By Carlos Miller
Houston mechanic Michael Haven already had his hands full with an irate customer who was threatening to sue him for taking too long to fix his motorcycle.
Things only got worse when the customer called a Houston Police Officer to the scene, according to the Houston Press.
Wanting to document the events for his defense, Haven grabbed a camera and a tape recorder. He turned the recorder on and stuffed it into his pocket.
Then he snapped a photo of the customer’s motorcycle and of the officer’s squad car as it pulled up onto his property.
Houston Police Officer Glen Dickerson immediately rolled down the window and ordered him to stop taking photos. Then he exited the car “in an aggressive manner” and ordered Haven to produce an ID.
Haven told the officer to wait outside while he retrieved his ID from inside the shop, but Dickerson followed closely behind and “stood next to [him] at an uncomfortably close distance,” while he rummaged for his ID in his office.
Seconds after handing over his ID, Haven claims Dickerson grabbed his arm, handcuffed him, and arrested him for assault. Dickerson then allegedly reached into Haven’s pants pocket and found a tape recorder, which was turned on. Haven claims Dickerson listened to the tape and then erased part of it.
Haven was charged with “assault on a police officer” – a felony – according to civil liberties Examiner J.D. Tuccille, who acknowledges that it was legal for Haven to have recorded Dickerson without his consent.
That was in 2007. The case went to court and Haven agreed to work 10 hours of community service to have the case dismissed, only because he did not want to spent the next two years fighting the case.
But since then, the incident has been eating him up, so last month, he filed a lawsuit against Dickerson and the City of Houston claiming his First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated.
He is also seeking a court order that Houston police officers be “trained to not arrest people for speech, not producing a physical identification or photographing or recording conversations with police.”
The City of Houston responded by filing a motion of dismissal basically admitting that Dickerson had screwed up, but that he or anybody else should not be held accountable.
Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were violated when she was taken into custody by Officer Dickerson. However, there is no constitutional guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested. …
While Mr. Haven’s actions included speech, a reasonable officer could have concluded that they were not limited to speech. Mr. Haven admitted to verbally disagreeing with Officer Dickerson. He also admitted to photographing the police vehicle and Officer Dickerson, and taping their conversation. Under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable for Officer Dickerson to have believed that Mr. Haven’s relevant actions, taken as a whole, constituted more than “speech only” and that the statutory defense of §38.15(d) was not established. Law enforcement officials who reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present are entitled to qualified immunity.
It’s obvious that they are grasping for nothing.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
20 responses so far ↓
1 genewitch // Apr 3, 2009 at 11:23 PM
So “speech” just means talking?
Mr. Haven’s relevant actions, taken as a whole, constituted more than “speech only” and that the statutory defense of §38.15(d) was not established.
What is that garbage? What if he had Spoken The Words “i will not present ID, i am the owner of this shop and this irate customer called you because they’re a fickle person with no understanding of anyone else’s life but their own?”
Still would have resulted in an arrest. the best part is, this took place on private property owned by the person who was arrested. This sort of thing is getting out of control!
2 Duane Kerzic // Apr 3, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Let’s see:
1. Mr. Haven admitted to verbally disagreeing with Officer Dickerson.
OK that’s speech.
2. He also admitted to photographing the police vehicle and Officer Dickerson
OK that’s speech.
3. and taping their conversation.
Sounds like speech again.
Under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable for Officer Dickerson to have believed that Mr. Haven’s relevant actions, taken as a whole, constituted more than “speech only” and that the statutory defense of §38.15(d) was not established.
Does that check out?
Texas Penal Code §38.15 is about interfering with a peace officer in the performance of his duties. §38.15(d) allows the defence of the interference being speech only. So jones that means it’s not interference if you talk to a cop, ask him a question or do other things like that while he’s conducting an investigation.
I think you’re correct Carlos, It’s obvious that they are grasping for nothing.
If any of this is true this cop is a thug and should consider finding other employment.
3 Chad // Apr 4, 2009 at 7:52 AM
You neglected to include the key point that Michael Haven plead guilty. That means he legally admitted he was wrong and the police were right. You can’t undo that. If he had a problem with the incident, he should’ve raised it then. Larry Craig tried this and you can see where it got him.
That means Michael Haven is admitting he was lying when he plead guilty. He’s an admitted liar.
I predict this case will go exactly nowhere. It’s much ado about nothing.
It’s a shame taxpayer dollars are being wasted on this kind of idiocy. Hopefully the judge will slap Michael Haven with costs for the city.
4 Roxy // Apr 4, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Another day in lawsuit-happy America, where people can’t act like adults and accept the consequences for their own stupid actions. Blame mommy, blame teachers, blame the big bad police becuase, God forbid, you would otherwise have to admit you screwed up.
