Police "Interference"... Crossing the street in a safe way.

[Drowning Man]

The idiot was interfering with a police operation, one which most people including me thinks was actually serving the public interests. There are few do overs when a thoughtless selfish driver runs over pedestrians---- usually children, in a crosswalk. So, fining people for some of the most unsafe types of driving makes sense.

This was not a sting operation going after cars with illegally tinted windows, no front license plates, or for going 5mph over the speed limit on a freeway. It is a police operation seeking to punish the most unsafe types of drivers, so why does the OP have a problem with that?

This notion that all things done by police are attacks on liberty is kind of stupid.

It is an attack on liberty by police when they claim that you're going to be arrested for cross the street safely with a crossing flag.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Perhaps they should have set up the crosswalk sting in the police lobby....

Hmmmm?


You run a crosswalk sting where the crosswalks are dangerous.

Then they shouldn't be surprised when, on a public sidewalk crossing a public street, a member of the public decides to cross.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Interfering with a sting operation is interfering.

You keep saying that, like it will *poof* itself into fact if you say it enough.

Please explain what part of Utah statutes he was violating. Be specific.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The idiot was interfering with a police operation, one which most people including me thinks was actually serving the public interests.

Not as Utah law defines it and prohibits it.

There are few do overs when a thoughtless selfish driver runs over pedestrians---- usually children, in a crosswalk. So, fining people for some of the most unsafe types of driving makes sense.

And he stopped the police from fining no one who broke the law. That's what would constitute interference. Keeping people from breaking the law is not illegal.

why does the OP have a problem with that?

I don't imagine the OP has a problem with the sting itself, but rather the intimidation tactics used against someone who wasn't breaking the law.

As I said above, the police aren't entitled to a supply of law-breakers. Trying to stop people from becoming one isn't interference, as defined by Utah.

 

[Fledermaus]

You keep saying that, like it will *poof* itself into fact if you say it enough.

Please explain what part of Utah statutes he was violating. Be specific.

Post #34

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Post #34

Post #35.

Be specific.

 

[Fledermaus]

Post #35.

Be specific.

Post #34 applies.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Post #34 applies.

As I asked in Post #35, how? If you're not going to answer the question, just say so.

 

[Court Jester]

Not as Utah law defines it and prohibits it.


And he stopped the police from fining no one who broke the law. That's what would constitute interference. Keeping people from breaking the law is not illegal.


I don't imagine the OP has a problem with the sting itself, but rather the intimidation tactics used against someone who wasn't breaking the law.

As I said above, the police aren't entitled to a supply of law-breakers. Trying to stop people from becoming one isn't interference, as defined by Utah.

The police were conducting an operation. The person in the video was not warned for just crossing the street with his flag, he was only warned after he clearly intended to remain there to thwart the safety enforcement operation which the officers working undercover were doing in the crosswalk. That guy has no legal right to do that, and the interference law is then clearly at play if he continues to do what he was doing where he was doing it, and then it would be right to arrest him.

I know the cameraman thinks he was not breaking the law when he said he was just crossing the street. And the officers had no problem with him just crossing the street once as he did. But the moment it became clear that he was going to interfere with the operation at the point where the operation was taking place (a crosswalk)--- and if he continued to do so, he would only be strengthening a police case against him in court.

Bullshit. He could hold up a sign that said, “Cops ahead checking that cars yield to pedestrians!“ and it still wouldn’t be interfering. That would come under first amendment protected speech.

But that is different. If he had gone 100 feet or so up the road with a sign saying, "police conducting crosswalk enforcement ahead be warned", then maybe there would be some 1st amendment protection to that. But police interference laws usually are when a person is within proximity to the police officers as they are conducting their official duties, and interfering with the police ability to make an arrest. And while the police were not yet arresting or detaining anyone, the problem comes down to the proximity of the cameraman in the immediate "area of operations' which in this case was in fact the crosswalk. Which he was doing as he crossed with the officers in the crosswalk with the intention of thwarting their undercover task force. That is not protected speech, not under those conditions. And the police had they wished to, could have assigned more officers down the blvd to redirect pedestrians from their "area of operations", but they felt they did not need to do that here, as NORMAL people would not be out looking to make trouble over a safety enforcement operation, one that benefits citizens.

