging him for... What was the maximum punishment? If it didn't include jail time.... Then it wouldn't justify arresting him in the first place.
Considering how one-sided the process is, I won't address the possible idiocy of the page's author (who could simply have labelled his page "satire") but I think there is something to be learned, here. The problem with qualified immunity is that it doesn't just protect police in the appropriate course of their lawful duties, but it also protects morons with no sense of humor, and nothing better to do. In this case, an officer, a magistrate, and a city judge, all of whom should have known better.
When the judge and city attorney are part of the same government entity being mocked their ruling should not apply to allow violation of first amendment rights. They should be held under the same retaliation rules as they are too close to be unbiased.
Never understood why police departments and government offices have Facebook pages. Seems like they shouldn't be able too and should have a government Facebook.
By creating a counterfeit police Facebook page, he falsely represented himself as a spokesman of the police. He even claimed on his page that it was the official page. In most countries it is illegal to pose as a police authority or falsely pretend to represent them. It's amazing he is not still in prison.
Had the dude put a disclaimer up that it was a mock page and satire, he could still have his page and not go through all this crap. I run a facebook group for recording calls from the local police scanner. Yes, people seek these kinds of pages out, as they are very nosey. My group is nothing more than me transcribing what comes over the radio but I've had people think it's some kind of paid county group. I pinned a thread explaining it's a volunteer group and we only record public info off the radio. The little group explained in size, 14 thousand members now, has a spin off group for events and socializing. The local leaders love it! Sorry, but this dude was dishonest and brought the trouble on himself.
How is ignorance of the law a reasonable excuse for law enforcement, yet judges have clearly ruled that ignorance of the law IS NOT an excuse for committing a crime?
Leave it to law enforcement to waste time arresting this man for playing a joke and acting on his legal free speech..One more reason I have lost any and all respect for police! They are a bunch of bullies! Trust me if I was falsley arrested like him I would make it my life's goal to follow through with them in court!
Can you please do a video involving pedal powered bar/taverns and DUI laws? I am sure the bar owners have all the permits and licenses required by the city. I am sure there is a story somewhere about the cop (who didn't get the memo) who arrested all the patrons for DUI because they are "driving" (pedaling) while drinking. Possibly open container violations, also? Love you videos, Haven't missed one in 3 years!
I talked to a guy who was 🛑 for ~ "DUI pedestrian" Walked by a store on a sunny ☀️ day while on his way to work, for a 20 oz soda. He put in a paper sack to keep the sun off of it and he was sipping it on his way to work. 👮 cop saw this and stopped him 🛑 thought he was walking and drinking. 🥴 He unsheathed the bottle 🤣 what this, get out of here, I'm not drinking. cop left 👮😡 likely annoyed he couldn't arrest him. 🙄
This attitude is why I will no longer consider rendering assistance to any law enforcement officer for any reason...including to save their lives. It seems like the only recourse citizens have anymore given the government's "us/them" attitude.
@@Reno_Slim I wasn't joking. You are obligated, legally. In many states, they can arrest you if you don't. This is even after the Supreme Court's ruling the police are not obligated to protect citizens in turn.
It's silly that "I thought I was following the law" is absolute protection from all consequences for police, the rest of us are told "ignorance is no excuse"
@@contradictorycrow4327 ... what?
Absolutely! The double standard violates the Constitutions requirement that all laws be universal.
Selective enforcement in their own terms.
@@TurboWorld hopefully he won't get a surprise tax audit next month.
The difference is, You don't have a badge.
The problem with the probable cause is that it’s hard to find a district judge to disagree with cops.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you’re a cop 👮♀️, Pathetic.
Abolish qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture now.
That's one of the biggest FARCES in all of the worlds law arguments! Not knowing something gets people off of the courts hooks often! All of the time actually?
1312
You are wise.
The amount of lawsuits filed against cops is beyond imagination and most are bogus along with attempts to remove them from patrol duty. They should be protected from such lawsuits. With that said, there needs to be reforms brought to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity only protects against civil suits and NOT against criminal charges
It would be nice to know that the website you go to for information is reliable. The dude is just a troublemaker IMO.
Qualified immunity seems circular. "Oh, you can't sue us even though we violated your rights because these exact same circumstances have never been litigated, and since you can't sue us these circumstances will never be litigated, so we can do it again!"
_Exactly!_ It's worse than CAF!
That's the point.
A veritable _Catch-22!_ And in many areas of Law Enforcement, qualified immunity basically serves to render absolute immunity.
That's not exactly how qualified immunity works. The act itself has to qualify for immunity and technically when the legislators decides what qualifies for immunity they do consider if it should qualify for immunity. Your argument is circular cause in essence you are saying I shouldn't prosecute you for murder even though I can prove you murdered, because if it weren't for murder being illegal I couldn't prosecute you so I should let you go to murder again. Best option when someone makes a mistake let it go if you don't think they are going to do it again otherwards stand your ground and even if you lose they are less likely to do it again to avoid the hassle.
Section 230
Why are cops required to be put on notice of laws before being criminally charged but not citizens? Simple answer is everyone would have a get out of jail free card like the police do.
And now you know who the real SovCits are.
@@yoshisaidit7250 came here to type this
The policy is designed to encourage aggressive policing. They assume if police didn't know whether or not they would get into trouble, they would err on the side of caution.
A warning might be a good idea for breaking any law that didn't harm someone else (because you know if you're harming someone, but probably don't know all the countless laws that you are breaking).
