Quartzsite Police Officers Fabiola Garcia and Ruben Villafania are speaking in Spanish on the job, at Town Hall right before Michael Roth's arrest for "disorderly conduct". This is the video feed directly from officer Garcia's badge camera, as submitted into evidence at Roth's trial.
Arizona Constitution
Article XXVIII
ARTICLE XXVIII. ENGLISH AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
1. English as the official language; applicability
Section 1. (1) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Government" includes all laws, public proceedings, rules, publications, orders,
actions, programs, policies, departments, boards, agencies, organizations and
instrumentalities of this state or political subdivisions of this state, as appropriate under the circumstances to a particular official action.
2. "Official action" includes the performance of any function or action on behalf of this state or a political subdivision of this state or required by state law that appears to present the views, position or imprimatur of the state or political subdivision or that binds or commits the state or political subdivision, but does not include:
(a) The teaching of or the encouragement of learning languages other than English.
(b) Actions required under the federal individuals with disabilities education act or other federal laws.
(c) Actions, documents or policies necessary for tourism, commerce or international trade.
(d) Actions or documents that protect the public health and safety, including law enforcement and emergency services.
3. Preserving and enhancing the role of the official language; right to use English
Section 3. A. Representatives of government in this state shall preserve, protect and enhance the role of English as the official language of the government of Arizona.
B. A person shall not be discriminated against or penalized in any way because the person uses or attempts to use English in public or private communication.
4. Official actions to be conducted in English
Section 4. Official actions shall be conducted in English.
And a late edition to the lineup is this video of Mayor Ed Foster enjoying Michael Roth's wash tub campfire, which warranted "a full response" from the Quartzsite Fire and Police Departments. QPD demanded entry, which was denied by Roth, who leases the property. Upon instruction by Police Chief Jeff Gilbert, Officer Yeomans of the QPD climbed atop the fire truck to photograph the inside of Roth's yard. When informed that photographing beyond "plain sight" had been ruled a Constitutional violation by the Supreme Court, Officer Yeomans immediately handed the camera to the fire fighter standing next to him, who continued with the illegal photography. In an interview with Quartzsite Constable Paul Staudt, Yeomans admitted he was just following Chief Gilbert's orders.
Posts
Official Action..., but does not include (d) Actions or documents that protect the public health and safety, including law enforcement and emergency services.
ReplyDeleteSounds like they did nothing wrong since law enforcement is excluded. Not only that, but you failed to list Section 5 which states, "5. Rules of construction
Section 5. This article shall not be construed to prohibit any representative of government, including a member of the legislature, while performing official duties, from communicating unofficially through any medium with another person in a language other than English if official action is conducted in English." If you consider Garcia's conversation with Villafania was between two officers performing official duties who were communicating unofficially through any medium (Spanish) and her official action with Mr. Roth was in English. I think you are gasping at best with this angle.
Tu habla Espanol "Anonymous"? I think the content of Officer Garcia's conversation makes it official. Let the new AG decide.
ReplyDeleteThe video of Gilbert speaks volumes. Chief Gilbert was being respectful and courteous, even well being cursed and yelled at. It looks to me like it was Chief Gilbert being harassed, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteThe Police have a right to go on private property to conduct official business, period. People not involved in said business don't have the right to butt in and interfere.
Quote from Sherlock Holmes, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” I once observed a Police Officer tell the subject of his investigation, “You have the right to remain silent. I strongly suggest that you exercise that right”! It is too late in Chief Jeff Gilberts Case, TO MANY DAMN VIDEO TAPES TO EDIT…
ReplyDeleteFilm @ 11!
Well "Anonymous", if you weren't posting from Parker, perhaps you might remember that Chief Gilbert is violating a formal cease and desist letter, served upon the Town last spring. And no, the police DO NOT have the right to enter private property to conduct "official business" unless they are chasing a suspect, responding to a 911 call, or the have a warrant. The manger has every right to order themm off the property, even using necessary force.
ReplyDeleteThe police do NOT have the right to enter any private property without a court order (There are limited exceptions and this is NOT one of them!) or permission of the owner. In this case you will find that Chief Jeff Gilbert is in violation of the law and will have to face the music he called for from the piper. The U.S. Constitution and Case Law does NOT back up Chief Jeff Gilbert’s actions nor does his badge give him special powers to break the law or violate anyone Civil Rights.
