Jonathan Guessford was first confronted, then hassled, then pursued, then pulled over, and, finally, cited for a moving violation he didn’t commit by Delaware state troopers.
Guessford managed to attract the attention of Corporal Stephen Douglas, Trooper Nicholas Gallo, and Master Corporal Raiford Box by calling attention to a state police speed trap. As is detailed in Guessford’s lawsuit [PDF] (and captured on multiple cameras, including Guessford’s phone), the officers rolled up on Guessford armed with their attitudes and some convenient lies.
This is from the NBC report on the recent lawsuit settlement:
The cell phone video shows troopers approaching Guessford, who was standing in a grassy area next to the shoulder of Route 13 north of Dover. Douglas told Guessford that he was “disrupting traffic,” while Gallo, based on a witness report, said Guessford was “jumping into traffic.”
“You are a liar,” Guessford told Gallo.
“I’m on the side of the road, legally parked, with a sign which is protected by the First Amendment,” he told troopers.
Dascham video shows Douglas twice lunging at Guessford to prevent him from raising his sign. Gallo then ripped it from his hands and tore it up.
Supreme Court ruled that’s not their job. They’re not required to know every law, and they’re allowed to get away with false arrests as long as they think what they’re arresting someone for is the law. (They also ruled in a separate case that police are not required to render aid to citizens, they’re legally able to watch someone murder you and do nothing to stop it.)
On the flip side, the Supreme Court also ruled that it’s every citizens responsibility to be intimately familiar with every law because “not knowing the law” isn’t a reasonable defense.
Funny how that works, doncha think?
AND they ruled police have no obligation to protect you. Very Funny.
Don’t forget the part where they can come up with probable cause for the arrest after the fact.
And the part where they get to be counseled for weeks before investigations