City pays $125,000 to settle Robbins v. Des Moines/Youngblut/Leo/Curtis

If I can boil it down to the brass tax, my wrongful-arrest case against Des Moines officers is a case where city hall would rather go to extraordinary lengths to put one of its residents in the dangerous predator bucket than to admit its own wrongdoing.

Quick background. I grew up in a small, rural town in Iowa. I earned an AAs in broadcasting and broadcast engineering and have since been a member of the broadcast media in this state for four decades. I worked as a radio news director, meeting regularly with community & civic leaders. I volunteered as a board member, as well as 2-term president, for my neighborhood association. I’ve been a communications volunteer for the county’s Emergency Management, and the state, as a member of the A.R.R.L. (Amateur Radio Relay League). I served as a communications N.C.O. in the Iowa National Guard, 194^th Field Artillery, with an honorable discharge.

I was raised around people who honorably served in the police profession. My grand dad was chief of police and I spent many family Christmases and Thanksgivings, and vacations with officers … Hawkeye games, Indianapolis 500, Knoxville races, boating at Sailorville, a skiing trip to Winter Park, etc. I’ve always lived and worked around law enforcement, have respected the institution, and have never had a beef with officers, even after getting pulled over for speeding or a citation for an expired registration.

It's easy for certain people to casually accuse me of disliking cops in general, but it’s without an honest basis. Similarly, a suggestion that I’ve ever created, dedicated or maintained any online space to illegally parked cars or government misconduct is also fabricated from whole cloth. As a broadcast professional I shot and produced hundreds of videos of a wide variety, many of which I posted on YouTube. I’ve shown videos of bands performing, celebrity and political interviews, events and newsworthy incidents, like a neighborhood monument dedication, National Night Out, a school bus crash, and structure fires at apartment buildings, a funeral home and houses.

And, yes, in the public-interest vein, I’ve also posted unfortunate incidents involving former police sergeant Greg Wessels and Ofc. Ryan Garrett, for instance, whose conduct people have viewed as less than professional at best. But I also have great photos and video of officers doing their jobs proudly. One of my favorite photos of all time shows one beaming DMPD Sgt. Dave Mulford introducing his horse to kids at one of our National Night Out gatherings.

I take pictures. A lot of them. I enjoy capturing the state of our city for posterity, and posting the changes to the Lost Des Moines Facebook group. At least I used to. That leads us to the wrongful-arrest lawsuit.

One area of the city that drew my interest, because of the city’s promotion of new impending development, is what’s known as the Market District, which is south of the East Village. I left the house that day to go on a photo tour of the area and document the state it was in at that time. I was aware that the historic marble foundry had been torn down and was being replaced by an apartment complex. The old railroad depot had been acquired by the Des Moines Historic Society and was about to be renovated. These are images that interested me and people seemed to enjoy seeing them. But I never got that far.

The Market District is essentially anchored by the police headquarters building. After I parked my car, I walked westerly along the south sidewalk of Court Avenue in front of the Salvation Army building. I spotted a white SUV parked under a no-parking sign across the street, along East 2^nd Street, between Salvation Army and police HQ, which I began filming or photographing. And then I saw “Angie” climbing in and driving away. That’s what drew me in for a close look.

According to city attorney Shelly Mackel in her oral arguments in front of the 8th Circuit federal court, employee “Angie” said it "was weird and uncomfortable" that "this guy is taking pictures of me getting into my car." I felt that would-be jurors could easily surmise that it was probably awkward for Angie that she – a uniformed employee of the Des Moines Police Department – had been noticed getting into the driver's seat of a car that was parked in front of a no-parking sign at police headquarters.

Following local news and reading the city’s court filings, one might think that event was the impetus for the police reaction that day.

Angie will be familiar to local TV viewers because she’s been mulling around crime scenes in front of television news cameras for years. Her uniform is black or dark blue with police patches on the shoulders. She’s practically indistinguishable from the officers wandering around crime scenes, investigating murders, house fires, and car accidents. In body-cam video, Officer Michele Strawser referred to her as “Ident Angie” because she’s part of the Identification Unit, DMPD’s name for the crime scene investigation unit, or CSI. She’s hardly a stranger to the public eye.

It might have been significant to a jury that this man with a camera saw Angie and believed she was just another cop violating a city ordinance. The fact that she happened to be female seems to be a distinction the city did its damndest to exploit, as evidence by Mackel’s remarks to the court, as well as DMPD Public Information Officer Sgt. Paul Parizek’s in television news interviews.