So, please explain to me what you believe was so wrong with what the police were doing, and claiming it was only about revenue is pretty suspect as the fines are not even enough to cover one cop's pay for a day.

 

[Court Jester]

It is an attack on liberty by police when they claim that you're going to be arrested for cross the street safely with a crossing flag.

But that isn't what happened in the video. When the cameraman/cop watcher crossed the street with the flag he was not bothered in anyway by the officers, whom he clearly knew, and it they knew him. The officers said nothing to him, and made no threat to arrest him. But then after crossing the street, and as the undercover cop now went to continue his operation, the cameraman with a flag decided to follow after the cop in the crosswalk, with a flag, thus impeding what the officers were attempting to enforce. Which was drivers failing to yield for pedestrians, even ones not using the crossing flags.

At that point the cop-watcher is in danger of being in violation of interfering, but maybe not yet. What happens next is the police warn the copwatcher that if he continues he will be arrested. A warning is given, and a clear explanation to the citizen that the police are conducting and OPERATION and then his presence in the same manner which he is doing WILL BE considered interference. And you know what, the cop watcher asshole knows enough about the law, that despite his childless attempt to bait the officers, the copwatcher asshole stopped what he was doing because he KNOWS the law is not on his side in that situation and he WILL BE arrested if he continues.

Him crossing the street was not a violation
Him crossing with the officers with a flag while clearly an attempt to annoy was not yet breaking the law
Any continued action AFTER receiving a clear warning (one which will stand up in court) would be the point where the law was violated.

What amazes me about this incident with some of you, that what the police are doing there is clearly in the public interest for safety. I don't see this as any infringement on citizen rights whatsoever. Keeping pedestrians safe....well, I would appreciate that kind of enforcement operation in my neighborhood, especially as I am the kind of driver who already yields to pedestrians, whether there is a crosswalk or not, or even where the pedestrian is in the wrong. Who wants to run anyone over? I don't.

Pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way, even when they are wrong they must be yielded to, and that is the law in most states.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The police were conducting an operation. The person in the video was not warned for just crossing the street with his flag, he was only warned after he clearly intended to remain there to thwart the safety enforcement operation

"Thwart?" It sounds like the guy was crossing as safely as he possibly could, and was encouraging the drivers to pay attention to pedestrian crossing. Nothing is being "thwarted" except revenue generation by issuance of tickets. But he's not "thwarting" such revenue by preventing officers from stopping violators, he's keeping drivers from committing violations in the first place. His "thwarting" is no more interference (as defined by Utah law) in the operation than a driver who commits no violation of his own accord.

The police are not entitled to a supply of violators.

That guy has no legal right to do that, and the interference law is then clearly at play if he continues to do what he was doing where he was doing it, and then it would be right to arrest him.

The sidewalk was not closed to pedestrian traffic. He had every right to repeatedly cross the street just like the cops were doing.

But the moment it became clear that he was going to interfere with the operation

Any interference did not meet the standard set forth by Utah law. There was no force. No violence. No intimidation. No unlawful act (as crossing the street in a crosswalk is perfectly legal, and there was no hindrance of the officer's official acts as he was just as free to cross the street and apprehend any violators as he was before). No lawful arrest or detention was prevented by use of a weapon or other force, and no lawful order necessary to effect such an arrest or detention was refused (as no violations were committed, there is no arrest or detention to effect).

Since those are the things that qualify as interference according to Utah law, how is he unlawfully interfering?

And while the police were not yet arresting or detaining anyone, the problem comes down to the proximity of the cameraman in the immediate "area of operations' which in this case was in fact the crosswalk. Which he was doing as he crossed with the officers in the crosswalk with the intention of thwarting their undercover task force. That is not protected speech, not under those conditions.

Even if we grant for argument's sake that it wasn't protected speech, that still doesn't make it illegal. Utah law describes the circumstances under which conduct is unlawful interference. This guy's actions didn't meet them.

And the police had they wished to, could have assigned more officers down the blvd to redirect pedestrians from their "area of operations", but they felt they did not need to do that here, as NORMAL people would not be out looking to make trouble over a safety enforcement operation, one that benefits citizens.

