Corruption at its Finest, Luzerne County, PA [Video]

Desmond H. Taylor, 23, who lives nearby, was told multiple times by
police officers to move away from the scene as he videotaped or took
still photographs of the activity while standing on the street and
sidewalk near the police vehicles in which the suspects were being held.

Arrest papers state Taylor attempted to take video of an undercover
police officer who arrived as backup for a report of suspects fleeing
from the Muir Avenue home and of undercover police vehicles and license
plates.

Court papers state he repeatedly walked into the crime scene and stood
right behind a marked police cruiser that had a suspect inside and began
talking with a female suspect sitting in the vehicle, who yelled at
Taylor to get away. At one point, the man complained that a member of
the media was allowed to be closer to the scene and he wasn’t.

As another undercover officer was trying to leave Muir Avenue to assist
Police Chief Frank DeAndrea in a vehicle crash that happened just
before 9 a.m., Taylor, who had a pocket knife in his pocket, walked to
the rear of a police vehicle, preventing the officer from leaving the
scene. Again, Taylor was told to move away and again, he refused, so he
was taken into custody, court papers state.

Taylor was arraigned on a misdemeanor charge of obstructing justice and a summary offense for disorderly conduct.

He told Magisterial District Judge Joseph Zola he was employed at a
local factory and is in the Army National Guard, and that he has been
living at his current address on South Poplar Street for more than two
years and prior to that lived in Fort Lee, Va.

Zola initially set his bail at $10,000 unsecured but then learned
Taylor had two warrants for unanswered traffic violations at his office
and other warrants at different district courts.

The judge then held a bail revocation hearing at which he set bail at
$10,000 straight, noting Taylor’s history shows he does not show up for
court dates. Zola told Taylor that he could make bail by contacting a
bail bondsman but he would also have to pay the fines, court costs and
fees for the warrants at Zola’s office before he is freed from jail.

Taylor, while stating his defense against the high bail, said if he is
in jail he will be unable to pay the fines and could lose his job.
Unable to post bail, Taylor was taken to the Luzerne County prison until
a preliminary hearing scheduled for Oct. 9 at 10 a.m. before Zola.

City and state police, along with a Luzerne County deputy sheriff and his K-9, were at the scene on Muir Avenue.

City man to face obstruction of justice charges

A 23-year-old Hazleton man accused of obstructing justice while police officers
searched for two teenage burglary suspects at a Muir Avenue home Sept.
25 will face charges in Luzerne County Court and remains incarcerated on
bail.

Desmond H. Taylor was charged with obstructing justice and disorderly conduct by city police. The charges were held for court by Magisterial District Judge Joseph Zola during a preliminary hearing Wednesday, despite a defense attorney’s request to dismiss the obstructing charge.

Taylor initially said he wanted to waive his right to an attorney and proceed with the hearing representing himself. However, a public defender stepped in and after private discussion with Taylor ended up representing him in court.

Police allege that Taylor, who was filming the police activity that day, was told four or five times that he could film but had to stay on the sidewalk. An undercover police detective said that despite the warnings Taylor continued to encroach further into the crime scene, and at one point stood by a police vehicle that contained a suspect in the burglary.

The detective said Taylor also prevented him from searching for a second burglary suspect, who eventually was captured.

As Zola listened to the commonwealth’s testimony, he interrupted, noting
that one of his relatives was a police officer who allegedly was impeded
that day by Taylor’s actions and asked Taylor if he would like to change the venue. Taylor replied that he wished to continue because he wanted to be freed from jail.

A request for bail reduction also was denied because Zola said Taylor has warrants for his arrest and, as such, a history of not showing up for court. Taylor said he is in the Army National Guard and cannot flee.

Taylor remains incarcerated on $10,000 bail. Zola told him that he could file for a bail reduction in county court and that his formal arraignment is scheduled for Dec. 27 at 9:15 a.m.

You were in jail because you broke the law moron. You entered a crime scene, you were getting in the officers way, You were told to get out of the scene, so you were arrested. Someday a streetsheep copblocker is going to distract an officer(s) during a serious even and someone is going to end up injured or dead. Then you will see legislation to keep streetsheep copblockers on a leash.

And he can’t even narrate his own video correctly/honestly.
We were standing on “my yard”. Well then sir….who’s video are you showing and talking on was being filmed from the street?
Geez

Regardless of Taylor’s wishes, there’s still a conflict of interest on Judge Zola’s part that could become an issue on appeal. He has recused himself before in cases where his son, Andrew, was the prosecuting attorney, so I don’t see why he wouldn’t disqualify himself for this, too.

P.S. Taylor was not “given an opportunity” to substitute the judge. It is his right to move for substitution and he can exercise it at any time.

Its simply the fact that when “activists” start to film, the record button is attached to their mouth. If people just film, and not interjet, I bet things would turn out differently. Even look at Carlos Miller, ever time he’s hooked, its cause he runs his mouth…and is half in the bag.