The narrative here was obviously crafted to dirty up the photographer-adversary, to bolster favorable court/public perception of the police action against him, with total disregard for their ethical responsibilities to the residents they serve.

After Angie drove off, I walked across the street to the west, near the rear parking lot of the police station. As I walked south, I encountered a plain-clothed gentleman watching Ofc. Michelle Strawser park her cruiser on East 2^nd Street, exit and walk to the officer standing near me on the sidewalk. The two exchanged words before she returned to her squad car and left the immediate area.

As the plainclothes officer walked north toward the station and I proceeded southward down the sidewalk, videotaping maybe a dozen cars parked along no-parking zones. When I was approximately a half-block south of the station, I noticed a pickup parked on the sidewalk, close to railroad tracks with crossbucks, a stop sign, and a fire hydrant. It was faced north on the southbound side of the street. I squatted ahead of the pickup to frame it in a way that showed the front tag.

About that time, Det. Brad Youngblut pulled his car up next to the pickup and began questioning me through his passenger-side window, and across the pickup bed. He asked what I was doing and I explained I was just taking pictures. When he asked of what, I began to describe my intentions to get some shots of the Market District and asked where Market Street was. Without really answering, Youngblut began escalating with what I felt were interrogation-style inquiries, so I wanted to establish whether he thought what I was doing was, or was not, okay. He eventually answered in the negative. “Not really,” he said. After a few fruitless verbal volleys, I decided that’s where any small talk has to end, because at that time, I felt I was under criminal investigation.

Sgt. Christopher Curtis and Ofc. Strawser then came walking south along the sidewalk where I was standing. Curtis yelled, “What are you doing leaning on my pickup?”  or words to that effect. In his deposition, Curtis admitted that wasn’t even his truck, so I inferred he was feigning an affront to his pride in order to sensationalize the encounter, just to fuck with me. He criticized me for coming down there and refusing to ID and explain what I was doing there. At one point he told me to “just leave then.” I said no, and that this is a public sidewalk, indicating I had every right to be there.

Lt. Joseph Leo appeared behind me and began asking questions. He first got my attention by saying, “I’m talking here.” He then went hands on, grabbing onto my arm and forcing it over my head, then lifting my shirt and digging his hand into my back pockets, pulling out my cellphone at one point. I told him not to touch me and made it very clear I didn’t consent to any searches. He said he didn’t need it, and asked if I had a driver’s license, to which I responded by asking why I needed a driver’s license to be a pedestrian, and that I didn’t have to give my name.

Lt. Josh Rhamy joined the group by announcing that I did have to identify myself because I was loitering. He threatened to arrest me if I didn’t. Det. Youngblut asked me if I knew what “interference with officials acts” was. I had remembered that local club owner Larry Smithson had fought to the Iowa Supreme Court an “interference” charge, and won. I was also acutely aware that ACLU Iowa had asserted on its website that there was no state law requiring anyone to provide their details, short of being stopped for a crime or traffic offence.

Considering the circumstances, I felt I was being coerced from several fronts, each making demands for things they had no authority to demand, but I decided I’d better capitulate to avoid being locked up. At the same time, I felt the need to establish for the record whether I was detained or arrested, thereby being compelled to obey their requests, just in case it became an issue at a later time. So, I asked. And Youngblut responded in the affirmative to both statuses; arrested and detained.

Then a plainclothes officer, standing off-camera, between Youngblut’s car and the pickup, said, “He’s a John Doe.” I inferred from that remark that he thought I ought to be charged and held as an unidentified person, which I regarded as another coercive tactic to gain compliance with their demands. I responded to that remark by repeating “John Doe?” in protest, then immediately providing my information to Youngblut.

City attorney Shellie Mackel tried to argue in front of the federal court that my utterance amounted to lying to the officers, and that was the proximate reason for the arrest. That might have worked, except that all indications were that I was already under arrest by that point. Officers had already surrounded me, dug their hands into my pockets, made me stand up against a truck, and confirmed an arrest. Thankfully the court wasn’t buying what Mackel was peddling in her oral arguments.

After a short lecture, accusing me of being difficult and challenging authority, Youngblut released me with a belated introduction. He said his name as he handed me his calling card, along with a trespass warning. He informed me that he was confiscating my camera and phone, saying he’d return them “at some point,” and that he hoped there was no evidence of crime on my devices.

As I turned and began walking away, Youngblut told me not to forget my readers. He then asked where I parked, if I got a ride, that he hoped I could get a ride, and whether anyone on scene ran my name. None had.