Being "abnormal" isn't illegal, just like repeatedly crossing the street at a crosswalk.

So, please explain to me what you believe was so wrong with what the police were doing,

Nothing, until they started threatening someone with arrest for crossing the street safely at a crosswalk while encouraging drivers to obey the law.

 

[Drowning Man]

The police were conducting an operation. The person in the video was not warned for just crossing the street with his flag, he was only warned after he clearly intended to remain there to thwart the safety enforcement operation which the officers working undercover were doing in the crosswalk. That guy has no legal right to do that, and the interference law is then clearly at play if he continues to do what he was doing where he was doing it, and then it would be right to arrest him.

Actually, no. There is no such law. They had no right to arrest him.

I know the cameraman thinks he was not breaking the law when he said he was just crossing the street. And the officers had no problem with him just crossing the street once as he did. But the moment it became clear that he was going to interfere with the operation at the point where the operation was taking place (a crosswalk)--- and if he continued to do so, he would only be strengthening a police case against him in court.

Prove it. Show the law.

But that is different. If he had gone 100 feet or so up the road with a sign saying, "police conducting crosswalk enforcement ahead be warned", then maybe there would be some 1st amendment protection to that. But police interference laws usually are when a person is within proximity to the police officers as they are conducting their official duties, and interfering with the police ability to make an arrest.

That wasn't the case, here. He wasn't interfering with the police's ability to make an arrest. He was "interfering" with their ability to conduct an operation that might (or might not) give them reasonable suspicion to pull people over the way they wanted. People could still run the crosswalk while he was there and signaling with a flag. The police would just not be able to be as sneaky about it.

And while the police were not yet arresting or detaining anyone, the problem comes down to the proximity of the cameraman in the immediate "area of operations' which in this case was in fact the crosswalk.

The crosswalk wasn't closed, nor could it legally be closed for the purposes of their operation.

Which he was doing as he crossed with the officers in the crosswalk with the intention of thwarting their undercover task force. That is not protected speech, not under those conditions.

Actually, it is. But even further, there is no law against it. So there wouldn't even be any reason to invoke rights...because what he was doing wasn't illegal in the first place.

And the police had they wished to, could have assigned more officers down the blvd to redirect pedestrians from their "area of operations", but they felt they did not need to do that here, as NORMAL people would not be out looking to make trouble over a safety enforcement operation, one that benefits citizens.

The police don't have blanket authority to close out areas of the public because they feel like it.

 

[Drowning Man]

But that isn't what happened in the video. When the cameraman/cop watcher crossed the street with the flag he was not bothered in anyway by the officers, whom he clearly knew, and it they knew him. The officers said nothing to him, and made no threat to arrest him. But then after crossing the street, and as the undercover cop now went to continue his operation, the cameraman with a flag decided to follow after the cop in the crosswalk, with a flag, thus impeding what the officers were attempting to enforce. Which was drivers failing to yield for pedestrians, even ones not using the crossing flags.

Still not illegal...

At that point the cop-watcher is in danger of being in violation of interfering, but maybe not yet. What happens next is the police warn the copwatcher that if he continues he will be arrested. A warning is given, and a clear explanation to the citizen that the police are conducting and OPERATION and then his presence in the same manner which he is doing WILL BE considered interference.

Yet, under the Utah statute, it wasn't interference.

And you know what, the cop watcher asshole knows enough about the law, that despite his childless attempt to bait the officers, the copwatcher asshole stopped what he was doing because he KNOWS the law is not on his side in that situation and he WILL BE arrested if he continues.

Falsely arrested. Any cop who falsely arrests someone simply because their feelings were hurt, or they didn't like what someone was doing (ie, there is no legal reason to arrest that person) is an asshole.

Him crossing the street was not a violation
Him crossing with the officers with a flag while clearly an attempt to annoy was not yet breaking the law
Any continued action AFTER receiving a clear warning (one which will stand up in court) would be the point where the law was violated.

Prove it. Show the Utah law that would make it illegal.

What amazes me about this incident with some of you, that what the police are doing there is clearly in the public interest for safety.

Are they? Or, by not using the flags that are clearly there for public safety, are they just there for revenue generation?