Because the Police ARE NOT making those decisions based upon what an actual written law is, but how the numerous Courts that look at it after are going to decide on it later, which very often even the US Supreme Court splits 5 to 4.
I feel it should bother if not scare people how easy it is for police to charge you with a crime. It is borderline impossible to charge an officer for a crime, even if you have evidence of said crime!!
Wrong. Were you not listening? The police consulted an attorney, then went to a judge for a warrant, and then the evidence was presented to a grand jury (which is made up of citizens) to determine if there was reasonable evidence to file charges before the charges were brought.
@@MrTeff999Try to do that against a police officer is what I mean. See how long it takes for all that to happen when you need to file charges against a police officer or someone else like an elected official. See how the state attorney sets up a grand jury for you. All it takes is a cop or 2 to say something about you and the ball gets rolling.
@@ozzbud9049 If it were easy to bring charges against cops, do you think it might make it hard to have a police department?
@@ozzbud9049 Yep. Life is unfair.
He committed a crime he just got away with it. Police are not scary at all. He was imitating officers and pretending to be the city. That's not funny. That's not cool and that is illegal.
Let us not overlook this one thing: many people could not tell the difference between the genuine police web site and the satire web site. People thought that the satire was real. So perhaps the police department is indeed a joke.
So the man could not be a bad azz Webmaster & Tech Savage???
@@WeThePeepHole333 Sure it could look official at a glance, but it would be satire when you read it. When people read absurd satire and believe it's real info about police, then something is wrong.
as are so many ignorant and dumb voters in the US who repeatedly keep electing democRATS!
That mean the people was to lazy to find out their own truth. Just like people to lazy to find out if Fox News is real news or not. Most people thinks that Fox News is real news because they don't look into rather or not they are real news. Here how you tell the different. Real News can not lie. Entertainment channel can lie all they want to.
All police departments are jokes.
Can we take a moment to appreciate the fact that they sought legal advice before proceeding to charge him?
and they were wrong..scary
NOPE...
Legal advice normally looks like is there a way in which we can interpret this as unlawful? lawyer normally says technically you could under these stautes they don't advise whether it's lawful they advise how it can be interpreted.
Whoever gave them that advice should be fired
@@peter-pg5ycthey weren't wrong so no scariness. Just cuz the jury got it wrong Doesn't mean the police were wrong.
The laws in this country have become so convoluted, so complicated that judges and lawyers can't figure it
out.
Further The Laws Are Not Even Laws for that matter! They are codes, ordinances, policies, mandates, & etc!
They knew. They played the word game.
No... They understand it fine. They use it to protect themselves and enslave you.
I'm gonna need a very clear reason why nobody bothered to look up the applicable laws and realized that they were violating Uniform Code of Law Enforcement by winging it based on the opinion of a city employee with no legal authority.
Would be interesting to look at what it cost each and every person in legal fees and costs before deciding that "nobody won or lost".
I'm betting that no-one except Novac lost a damn cent
And if the district court decides it was a frivolous lawsuit and the Sixth Circuit affirms, Novak would have to reimburse the officers and the city for _their_ legal costs!
Yep, the police administration used taxpayer's money like they always do for any of their misdeeds.
I do wonder if someone has argued since a person is in pretrial custody, and later found guilty, then gets credit for that time served, and gets fined, and court costs as part of punishment. Why cannot someone who spends time in jail, and/or under bail conditions get a monetary credit in damages when found not guilty?
As a person that was living in Parma at the time …I paid
Taxpayers lost all round on this
Much of this BS would stop if only one thing was enacted. Upon a dismissal, acquittal or other non guilty discharge of a case the state must pay the accused attorney's fees and costs. Give the state a little skin in the game.
that would too closely resemble actual justice
I remember a case that the state tried to destroy an innocent man's life, attempted to destroy witnesses in order to get false testimony and cost him I believe 125 million in legal fees. He was find not guilty and the court said you can't recover any money because your corporation makes too much money. The goal of the prosecution was to win a contest. I found the case Howard Root founder of Vascular Solutions spent 25 million not 125 million for the defense of himself and all his employees. His story can be found on RUclips. Worth watching because to learn of the tactics of government hired attorneys.
The state is the taxpayers. The one thing American taxpayers are happy to spend money on is fucking up the lives of people they don't like. (Well, that and subsidizing billionaires. So two things.)
Even better, make constitutional violations a criminal act.
No, we taxpayers are already fleeced enough to cover these pigs' asses. They need to pay individually and forfeit benefits/pensions
What's the point in having "civil rights" if the courts dismiss every violation? Also, he was 100% punished by being forced to pay for a defense attorney in his criminal case, while 100% of the officers and government attorneys time was paid for by taxpayers, including the defendant himself.
See you just need to hold a few million bucks in assets, then your civil rights are protected (because you have the means to sue)
Convention of States
@@ryanmay3022 That would be ceased through extrajudicial means before it even got off the ground. The situation is much more bleak than people want to admit.
@@ClockworkGearhead the courts nor the federal government have no say in whether a Cobven3tion of States happens.
The only role the federal government is LIMITED and SPECIFIC
@@ryanmay3022 I didn't say judicial. I said: extrajudicial.
Seems the District Court has it’s head up their own asses:
“Seizing his phone and laptop did not block his means of communication” is not what the Fourth Amendment states. It states a citizen has a right to be secure in THEIR property.
With the court’s logic, they can seize your home because you can live with somebody else.
It is not a case that a person can make up for their loss by utilizing that of somebody else’s, the right is one’s own effects.