In my view, Youngblut's attitude was, "if you're just going to make this difficult for me by daring to challenge my authority, well then I'm just going to make this difficult for you by relieving you of your little camera ... and, oh yeah, your phone, too!" Rhamy warned that I better study the loitering laws better or next time, or I’d talk myself into jail. That was a group power trip if I’ve ever seen one!

It's been shown in many classroom exercises that tyrannical behaviors like these develop quickly among certain kinds of people who are adorned with symbols of authority. As we watch the interaction, we see Youngblut's snide & condescending attitude on display for the world to see – in fact he exhibited immense disdain toward me. "So, you think you can challenge me, huh? We'll just see about that!" The same can be said about Lt. Joseph Leo and Lt. Josh Rhamy's conduct, digging into pockets and threatening trumped-up charges for loitering, interference with official acts and trespassing.

Thankfully, after the final analysis, we can now ask Youngblut, Leo and Rhamy how crow tasted when they were forced to sit for their depositions and finally face the music for overstepping their authority that day, for the permanent record. We can now ask them how they feel about exposing our tax payers to the $125,000 payout, all because professionalism took a back seat to their egos that day in May, and throughout a considerable window of opportunity thereafter to avoid litigation.

Judge Andrew Napolitano said it well with his book title: IT IS DANGEROUS TO BE RIGHT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG. It's true here. Having to wait four and-a-half years for something resembling justice in this case was punishment for being right when the police were dead wrong.

Interestingly, I wasn't even looking for a confrontation that day. My sole mission at the police station that day was to document the parking violations and walk away. I don’t know what, if anything, I’d have ever done with photos of illegally parked cars. Probably nothing. But what if I give it to Youngblut, that I was only there “to challenge authority” and “be difficult?” What if I was only there to bait police and instigate a negative response for social media clicks, on behalf of some well-organized group of 1^st-Amendment activists? On whose authority does he punish anyone in this manner, abusing his state-imbued police power to create a government taking, as if by a king’s prerogative?

As for City Manager Scott Sanders siding with the unlawful actions of his subordinates, anyone in his position that lacks the integrity stand up for the rights of the residents he serves doesn’t deserve to lead a city in a song, much less as its chief executive. The city council should start a search for a new city manager at the next meeting.

My advice to all law enforcement officers is this: maintain your composure and professionalism, and don’t let your ego cause you to take the bait. Let public opinion eviscerate the instigator, not your tender ego and your role in the public trust!

My overall message is that government officials are on notice that “we the people” won’t sit still for officers who would abuse their powers and use excessive force against our communities. If we -- members of the media and the citizenry at large -- can't investigate wrongdoing by government actors, without fear of being arrested and having our property seized, then the constitution is powerless to protect the public from tyranny.

Fatherlessness and violence are connected

 The laws & institutions that are insensitive to or cause of fatherlessness can do more to address violent outcomes than all the mental health programs and gun laws on the planet. 

What Representing Men in Divorce Taught Me About Fatherhood

The Crisis of Fatherless Shooters

Mike Lee Wonders If ‘Fatherlessness’ Is Behind Mass Shootings

Five quick ideas to make better videos

If you want to know in as few words as possible how to avoid common mistakes when shooting video, try these 5 quick & dirty ideas.

Buy a $50 mic/recorder and learn how to use it

Terrible sounding audio will destroy an otherwise amazing video. On-camera (built-in) microphones are almost always too far from the subjects you’re recording and end up “hearing” too much environmental noise and “room bounce” reverberating throughout a speech. For the kind of up-close presence heard from radio & television presenters, you’ll need your microphone set a few inches from the mouth. Because it’s just not that feasible to hold your camera 3-10 inches from subjects’ mouths, I recommend lavalier and handheld microphones priced between $30 and $50 as a starting point. Budget mic reviews are plastered all over the internet, so you shouldn’t have too much trouble identifying a few suitable candidates for your purpose. Also, use headphones (or earbuds if you must) to identify & mitigate wind noise and other audio problems in real time (rather than struggling to correct them in post).

Avoid the zoom!

Video is all about steady, well framed shots. Zooming in and out is frustrating for the viewer, and zoom generally amplifies jittery effects of camera movement. Use zoom very sparingly, erring on the side of not using it at all! It’s nearly always better to stand closer to your subjects than to compensate for distant shots with zoom. Even with great image stabilization the results are often not as good as being closer. Of course, there are exceptions, but consider getting some tight shots after the main shoot. It’s fine to supplement your package with a few close-ups that can be stitched into the package as b-roll.