I don't see this as any infringement on citizen rights whatsoever. Keeping pedestrians safe....well, I would appreciate that kind of enforcement operation in my neighborhood, especially as I am the kind of driver who already yields to pedestrians, whether there is a crosswalk or not, or even where the pedestrian is in the wrong. Who wants to run anyone over? I don't.

Pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way, even when they are wrong they must be yielded to, and that is the law in most states.

Yes...and crossing with a flag is NEVER illegal, in any state.

 

[Fledermaus]

Still not illegal...



Yet, under the Utah statute, it wasn't interference.



Falsely arrested. Any cop who falsely arrests someone simply because their feelings were hurt, or they didn't like what someone was doing (ie, there is no legal reason to arrest that person) is an asshole.



Prove it. Show the Utah law that would make it illegal.



Are they? Or, by not using the flags that are clearly there for public safety, are they just there for revenue generation?

Yes...and crossing with a flag is NEVER illegal, in any state.

Interfering is.

 

[Bodi]

Post #35.

Be specific.

Post #34 applies.

76-8-301. Interference with public servant.

(1)	An individual is guilty of interference with a public servant if the individual: (a) uses force, violence, intimidation, or engages in any other unlawful act with a purpose to interfere with a public servant performing or purporting to perform an official function;

The pedestrian was not using force, violence, intimidation or was he engaging in any other unlawful act...

He was using the pedestrian cross walk legally...

So... how does this apply if it does not apply at all?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

76-8-301. Interference with public servant.

(1)	An individual is guilty of interference with a public servant if the individual: (a) uses force, violence, intimidation, or engages in any other unlawful act with a purpose to interfere with a public servant performing or purporting to perform an official function;

The pedestrian was not using force, violence, intimidation or was he engaging in any other unlawful act...

He was using the pedestrian cross walk legally...

So... how does this apply if it does not apply at all?

Good luck, dude. I've been asking this question for four pages.

 

[Court Jester]

76-8-301. Interference with public servant.

(1)	An individual is guilty of interference with a public servant if the individual: (a) uses force, violence, intimidation, or engages in any other unlawful act with a purpose to interfere with a public servant performing or purporting to perform an official function;

The pedestrian was not using force, violence, intimidation or was he engaging in any other unlawful act...

He was using the pedestrian cross walk legally...

Yes, he did use the crosswalk legally when he crossed the street, and the officers did not say he couldn't do that.

He then after legally crossing the street, returned across the street with an undercover officer while carrying a pedestrian flag, in as we know was an obvious attempt to thwart the police safety enforcement operation by warning cars to slow down and yield. Which the cars are required by law to do anyway, regardless of whether not a pedestrian uses a flag. But the point of the police operation was to cite violators who were not yielding to pedestrians who were not using the flag tool, and what the undercover officers were trying to enforce. Clearly as important an enforcement operation for public safety as citing people for speeding through a school zone, or passing a school bus which has flashing red lights. Why the copwatcher has a problem with that kind of thing is beyond understanding.

So... how does this apply if it does not apply at all?

But the copwatcher would be in violation at the point AFTER the police inform him they are doing an official operation, and that his behavior is interfering with that, and for that he can be arrested if he continued to do the same again. The police did not try to arrest him for crossing, and did not arrest him for his little game he played, but after being informed that he was interfering, and if he continued he would be arrested, and that did have the force of law in that warning.

I'm curious what some people feel was so intrusive about the police traffic operation? The undercover officers were simply entering a crosswalk just like any pedestrian would do, and then waiting to see which drivers failed to yield. Either forcing the pedestrian (undercover cop) to wait for the car to pass, or a car passing too close and unsafely near a pedestrian. Who feels that kind of safety enforcment is a problem? I'd think it is what citizens would appreciate. This was not cops hassling a driver for a burned out licence plate bulb, a failure to yield for a pedestrian is pretty serious safety violation is it not?

 

[Bodi]

Yes, he did use the crosswalk legally when he crossed the street, and the officers did not say he couldn't do that.

