Mediaboss Marketing

Wont somebody please think of the police dogs? On Saturday, the Associated Press ran the latest example of a genre of news story thats become a regular accompaniment to marijuana legalization: the fate of now-superfluous drug-sniffing dogs.

Drug-sniffing dogs are notoriously unreliable at detecting drugs, and yet many American police ... [+] departments still insist on using K9 units.

Virginia is set to legalize the possession of up to an ounce of cannabis beginning in July. That means the early retirement of at least 15 drug-sniffing dogs throughout the state, as the AP itempicked up by outlets across the countryreported, because these dogs are trained to alert to the scent of cannabis.

Any alert is interpreted by police (and prosecutors, as well as most courts) as probable cause to effect a search under the Fourth Amendment. Since the dog cant discern between a large amount of cannabis and a single joint, and because a dog trained to detect both cocaine and marijuana cant inform its handler what was detected, the only path forward for police narcotics units is to retire their drug-sniffing dogs and acquire new hounds trained only to suss out cocaine, heroin, MDMA, or other substances still part of Americas war on drugs.

For civil liberties advocates as well as anyone concerned with criminal justice, this is a good development. Drug dogs should retire, because drug dogs are extremely bad at detecting drugs.

As Reason reported last month, drug dogs are often about as useful as a coin toss to determine whether a school locker, vehicle, or individual has drugs. In other cases, drug dogs simply respond to commands from its handler and ignores whatever scents are actually out there.

That is, the drug-sniffing dog isnt there to sniff out drugs at all. The drug-sniffing dog is just there to give the police probable cause to searchand to impound vehicles and detain people who later turn out to be innocenton demand.

Reason offered the story of Karma, a drug dog in Republic, Washington, as a parable. A K-9 unit handled by former Republic police Chief Loren Culp, Karma had a perfect record: he detected drugs every time he did a search. The problem was that Karma detected drugs when there were no drugs present.

When he had the chance to stop the impound of an innocent owners vehicle, his success rate was zero percent, Reason reported. That didnt stop Culp from employing Karma in searchesand that also didnt stop Culp from boasting on Facebook about Karmas perfect record.

A drug dog in action in Turkey in 2014.

Criminal-justice scholars and observers have known for years that the problems with Karma are found throughout the United States wherever drug dogs are employed.

As Jane Bambauer, a law professor at the University of Arizona, wrote in an article published in 2013, dogs are often wrong, alerting where no drugs can be found. Worse, dogs can be biased, she added, picking up on subtle cues from their handlers.

Bambauers analysis followed a 2011 study from the University of California, Davis, which found that police dogstrained to detect explosives as well as drugsare affected by human handlers beliefs, possibly in response to subtle, unintentional handler cues.

If the police dogs handler wants the dog to alertconsciously or otherwisetheres a good chance the dog will alert.

Marijuana legalization isnt the only reason why drug dogs value and purpose are being re-evaluated. Courts are becoming increasingly aware that drug dogs just arent good at finding drugs. In a reversal from the position of the Supreme Court 30 years ago, when drugs were considered such a scourge that drug dogs unreliability wasnt a concern, courts are now openly questioning police dogs merit.

As TechDirt.com noted, in a decision published last year, a federal court in Utah granted a defendants motion to suppress a drug dog search and dismissed his indictment, after noting serious concerns about the dogs training and reliability.

The court questioned the reliability of every drug dog in the statewhere cannabis is not legal beyond medical applications. This is an enormous boon to defense attorneys handling cases where a dog alert was the probable cause. If Utah thinks that drug dogs arent reliable indicators of the presence of drugs, what about other jurisdictions?

So far the nations highest court has affirmed law enforcements use. In Florida vs Harris, a decision issued in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that if a drug dog has recently passed a training program, an alert from that dog is sufficient probable cause.

But as the record of Karma and other drug dogs with perfect training scores demonstrates, probable cause is a fait accompli. If the handler wants it, the handler can get it. Drugs need not be present.