Judge Zola, by pointing out his relation to one of the accusing officers, was giving Taylor an opportunity to exercise his right to make that move, was in fact promoting the idea, and effectively recommending that Taylor seize on the opportunity. I was by no means asserting that it wasn’t Taylor’s right to do so, nor was I asserting that Taylor wouldn’t have had the right to do so without the judge’s say so.

Not only that, but apparently none of them have figured out how the zoom function on their cameras and phones work.

I figured you knew as much. I just thought it was relevant and–as it wasn’t made explicit in the story–good for other readers to know, as well.

You and I agree that it’s probably going nowhere, given judges’ tendency to ignore other judges’ conflicts of interests even in high-profile cases.

The Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct, however, is clear on that fact that judges shall recuse themselves if they know a family member is involved in the case, and that it is not dependent on a defendant’s motion to disquailfy. (PCJC Rule 2.11)

Really, they would turn out differently? Based on what? The fact every federal court has chimed in on the rights to film shows police do not like being filmed. Copblock filmers, you are right, they like to be dumb but not everyone is a copblocker. Police seem to have developed a weird interpretation as to what constitutes hindering, or obstructing an investigation.

Also, have you actually researched Miller’s arrests? The last one, the police went in and deleted his video but I am sure they obtained a warrant first! Why don’t you spend time looking at videos that shows cops in all their glory telling people that is it illegal to film them like the story involving the Klamath Falls officer, who said exactly that. Or the neat video of the Buffalo PD officer who told the woman to delete what she filmed or he was going to seize her phone. I am sure the Baltimore PD crafting a policy in relation to the DOJ handing them 11 pages on the rights to film people was done just for informational purposes? That’s why the chief has been doing damage control.

I agree that copblockers need to figure out how to mind their own space but every federal court chiming is isn’t because of people interfering. It’s because cops seem to be lost on the concept of free speech. Misusing wiretap laws, or wrongfully applying hindering or obstructing are their main tools right now. Or, not understanding the difference between activities that arouse suspicion versus activities that are suspicious like Amtrak did in explaining their policy (at least 2 years ago they did). Hell, Policeone just had an article talking about a guy who he claims was told to delete his filming! He said he wanted an apology only but when the officer in question called him, she defended herself by saying she was only looking to protect her officers. By telling him to delete what he filmed or face arrest or whatever it is she threatened him with?

I partially agree with you but police need to be trained to understand the proper application of hindering, interfering or obstructing laws when it comes to filming. Because you saw me isn’t enough not is your undercover status enough to warrant a charge if you are filmed. People do interject and if they do, they need to be held accountable, but these courts ruling at almost every level is a testament to the fact that a small % of cops have issues with being filmed and that’s just the facts!

If your going to play with matches be ready to get burned.

Good call there. I guess I would blame ineffective assistance of counsel, then, which is also an appealable issue.

I just had an incident this weekend where one was filming WAY within our A/O, another was trying to distract us (so as to allow his buddy to record us inside the tape) and it bit em both in the ass. And neither can post so they’re still sitting.

Just to link a few;

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/08/19/nypd-dishes-1250000-man-arrested-recording-stop-frisk-shakedown/

One cop, Lt. Dennis Ferber, who has been sued a number of times, told him the following, according to the New York Daily News.

“Now we’re going to give you what you deserve for
meddling in our business and when we finish with you, you can sue the city for $5 million and get rich, we don’t care.”

Ya, not arrested for filming at all!

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/08/17/oregon-deputy-arrests-man-recording-claiming-crime/

Cop claims it is illegal to film him and this is someone you will support. This POS is enforcing laws and is totally clueless.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/08/08/chicago-cop-snatches-camera-handcuffs-man-recording-without-permission/

Needs her permission to film. Based on what law. You would think that the cops would understand the 7th’s ruling on the wiretap law.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/07/07/case-dismissed-miami-man-arrested-video-recording-arrest/

Ordered back inside then, still arrested because his camera and his presence somehow endangered the cops!

I could, also, link the Ibarra Bros case where they filmed police from their own property and were arrested for filming undercover cops doing a raid. Sorry but that is not hindering or interference, T! I could also talk about the cases when Me and common discussed the Graber Case. Pointing out all the other opinions cited relating to filming police as that is what it was about. Charging a citizen for wiretapping while filming cops in open public spaces is, at heart, about filming and not wiretapping. I could go and find the PDF FILE from the AG’s office from one of the New England states, I think Maine, as he talked about the wiretap law and how it was being used in a manner in which it should not be used. Not by the president, or Nancy Pelosi but the cops. The Sulfolk county Officer who just had to write a letter admitting wrong doing and lost 30 days(10 held in abeyance) for arresting a member of the media even though he was initially standing with others who were NOT told to leave and he even moved a block away. Remember, this is the douche bag who said, I have been doing this 30 years and there is nothing you can hold over my head. Arrested for filming and not interference.

I could fill pages with like stories. I could find the link of the Buffalo PD officer who told the woman to delete what she filmed or her phone would be seized but whats the use. That is a perfectly valid reason to take a phone huh?