Civil Asset Forfeiture says, "Hold my beer"
Yeah… without my computer and phone I couldnt log into anything as I use second factor auth and managed passwords.
USA Government goal regardless of which party runs it: "You will own nothing and be happy."
@@logansmall5148 I thought it says, "Let me hold your beer. And drink it."
I am curious as of how did they show any disruption or impairment of police functions as they clearly were able to take complaints as usual and go after him with warrants, as usual, without any unusual police impairment or disruption?
I'm more curious as to how useful a police Facebook page could actually be.
They were distracted because their frigile ego's were hurt. Its sad the police wasted resources persuing this. Its even more sad the public has little to no recourse.
The knock-off site was causing confusion among citizens looking for the genuine police site. That's disruption.
@@frankmartin8471 how is it disrupting police activity. No one goes to Facebook to make a complaint or do official business
And there is the dirty bit. There is no lower bound established for 'disruption.' If the law didn't stipulate 'with an electronic device,' sneezing while an officer is talking to someone would carry the same weight. Yes, it would get thrown out later, but you can't beat the ride if they choose to take exception.
"Free abortions in a police van" should have hilariously verified to the reader that it was parody lol
Is there a way we can see the archived page? I bet it's funny.
Remember there are people dumb enough to believe almost everything they see on the internet.
Not with conservatives who believe EVERYTHING they see on Facebook. These are the same morons who think Qanon is legit.
Unfortunately, there are many people who have no idea what parody is. If they see it online or in print, they think it's real. Years ago, I was handed a piece of paper saying BAN DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide). It listed several terrifying hazards of DHMO, and included a (probably fake) address in Santa Cruz, CA to write to. I passed it around to a bunch of smart people I knew, and they were shocked to learn that DHMO can cause brake failure in cars, respiratory distress and death in people, etc. I was shocked that they didn't see how funny it was.
Sadly republican politicians believe satire websites like the onion as real. It is sad and funny.
Nobody got anything out of this, except the lawyers.
An absolute SHOCKER, I tell you!
Parma is a mayor's court and they are known for excessive tickets for victimless crimes because it is easy income. It is one of those cities you avoid like the plague if you have window tint
I am an attorney and once served on a grand jury. Only the prosecutor gets to present to the grand jury, they do not include any exculpatory evidence, and it is one-sided. Most grand jury‘s simply rubberstamp what the prosecutor wants. The fact that a grand jury found cause to proceed is essentially meaningless
Good reason for a grand jury to "Judge the Law". cf. John Jay.
Grand is the term for Grant Jury, who grants what the prosecutor wants.
Well said and thank you sir
Hope you refused to indict in every single case.
Especially a first day on the job "Monday morning" jury.
The idea that probable cause functions as it's intended in these days is hysterical.
It's pretty clear the department never bothered to stop and ask themselves what function does the Facebook page provide that he's disrupting?
A number of people called in to the police department to ask about the page. Excessive numbers of phone calls could overwhelm the department switchboard. If that happened, it WOULD be disruption of department operations. Imagine not being able to get through to your local police department to report an actual crime in progress-- and then learning the problem was due to some guy posting a confusing social media page!
They sought a legal opinion from DOJ and got a judge to sign a warrant. How much more did they need to do to satisfy you? I get it, you hate the police, but come on. At least bring valid complaints to the table.
@@bukka6697 you think the bar for getting a warrant is high? I'm not sure you've been paying attention to some of the ridiculous shit judges will sign off on.
They did stop, and they did ask their legal department. The cops were told to move forward what are supposed to be legal professionals. This is one case where placing blame on the cops is misguided.
Is distracting them from posting photos on Facebook bragging about their "huge" drug bust of 2 joints and 37 dollars really a "police function" that can be disrupted? Honestly who could justifiably believe that.
Dude probably should have included a disclaimer on the website indicating it was satire, and instead of copy and pasting the “official site notification,” he should have created a notification similar to it but make a joke as well. Lol
Just to be clear, an inditement by a grand jury means next to nothing, at least in Ohio. Prosecuters regularly bring weak cases in front of grand juries when they first get seated because they tend to rubber stamp what ever is brought before them. Steve I love your channel, but like you said in the video every one is wrong.
It still takes liability off the officers personally, because the grand jury would be responsible for deciding to arrest someone.
I had 4 officers claim qualified immunity in a fed case and it didn’t hold up. Qualified immunity is not a catch all shield. They lost that case. As a former LEO I was pissed. It cost me 40k but I got it all back.
Wouldn't Facebook shut the account down as a fake account if asked by the PD? No prosecution necessary
That’s a circular argument, the cops are arguing they have immunity based on the magistrate issuing the warrants shows probable cause but the magistrates are only acting on what they’ve been told by the police who claimed to have found probable cause in their investigation.
But you can break the circularity if you show that the police gave the magistrate false information. That didn't happen here.
@maryjane9842 Seems like a bit of an overreach there, civil war over revamping a justice system. It's more of a corruption issue I'm guessing. There are surely easier ways to reduce corruption. It just needs the political will to do it.
@maryjane9842 Calm down, buddy. There are problems, sometimes big ones, but the answer rarely is killing let's say 10% of the population.
At least in Ohio, if you criticize the police you are obstructing them, because they have to spend time trying to figure out how they can get revenge for the criticism.
Free Speech is important even though it might be uncomfortable to some people.
You can be a prick but if you are a free prick, it all good.
Depends on the speech. And the results of the free speech. Opinions are free.