He then after legally crossing the street, returned across the street with an undercover officer while carrying a pedestrian flag, in as we know was an obvious attempt to thwart the police safety enforcement operation by warning cars to slow down and yield. Which the cars are required by law to do anyway, regardless of whether not a pedestrian uses a flag. But the point of the police operation was to cite violators who were not yielding to pedestrians who were not using the flag tool, and what the undercover officers were trying to enforce. Clearly as important an enforcement operation for public safety as citing people for speeding through a school zone, or passing a school bus which has flashing red lights. Why the copwatcher has a problem with that kind of thing is beyond understanding.

I don't agree with what the guy did... let the cops teach slowing down at crosswalks with some fines. Works for me.

But the copwatcher would be in violation at the point AFTER the police inform him they are doing an official operation, and that his behavior is interfering with that, and for that he can be arrested if he continued to do the same again. The police did not try to arrest him for crossing, and did not arrest him for his little game he played, but after being informed that he was interfering, and if he continued he would be arrested, and that did have the force of law in that warning.

Even then though, he did not violate any portion of the law.

I'm curious what some people feel was so intrusive about the police traffic operation? The undercover officers were simply entering a crosswalk just like any pedestrian would do, and then waiting to see which drivers failed to yield. Either forcing the pedestrian (undercover cop) to wait for the car to pass, or a car passing too close and unsafely near a pedestrian. Who feels that kind of safety enforcment is a problem? I'd think it is what citizens would appreciate. This was not cops hassling a driver for a burned out licence plate bulb, a failure to yield for a pedestrian is pretty serious safety violation is it not?

I think the police operation was fine. I just understand that the guy, while being a prick, did not violate the law. Cops are also free to threaten him to get him to leave. They did not violate his rights and the OP is really reaching to find something anti-cop here, IMO.

 

[Court Jester]

I don't agree with what the guy did... let the cops teach slowing down at crosswalks with some fines. Works for me.

Agreed!

Even then though, he did not violate any portion of the law.

Well, I agree, but only because the guy decided to heed the warning by the police after he had been clearly informed that it was an official police operation. Because before that point, the guy could always just claim he was there to cross the street, and then to help protect other pedestrians with the flag. But after being notified by the police that it was a police operation, I believe had the guy continued, and been arrested, then he would be charged with interference and likely convicted. Which I think the video guy knew, and why he heeded the final warning. Because if he really believed he had not broken any laws, and he really cared about exposing police violating constitutional rights, then why did he retreat?

I think the police operation was fine. I just understand that the guy, while being a prick, did not violate the law. Cops are also free to threaten him to get him to leave. They did not violate his rights and the OP is really reaching to find something anti-cop here, IMO.

All true. And that is how these copwatcher videos work. Most of these guys are trolling cops for a reaction, and then they post in on youtube hoping to get hits and then monetize from ad money. This wasn't wasn't even a good example of police violating either citizens, or a cop watcher.

Here is a better video to discuss. One where the police single out independent news people, but give a pass to corporate news people getting a story, and "an official police operation" (a DUI checkpoint). In this one I don't believe the copwatcher was interfering at all, he was just there recording the police.

 

[Outlook]

A man is threatened with arrest for crossing the street with a flag that helps drivers to see that there is a pedestrian crossing the street because the cops are trying to do a sting operation to nail drivers with tickets for not yielding...

So...is the goal to make people safer, or revenue generation?

Who knows- -maybe both.
The man can't obstruct with police investigation/duties.
For instance it's obstruction if you flash your lights to warn of police presence on a roadway.

 

[Bodi]

Who knows- -maybe both.
The man can't obstruct with police investigation/duties.
For instance it's obstruction if you flash your lights to warn of police presence on a roadway.

I did that and got pulled over when I was about 19. Cop lied and said I was speeding but this was like 200 years ago before cameras and dash cams.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The man can't obstruct with police investigation/duties.

He wasn't obstructing them. He didn't lift a finger to stop them from stopping people who failed to yield. If they yielded, there's nothing to obstruct.

 

[Outlook]

He wasn't obstructing them. He didn't lift a finger to stop them from stopping people who failed to yield. If they yielded, there's nothing to obstruct.

When I cross a roadway, I go back and forth numerous times before actually moving on. Yes, that is considered obstruction.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

When I cross a roadway, I go back and forth numerous times before actually moving on. Yes, that is considered obstruction.

Not based on any reasonable interpretation of Utah law.