5 res ipsa loquitur // Apr 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM
How is this grasping for nothing? The city evoked a qualified immunity defense in this action, which is entirely customary. Qualified immunity always applies when a suspect’s speech is concurrent with other actions or behavior, which is exactly what occurred here, by Mr. Haven’s own admission.
It is, in fact, Mr. Haven who is grasping at nothing. He admitted guilt in the underlying charge; therefore, his civil suit almost certainly will be dismissed on the city’s motion. This is a non-starter.
6 DKMontoya // Apr 4, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Police in every instance are going to be construed as “right” every time in every situation until they are proven wrong. Police—people who couldn’t be soldiers or former soldiers who carried weapons and could shoot to kill without question or pause…..are, for the most part going to demand full and unfettered or qualified respect and attention. When they perceive their opinions and/or actions as “my way or the jailway”, the person NOT showing them full and unfettered respect and attention will be charged with a crime of their choosing.
During our 8 years of being lost in the Bushes, America sucked up having their individual rights trampled into the ground, completely removed, and the Constitution rewritten or ignored. The gangs of law enforcement were so happy when the rights of others meant absolutely nothing.
Those days are over, folks. The Constitution still is in force; the rights of Americans still exist; the perceived perpetrater is still innocent until proven guilty.
My point: If you say you’re guilty because you don’t feel you have the financial resources or the backbone to fight back…..then you ARE guilty. Maybe not of the crime with which you’re being charged, but with the crime of “guilty by omission.” If you don’t believe your rights are worth standing up for, then you don’t deserve them in the first place.
Fighting for what’s right has never been, nor will ever be, the easy way out. The American Revolution was not won by everyone giving in to being bullied, harassed, and incarcerated. The battles were won by people who thought their rights were more imporant than their lives.
If this guy is now whining and wanting a “do over” because he lost his spine when it was necessary for him to have one, then he needs to whine on someone else’s doorstep. There are those Americans who have lived in mortal fear of government, police, FBI, CIA, etc., and still worked for what was right.
If you’re looking for a life line from the laws that others gave their lives to have on the books, thank your lucky stars they had more courage than you did, Mr. Haven.
7 Elle // Apr 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM
DKMontoya, I’m not sure what you mean by “Police—people who couldn’t be soldiers or former soldiers.” Many police officers are military veterans.
8 Webspin // Apr 4, 2009 at 5:53 PM
WTF?!?;
“During our 8 years of being lost in the Bushes, ”
With millions of government employs stealing the rights and wealth of this country, how is it that all the blame gets heaped upon one simpleton of a president? You honestly don’t think were in just as much trouble with the high deity Obama?
9 foobar // Apr 4, 2009 at 9:51 PM
@webspin
sadly yes. although congress and other are surely to blame
Bush, his administration, and “his” congress gave the white flag for fascism, it said you can do whatever you want as long as you say it is in the interest of “national security”. look here: http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html
I am not saying that this was the only factor, or that Obama is a miracle worker, but we do finally have a president that is willing to stand up for peoples rights, and does not stand behind a baseless defense of militarism and “national security”.
10 diomedesxx // Apr 5, 2009 at 3:22 AM
Chad, upon what facts do you say he was guilty? Neither this site, nor the site that this article was referenced from state he pled guilty – only that the case was dismissed in exchange for 10 hours of community service. One must userstand that there are four possible ways you can answer to a charge: not to enter a plea (you will end up submitting a ‘not guilt’ via proxy), to plea ‘not guilt’, to plea ‘guilty’ or last to plea ‘nolo contendre‘ (“no contest” – not refuting the charges while maintaining that he is not guilty). The latter two of the four will result in what happened to Haven – no trial and straight to sentencing, thus you cannot say with certainty that he already plead guilty. Much ado about nothing? I say certainly not, as while all of the information we have available to make a judgment is “suspect” per se, it a clear abuse of the officer’s office and demands some amount of accountability. Unfortunately, police departments in Texas don’t seem to proactive about and IA investigation, thus one must go “overboard” to call attention to the matter. Not that anything would be done in any case, but we must ‘fight the good fight’, as they would say.
Roxy, exactly how did Haven “screw up”? We live in a land where laws should to be adhered to; nothing that Haven reportedly did constitutes a crime. What the responding officer reportedly did, however, is summed up quite well by Texas Penal Code 8.38.02: Abuse of Official Capacity. If we are to judge by the reported acts, the officer quite clearly “knowingly” “(2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.”