Impersonating a police officer or department is not protected speech and could cause more than uncomfortable feelings. This could have caused harm. If I set up a website/FB page impersonating a police department, then I could post anything I wanted to, which some might perceive as official communication. But I don't believe this particular case went that far due to the nature of some of the posts (i.e. abortion vans). It was obvious to any reasonable person that it was satire and he was rightfully acquitted. But he should have been more clear that the site was a parody.
@@Subject_Keter no one ever said people were immune from the consequences of utilizing free speech.
@@robg77 that they use a FB page as an official form of communication is of concern to begin with since they don't even control the page to begin with, they are merely granted access to it. The page is and remains the exclusive property of FB who can at any time for any reason cut their access to it.
They really should have their own website (ideally a .gov style) which the FB page links to with its posts rather than relying on FB itself.
I have a feeling that we're going to see a lot of 1st amendment lawsuits involving the new DHS "ministry of truth" moving forward.
I swear I thought that was a parody, GOVERNMENT having a ‘ministry of truth’?!? Obama legalized propaganda with H.R. 4310, Section 1078. So they can’t be held liable for lying. Wouldn’t repealing their own bill accomplish more than some prissy Czar of Truth could ever do?😆
To Plaintiff's Lawyer
According to the Department of Disinformation, the statements which you have been making in court in this case, to the effect that the Department of Disinformation is violating your client's civil rights, is disinformation.
Therefore, in the. interest of the integrity of the Court, we are at this time revoking your licence to practice.
The State Bar
That real fact is not on our list of approved good facts.
The greatest Injustice was he had to spend 4 days in jail because they said a bond too high for such a trivial matter and they done it on purpose
Did he have to wait because of the amount, or did he have to wait to even get the hearing in the first place?
Now that the dude was acquited, does it mean the right to mock a police department on Facebook is clearly established, and in a situation similar to this in the future, a lawsuit against the government could proceed? If not, when would such a right become clearly established?
The problem was that he impersonated the police department, causing disruption to the city's operations and alarming the public. He didn't get in trouble for merely criticizing the police. When does such a right become clearly established? Well, here in Ohio it does now, because the 6th circuit has rendered its opinions, that is how these borderline issues get settled. The first officers to deal with a gray area get a pass, while later officers are put on notice and are held to account.
11:30 If I ask Facebook to do something, I might be lucky to ever get a non automated response. If a police department “asks” Facebook to do something, that is an entirely different matter. I would argue that it was indeed not a “request” towards Facebook. If the police “requested” that I save camera footage at work for a case they were working on I would not look at that as a “request” but more of a “requirement”.
You could probably have a lawyer contact Facebook and request that they preserve records if you actually needed it for a legal case. And there is a big difference between preserving data, and turning it over. If they have to get a warrant or subpoena for that data, that is way more respect for privacy than social media normally has.
@@Br3ttM
Notice the lawyer part there. The grunt in the bowels of facebook’s bureaucracy is going to look at that request and kick it up the chain till someone who knows a thing will take care of it. For my Joe Schmo request, again it’s lucky to get something other then an automated reply.
So, as long as a judge signs off on a warrant, the officers maintain qualified immunity?
I can name countless cases where every step of the process acted directly against clearly established rights, from detectives, prosecutors, and judges to the jury and even appellate court, only to be overturned. If a judge disagrees with clearly established law, and they approve of a warrant, do the officers automatocally have qualified immunity?
"Acting reasonably" is a commodity in short supply.
I’m not a fan of vague, catch all laws. “Disrupting Police Operations (by Computer, or otherwise)”? And with “no lower bound”. That could be almost anything. Certainly any kind of of protest could theoretically disrupt something.
Vague laws are great for authoritarians as they can be used to target those whom they disagree with, but use “discretion” for those they do.
A flash mob or a protest can be called disruptive.
Better not walk into a crosswalk with a police car having to stop for you. You just disrupted police operations.
I would argue that disrupting a "Face Book" page is not disrupting policing.
That's not what they were arguing, its actually even stupider. The disruption was other people been idiots and calling the police station to query them about the parody page. Arguably the other people disrupted policing because they are stupid morons who can't tell a real and parody website appart.
Also a FB page should never be deemed the official website for any official organisation. They should have their own website, and their FB page should merely act as a way to link to it and should not be used for any official announcements (atleast not ones that don't link to the official site also announcing the same thing).
This is all because at the end of the day, FB owns the FB page, not them, you don't own your social media, you are merely permitted to use services provided by SM companies, who retain full ownership.
Problem is satirizing the police is difficult - even the police thought no one could tell the difference
IMO this person (who thought himself so very clever) shouldn’t have set-up an exact Facebook police page. His ego was out there, more than his right to free speech. Then he worried about getting in trouble, so he took it down and trouble did came knocking at his door. It all added up to a big wasted of time and money.
As a former member of a grand juror I'm really curious how this was laid out to the jury to get them to agree on charges. Funny thing about information given to grand jurors. It's always very one sided and very little is mentioned about people's rights.
Btw. Many police departments don't run their social media accounts they have social media people who do that because they are usually younger and run sm the way only a youngster can. So saying he was impersonating police might be a big stretch when a police officer might not be doing their own sm accounts
It's also worth noting you don't own your SM accounts, the SM company does, they just let you use their services. A SM account should never be used for official communications by an official organisation. At most it should be used to direct people to actual official websites and highlight things going on there.
Also the "disruption" arguement here is invalid. He never disrupted anything, the moronic members of the public contacting them did that, that they are too stupid to be able to spot a fake/scam site isn't his problem.
