1st Amendment Auditor Issues Apology

UPDATE: 1st Amendment Auditor writes apology to Deputy and withdraws formal complaint.

Watch the video to hear Sheriff Gahler’s remarks on the outcome of this case.

[nachopopp]

It wasn't mentioned by this sheriff that the "defendant" entered into an agreement with the prosecutor to plead guilty to one misdemeanor charge in order to get the 7 miscellaneous felony charges dropped. Sheriff, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of us all of the time.

[rickyk]

Never seen a police officer have to write an apology for breaking the law. They usually get desk duty an have some new training or paid leave, so dumb.

[truthillinois]

I’ve been wrongly detained and threatened with arrest 3 times where I live. I proved my innocence but never got an apology. Where’s my apology. This is why I support 1st Amendment auditors and have become a constitutionalist. I’ve lost respect for law enforcement and will suspect any of their intentions. They did this to me, I’m not doing anything to them.

[corsairsofnarshaddaa]

0:18 "...purposely and deliberately..." Are you really equating a guy with a cell phone camera to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor? WTF is your problem?
0:38 "..so the public could see the event in an unbiased and unedited manor..." Good on you that the body cam footage didn't magically "get lost." But what I saw from it were two deputies who paused their fleecing of a poor citizen on the side of the road to fleece another poor citizen because their feelings got hurt. They _literally_ turned their backs on the original "suspect" to focus their entire attention on the cell phone guy.
The deputy's initial accusation of "hindering" is nonsense. There's no law against that. Obstruction? Yes. Was he obstructing? No, not according the definition in MCC. From what I read in MD law, it wasn't the cell phone guy doing anything illegal - it was actually the deputies: "A person may not willfully and without lawful purpose obstruct or hinder the free passage of another in a public place or on a public conveyance." (MCC § 10-201(c)(1). As filming law enforcement from a sidewalk from a safe distance (which he was) is perfectly legal, and a sidewalk is literally in the definition of a "public conveyance" in MD law, the fact that these officers most definitely hindered him constitutes an _actual_ crime. FWIW, there's _absolutely_ nothing in MD law about this so-called "bubble" the deputy mentions as well.
How far has Maryland fell from January 14, 1784 when George Washington signed the Treaty of Paris at its State House, ending the Revolutionary war, to Sheriff Gahler and his jack-booted thugs who would've been run out of the state with the rest of the Redcoats? What a disgrace.

[jammdiego]

Judging by the comments this video wasn’t received as you wished sheriff. People are just fed up with dirty cops and they make it hard to trust or even emphasize with you.

[Southernswag]

But it’s not illegal to approach officers at night and record them?? Sounds like he was threatened with jail time if he didn’t bow to his knees and withdraw everything. I think it’s very weird they didn’t show us the footage.

[artactical]

I hope your department will be constantly watched over and recorded by every 1st Amendment AND 2nd Amendment Auditors in the country! Well see how fast one of the minon idiots you call deputies, including yourself, writes an apology, gets sued and pays out money to a citizen for Unconstitutional acts. It's not hard catching cops doing stupid, shady, or even criminal things now a days! Every department has many multiple cops getting caught on camera every day! Auditors don't only film! They'll go through every public record of finances and employees names and salaries to challenge what's not on the up and up. Don't get cocky with the innocent public you have no jurisdiction over!

[cptaintskmaster]

0:16 "a constitutional activist" with the way he said that tells you all you need to know about that police department

[treadman]

I wonder if he ever makes his men apologize when they do something wrong.

[JasonCade]

When you use air quotes on constitutional activist and then even stammer to get out that you agree with citizens 1st amendment rights, tells me all I need to know

[bobowers]

You and your officers failed to recognize the rights of that citizen. Your policy clearly states he had the right to record, he maintained a safe distance and posed no articuable threat to officer safety. I hope you are voted out asap and replaced with a Sheriff who values our rights and will punish and fire officers like the one involved for being on a complete power trip who values their own ego more than our constitutionally granted rights and freedoms. You and your staff are inexcusable and a detriment to the American people.

[roberttrout]

What happened was you retaliated and drummed up a criminal charge when gave him the choice to apologize or go to jail

[Myers]

I went and watched the video, I can say he was arrested for filming, 100% sure. He was in public, on a sidewalk and more than 20ft away.

The officer was in the wrong 100%, there was no crime, just didn't follow an unlawful order. The only reason he settled like this is probably because he didn't have the means to pay a lawyer, I do hope he files a lawsuit and wins. We just need to end qualified immunity so the tax payers stop paying for the reckless behavior of these tyrants.

[jforbes]

Wow, thats not even taking ownership... lets blame the auditor

[acrtez]

Cop says don't walk up behind us their backs wasn't turn they were looking at the direction of the auditor. The sheriff also said this had nothing to do with cops not liking being recorded but officer safety because the auditor walled up behind again their backs were not turn they spotted the auditor because they were looking at the direction of the auditor . Sheriff said his officers wear cameras that's why it has nothing to do with been on camera but just because they wear cameras doesn't mean they like cameras or being recorded by the citizens and when they break the law or do wrong they hide the footage or edit it or never realese it so I doesn't convince me that it has to do with cameras. Sheriff said he came up behind them in the cover of darkness well it seems it was well lit and plus they had Flash light in their hands. This has to do they always want to be in control of everything even you approach them peacefully or not yelling threat or any demeanor that would give them reason that he is a threat to their safety. it's not like they couldn't see him again they had Flash light there was light posts all around. Cop mentioned the back of the police car now they're even afriad he could harm the back of the of car completely irrational.

[IDTrueCrime]

You guys got lucky, had Sean had me in Court you would not have gotten a guilty plea as he committed no crime

1. The officer ordered him over

2. He was filming from a safe distance

3. No distance law has been set by the courts at that time

4. It is reasonable that due to the mask the officer and Sean could not understand each other, therefore making it impossible for him to follow commands next to a busy road which engines running.

5. The officer said he was going to release Sean, has a real crime occurred he would not have released a criminal. He only arrested Sean because he wouldn’t not listed after the illegal detainment.

6. After Sean was placed in cuffs the officer only wanted his point, his view to be heard. Mr. Reyes rights no longer mattered as the offer clearly says if your not going to let me talk your going to jail.

7. Mr. Reyes has 2 year to appeal this case and I hope he does

[streetcar]

He was filming on a public sidewalk and that's legal. He wasn't hindering anyone.
Where is the bodycam footage?

[DesertPackrat]

I have not seen this encounter, but the way the police responded in this speech I can guarantee that this department do not respect auditors or citizens. He says the auditor was ordered to stand at a secondary place. The police do not get to choose. If there was crime tape that is one thing, otherwise the Supreme Court has protected the right to stand within 20-30 ft of a cop. A cop cannot say it is hindering the performance or their duties. These kind of straw arguements are bullshit and the court routinely strikes them down.

[Dogonatree]

You bully the people you’re supposed to serve. I am curious if there is a department out there that serve the community first, and not protect and lie for their fellow officers

[eugenius]

As his public service. the auditor should hold training classes for the police chief and state attorney that instills some common sense into their thick skulls. It was clear that the auditor walking up on the traffic stop was no threat. It was clear he was just recording the stop. The fact that the cop almost immediately arrests the auditor, the fact that the state attorney did not immediately drop the charges and instead forced an agreement and confession from the auditor, and the fact that the police chief wholeheartedly defends his department and the state attorney -- all of this shows how desperately they all need to have some sense knocked into them.