Hold shots steady; don't pan or bounce around scene excessively

It’s instinctive to point the camera where you’re looking, but it makes for annoying movement for the audience. When you frame a great shot that helps tell a story, allow your viewer to take in the composition. Us photographers might be hyper-active, but that should not inform our shooting style because it’ll drive people crazy!

Use a tripod, stick or stabilizer

Cellphones – or mobiles – make great camcorders, but the form factor is hard to keep steady; it takes purposeful effort to tuck elbows and stand very still, particularly if you’re multi-tasking. Using neck straps, selfie sticks, monopods and tripods will help you produce stable scenes, like having a third hand.

One final thought before I leave you to your work. I’ve noticed that too much space between the top of the frame and the top of a subject’s head makes them appear sinking or downing in the frame, and leaves little or no room for lower thirds – or titles. Try framing so that the tops of subjects’ heads are at, or near, the top of the frame.

Now go out there and practice shooting the kind of footage you enjoy watching & crafting into beautiful stories!

Upcoming article ideas:

One great reason for buying higher resolution cameras than your final packages will be affords you more flexibility to pan & zoom in post.

Cheap gear generally can’t handle challenging environments and make for cheap looking videos, but if you can control the circumstances by using a solid tripod, ideal lighting and external audio devices, you might be able to overcome some the weaknesses of discount equipment.

How the US government will be overthrown ... again

For those who say the United States is not the same country they grew up in, I agree. In addition to the peaceful transfer of power, the government is impacted significantly on an ongoing basis that can only be described as a subtle, morphing style coup d'etat perpetrated by groups of privileged. But the best -- or most dramatic -- is yet to come, and will be the greatest shift of power the country has ever experienced.

Money is the root of all evil and the same can be said about a new cryptocurrency-driven economy. Bitcoin and its ilk are being leveraged to undermine the dollar, along with the full faith and credit of the United States government, effectively sliding wealth quietly out from under unsuspecting capitalists. But at the end of the day all forms of money are just stand-ins for privilege, which is the boiled-down meaning of wealth and greed.

The privileged class makes policy as it always had, and keeps the dangerous class -- those who might threaten to dethrone them -- with less stature and standing.

If the the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve lose the ability to affect monetary policy, then the power to regulate the economy, for the current players, at least, will evaporate.

As we were reminded in 2007, speculative markets have a jaw-dropping impact on the economy, but have long been the domain of fund owners, stockholders and trading agents, to the exclusion of the workforce -- those who actually produce wealth through the making of goods & services -- and the consumer market, which is drawn from and supported by the former.

We are seeing a fluid shift in influencers who hold the lion's share of power and privilege on our soil and across the earth. I predict the total collapse of the US dollar as the measure of wealth and privilege on a global scale. But they are the sham power brokers; the only reason they have any real power is through smoke and mirrors.

Since before the turn of the century, speculative markets have been glamourized to the extent that it was commonplace for grocery store clerks, cops and factory workers to trade stocks and bonds as a means to improve their situations. And through frugal, thoughtful investments many did ... right up until the fall of 1929, the period when paper wealth disintegrated.

But this lesson in smart money has been lost to history through a terrible education system that either mischaracterized or misunderstood the Wall Street Crash.

My suggestion to working folks is to run fast from cryptocurrency and blockchain-based instruments and focus on using your earnings to maintain material needs. I have said many ways that true wealth is owning property and possessing means, knowledge and skill as consideration for goods and services.

If you're one of the lucky ones who's ignorance is bliss, and you don't concern yourself with the prospects of the US Dollar as a going concern, then let me caution you away from the facts:

• The national debt as of this writing is $29 trillion, 140% of total GDP
• The government created from thin air enough money to quadruple the money supply in the last two decades, from less than $5 trillion to $21 trillion
• Federal revenue from individual taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and tariffs is shrinking at an alarming rate

A University City, Missouri police sergeant detained a man who flipped the bird and demanded identification

 

On May 9, 2021 a sergeant with the University City, Missouri Police Dept. detained and demanded the identification of a man after receiving a middle-finger salute.

Sgt. Larry Becton approached the man and accused him of "aimlessly walking around" and insisted that he provide ID.

"Do you live over here," Becton asked. "It's not an option. Right now you're being detained ... for suspicious activity," the officer said.

"I will take you to the station and get your ID," Becton repeated.

The suspect, who asked to remain anonymous, asked,  "Is this because I flicked you off?"

As Becton demanded the man stand up, presenting his handcuffs, said, "I'm going to put you in handcuffs right now. Go ahead and resist if you want to." He then reached into the man's pocket and fished out his wallet. "For future reference, young man, you don't disrespect the police like that" the police sergeant said.

