Jacqueline Muellner Steals Videographers Camera, Her Ramsey Co. Cronies Compound Aggression

On October 30th, 2012, Drew Henderson’s video camera was stolen from him by Jacqueline (Jackie) Muellner, an employee of the Ramsey County Sheriffs Office. Rather than admit fault, Muellner and her cronies levied threat of a cage or ransom on Henderson (due to claims he “obstructed” and acted “disorderly).

Ademo covered this on January 7th, 2013 in the post “If I end up on YouTube I’m going to be Upset” (which included the video below), as did Carlos Miller, over at PINAC in his piece,  Minnesota Sheriff’s Deputy Confiscates Camera While Saying: “If I End Up on Youtube, I’m Going to be Upset”

Just who was the aggressor in this exchange between Henderson and Muellner?

Jackie Muellner

Jackie Muellner

TwinCities.com did a story about the incident and quoted one of Muellner’s comrades, Randy Gustafson, the “spokesman” for the Ramsey County (MN)-based crime syndicate, “It is not our policy to take video cameras. It is everybody’s right to (record) … What happens out in public happens out in public.”

Yet the story unthinkingly parroted an exception that Gustafson carved-out, “One exception might be when a law enforcement officer decides that the recording is needed for evidence, he said. In that case, the officer would generally send the file to investigators and return the camera on the spot.”

Really? People wearing badges have stolen my camera from me three times and my phone once. It’s always been a huge hassle, and one of the main reasons I think this tactic is employed by individuals who want to censor their misdeeds. If the tools used by those of us advocating for transparency are taken, as happened to Henderson, where does that leave us?


Drew Henderson

Ramsey County residents: Are you happy to pay for this “service” detailed by Henderson?

Let Jacqueline Muellner, who stole Henderson’s camera, and her colleagues, who are continuing to levy threats against him with time in a cage or a ransom, under the pretense of, “obstruction of legal process” and “disorderly conduct.”

Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office

Minnesota Cop Block


Some thoughts I had while watching this video:

  • 0:00 Excellent TheDrewKS took the time to create such an exhaustive overview
  • 0:18 Good he got name and shares it early-on
  • 1:21 That’s about the “customer service” expected from a thief
  • 1:50 What does it matter if that security guard knows TheDrewKS? Implying that such a question even matters grants that person more authority simply due to their attire and title.
  • 2:57 Proactive, not defensive
  • 3:34 Realize how skewed is this reality when a person can steal the camera of another and proudly share their name afterwards
  • 5:05 Awesome he filmed this interaction as well. document everything, every in-person or on the phone interaction. and even opening mail sent.
  • 6:03 Ideally the video would capture the person talking.
  • 7:10 TheDrewKS sounds a bit nervous. He shouldn’t be as he has acted in the right.
  • 8:57 The inefficiencies of this centralized, coercive monopoly is admitted to by Larry Casey
  • 10:45 Isn’t it weird that TheDrewKS feels compelled to thank the accomplice of the person who stole his property?
  • 11: 38 Language is important. Calling someone by a title first gives legitimacy to their claim of authority. The act was done by a person.
  • 14:07 Bullies want to censor information. Why assist them?? Such content should immediately be put up. The more eyes on such a situation sooner, the better.
  • 15:11 Is it a surprise that such a claim would be made? Or is this exactly what happens due to the perverse incentives of the centralized
  • 17:30 Dan Eggers already is laying the groundwork for what he hopes will lead to TheDrewKS admitting guilt to something. Eggers is used to such scenarios happening. Fortunately more folks are seeing that charade and choosing not to participate.
  • Bob Fletcher

    she was one of my best followers. Give her a break.

  • Ed

    I went on her Facebook page and called her an idiot. She broke Federal law, U.S.C. 18, Article 242 “Deprivation Rights under Color of Law”. I also told her this. Then they go and delete the film. Tampering with evidence is a Federal crime, punishable by up to 5 years in a Federal prison. The police department committed a Felony, U.S.C. 18, Article 241, “Conspiracy Against Rights”. How are they going to prosecute you without evidence? Find a smart lawyer to defend you with the agreement to sue them with a contingency fee. If the local D.A. won’t prosecute them, report him for Conspiracy. Call the Attorney General in your state and file a complaint. File a complaint with the Department of Justice too. Cops are really stupid, so you will win in a civil case.

  • BigPoppaAZ

    According to Randy Gustafson (Reminds me of “Grumpy Old Men”), spokesman for the Ramsey County sheriff’s office, “It is not our policy to take video cameras. It is everybody’s right to (record) … What happens out in public happens out in public.”, though he declined to discuss details of the case, saying it is an “ongoing investigation.”

    So here’s the rub, Deputy Muellner, after the fact of confiscating Andrew Henderson’s property, wrote on the citation, “While handling a medical/check the welfare (call), (Henderson) was filming it. Data privacy HIPAA violation. Refused to identify self. Had to stop dealing with sit(uation) to deal w/Henderson.”