So if drug dogs cant be relied upon to detect drugs, if drug dogs are often wrong, and if the courts think drug dogs are unreliable, whats the point? Why have them at all?

The real application of police dogs is psychological. The presence of a dog grants its police handler a sense of power and authority. If a search is desired, a search is granted. With a record like that, the sight of a dogor the chance that a dog will be encountered, at an airport, at a border crossing, or at a school, whateverwill deter and discourage the public from flouting the law. The approach of a drug dog might even compel a wavering lawbreaker to give himself up.

Thats not very fair or just, but in an era where all drugs were illegal, you could argue that this was at least legally defensible. Today, when cannabis is legal in some form for more than 200 million Americans, drug dogs snare innocent people in the criminal justice system.

Drug dogs are a vestige of the drug war. If a vast majority of Americans think cannabis should be legaland they doand if legal scholars and the courts think drug dogs are bad at their jobsand they do, and they arethen police departments probably should have been prepared for this moment, rather than providing grist for gauzy news items. But people love dogseven dogs that are civil-rights violation machinesand so here we are.

A Colombian policeman from an anti-drug unit walks with a sniffer dog amidst marijuana packages on ... [+] display for the press on August 24, 2012, at the anti-drug air base in Tulua, department of Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Four tons of marijuana "red dot" type allegedly belonging to the Sixth Front of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were seized from a truck in the town of Buga, Valle del Cauca department, while being transported from the town of Corinto bound for the department of Norte de Santander. AFP PHOTO/Guillermo LEGARIA (Photo credit should read GUILLERMO LEGARIA/AFP/GettyImages)

So what about the dogs? The retired drug dogs in Virginia are all being adopted going home with their police handlerswhere, if so desired, they will alert to the presence of drugs every day, for the rest of their days.

The rest of us should wish them a happy and healthy retirementand encourage every other drug-sniffing dog currently in police employ to join them as soon as possible.

See the article here:
Marijuana Legalization Is Retiring Police Dogs. Why Thats GoodAnd Why All Drug K9 Units Should Go. - Forbes

Angeline Angie Mead says Department of Homeland Security officials violated her Fourth Amendment rights after an officer allegedly shot her in the right eye with a high velocity projectile during a downtown Portland protest, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court.

The injury came amid a wave of munitions deployed by the feds into protesters faces during the summer of 2020. Mead is a Black Lives Matter supporter who attended a protest in downtown Portland on July 26, according to the lawsuit.

As federal agents herded protesters away from the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, the complaint alleges, Mead, who was wearing swim goggles, turned her head in the direction of federal law enforcement officers approaching her from behind. A federal agent standing about 20 feet away then shot her in the right eye without cause or warning, her attorneys allege.

Terrified, Mead immediately lost all vision in her right eye and thought she lost her eye entirely, Meads lawyers said Monday. [S]he felt blood running down her face as friends called out for a medic. When a medic finally arrived to quickly examine her injuries, he asked if her eyes were different colors which increased Meads fear she might be permanently blinded.

Mead was then rushed to the emergency room at Oregon Health & Science University, the complaint says. During a follow-up exam on July 29, she was diagnosed with a vitreous hemorrhage of the right eye and traumatic iritis. She then underwent laser retinopexy surgery to repair a round hole in her retina, the lawsuit says.

Meads injury occurred at the height of nightly protests around the federal courthouse in downtown Portland last summer. Each night, protesters gathered at the metal fence surrounding the courthouse, sometimes trying to tear it down. Federal agents dispatched by then-President Donald Trump repeatedly fired projectiles at the heads of people in the crowd.

The lawsuit alleges that the federal agent, identified as John Doe 62, violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

At all times material Plaintiff had a protected liberty interest under the Fourth Amendment not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure of her person through the application of undue, unnecessary, and excessive force, the complaint says. Defendant John Doe 62 seized plaintiff through the application force and such use of force was unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive and violated plaintiffs rights under the Fourth Amendment.