Sgt. Becton eventually released the individuals he had detained without any charges.

See the encounter.

Jury acquits Minneapolis man in self-defense shooting

Back in May of 2020 a group of men in a plain white van drove through the streets of Minneapolis shooting at people, injuring several. One man, Jaleel Stallings of St. Paul, who was struck by one of the bullets, returned fire in self defense. For that, the men then climbed out of the van and proceeded to beat Stallings, calling him a "worthless piece of shit." These are undisputed facts.

But there's so much more to the story. The militants in the van were actually Minneapolis police officers who were enforcing a nighttime curfew in the days after the George Floyd murder, committed by officers of the same police force. For daring to defend himself, police arrested Stallings for attempted murder and assault -- charges which prosecutors had the nerve to pursue. But thankfully jury sided with the victim and acquitted him.

Police will tell you that they used "less-lethal" bullets, but in video footage recently released by Stallings' attorney, distinguishing rubber from lead is nearly impossible.

In a story published by The Associated Press, rubber bullets used in this attack on protesters and the working press, were referred to as "nonlethal," but tell that to the 53 people who were killed by them, or the 300 hundred left permanently disabled, between 1990 and 2017. Police routinely use "less-lethal" measures, like firing taser hooks and rubber bullets, as punishment for daring not to capitulate to their power and authority.

Cable and Satellite carriage Election by local TV: To Consent or Must-Carry

Most cable-TV and satellite customers experience local TV black-outs from time to time because of breakdowns of contract negotiations between their providers and the local television stations carried on pay-TV channel lineups.

To be clear, the blackouts are the direct result of a deliberate choice.

Viewers and advertisers are made to suffer.

The rhetoric you see is often along the lines of "(insert name cable or satellite provider) is taking away your access to your favorite (network) programming," as though the it's all the provider's fault. But here's the truth.

Broadcasters always have the option of carriage on cable & satellite systems

The FCC instructs broadcast television station owners to assert carriage election status every 3 years. Their choices are either Consent Agreement or Must-Carry. If the station elects for Must-Carry status, the cable & satellite providers are forced by the FCC to carry that station on the channel lineups.

On the other hand, TV stations are also allowed to force cable & satellite providers to enter into costly consent agreements or be denied permission to retransmit those TV signals. This is where the breakdowns occur.

Why did the FCC make this rule in the first place?

The Communications Act of 1934 forced broadcasters who used programming of other broadcasters to get permission (or consent) from the program originators. That makes sense from an intellectual property standpoint, but back then there were no television stations, nor any multi-channel programming aggregators. However, in 1992 the FCC decided to extend this requirement to cable and satellite systems who were actually providing a valuable service to broadcasters by vastly improving picture quality.

Initially large community antennas would pick up TV stations and carry broadcasts the last mile to the home by a hardwired cable connection. These were capable of receiving better signals than the typical rooftop & rabbit-ear antennas.

In any case, maximizing availability of television signals across all platforms is clearly in the domain of Public Interest, a foundational axiom flouted by the government since the commission was created by Congress. Maximum carriage of TV also benefits the industries advertisers by maximizing the reach of their commercial messaging.

The blacking-out of TV stations to wide swaths of cable & satellite subscribers is counter-intuitive; broadcasters deliberately diminish their audience size.

So there you have it. The next time to hear a local television station whining that cable & satellite systems are the ones denying their views access to their favorite programming, you can confidently call BS!

To buy MS Editor, or not to buy?

I'm old. I bought a lot of software before my 30-year-old son was 10 and I still use most of it.

I bought programs. That's what we called apps back then. They were discounted because I'm too cheap to pay full price. I have Paintshop Pro Anniversary Edition for less than $100. Cool Edit 2000 was another bargain at $99.95.

One of my newer programs is MS Office 2013 and that was offered through an employee purchase program for $19.95. Before that I was using Office 2003. Today I noticed a popup notification on my Windows 10 machine that said "We recommend Editor." I had to google that. "Editor" turns out to be a spell & grammar checker.

I think I'll pass, though. They want to charge me by the month for the privilege of keeping it at the ready, and I figured out that if I keep it for 9 years, like I have Office 2013, it'll cost me $754.92. I'm way too cheap for that!

Rights of the accused in Iowa

I want to tell a story of a police encounter I had almost 3 years ago in which was arrested and that shook me to the core of my beliefs about the institution police in America. But I think I should start with a little background into freedom & liberty as I see it in my state.