@@cgi2002 for some reason you think I was talking about who owns a SM account. Maybe legal aspects of sm is your thing but I do hope you read contracts better than you read my post which had ZERO to do with whatever the hell you ranted about. You know what, nevermind. Dense is a word that comes to mind trying to respond to you.
@@rockchildofthe60s69 notice how I said "it's also worth". I was adding onto what you said, not countering it or disputing it, more information is generally a good thing.
However if you want countering, the "young person" your referring to is technically an employee of the police department, which means they are allowed to, if it's part of their job, represent the police department without been a police officer, they are not impersonating the police, they are acting as a legal representative of the police with all the authority and responsibility that entails. However someone creating a non-parody SM page would technically be impersonatong the police as they do not have the protections of been a police department employee. The laws regarding impersonation generally isn't limited to just impersonating a police officer, it also covers other law enforcement employees, their facilities, vehicles and documentation. Sometimes there may be a caveat regarding attempting to deceive, but it's not nessersarily a requirement, it depends on local laws.
@@cgi2002 OK I am not reading your sa trying to justify your ridiculous post. You just don't want to say you are ranting at me because you thought you..hell I don't know what you are thinking but you really should either learn to read or learn to say you screwed up when you screwed up. Now just stop talking to me
@@rockchildofthe60s69 I apologise if I managed to somehow annoy you, it was never my intent. I merely attempted to add more to what you said, and then pointed out the potential flaw in what you said afterwards.
So sorry if trying to discuss something offends you, but it does explain why you were selected for a grand jury, you don't want the full arguement, you just want the part that fits your viewpoint, which is how the people putting together grand juries want them.
I suspect this isnt the last we have heard of this case. But I could be wrong. This case is further proof that qualified immunity needs to die in fire, and right now.
Qualified Immunity is so broken. The ONLY version that should be kept is when someone saves someone's life, aka Good Samaritan Law. Maybe 3 strikes law for Cops, they only get 3 QI's, then it's outta their pocket
Disagree that this case is a reason for that. Yes, QI needs to be done away with ASAP, but the cops reasonably believed that they were ok due to the law director's bad take on the issue. They didn't just go off half cocked as usual, they actually sought input from a law professional.
If anything, this case would be the rare few where QI is reasonable. The action of the individual is quite excessive on its face, the police did seek legal counsel. There is nothing they could reasonably do to be more certain.
I've always been of the opinion that QI needs to be significantly weakened but not removed, precisely due to stuff like this. Very few things in life should be all or nothing--all in the way it currently works and nothing in the way people like you think.
Tbh the suit here is misaimed, those judges and the lawyer should be I included in its targets. They are the ones who actively started this mess.
Also the arguement of judges disagreeing, on a sample size of 2. I can find you 2 people who think the moon is actually made of cheese, it doesn't mean everyone else agrees.
@@cgi2002 the problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that in addition to legislators, prosecutors and judges are absolutely immune from lawsuits when it comes to their judicial decision-making
I can't help but think the people who drafted qualified immunity are shaking their heads at what it's turned into. Perhaps not, since I'm not amazingly familiar with its roots, but the sheer pettiness it protects now is an affront to justice. This is not a situation where qualified immunity should be sacrosanct. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse of violating the law -- any law, no matter how minor or out of touch with the current year it is. But for a police officer, it's more of a guideline.
Qualified immunity is being used exactly how it was intended. You can tell by how they don't fix it.
The police are the only people for whom ignorance **IS** an excuse for violating the law, and when they violate the law they can put on a pretty convincing appearance of ignorance or stupidity, or both. If I ever run for office, I'll do so on a single pair of issues: END QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; END CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE.
Nobody wants to fix it, all they have to do is have a review board for every case with a government official. We don't have to get rid of QI just make it a case by case situation
The main problem with QI is the language. The fact that it is only forfeited if there was a prior precedent is what makes it problematic. How can you have precedent of something if technically there can't be any precedent of said thing the first time it was argued in court? Getting rid of the precedent clause may make QI still work, and those that abuse it can be held accountable.
The ONLY thing that qualified immunity should cover is when the police can legitimately prove they reasonably believed someone's life depended on a split-second decision. Let an armed man flee into a neighborhood or shoot him in the back? You don't want to take two minutes reviewing the latest rulings.
Going to break down someone's door and search their house because you think you may have heard someone say something that could potentially be construed as incriminating? Go do your due diligence to make sure you've got enough. If you don't, you're liable.
Awesome video, Steve. Thanks for breaking all that down for us.
It's a gray area due to the extra work that he did to try and make it seem like the real police page. But my first thought was "Play stupid games and win stupid prizes." On that note- Why do police departments have a Facebook page?
Exactly, Facebook is not a government controlled entity, they shouldn't be using it for official business.
"Why do police departments have a Facebook page?" To feel liked.
So they can boast about their haul of illegal fireworks... which was initiated by another jurisdiction who traced it to a warehouse in my city, then got my city's PD involved. Meanwhile, my neighbors are able to rain hot debris and trash all over my property, and my city's police department is incapable of stopping them. Can't see fireworks launching into the sky at night, apparently.
Another local PD has been using Facebook to crow about their arrests of catalytic converter thieves.
@@exrobowidow1617 I feel you. Nobody ever seems to aim fireworks toward their own property. I have the same issue. And if the cops come.. they just stop and deny. Then they treat you like you are somehow the bad guy for calling out their extremely rude behavior.