The lawsuit also names federal officials as defendants, including DHS regional director Gabriel Russell, DHS deputy director for operations Allen Scott Jones, U.S. Customs and Border Protection acting Commissioner Mark Morgan, and Federal Protective Service deputy director Richard Kris Cline.

The rest is here:
Portland Protester Alleges Federal Agents Violated Her Fourth Amendment Rights by Shooting Her Eye With a High Velocity Projectile - Willamette Week

Twice last week, the federal governments unconstitutional spying on ordinary Americans was exposed. One of these revelations was made by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who wrote that the FBI is still using warrantless spying in criminal cases, notwithstanding the Constitution and federal laws. The other revelation was a surprise even to those of us who monitor these things the United States Postal Service acknowledged that it has been spying on Americans.

The modern American security state the parts of the federal government that spy on Americans and do not change on account of elections received an enormous shot in the arm in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That naively misguided and profoundly unconstitutional law was sold to Congress as a way to control the security states spying in the aftermath of Watergate. Watergate had revealed that President Richard M. Nixon used the FBI and the CIA to spy on real and imagined domestic political adversaries.

FISA set up a secret court that authorized domestic spying by issuing warrants not based on probable cause of crime, as the Constitution requires, but on probable cause of communicating with foreign agents. Never mind that communications about noncriminal matters are protected speech; the FISA court issued tens of thousands of these warrants.

As the security states appetite for spying grew more voracious, its agents and lawyers persuaded the FISA court to lower the bar for issuing a surveillance warrant from communicating with a foreign agent to communicating with a foreign person, and to expand the scope of those warrants to include Americans who have communicated with other Americans who have communicated with foreign people. Under this procedure, if I call my cousins in Florence and then you call me, all of your calls could be surveilled.

Jealous of the ease with which Americas spies can obtain warrants from the FISA court, the FBI persuaded its friends on Capitol Hill to enact legislation that gives the FBI a peek at data the security state gathers if it meets certain standards to see if any of it pertains to criminal matters. Each one of these FBI peeks at raw intelligence data is known as a share.

All of this was done in utter disregard of the Fourth Amendment requirements that no search warrants shall be issued without showing under oath probable cause of crime and that all warrants shall specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

If an FBI agent sees evidence of a nonnational security crime on one of the shares, the agent will try to use it in a criminal prosecution, even though he acquired it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. If federal prosecutors want to introduce evidence from the share at trial, they need to find another source for it, as no judge will admit raw intelligence data obtained without a warrant in a criminal case.

After 9/11, President George W. Bush ordered the National Security Agency the 60,000-person strong branch of the military that quarterbacks domestic spying to capture every keystroke on every computer and the contents of every phone call in America. All presidents since Bush even President Donald Trump, who was personally victimized by this spying have continued the practice of universal, suspicionless, warrantless spying.

The NSA sharing data with the FBI is deeply troubling because it violates both the Fourth Amendment and federal law. The intentional use of FISA to obtain data about an American for nonnational security-related criminal activity is itself a criminal act as it constitutes a planned and direct violation of the Fourth Amendment by electronic means otherwise known as hacking.

Last week, the chief judge of the FISA court revealed that for 2019 the FBI reported just one instance of sharing, even though Department of Justice auditors found 91 instances. And that number is far lower than the true number of shares since inexplicably the DOJ counts all shares performed by one agent as one share, even though the agent may have accessed the data of more than one American.

In August 2019, one FBI agent accessed the raw intelligence data of 16,000 Americans in order to find criminal evidence about seven of them. The FBI reported that as one share.

Also last week, the USPS revealed that its postal inspectors have been monitoring social media at random, looking for troublemakers. Since social media is publicly posted, you and I can read it at will. But the Fourth Amendment requires that the government have articulable suspicion about the person whose social media is being surveilled before it begins its surveillance even surveillance of publicly available materials. This is to prevent fishing expeditions.