I was in the military and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, very similar to a police officer's oath of office. My basic understanding of the Bill of Rights then was something that protected people on US soil so we are free to live and conduct ourselves as we see fit, generally unhampered by government intrusion. Taxes and speed limits aside, I can do what I want, where ever I please, and in the manner I choose.

I don't have that feeling, that sense of liberty anymore. I've learned firsthand that even when we conduct ourselves within the contours of the legal system, you and your property can still be taken and held by government actors for doing things that make some officials feel a little uncomfortable. Even when the thing you are doing is protected under the Constitution, that they swore an oath to uphold, even when guided by the First Amendment, police can and will engage in wrongdoing against you that would be regarded as assault and armed robbery by any other metric.

What police are doing around the country is egregious. Agents of power -- men & women with badges & guns -- with full privileges & immunities to bring violence on us peaceful types, to knowingly overstep their authority, confiscate cellphones and cameras that might capture their wrongdoing, and then crawl under that legal doctrine that was fabricated with whole cloth by the highest court in the land, qualified immunity, and say with straight faces, "Try & catch me, suckers!"

I'm disgusted by it. They don't even argue that what they do is wrong. They don't have to defend their illegal actions because their victims won't ever get their day in court to be made whole.

We can know without any doubt that police broke the law and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. And they're very well aware of this court-crafted loophole whenever they're committing their atrocities.

It's very simple, albeit at great taxpayer expense, but it happens all the time. Whenever police are sued to hold them accountable for excessive force, wrongful arrest or constitutional violations, but way before a court date can ever be set, departments' legal teams gather and craft petitions for summary judgment. Bam, "qualified immunity!" Cases are then dismissed before they begin.

I agree that police should not be foisted into litigation every time they issue a traffic summons. I agree that police should be given some latitude when they have to make snap decisions on the streets. But in a situation that wasn't particularly urgent, where they had the flexibility to make inquires as to the efficacy of their actions, and still do the wrong thing, the victims of police abuse need to have some recourse.

And on the subject of my attitude toward police, it has to be said that I have had positive experiences my whole life, with very rare and minor exceptions. My sense had always been whenever there were a few bad cops, they were eventually identified and taken off the streets.

I've been a news reporter who met weekly with the chief of police. My grandfather was chief of police in my home county. I had a mentor who was an officer, who took me fishing and gave me moral support in planning my future. I worked closely with police as board member and chair for our neighborhood association, and as a radio operator for community special events as a member of the Amateur Radio Relay League. I've worked alongside and become friends with many police officers, both as a regular citizen and as a member of the Iowa National Guard. There's simply no way anyone with a passing acquaintance with my personal story can walk away thinking I'm anti police.

To this day I'm stunned that police officers in my own community let me walk away without offering an apology for their error in judgment that day. They had just confiscated my cellphone & camera for doing nothing more than shooting video with my Canon PowerShot from a public sidewalk.

Without my only phone I couldn't even make a call to my attorney. All I could do was watch as police followed me in their vehicles as I walked the few blocks to mine. I passed by a bistro where Sgt. Yanira Scarlett, my neighborhood resource officer, was having lunch with a friend. I couldn't bring myself to interrupt her meal to alert her to what just happened.

I was fuming then, but within a few days I had several civil rights attorneys seething at the police conduct on full display in my video footage. Why are you being so difficult? Who hurt you to make you act this way? What organization are you with? Those were the kinds of questions cops were asking me.

In my reading of rights of Iowans, I've learned that our protections are somewhat different from (and in some cases better guarded than) other jurisdictions because of differences in our state constitution over the US Constitution ... in theory. Constitutionalists will understand the general foundational concept of the rights of the accused, that an individual who's being stopped for a crime has a right to know -- eventually -- the nature and cause of the accusation made against him.

What law have I broken? That was the central question, and one that the officers could not answer (until one crafty lieutenant later formulated a fictitious basis for an arrest).

The Iowa Constitution goes a step further than the federal charter. It says this right to be informed extends in all cases involving liberty, and that he must be given a copy of the cause and nature of charges against him whenever he demands it. Not at some later time and date, but when demanded. The time to deliver the copy of the cause and nature of the accusation would then be immediate, presumably at the time of the arrest.

Under Article 1 Section 10 of the Bill of Rights, the Iowa Constitution guarantees: "In all criminal prosecutions, and in cases involving the life, or liberty of an individual the accused shall have a right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the accusation against him, to have a copy of the same when demanded; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for his witnesses; and, to have the assistance of counsel."

In my encounter, May 10, 2018, I demanded to know what I was being accused. In no specific terms I was told "acting suspicious." I was clearly and openly engaged in public photography from a very-public vantage point near police headquarters.