What a waste of time and money. I think sending a notice to Facebook that this page was intentionally impersonating the real page and shut it down, or put up notice that it's parody or change the page
Unless they can prove the calls coming into the call center about the fake page prevented the call center from answering other calls there was no probable cause. Therefore there was no disruption to the police so asking for the arrest warrant in the first place doesn't stand up so everything from that point on was malicious. He should absolutely be able to sue everyone involved.
7:24 Sounds like that statute is bad law, if satire is a violation of that statute, then that statute violates the first amendment, pretty bloody clearly.
17:02 Granting them qualified immunity *does* mean that their actions are "justified" or "should be condoned" in the eyes of the court. The court may say the opposite of that, but they're implicitly endorsing such conduct.
Brookside Police Department(Alabama) deleted their Facebook page after the media scandal broke out. People were relentlessly trolling it. Someone started a new one to give people a place to keep the trolling going. I’ve been waiting on something like this to happen to the person that created the new page.
Facebook shouldn't be allowing government entities to have pages in the first place. This means that taxpayers are funding jobs where government lackeys can be on social media all day whilst at work! It's wholly uneffical, if not downright illegal.
@@GeorgeVCohea-dw7ou Why? Government entities need to have methods of interacting with the public and a large percent of the public prefer way of contact is Facebook.
@@arthurmarshall6825
As far as I am aware, no police station has been shut down, and it's a bit weird to ask for assistance or file a police report through a questionable third party website with very limited privacy control. Nah, it's just a poor excuse by some nil-brained government drone to be on social media all day without drawing attention to themselves. If you need to interact with the police remotely, the numbers are 911 or 311 as the particular circumstance most appropriately fits.
@@arthurmarshall6825 IF a government entity really feels they have to have a Facebook page, all it should do is serve as a pointer to their .gov website.
@@MonkeyJedi99 But it's such a great place for the local police to brag about their latest haul of catalytic converter thieves! And for the Health Department to keep everyone up to date on the latest C*D-19 "information."
More circular logic in the legal system as all of them are unnecessarily assumed to be right, independent, and their integrity is never questioned at first despite those in these positions having demonstrated a lack of one or all characteristics time and time again.
I fully support him taking them to court even if he loses. I would take it as far as I could go off principal just like they did
I like how they don’t address the cozy relationships between the judges and law enforcement. Just because two different judges signed off on an unconstitutional arrest doesn’t mean the police are innocent. In fact, it may be an indication that the judges are guilty as well. Of course they won’t be investigated. Because, duh, they have a cozy relationship with those who would be charged with investigating them.
Long story short, it’s a sycophantic circle jerk between the cops and judges.
Good grief that is not probable cause; I am not a lawyer, even I know this. Freedom of speech, satire, etc.
Kangaroo courts ESPECIALLY in ohio.
Any red state.
there needs to be consequences for these out of controll badged criminals
It appears that the 6th circuit Court of appeals said all of it was a big waste of time all the way around.
I think Qualified Immunity here is correct. They judges warrants are pretty powerful defense. I hate qualified immunity, but it is the rule of law here, and if you apply logic, then in this case, they did what they were told the law required them to do.
Screw that the judge was the same entity as the police.
@mewhited.. uhh.. no.
Rule of law is incorrect in reference to qualified immunity. There is no law properly enacted that allows or sets up qualified immunity. It was generated by the Supreme Court that has zero law enactment powers.
What is up with all the sovcits in the comments? Sovcits, frauditors, Moors, and flat-earthers have no ability to apply logic. They have difficulties trying to apply butter to bread. They are selfish individuals who want to do whatever they want without any repercussions.
Wrong. A retired police officer on here posts on things like this. He says it very easy to get a warrant. "Good Luck America" is the name. The officer just says " I think a crime has been commited" Judge say , Okay here is your warrant."
If the page was clearly a spoof then no harm done. Free speech. Going out of the way to make the page easily confused with the real McCoy, that's a problem. All of this seems to be seriously mishandled. And who ends up picking up the tab, the taxpayers. This kind of thing is tiresome.
I could be wrong, but it seems like the law they used to arrest him should be the focus. Using a computer to disrupt the police, seems like it was intended for hacking like. How many calls did they really have to answer his fake page really rise to that level.
Yes, the spirit of the law , but we know how they are able to twist the true meaning of a law to fit their narrative. They are allowed to do this all the time. A good judge wouldn't allow it regardless of the outcome. In this case they all needed to stick together or they would all be wrong, the good old boys clubs seem strong all over.
It doesn't matter how many it is. It could be every single person in the state, it still wouldn't be his fault. It would be the caller's.
I am held to a higher standard than a cop, because I don't get Qualified Immunity if I am wrong about the law.
"Nobody got anything out of this"
Not so. There are lawyers who made out really well.
If Novak spent 4 days in jail before he could raise bail, he has a case, whatever the Sixth Circus opines. The law the Parma cops uses seems to be a lot like the charge "obstruction of governmental administration." A catch-all crime, like disorderly conduct. Had the cops been a little smarter (IQ over 90), they would have issued Novak a desk appearance ticket for him to show up in court. But the Parma police wanted to make an example of Novak and the taxpayers there now foot the legal bills.
from my feely standpoint, if you don't mark somewhere that it's satire and then copy the statement that says "this is the official police page" then you deserve some trouble
I live in the city next to Parma, and this is the most Parma thing I have ever heard.
That's bs, Novak didn't make the calls, if there as a disruption due to calls, it was by the people trying to report satire to the police.
and if the satire of free abortions in the back of a police car is believable. then that says more about the officers than it does about novak.