What articulable suspicions did the Postal Service have before its police began their surveillance? What conceivable threat to the postal mails is manifested in texts and emails (other than that the latter are infinitely faster and profoundly more efficient)? None and none.

All this shows just how corrupted Americas security state has become under presidents of both parties. From counting 16,000 as if it were one, to hacking the texts and emails of people without articulable suspicion or probable cause, to orchestrating end runs around the Fourth Amendment, to lying to federal judges about all this we see the tactics of the East German Stasi and Soviet KGB have been reborn on this side of the Atlantic.

Of what value is the constitutional guarantee of privacy if those we have hired to protect it are themselves undermining it?

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the state of New Jersey. He broadcasts nationwide on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network, and lectures nationally on the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties in wartime and human freedom.

Read more from the original source:
Napolitano: More government spying and lying - Daily Herald

Members of the new search warrant task force convened by Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron say they will likely look at the judicial review of warrants, among other things.The task force members were announced Thursday and their first meeting is expected to be announced in the coming days."What I'd like to do is find out what factors in the decision-making process by the judiciary, our gatekeepers," said Ramon McGee, a defense attorney from Louisville.Cameron announced the task force in January, as state lawmakers were considering new limits on no-knock search warrants, which they ultimately passed.Related: AG Daniel Cameron assembles task force to review Kentucky's search warrant processThe scrutiny comes after the death of Breonna Taylor, who died while LMPD officers were serving a no-knock search warrant. Subsequent investigations have focused on the propriety of the search warrant and the disproportionate number of them served in Black communities."If we can see how that process works, what judges are being told, how they factor that in deciding whether to grant a warrant, then I think we can make some real improvements in the process," McGee said.Some public criticism has already surfaced on the lack of minority representation on the task force. Three members of the 18 members are black, including McGree, UK's Vice President for Institutional Diversity George Wright and former Metro Council member Denise Bentley."I've received some personal emails asking why there's not more minorities on this particular task force and I've served on many task forces over the years," Bentley said. "The design was left up to the attorney general and I respect that, but I want to make sure people that contact me know I believe in transparency and even though there's not a broad representation of minorities on this task force, any issues, concerns or questions that the minority community has, feel free to filter them to me because I will be the voice."Only four of the members are based in Louisville, but Bullitt County Sheriff Walt Sholar said the issue affects the entire state. Sholar, a former prosecutor, said he is ready to "open any doors" while serving on the task force."We don't want to put stumbling blocks in front of law enforcement," he said. "But by the same token, we have to bear in mind both the Kentucky Constitution and the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution that people are entitled to be secure in their persons, homes and papers."

Members of the new search warrant task force convened by Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron say they will likely look at the judicial review of warrants, among other things.

The task force members were announced Thursday and their first meeting is expected to be announced in the coming days.

"What I'd like to do is find out what factors in the decision-making process by the judiciary, our gatekeepers," said Ramon McGee, a defense attorney from Louisville.

Cameron announced the task force in January, as state lawmakers were considering new limits on no-knock search warrants, which they ultimately passed.

Related: AG Daniel Cameron assembles task force to review Kentucky's search warrant process

The scrutiny comes after the death of Breonna Taylor, who died while LMPD officers were serving a no-knock search warrant. Subsequent investigations have focused on the propriety of the search warrant and the disproportionate number of them served in Black communities.

"If we can see how that process works, what judges are being told, how they factor that in deciding whether to grant a warrant, then I think we can make some real improvements in the process," McGee said.

Some public criticism has already surfaced on the lack of minority representation on the task force. Three members of the 18 members are black, including McGree, UK's Vice President for Institutional Diversity George Wright and former Metro Council member Denise Bentley.