ReplyDeleteYou are right when you state that Chief Jeff Gilbert “speaks volumes”! IMHO, Chief Jeff Gilbert is in direct violation of the NO TRESPASS order from the property owner covered under A.R.S. 13-1502, or are you like Chief Jeff Gilbert and think that the laws don’t apply to you? I do see where Chief Gilbert is trying unsuccessfully to get Mr. Sias to agree with him but is stopped cold. If you listen you can hear Chief Jeff Gilbert state that when he gets done with “his” business, NOT “Police” Business he will leave.
It would serve you better to take the basic 101 classes in Constitutional Law!
Anonymous, what official business was Gilbert up to?
ReplyDeletePOLICE MISCONDUCT AND THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE:
ReplyDeleteBy Seth Richardson
In criminal prosecutions, when the police obtain evidence illegally, in violation of the 4th or 5th Amendments, the courts will exclude the evidence from the trial on the premise that the courts should not be party to illegal acts by the police.
The presumption is that by excluding such tainted evidence, police and prosecutors will be encouraged to act in a lawful manner, lest they lose their case in court. This sounds like a good idea at first blush, but in the reality of modern law enforcement, it’s not nearly as effective as we might wish to believe.
The problem is that many police officers know full well that the charges they lay will never stick if challenged, as any review of a huge number of arrests seen on TV programs like “Cops” will demonstrate to anyone familiar with search and seizure law. Many police officers rely upon the ignorance and poverty of the people they arrest, and the inherent conflict of interest and corruption in the Public Defender’s office, and they ignore civil rights violations in hopes that the people they arrest don’t understand and will never assert their rights, and will plead guilty.
And if that doesn’t happen, many police officers are satisfied with the “punishment” of merely starting the criminal prosecution process, which can cost defendants thousands even if the charges are eventually dismissed. It’s about making life hell for suspects, whether they are guilty or not.
(read more)
http://thebroadside.freedomblogging.com/2010/08/22/police-misconduct-and-the-exclusionary-rule/
Hear hear!!
ReplyDeleteYour Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
ReplyDelete“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
Notice how anonymous never answered what official business Chief Of Police Jeff Gilbert was performing
ReplyDeleteThere are more videos available showing Chief Gilbert being the fool that he is. Talk around town is that he is under full criminal investigation by the State of Arizona. These and other videos can’t be doing him any good! Just how far is Chief Gilbert willing to go to protect that $86,000 plus bennies a year job he is about to lose?
ReplyDeleteNext up, we need to get the other two desperados on video, Alex Taft and Dan Field. These three fools helped destroy this town and its once free economy. When I get my laptop back from the shop I've got more footage for you guys. We need about 20 more cameras on the street too.
ReplyDeleteIf you and I don't come to a 100% complete stop at a stop sign, or a license plate light is burned out, we're getting stopped (and ticketed if you are fighting the political scum in this town) However, Jeff Gilbert and Alex Taft can cover up a cop having sex with a 15 year old, whose step-father got arrested when he complained. Keep the videos coming. Great job guys. Remember, cockroaches always run from the light
In the video I only hear a female voice speaking, not a male voice. How do you figure the male officer is also speaking in spanish? She is speaking to him, but he never answers her.
ReplyDeleteQUARTZITE IS A MESS. I REALLY HOPE THE MAYOR CAN GET THE FBI AND THE STATE OF AZ TO INVESTIGATE GILBERT AND THE CITY COUNCIL. THE MAYOR KNOWS THAT THER EARE BODIES BURIED THERE; BECAUSE HUGE CHECKS TO UNKNOWN PERSONS HABVE BEEN DISBURSED FOR A LONG TIME. HE KNOWS THAT THERE IS CORRUPTION THERE. SOMEONE PLEASE SUPPPORT HIM, AND IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING FOR GOD'S SAKES TELL THE AUTHORITIES. BUFORD PUSSER WOULD NEVER PUT UP WITH YOU CROOKS, AND YEAH, YOU CROOKS KNOW WHO YOU ARE. WALK TALL MAYOR!!!!
ReplyDelete