This is why the government shouldn’t have social media.
What about the fact that they're using social media? Why would the officers be able to complain about a Facebook account in the first place?
I would have claimed he was impersonating the officer tasked with maintaining the department Facebook page.
The problem I have with denying the probable cause claim is the city attorney, the magistrate and Judge are all on the SAME payroll!
You cannot parade around as a law enforcement officer. Dressed as one in the local law enforcement officers. Did anyone think the page was the official page?
I wanted to Express my gratitude to you and your members for the enjoyment, knowledge, and entertainment you bring to me. So many eye opening and thought provoking things are amazing. Thank you all so much!!
Try that defense as an individual.
You: Your honor in good faith I did not believe that law existed.
Judge: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
🤔
The guy seems like he should submit something to The Onion and stay the hell off of FB.
That isn't a valid argument. 'Well, the judge granted the probable cause warrant.' Judges basically rubber stamp these. Its like saying the greeter at walmart let you leave, so you had permission to shoplift.
The issue is, it is a pretty valid argument legally speaking. Like Steve says, he isn’t telling you how it should be, he’s telling you how it is.
Then sue the judge for not doing his job properly. The argument is that the *police* is not at fault. And for once, I'd say that's reasonable. If you think some other party are failing, go after them.
While I agree with this in principal, there's absolutely no consequences for bad judicial behavior. There's no recourse to hold them accountable and there's no consequences if this is actually the case. Legally speaking though, it's got judicial review and approval and that's all that's needed from the legal standpoint. There needs to be a mechanism where complaints against judges are taken seriously and have consequences for the judges; there are too many bad judges out there that really dont do their jobs or hold their position with any respect for the law at all. (even 1 is too many, in my opinion)
But I would never be caught dead in a Walmart.
@@justanoman6497 Judicial Immunity is harder to pierce.
I can see how it would be aggravating for the PD but that is hilarious!!
Steve would you have anything to say about the Johnny Depp - Amber Heard trial ? She admitted in her recorded tapes that she was physically abusive to him and when he said if there was to be physical abuse they had to separate. She was recorded ( by herself ) as saying she was not sure she could promise to be nonviolent as she would become So mad when they fought.
Too political for Steve, I guess.
Would be interesting to hear his opinion
They didn't know what law he broke when they went to retaliate against him with the arrest. If they would of been able to put a law to name instead of following up after getting the warrant. It simply shouldnt stand.
Can you sue the judge for signing the initial warrant? I feel like if we could sue the judge or magistrate that sign these search and arrest warrants, they might read through them and sign them more carefully.
I was wondering the same. Where is their accountability?
The judge is basing the warrant from testimony from the officers.
@@knerduno5942 I don’t think that the police lied, necessarily. It was up to the lawyers and judges to recognize that an arrest and seizure was not appropriate.
No, but you can file a complaint with the local bar association.
@@willdejong7763 But, the way the officers could of described the incident cold have influenced the judge to make a warrant
Very interesting case! I'm on the side of the person who was harassed by the cops - they had the page taken down, that should have been the end of the story.
Imagine having to spend 4 days in jail over a satirical facebook page making fun of the police. I thought that freedom of speech was the first right printed on the bill of rights!
Freedom of Speech IS the first Amendment, but as I understand it, it's not that the Facebook page was just satirical or critical of the police. If that's all it was, he could have had the page up for a hundred years. But he tried as hard as he could to make his page look like the real police department page, not an obvious satire, even to the copying of the statement that his page was the real police department page. That is just downright idiotically stupid. He should have made it look like an OBVIOUS satire, and people may have gotten some laughs from it!! What would happen to you or me if we made a replica of a federal government or state government or city/county Facebook or web page? We could be accused of scamming people; scammers imitate legitimate websites or Facebook pages in an effort to trick people. Why would he put himself in such obvious trouble? What if he tried to copy dollar bills and then claim they were "satirical"? "Oh, I put a little wingding down in the corner, everybody should know it's not real. . ." Would that be his defense?? I have no sympathy for him.
Again, I am not saying he has no freedom of speech, and maybe the city could have taken him to civil court to explain why he can't imitate an official Facebook page and could have compelled him to take it down without arresting him. I don't know; I'm not a lawyer. But this guy could have gone about this in a better way and protected himself from all the fallout. He just did a really dumb thing. . .
@@ericemmons3040 Why are police doing official business through Facebook? Also, subtlety doesn't have to die for free speech to live.
@@ClockworkGearhead Because they want to talk to the people, so they have to go where the people actually are.
@@Br3ttM You're telling me that _need_ a FB page? That it somehow interrupts their function as police if they don't have one? That what you're saying? And it's so important it can be used to nullify free speech protections?
Okay, explain how.
@@ClockworkGearhead Doesn't matter why the police have a Facebook page; if they're allowed to have one, then they can have one. To imitate someone else's page to the extent of trying to make it look like that person's or agency's page is just really dumb, especially if it's the page of a government agency. Would someone put on a police uniform, try to make it look really official, and then go around doing stupid things? No; one could be arrested for impersonating a police officer, and that's a crime.
Scammers try to claim they're the FBI or IRS or Sheriff's department when they call people; they try to make web pages that look like B of A or Wells Fargo so people will be fooled and hand over their money. That's not allowed, and neither should closely mimicking a government, or anyone else's web or Facebook page be allowed without a clear statement that said page is a parody and/or satire. I'm all for subtlety, and subtlety is allowed under free speech rules, but copying an official government page and claiming that it's the official page isn't subtle; it's just plain stupid.