"I've received some personal emails asking why there's not more minorities on this particular task force and I've served on many task forces over the years," Bentley said. "The design was left up to the attorney general and I respect that, but I want to make sure people that contact me know I believe in transparency and even though there's not a broad representation of minorities on this task force, any issues, concerns or questions that the minority community has, feel free to filter them to me because I will be the voice."

Only four of the members are based in Louisville, but Bullitt County Sheriff Walt Sholar said the issue affects the entire state. Sholar, a former prosecutor, said he is ready to "open any doors" while serving on the task force.

"We don't want to put stumbling blocks in front of law enforcement," he said. "But by the same token, we have to bear in mind both the Kentucky Constitution and the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution that people are entitled to be secure in their persons, homes and papers."

View original post here:
Kentucky's new search warrant task force will likely focus on judiciary review, among other things - WLKY Louisville

A grandfather who called police in 2019 alleging his granddaughters boyfriend threatened them with a weapon has filed a lawsuit against the Fayetteville Police Department after a police officer slammed him to the ground, knocking him unconscious, according to a civil complaint filed Thursday in Cumberland County Superior Court.

Robert Edwards, 66, suffered a concussion, brain bleed and contusions in the March 4, 2019, incident outside his Topeka Street home, his attorney Michael Porter said.

It was whileEdwards argued with the boyfriend that Officer Patrick Guilette placed Edwards hands behind his back and swept his legs from beneath him, taking Edwards to the ground, the complaint alleges.

When Edwards fell, his head struck the asphalt and he lost consciousness, body camera video of the altercation provided by Edwards' attorneys Thursday shows.

Its our legal opinion that he had no excuse to leg sweep him, said attorneyMichael Porter.

Porter and attorney Drew Dempster filed the lawsuit on behalf of Edwards.

"We believe, as stated in the complaint, that the officer used inappropriate and excessive force in violation of our client's civil rights.

Moreover, Porter continued, the city has condoned this conduct because to our knowledge this officer has not been reprimanded and they have refused to do right by Mr. Edwards."

Story continues below

After Edwards was taken from the scene to the hospital and released, he was booked into the Cumberland County jail on a charge of obstructing an officer. The charge was later dropped by the Cumberland County District Attorneys Office.

Porter said that before filingthe lawsuit he sent a demand letter to the city in June 2020 asking that Edwards be compensated $390,000. His hospital bills were in excess of $33,000.

The demand and subsequent lawsuit allege that Guilette committed common law battery against Edwards; that the officer and the city violated Edwards' Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; that the officer and the city committed malicious prosecution against Edwards; and that he was falsely imprisoned.

In a response from city attorney Karen McDonald in December on behalf of the City Council and shared by Porter with the Observer McDonald said the council met in closed session and viewed the bodycam footage as well as a demand letter for $390,000 from Edwards.

After thoughtful review and discussion, the Council did not express any interest in settling this matter or making a counteroffer, McDonald wrote.

Use of force:Police are fueling outrage over Andrew Brown Jr.s death by withholding information, experts say

In a revised demand letter sent Wednesday to the city that included copies of Edwards medical treatment and billing along with information gleaned from a use-of-force expert retained by the defense, Porter concluded:

A paradigm shift is occurring in the country in regards to citizens no longer ignoring the misconduct of law enforcement, particularly in regards to their interactions with persons of color like Mr. Edwards, he wrote. "If a settlement cannot be reached, we will hold a press conference when we file our civil action, and we will issue a press release along with copies of the video footage, the medical records, medical bills and City's response to our demands."

McDonalds brief response Thursday to the amended demand noted she had notified the council of the revised demand, medical bills and that the defense had enlisted the help of a use-of-force expert.

"The City Council has not authorized a counteroffer at this time."

Sgt. Jeremy Glass, a spokesman for the Fayetteville Police Department, said in a statement Thursday afternoon that the department is aware of the lawsuit.