Am I free to go? Yes, go! No, you can't go!

I challenged Sgt. Christopher Curtis on what was illegal about my activities. He said, "Nothing, but it's suspicious." When I asked if I was free to go, he said yes, and strongly encouraged me to move on down the sidewalk. At that point an officer who identified himself simply as "a lieutenant" told me I can't leave, that I was loitering.

Some lieutenant, right? You'd think he's know what constitutes loitering. But fortunately Federal justices of the US 8th Circuit disagreed with him, because my presence and actions didn't meet the elements of the local loitering ordinance. The accusation was no doubt a feeble rationale for detaining me and demanding identification. We later determined that this lieutenant is one Lt. Josh Rhamy, who had been on the police force for more than 16 years and was compensated $91,000 the previous year, and yet shockingly ignorant.

Brad Youngblut put it plainly. He said he'd charge me with obstruction if I refused to give up my name and address, although it's not clear under which section of Iowa Code Chapter 719 I might have been charged.

Investigative detention with no investigation at all

Police never investigated me on the scene of the arrest that day. They just hurled insults and berated me for having an attitude and the audacity to question their authority to detain me. They accused me of trying to catch them doing something wrong. They said I got exactly what I wanted. I wanted to know what their legal justification was for stopping me, but every time I spoke they interrupted me.

Of course it's my right as an individual, subject to the laws of the US and the State of Iowa, to never have to answer any of their questions.

At no time during that encounter -- from the time Brad Youngblut rolled up on me in his unmarked detective car, until the time they let me go -- did any officer endeavor to determine whether I was a wanted felon. At all times they were fully aware I was engaged in a legal and lawful activity, photography from a traditional public forum.

Aside from challenging their authority over me, there was never any indication that I wasn't cooperating with them to the extent the law requires. I was open and deliberate in my photography, never attempting to hide myself or the camera, or flee, or resist any of their intrusions.

They even hinted that I might have been planning to set off a bomb at police headquarters, steal a car or ambush officers, but none of the officers on the scene undertook any investigative measures to either dispel nor confirm their suspicions. They didn't even run my information that they so incessantly demanded I furnish.

On one hand they tried to say in court filings that I wasn't under arrest, that I was merely detained for investigative purposes. But Lt. Joseph Leo put me up against the pickup, grabbed and raised my arm, went into my pockets and fished out my cellphone, a vaping device, reader specs and a napkin. That kind of a search can only be done incident to arrest (presuming probable cause for an arrest existed), or with my consent, which I immediately made clear he didn't have).

On the other hand, to support an arrest, which they now confess they did, police must have probable cause that I committed a crime. But they had no such cause, other than accusing me of loitering, a notion the US 8th Circuit Court struck down in denying officers qualified immunity (for the Fourth Amendment complaint).

To merely detain a person, officers must use the reasonable suspicion standard, which requires facts and circumstances leading a reasonable person to believe crime was afoot, and that the individual in custody was likely involved. But all they had was a guy walking down a public sidewalk, near police headquarters, in broad daylight, in the middle of the day, with cops milling about, and of course me pointing a camera at a number of illegally parked cars.

Giving a false name: John Doe

At one point during our encounter, an officer asked, "What's your name?" Someone in plain street clothes  barked "He's a John Doe," to which I objected with  "John Doe?" with an obvious upward inflection, making it clear to any native English-speaking person that I was challenging being classified as a John Doe, defined as a person whose identity is not known. The absurdity in claiming I gave a false name is 2-fold: I was clearly not responding to the officer demanding my information, but was objecting to the proposed classification.

In court the city argues that the arrest was good because I gave a fictitious name. But that argument fails for two reasons. First, merely stating John Doe is not giving a false name, presumably triggering Iowa Code Section 719.1A, providing false identification information. Secondly, my utterance of John Doe came after the arrest.

Besides that, in my next breath, I did give my full name, address and date of birth, but only after I established that my freedom & liberty had evaporated. Because the stop and the demand for ID were in fact compulsory, I capitulated only under threat of arrest. I might have -- to borrow a military axiom -- died on that hill, but I had animals at home that required my care.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The conduct exhibited by the officers was reprehensible to say the least. They humiliated me on a busy street and flexed their power over a law-abiding individual, and then stole my cell phone and camera without cause.

