By Carlos Miller
Almost two years after Brent Cox was arrested for observing police in Jackson, Mississippi, a municipal judge found him not guilty.
Cox, who works for the American Civil Liberties Union, had been charged with interfering with an officer, failure to obey a lawful order and disorderly conduct.
In other words, he was arrested for “contempt of cop”.
The case was such an obvious sham that it’s appalling that it took this long for a judge to finally see the light. And this is considering that Cox had the full backing of the ACLU, a privilege that many of us who have been arrested under these circumstances don’t experience.
On September 14th, 2007, Cox noticed that two Jackson police officers were questioning a young man in front of a grocery store. He stood a short distance away and began observing the interaction. One of the officers noticed him and told him to go away. He told her he had the right to observe.
The officer responded by saying, “someone wants to get arrested,” according to a complaint Cox filed after the arrest. She ended up moving him about 60 feet away.
Once the officers had released the man they were questioning, Cox walked up to them and asked for their names and badge numbers – public information that almost every officer has a problem giving out.
The officers refused to give him that information and the female officer even covered up her badge, according to Cox’s complaint.
Meanwhile, the male officer demanded to see his license, which he handed over. The officer then ran a background search on him through dispatch.
A sergeant then pulled up to the scene who ordered him arrested.
Hopefully the ACLU follows through with a civil suit against the Jackson Police Department.
Popularity: 1% [?]
10 responses so far ↓
1 Andrew DeFilippis // Apr 29, 2009 at 4:48 AM
Pretty soon, we are going to have to carry around a 500-1000mm lens to be able to capture events without being harassed…
2 diomedesxx // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM
that would look even more “suspicious”
3 Duane Kerzic // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Yeah, carrying around a long lens always attracts attention. I like my 24-70mm L even though it’s not that long it’s big and always gets noticed in both good and bad ways.
Interesting they wouldn’t give names and badge numbers. That’s required by law in every state I’m aware of.
I guess cops need to have a certain degree of authoritarianism in their personalities to be attracted to the job in the first place. But I think the agencies USA have allowed those with too much authoritarianism on the force. I know that departments in other countries have problems but my interactions with police in both Mexico and Canada have had a different feel to them then many, but not all, of my interactions in the USA. This obviously isn’t by any means a scientific study.
I just wonder if “contempt of cop” is more of an issue in the USA then it is in other countries? If this has something to do with the attitudes of the public and the people on the police forces? Is this just a feature of the human condition and the same everywhere?
4 Voice of Reason // Apr 29, 2009 at 3:09 PM
May I ask a question? Why didn’t this article identify the “two Jackson police officers” by name?
5 Carlos Miller // Apr 29, 2009 at 3:22 PM
VoR,
Because the ACLU apparently believes this information is irrelevant and have not released the names.
6 galvarez // Apr 29, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Hello 9-1-1 dispatch, My name is (your name here) I’d like to report x number of unidentified individuals impersonating LEO(s). Please send a bona fide shield to this location.
Acknowledge please. What is your number dispatch?
Because they are issuing unlawful orders and behaving in a hostile and intimidating manner. Refusing to identify themselves.
7 galvarez // Apr 29, 2009 at 3:45 PM
So what if? Will it work or not. What outcome do you think will result? I wonder…
8 Carlos Miller // Apr 29, 2009 at 4:19 PM
You will probably be arrested for false reporting.
9 Voice of Reason // Apr 29, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Note to Carlos Miller: Thanks for your response to post 4.
Note to “galvarez”: You said, “Will it work or not. What outcome do you think will result?”
You’re being facetious. The suggestion is pointless. You know perfectly well that anybody who approached the matter as directly as you’ve suggested would end up in serious trouble. However, there is something to what you’ve said. If it’s not an emergency situation, and I’ll note that this case obviously didn’t involve an emergency situation, are people required to obey “lawful orders” from individuals who refuse to properly identify themselves?
I’m not being facetious. Additionally, people shouldn’t conduct experiments related to this question unless photographers are present, preferably at least two photographers. However, if anybody who’s reading this is familiar with the issues involved, I’d appreciate the answer.
On a related note, I’ve been surprised to see the kinds of risks that some of the people in these stories take. Speaking directly to people who might be inclined to try this kind of thing deliberately (as opposed to accidentally as in the current case), shouldn’t you work in pairs? There should always be at least one person standing farther back, filming exchanges of this type.
10 xdamousex // Apr 30, 2009 at 12:57 PM
There should always be at least one person standing farther back, filming exchanges of this type.
It’s sad that this is the only recourse to keep many police officers from filing bogus charges and falsifying reports knowing that it’s their word against the person they’re arresting.
Leave a Comment