There is body camera footage of the incident which includes the events leading up to Mr. Edwardss arrest, he said. In anticipation of potential litigation a use of force expert also reviewed the footage and determined that the actions of Officer Guilette were appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances and that Officer Guilette used the least amount of effective force to control the situation, he said. The City intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Watch: Body cam video released in alleged Fayetteville police brutality

The City of Fayetteville and one of its police officers are facing a lawsuit alleging excessive force against Robert Edwards, an elderly Black man.

Body Camera Footage, Fayetteville PD

The body camera footage, released by order of Cumberland County Superior Court Judge Mary Ann Tally in December. shows the events leading up to Edwards injury.

Police were called to the Fayetteville home about 2 p.m. for a dispute between Edwards granddaughter and her ex-boyfriend, Porter said.

In the video, the granddaughter explains that her ex-boyfriend hit her car with his car.

Officer Erin Scullion responded first to the scene and Guilette arrived as backup.

Prior to Guilettes arrival, video from Scullions bodycamshows that Edwards asks at least twice that the boyfriend be arrested, before he swings at the younger man and the two fall to the ground.

When Scullion threatens to use a stun gun, the younger man holds his hands out saying he was attacked.

By the time Guilette arrived, the two men had stopped scuffling and Edwards went back into his home.

The video from Guilettes body camera shows his arrival at the scene.

Policing in America:Service file reveals commendations, reprimands for ex-police officer in Daunte Wright shooting death

The moment he steps from the vehicle and approaches Scullion he asks, Who'sgoing to jail, as the boyfriend excitedly says he was just trying to leave.

The grandfather assaulted him, Scullion says pointing toward the house as Edwards emerges from the front door.

This man threatened us with a gun, Edwards yells, walking directly toward Guilette.

We need some help, he says. "This man threatened me with a gun."

"I didn't threaten you, the boyfriend responds, and Edwards spins around toward him and yells, You told me you had a gun in the car!

The two men are within feet of each other.

When the boyfriend moves, Edwards flinches and throws his hands up as if to block an expected blow.

Guilette then pulls Edwards away from the younger man, telling him to go stand near his yard.

The two are separated momentarily until Edwards comes back toward the younger man asking if he thinks hes a punk.

Guilettes bodycam then shows Guilette pulling Edwards' relaxed arms behind his back. Within moments, both men are on the ground. Edwards is unconscious.

Are you crazy he's 74 goddamn years old! You done lost your damn mind," the granddaughter screams, mistaking her grandfather's age, as she rushes to his side.

Scullion pulls the 20-year-old woman off her unconscious grandfather as he lies motionless and face down in the street.

Black lives matter! the granddaughter screams several times, her voice cracking with emotion.

Guilette cuffs Edwards while repeating, "Sir," as if to wake him. "Sir, you OK?"

The officer then stands up and through his shoulder radio asks dispatch to send an ambulance.

He again tries to wake Edwards, who's audibly snoring.

A voice off-camera asks, "Can I get your name and your badge number? I need your name and badge number. We called for help," as the granddaughter again crouches on the ground next to her grandfather crying, "Granddaddy, are you OK?"

When Guilette puts his hand on Edwards back, the young woman swats it away.

"Get off of him! she yells, then falls back onto the street crying Oh my God, he's all I got left!"

After Scullion intervenes and pulls the young woman off Edwards, Guilette rolls him onto his side, again calling out "Sir," and asking, "You OK, sir? Can you talk to me? Can you talk to me, sir?"

In the background, the granddaughter is heard yelling.

"This is what the white cops do to you. This is why you don't call the police. My granddaddy just got knocked out cold because I called the police ..." she cries.

After uncuffing Edwards and rolling him over, Guilette begins to rub on his sternum. Edwards appears to be regaining consciousness.

"What's his name, sweetheart," Guilette asks, to which the girl replies angrily, You did this!

After a little more than two minutes of unresponsiveness, Edwards starts to raise his head as the officers ask his name.

More than two minutes later he mumbles his name.

Seeing this, his granddaughter walks toward him.