Getting more back to the topic, it would be nice if it could be clarified if Haven entered a plea of ‘guilty’, or if he entered ‘no contest’.
11 Peggy // Apr 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM
This case went from felony assault on a peace officer to a few afternoons sorting canned goods.
Haven never plead guilty to so much as jay walking in this case. Faced with a choice between a few afternoons on his time frame helping a good cause or an unknown number of court appearances and further legal expenses, he chose the prudent route.
Charges were dismissed.
I’ll be tuned into this one.
12 Somedude // Apr 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM
In fact there was absolutely no admission or finding of guilt. The case was DISMISSED, only after the prosecutor was overheard to state that “this case is going to embarrass the PD”. Haven, being a business man who knows the value of his time, did community service on advice of counsel to save the time and trouble of a trial with the same outcome, dismissal. The only plea ever entered was” Not Guilty”.
A larger question remains of either tampering with evidence or destruction of private property by the cop messing with the tape.
13 Ridge // Apr 13, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Foorbar, You say we have a President willing to stand up for people’s rights? Then why did Obama fight for the reauthorization of Government wiretapping of it’s own citizen’s without cause? You sir are sadly mistaken about Obama.
14 JGrindal // Apr 14, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Houston PD scores another win in their column.
15 J. Xicano // Apr 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM
This is my first time commenting.If taking pictures in public places of public/civil servants is a crime(referring to Houston officer and reporter), then why is the federal government persuading state governments, through economic intimidation, to post cameras at all intersection, highways, and business districts in order to observe the citizenry? Arenʻt these cameras violating our rights? I know that I for one never voted, or received an opportunity to vote, on whether I would like surveillance cameras in my community, and I donʻt recall giving the government permission to use my taxes or public funds for these projects, which they are. People need to reevaluate their priorities and start taking back their inherent self-governing powers(from states rights to personal freedoms). After all the government is defined as the people not as an entity by and of itself. And, remember administrations may change but their goals are the same. To strip us of our rights and have us working as servers not entreprenuers.
16 J. Xicano // Apr 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Apologize about submitting twice. still new at this electronic info stuff.
17 Carlos Miller // Apr 21, 2009 at 5:53 PM
No problem J, I just deleted the first comment.
Welcome to the site.
18 Bryan C. Norman // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Tonight on the way home, I was changing lanes legally and had my blinker on trying to get into the HOV/Toll rd at 610 and I-10. A marked car came from behind me going at a high rate of speed and came right up behind me within like 10-20 feet at 60 mph. It made me very uncomfortable and I tapped my brakes (remember I was headed to the toll lane). When I looked back forward from the rear view mirror, I was about to hit the cones separating the toll rd and the main part of I-10. I swerved back to the right to avoid hitting the cones. The car turned out to be an HISD police car and the guy in it driving pulled up next to me. I was mad because I felt like he almost caused a wreck! So, I pulled out my camera phone and video taped him. As I video taped him driving, He turned on his side lights and then off. I kept recording him and when he saw the camera he slammed on his brakes and went behind me and turned on his lights and pulled me over. Just before he did this I had called 911 to report this crazy guy! When I came to a stop he nearly again rear ended me. At the last minute he swerved. Then he stopped….and I got out of my car, stood by my car and he got out and approached me. I was on the phone with a 911 dispatcher asking for a HPD officer…I was thinking that an HISD cop has no jurisdiction on a freeway outside a school zone and I wanted to make sure this was legal for him to pull me over in the first place. I also wanted a third party involved. He was trying to get me off the phone and pulled out his handcuffs telling me to get off then phone and deal with him. He threatened to arrest me while I was on the phone with 911. This whole incident was taking place because I suspected this guy was abusing his power because he was mad I tapped on my brakes for him following too close and for recording it.
I got 3 other cars on scene including an HISD supervisor. I got a ticket for unsafe lane change because he had nothing else to go on.
Correct me if I am wrong but it a felony offense to interrupt a 911 call in Texas.
The officer is Nolly badge number 200.
Now I have to show up in court and defend myself for an unsafe lane change.
I am filing a formal grievance with the Mayors office AND HISD. As soon as I get my video downloaded from my camera phone I will post it to the internet….
19 Carlos Miller // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Bryan,
Let me know when you get that video posted.
20 howard willis // Feb 18, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Wow! Mr. Haven was not arrested for taking the officer’s picture, he was arrested because he had the nerve to poke the officer in the arm with something from inside his desk drawer when supposedly looking for his identification, which the officer had a right to ask because by that point Mr. Haven had been legally detained as it was pointed out to the officer that Mr. Haven may have committed a crime against the person who called the police the day before. Wait til all the facts come out on this one.
Leave a Comment