IS HE GOING TO RE-PUBLISH THE WEBSITE??? HE DID THEM A FAVOR!
What’s funny is you can actually approach the Facebook admin’s and have them take care of it. They now have the ability and likelihood to take down a fake spoofing page like this. Especially if it’s causing confusion of government services and emergency services especially.
The classic parental "Can't you kids just get along" or "Don't make me stop this car".
They DID loose their immunity because they DID arrest him. 🤣
Both the defendant and taxpayers paid but it was the Police and the DA who made the decisions to waste everybody's time and money. End Qualified Immunity and make the appropriate parties liable when abuse of the system occurs. Let the chips fall where they will. I bet you would see a great amount of constraint from the Police and DAs in future cases.
I think his lawyer should have strongly told his client NO, concerning the qualified immunity case.
Another excellent segment from the Lehto Law School. Interesting case.
Sounds like a civil matter. Not criminal. Police should have sued him. Not arrested him
Exactly... The crime they were charging him for... What was the maximum punishment? If it didn't include jail time.... Then it wouldn't justify arresting him in the first place.
"Unsure of the case they had"
Good enough reason for a FaceBook search warrant...
Yeah, I always Facebook message the cops since 911 takes so long.....
Well I just leave comments on their RUclips channel as I feel they will respond quicker
@@johnree6106 Thought of lighting the neighbor's house on fire so the fire department would get the cops. 🤣
I finally really saw Ben all by myself: behind the owl sitting on the Canada mug! What is that low-flying owl story??? LOL!
Considering how one-sided the process is, I won't address the possible idiocy of the page's author (who could simply have labelled his page "satire") but I think there is something to be learned, here. The problem with qualified immunity is that it doesn't just protect police in the appropriate course of their lawful duties, but it also protects morons with no sense of humor, and nothing better to do. In this case, an officer, a magistrate, and a city judge, all of whom should have known better.
Suprised a court would call out the levels of checks and balances for just rubberstamping the police
When the judge and city attorney are part of the same government entity being mocked their ruling should not apply to allow violation of first amendment rights. They should be held under the same retaliation rules as they are too close to be unbiased.
How are thet the same entity? Police and courts seem like two entities.
@@mdilligaf I believe that 'entity' is call 'local government'.
You probably have lots of experience with being mocked.😆
Never understood why police departments and government offices have Facebook pages. Seems like they shouldn't be able too and should have a government Facebook.
Wouldn't be a bad idea for there to be a separate official government Facebook so you'd know any pages elsewhere are fake.
By creating a counterfeit police Facebook page, he falsely represented himself as a spokesman of the police. He even claimed on his page that it was the official page. In most countries it is illegal to pose as a police authority or falsely pretend to represent them. It's amazing he is not still in prison.
I heard it said that if there is no one to argue then it's to the law to prove it!
Had the dude put a disclaimer up that it was a mock page and satire, he could still have his page and not go through all this crap. I run a facebook group for recording calls from the local police scanner. Yes, people seek these kinds of pages out, as they are very nosey. My group is nothing more than me transcribing what comes over the radio but I've had people think it's some kind of paid county group. I pinned a thread explaining it's a volunteer group and we only record public info off the radio. The little group explained in size, 14 thousand members now, has a spin off group for events and socializing. The local leaders love it! Sorry, but this dude was dishonest and brought the trouble on himself.
How is ignorance of the law a reasonable excuse for law enforcement, yet judges have clearly ruled that ignorance of the law IS NOT an excuse for committing a crime?
Umm I just wonder where the fact that Facebook is private platform comes into play.
Hmm... maybe the police dept. could have complained to Facebook about a violation of their community standards?
Leave it to law enforcement to waste time arresting this man for playing a joke and acting on his legal free speech..One more reason I have lost any and all respect for police! They are a bunch of bullies! Trust me if I was falsley arrested like him I would make it my life's goal to follow through with them in court!
Can you please do a video involving pedal powered bar/taverns and DUI laws? I am sure the bar owners have all the permits and licenses required by the city. I am sure there is a story somewhere about the cop (who didn't get the memo) who arrested all the patrons for DUI because they are "driving" (pedaling) while drinking. Possibly open container violations, also?
Love you videos, Haven't missed one in 3 years!
I talked to a guy who was 🛑 for ~ "DUI pedestrian"
Walked by a store on a sunny ☀️ day while on his way to work, for a 20 oz soda.
He put in a paper sack to keep the sun off of it and he was sipping it on his way to work.
👮 cop saw this and stopped him 🛑 thought he was walking and drinking.
🥴
He unsheathed the bottle 🤣
what this, get out of here, I'm not drinking.
cop left 👮😡 likely annoyed he couldn't arrest him.
🙄
Can't wait to see this on the next Law and Order episode
This attitude is why I will no longer consider rendering assistance to any law enforcement officer for any reason...including to save their lives. It seems like the only recourse citizens have anymore given the government's "us/them" attitude.
But they want you to put yourself in harms way. For free. They probably even have some words on a piece of paper about it.
Too bad that's illegal in too many places.
@Shell m
I'm just treating them with the same disregard they treat citizens with. Seems fair.
@@ClockworkGearhead
I'm not obligated to render aid to anyone same as a cop.
@@Reno_Slim I wasn't joking. You are obligated, legally. In many states, they can arrest you if you don't. This is even after the Supreme Court's ruling the police are not obligated to protect citizens in turn.