State Trooper Throwing Owner Off His Own Property

Cop is obviously an idiot. Don't think this would happen where I live. On my property either. Firstly, I don't know anyone here that would allow a cop to put handcuffs on them if they haven't broken any laws. I hope the cop lost his job. He should probably move away from the area as well.
This video is the type of crap that your government doesn't want you to see.

Transcript of the first minute of the dialogue these GROWN men share with one another, from the OP's video link

C = Cop & M = Man

how long does it take for a cop to get the man's name?
here is a transcript of the first minute of the conversation:

____________________________________
M: huh

C: from my understanding, you are no longer allowed out here.

M: who told you that?

C: that's what i've been understanding.

M: who told you that?

C: highway patrol.

M: the highway patrol told you i wasn't allowed out here? do you know who i am?

C: i'm .. no. who are you? are you (innaudible)?

M: you said it's your understanding, but i wouldn't lie to you.

C: yes i just want to make sure i got the right person here.

M: well then, who am i?

C: you tell me.

M: well you're the one that said uh (interupted by officer)

C: ok. do you have id on you?

M: that it was your understanding that i wasn't allowed out here.

C: do you have id on you?

M: no.

C: sir, do you have id on you?

M: ya, i'm sure i do.

C: can i see it? then i'll tell you who i think you are.

M: (answering his cell phone) ya, let me call you back. i got a little (inaudible) with a state trooper.

(talking to the cop again) ya, you can see my id. i du uh i want what who who in the highway patrol told you i wasn't allowed out here.

C: my superior.

M: who's that?

C: David Porter is the one that i (interupted by man)

M: who?

C: David Porter. Lietenant David Porter. can i go ahead and see your id?

M: (talking to camera man) Lietenant David Porter.
_______________________________________

there is more than 60 seconds of exchange here.

and the cop still does not know who he is talking to.

silly grown up are funny

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by pilotdavems


i think the cop was being rather genuine and sincere at first.

the guy did break the law by not identifying who it is he was, the first EIGHT times the officer requested his id or asked him who he was.

how many times can an officer request one's name and/or identification , and be denied a response, before it is a crime where you live?

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


There are no Constitutional laws, state or federal that impose possession of identification, and certainly, when dealing with an LEO, the right to remain silent is a fundamental right, as is the right to not incriminate oneself. Acquiescence in such matters becomes legally construed as tacit approval of any further actions by that LEO, and becomes a reasonable assumption that if there is no statutory jurisdiction, that jurisdiction has been granted by the person in question through his acquiescence.

Refusal to give a name simply because an LEO asked for one is not a crime, and the effort to make it one is not legal. All crimes come with victims, and it is hard to see how this LEO was in anyway a victim. One could argue obstruction of justice, but such an argument works both ways, and if the civilian makes an argument of obstruction of justice, and challenges the jurisdiction, the burden of proving this jurisdiction belongs with the party asserting it, and that would be the LEO.

[edit on 7/2/2010 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5


I spoke directly to the assertion that he had committed a crime simply by not giving his name when the LEO asked for it, and in the video it is clear he actually did acquiesce and show identification later in the video. I have also done a bit of research on the matter, and agree with most of your assessment, which is why I had stayed out of the thread until now, and only felt compelled to remind a friend that people are not bound by law to supply an LEO with identification simply because it was asked of them.

The right to not incriminate oneself is a fundamental inalienable right that belong to all people. When such a right is exercised, (as brief as it was in the video), and then someone comes in and asserts that the exercise of such as right is a crime, I take issue with that, and this is what I spoke to.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I spoke directly to the assertion that he had committed a crime simply by not giving his name when the LEO asked for it, and in the video it is clear he actually did acquiesce and show identification later in the video.

You are correct, though occasionally states enact statues that require you prove your identification to an officer during a terry stop, they usually get shot back down as unconstitutional. The exception to this is when you are driving. You agree to carry, and show on demand your identification as part of your contract with the State to be allowed to drive.

reply to post by defcon5


We are in agreement. The application for a driver's license is a contract made with an administrative agency where a waiver of certain rights happen the moment that application process is signed and approved.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by defcon5

 

I spoke directly to the assertion that he had committed a crime simply by not giving his name when the LEO asked for it, and in the video it is clear he actually did acquiesce and show identification later in the video.

yes you were and yes you did. i may have learned a new thing today ignorance has been denied (in this case mine).

i'll try not to be a about it.

however, the point i was trying to make is that the officer did request a minimum of eight times, one way or the other, for the man's name and/or identification. i thought he was being relativly civil for a civil servant.

and yes, i thought police could "charge" someone with interference with an investigation or something to that effect after the arrest.

thanks,
ET

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


I agree that the officer behaved in a civil manner. After doing the research, I am still unclear as to much of the circumstances that led up to this moment, but in fairness to the officer, I believe the man was being arrested for trespassing on what used to be his property, and even at that, the officer gave this man the opportunity to leave on his own accord.

I did not mean to take the officer to task, nor take you to task, but only to clarify that there are no laws that can legally criminalize the assertion of ones rights. I am fairly zealous about such things.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You got the crux of why the officer arrested him correctly enough.

The facts leading up to it though, are buried over a lot of years and court cases, but it apparently started when they enacted a new law dealing with restrictions on scrap yards. This guy was found to be noncompliant on several points. He was letting chemicals leak into a watershed, mainly gasoline, diesel, radiator fluid, oil, and transmission fluid. Additionally inoperable vehicles have to be kept on the property itself, and behind a barrier to prevent it being a visual nuisance.

This started back in like 2001, and he was given time to rectify the situation but kept refusing, stating it was “impractical to do so”. The state allowed him to continue to work on the land using his dealership license to sell operable vehicles, and started to remove the inoperable vehicles that were in violation then sold them off as scrap to what is obviously this guys competitor. While this was occurring, this gentleman started bringing in more inoperable scrapped vehicles and refilling the areas that the state was clearing out. He was turning it into a never ending game of whack-a-mole in the obvious hopes that he would cost the state so much money they would give up. This apparently not only backfired on him miserably, but it cost him the rest of his business and his land.

Also he was silly in his approach to get this taken care of through the courts, including filing motions with the incorrect courts that could not overturn the other courts who had already ruled on it. It sounds like he was trying to act as his own legal representation, and you know what they say about that ( a man who represents himself has a fool for a client ). He got one favorable ruling from one judge who obviously did not understand the entire situation, but it was from a court who could not overturn the other courts who ruled on it. The best that I can figure out. So he is running around with this one favorable judgment from a court that had to dismiss the case, trying to say he still owns his property.

What I thought was funny was when the man asked the trooper who he thought he was, the cop would not answer him, then after looking at the man's ID, he says, " That's who I thought you were!".

Just sounds like the cop was sent to arrest ' the man' that was on location, no matter who he was.

After googling "Danny Lambeth" and "Wholesale Trucking Wellsville, KS" you find out a lot of other information leading up to why this went down. Basically he did not comply with State an local salvage laws and KDOT was given the right to put this property into compliance. He has been legally fighting about this property since 2003. He filed over 50 suits against just about everyone, and the property eventually was seized. I don't think the real story is about the cop arresting Danny Lambeth, I think the real story is why Kansas relentlessly pursued this property.