By using the authority vested in them by the State of Iowa, the officers surrounded me, arrested me, with hands on lifted my arm, searched my pockets, held me against a pickup, prevented me from leaving, and stole my cellphone and camera. Throughout the ordeal they surrounded me as they insulted and berated me, and warned me that if I returned I'd be cited for criminal trespass. Defendants also followed me to my car. Through their PIO the department was suggestive that my behavior was predatory. Viewing these facts in the light most favorable to me, as is the standard in cases like this,  a jury could certainly see this type of conduct by police officers as outrageous.

According to the Iowa ACLU:

"You have the right to photograph or film anything that is in plain view when you are lawfully in a public space. This includes state and federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police/government officials carrying out official duties. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Iowa, has upheld a permit requirement that banned all commercial activities — including commercial photography — in a public park without a permit. That permit requirement could not apply to noncommercial photography though, like filming a political protest or police abuse that might take place in the park."

Daniel Robbins

Be Gooder

I get a little tired of people telling us that America needs to wake up, that political leaders and government officials are ruining this country – all from the comfort of their couches. Aside from voting and serving on juries, I have always said the best way to make a change, or to make things better, is to get off the couch and go to a meeting.

Des Moines resident Jon Shelness recently penned a Letter to the Editor, in Kennedy-esque fashion,  prompting residents to play a more active role in community improvement, over merely imposing on elected officials to do all the heavy lifting.

What can I do to improve my neighborhood?

During the most recent election cycle in the city of Des Moines, I heard citizens ask elected officials, “What will you do to revitalize my neighborhood?” The bigger question we should be asking is, “What can I do, as a resident, to improve my neighborhood?”

I am a strong proponent of neighborhood associations because research suggests, dollar for dollar, they are the most cost-effective way of lowering crime and increasing quality of life. The problem is that only a fraction of the city’s 55 neighborhood associations functions with full boards, regular meetings and active neighbors. Please consider volunteering.

— Jon Shelness, Des Moines

Jon is not wrong. I will add to his recommendation. 1. Work with specific, actionable words and initiatives as opposed to the vague generalities parroted by politicians and public relations mouthpieces. 2. Do more! Show up and say, “Yes!” While Jon suggests participating by volunteering for your neighborhood group, which is a good step, he does not say what specific measures the group takes to achieve the lowering of crime, nor how he defines “quality of life.”

Stop using and accepting meaningless buzzwords!

Rethink and reframe the vernacular of group speak. For instance, the word “revitalize” is meaningless without concrete examples. Undefinable used-car puffery holds no one accountable for successful outcomes.

“Thriving” and “vibrant” are other non-descriptive buzzwords I find frustrating … because candidates can use them in campaign promises, but we can never hold them account for subsequent failures tied to them when specific achievements remain unmet – or are not necessarily even quantifiable.

As much as I applaud Mr. Shelness for his encouragement, restating his phrase, “increasing quality of life” – without specific attributes – will result in no measurable neighborhood improvements. If residents are in need of more green space for parks, then that is what engaged neighbors should be lobbying city hall and rallying neighborhood support to achieve.

Better, more definable terminology might include a phrase like “standard of living,” with underlining goals, like 25% higher incomes, fewer payroll deductions and less expensive rent, food, transportation, medical, taxes and other critical goods and services. Demand examples and definable terms. Ask, “What does that mean?” or “What does that look like?” or “How do did you arrive at your conclusion?”

Take real action!

Join a like-minded group, like your neighborhood association, like Jon suggests, or the Des Moines Neighbors, an amalgamation of neighborhood associations. Attend board, commission and council meetings, knock on doors for campaigns and causes, and be more engaged in local news stories and events. Volunteer to stand up and speak for organized initiatives. Apply to serve on a commission.

How ever you choose to participate in community improvement, my hope is that you engage – at the local level – instead of embarking on a keyboard-warrior campaign in the halls of the Social Media Assembly. Of course, in the spirit of First Lady Melania Trump's "Be Best" initiative.

Dan Robbins is a resident of Woodland Heights and has served on its board for several years; as chair for 2 terms.

Irony defined: who enforces the enforcers?

I could be wrong, because I'm no attorney, but...

There doesn't appear to be an exception in the city's parking ordinance for non-emergency vehicles. And I've never heard an emergency overtime parking call go out over the police radio.

To top this off, the parking enforcement vehicle is parked under the 8th Street viaduct at the police parking office, where there were empty spaces available for parking enforcement vehicles a few feet away at the time this photo was taken.

The reason for no-parking zones is always for public safety. Where they're placed nearly always improves sight lines, making motoring safer in general. But restricting parking isn't just for cars. As the Federal Highway Administration points out, parking creates a visual barrier between motor vehicle traffic and crossing pedestrians, especially children and people using wheelchairs.