Once again, the courts have repeatedly upheld the rights of citizens to record cops at every level. Interference, obstructing or hindering requires active participation of some kind. Verbally or being in the place where police need to operate. It is not standing there from a safe
distance being quiet. There is a reason the 8th largest PD in the nation, the Baltimore PD, had to craft a policy on the rights of citizens to record them in public. It was created because they had a damn issue with it.

I will side with you and common and 31b all day if the person was actively involved but there is a reason the federal courts have chimed in against you and it’s not because people were interfering.

Let me also add this! Remember the first question the 1st U.S. Circuit had to answer in the Glick v. Cunniffe ruling? The First question was, Does the 1st amendment have it established it as a right to film police? That’s right! Go read the ruling. That was a broad ruling and those pigs were supported, initially, by their PD. That is a perfect metaphor for the police attitude towards filming them in public. Thank god it isn’t left up to your profession whether or not we can film you.

Funny how a knife wan’t brought to evidence. Now this article is from my prelim not my arraignment. I wasn’t told I could switch my judge. That’s when my bail was set. I didn’t need a lawyer because I had no reason to be in jail. Those fines were already paid off and I never missed court like the judge said.

Think about it steve.. You’re call the people that are suppose to be doing good for our country “fire.” Proof that our cops aren’t doing something right.

You didn’t watch the both videos I was in my yard and even if I wasn’t I wasn’t told I couldn’t be in the street. What about all the people who were in front of me. Right near the cops. Watch the full videos and tell me what i did different then anyone of those people besides want to know who came in my yard and slapped my phone out of my hand. Why is everyone ignoring the original assault.

It sounds like if you or anyone get attacked in your family you will to be scared to get the information of the attacker. Good thing you got all that common sense because it sounds like you got no heart.

in the details about the video you already watched.

And that’s just covers the 1st US District.

YF:

W O W guy. Easy.
As you have openly acknowledged in the past….”Glik” is not in any way a “bright line” decision.
Guy think it through a bit…..if EVERYONE is recording the police all the time……and all there are is a relative few videos put out anywhere?
Keep,in mind…..45,000,000 police CONTACTS per year. 45 million. Would it be a safe bet to say that there are at least 4 people that would witness each contact? ( some of course would have none….others would have dozens and dozens….I’d say 4 is an easy average number).

Now….obstruction/interference. Hmmm. Depends on what is going on. It could be as little as yelling to divert my attention. I’ve arrested people for that….under the right circumstances. But that’s not common. And it also depends greatly on the jurisdiction, as in state and the laws of said state. Some have very good statutes….and some don’t. Mine does. I don’t have to accept any interference at all. It’s not “street court”. I don’t have to answer any of your questions at all (by state law).

Again….it’s amazing how many people ifilm us without any incident at all. Why? Because they just stand back and record. It’s the other behaviors that cause the problems…not the recording.

Except that this video proves that’s not true. Nice pie in the sky wishful thinking though.

Lol, this guy never interfered. The cop crossed the street to criminally assault him.

404 poplar st
Hazleton, pa 18201

Working inside a broken system, is not going to fix Said system. You’re either being willfully ignorant, or just trolling.

Let me add this since I just saw it:

Nevertheless, Buehler filed suit against the Austin Police Department with the cops claiming qualified immunity, insisting that the right to record cops “is not recognized as a Constitutional right.”

On July 24, 2014, Judge Mark Lane rejected their motion for qualified immunity, ruling that private citizens have the right to record officers in public places as they perform their official duties, allowing Buehler to proceed with his lawsuit.

An excerpt from his 36 page ruling. Notice how it mirrors all those other binding precedents:

Although the right to record cops has been affirmed by several court decisions throughout the country over the years, the motion to dismiss from Austin police allowed a Texas judge to set the record straight once again in a thorough 36-page decision.

If a person has the right to assemble in a public place,
receive information on a matter of public concern, and make a record of that information for the purpose of disseminating that information, the ability to make photographic or video recording of that information is
simply not a new right or a revolutionary expansion of a historical right. Instead, the photographic or video recording of public information is only a more modern and efficient method of exercising a clearly established right. In light of the existing Fifth Circuit precedent and the robust consensus among circuit courts of appeals, the Court concludes that the right to photograph and videotape police officers as they perform their official duties was clearly established at the time of Buehler’s arrests.

Care to defend this? Nothing like police saying that the right to film police isn’t established as a right! If you don’t want to be called a nazi, do not act like one. Remember how the holocaust started? That’s why the Jewish museum, in Florida, was taking officers from the local PD’s to show them how easy it would be to violate rights!

Lets queue both you and common on your catch lines that have no relevance to this being a right. No, it’s not a bright line ruling and I kn ow that the ruling is unique to the 5th circuit! Will you comment on the fact that the thinking that this department is exhibiting is the thinking from police in police states? Fuck no you wont! By all means keep telling us how this is isolated and people are not arrested for filming!