"Granddaddy, let's go in the house. Please get up so we can just leave them out here she says.

Guilette tells her an ambulance is coming.

"He could be injured," the officer says.

"You did this," the young woman yells.

"You're right because he wasn't listening, ma'am, Guilette replies.

Eventually, the granddaughter pulls her grandfather to his feet. He is unsteady and Guilette holds onto his arm.

When the woman continues to try to get Edwards to go inside, Guilette says, "Ma'am, we're not done."

A third officer approaches and walks out of frame.

Moments later, as Guilette urges Edwards to walk over to his patrol car to lean on it, the camera catches a glimpse of the granddaughter on the ground and an officer placing her in handcuffs.

At his patrol car, Guilette is asking Edwards questions like what day, month or year it is. Edwards cant answer the questions. He appears confused.

"Can I go in the house and sit down?" Edward asks.

We're gonna hang out 'cause I got an ambulance coming. I got an ambulance coming to check you out cause you hit your head pretty hard, Guilette responds. I put you on the ground because you weren't listening, you were trying to fight the other young man on the street.

No, not me ...When? a dazed Edwards asks.

"Y'all was about to fight in the street, sir, and you weren't listening when I tried to telling you to go back into your yard," Guilette says.

Edwards asks if he can lay down, but Guilette tells him no, that he should stand because he hit his head.

"Can I lay down?" Edwards asks again.

Guilette repeats that Edwards hit his head and EMS is coming.

"I hit my head?" Edwards said, then asks again if he can lay down.

You hit your head pretty hard when I put you on the ground. I wouldn't lay down right now, OK. I wanna wait 'til the ambulance gets here and checks you out, Guilette says.

You put me on the ground? Edwards says.

You came out here trying to fight him and I told you to stop and you didn't stop, Guilette says.

Not me, the unsteady Edwards replies as he leans against the patrol car.

You did, which I get it. It was emotional, I get it. You were just protecting your granddaughter. But you can't do that. When I tell you to stop, you gotta stop.

"Can I lay down?" Edward asks yet again.

Toward the end of the video, Edwards hold his stomach and says he has to vomit.

Porter on Thursday noted that is a symptom of a concussion.

Edwards was treated at the hospital and released, only to be booked into jail on the obstruction charge. Ultimately, the charge was dismissed. His granddaughter was not charged, despite being placed in handcuffs.

The following day, Porter said, an ambulance was called to Edwards' home and he was taken to the emergency room.

Doctors diagnosed him with a brain bleed, contusion on the brain and concussion. The brain bleed had been missed the day prior, Porter said. Edwards also sustained scrapes and abrasions on his face, shoulder and arms, Porter said.

Robert Edwards was born and raised in Fayetteville, he said Thursday during a three-way call with the Observer that included his attorney Porter.

Edwards recalls, as a Black man, being treated badly by law enforcement in the 1960s, specifically naming the officer who he said beat him.

But we was used to taking an ass-whooping back then, Edwards chuckled, his voice metered and gravely, sounding older than his 66 years.

It would be the only chuckle that would tumble from Edwards as he recounted, sometimes tearfully, what happened on that day two years ago when Gods will helped him survive.

He remembers that his granddaughter first called police after her boyfriend hit her car with his.

He remembers calling police himself after Officer Scullion arrived and she seemed unable to control the situation alone.

He said he next remembers waking up on the ground.

When my granddaughter tried to pick me up, I kept saying to myself, How did I get in the road, did a car hit me?

He hasnt watched the full body camera footage, he admits. Porter said when Edwards tried, he became emotional and had to walk out.

The thought of what happened to him something he can only imagine because the memory is gone makes his voice catch in his throat.

I never expected nothing to happen like this. I could see if I was in a bar where somebody was drunk and hanging out, but not at my house, he said.

Originally posted here:
'I didn't deserve it': Grandfather sues Fayetteville police officer, city alleging excessive use of force - The Fayetteville Observer