    We all know Muellner didn’t want to end up on the “YouTube”, by her own admission. Seems like HIPAA was quite far from her mind, at the time of her interaction with Andrew.

    The allegation that his recording of the incident violated HIPAA, or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is nonsense, said Jennifer Granick, a specialist on privacy issues at Stanford University Law School.

    The rule deals with how health care providers handle consumers’ health information.

    “There’s nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who’s not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets,” Granick said. “HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that.”

    She had never heard of a case in which a law enforcement agency cited HIPAA to bar someone from recording, she said.

    Once again, an LEO attempting to justify their unconstitutional actions, by grasping for straws.


  • shawn

    Let me get this straight, she claims it as evidence and then deletes it? Cloud technology must scare the crap out of JBTs like this. No handy delete button.

  • YankeeFan

    His is the latest in a string of cases nationwide involving citizens who record police activities.

    “I wish the police around the country would get the memo on these situations,” said Jane Kirtley, professor of media ethics and media law at the University of Minnesota. “Somebody needs to explain to them that under U.S. law, making video recordings of something that’s happening in public is legal.”

    The courts have been “pretty clear” on the issue, Kirtley said. “Law enforcement has no expectation of privacy when they are carrying out public duties in a public place.”

    Police will never get the memo as reading it means actually following the law and thats the last thing they want to do.

  • Wayne

    If the camera is needed as evidence, then get a warrant. They should not be allowed to take your property with out a warrant.

  • steve H

    They can’t take the camera without a warrant. Not only is the camera protected by the 4th Amendment, it’s protected by the 1st Amendment.

    The Supreme Court has held that Fourth Amendment limitations on law enforcement officers’ authority to seize individuals’ property must be “scrupulously observed” when the item seized contains information protected by the First Amendment and “the basis for the seizure is disapproval of the message contained therein.” Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649.655 (1980).

  • steve H

    Another good case on this issue:

    First Amendment concerns “require that the Fourth amendment be applied with ‘scrupulous exactitude.” Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 46, 468 (1985).

  • steve H

    This Leo could have detained this citizen until she received a warrant for the camera. She would have gotten laughed at by any of the judges, but she still had the opportunity to apply for the warrant before taking the property. This citizen was peaceful and compliant she could have secured the camera in her car until applying for the warrant and when she was refused, she could have given it back without harm being done. Stupid Leo.

  • leftwingmafia

    Is this going to be a big deal? Because I can get her address if she dont act right. ;) email me n lemme know. its time for these pigs to pay up. This pig and the rest of them.

  • Ed

    Go on her Facebook page and tell her off like I did. This woman needs to have her house taken away. She CAN be sued for civil rights violations. U.S.C. 18, 1983

  • PanOpticon Blinder

    “7:10 TheDrewKS sounds a bit nervous. He shouldn’t be as he has acted in the right.”

    Respectfully disagree with this statement, as he should be damned nervous, first, because he’s clearly outnumbered, and also likely because he’s fully aware of possibly painful, expensive or potentially life-threatening and out-of-control situations by challenging a completely inept, armed & dangerous, lying, cheating, stealing, bullying, stupid and lazy donut-eating thug, and doing something like Drew did would make me nervous, and I am a 200+ lb former heavyweight boxer, in good shape.

  • Truther

    One thing to note is Fed Law f

  • Truther

    one thing to note is fed law prohibites the filiming of any person reciving medical attention regardless of location with out the individuals consent. I do beleave this to be the reason their is only audio and not video of that part because the videogropher would be both criminaly and civialy liable I doubt you will post this because you are biased and hypercritacal people who only post comments that alling with you personal views

  • BigPoppaAZ


    What are you talking about? What federal law prohibits the filming of any person receiving medical attention in public? Back up your assertions with tangible facts.

    Here’s a great primer “Know Your Rights: Photographers” http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

  • Grammar Nazi

    Wow, Truther, you typed less than 100 words and made a dozen mistakes in your second attempt! To top that off, you even failed to make a valid point. That’s hard to take seriously.

    At least, and big thanks go out to BigPoppaAZ for steering you onto the path to truth and providing us with a useful link, you did prompt a useful discussion and someone ended up trying to set something right because of it.

    Let’s hope that once you hopefully learn and really understand what that truth is, you’ll also learn and understand what to do with it when it comes to telling people what rights they have.

  • Ed

    Wow! Truther must know things that other people don’t! There have been a lot of news people arrested because they filmed accidents and fires with ambulances! But it didn’t make the news that they were arrested because they were in jail.

  • steve H

    First of all Mr. Truther, cite case law, statutes and precendents if you want to maintain that something is “the Law”. Next, try to spell your words correctly. These comment blocks don’t have spell checkers, but what you can do is write up your comment in a word processing program and then do copy and paste. I learned copy and paste in 1994.

  • Arron

    Take her money