OnPatrolLive
Man sues On Patrol: Live and Frederick PD after being arrested on the show
A man who was arrested during a segment on On Patrol: Live is now suing the Frederick Police Department and the show, claiming he was wrongfully arrested and cast in a false light.
📽 Watch the moment of the arrest below:
Discussion
https://www.yahoo.com/news/frederick-police-sued-man-arrested-155100742.html Here is the story without the paywall.
Odd, OP doesn't have a paywall for me. Nothing wrong with another source.
Good. Fuck these shows going into poor neighborhoods and making money off their misfortune.
Frederick isn’t what I would call poor, specifically that neighborhood they are in I can’t afford lol
Boo hoo, stop committing crimes.
Them first.
[deleted]
WTF does ANY of that have to do with anything?! He was not arrested for resisting or running. He was arrested for robbery after he was identified by the victim, as well as having enough pot to be considered possession with intent to distribute.
Anyone getting further updates on Ofc. Dalton Swanger ??
You're in public and don't have an expectation of privacy so getting filmed and reported on while getting arrested is perfectly legal.
When that show comes on it plainly says everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Great show.
“The land of the free……”. America is a shithole.
There have been alot of settled lawsuits that appeared on tv cop shows.
[deleted]
Let me guess; you didn't watch the clip or read the article at all... 🤦♂️
In "Pub-lick" LOL
😂 Ron White!!
All charges were dismissed, so why shouldn't he sue?
From the article:
Myrick’s attorney, Ike Emejeru, told the News-Post that Myrick was charged with robbery, theft and possession with intent to distribute marijuana but that those charges were later dropped and he was released.
I think the suit against OnPatrol could be dismissed by the courts, but I can see the suits against the FPD and City of Frederick continuing.
ASAs dismiss charges all the time simply because they don't think they'll do well at trial. It could be the witnesses suddenly don't want to cooperate or they just don't feel like a jury will convict even if the evidence is good.
Remember all that's needed to make an arrest is probable cause.
Just because the charges were dismissed, that doesn't guarentee he was innocent or that the department did anything wrong. There's any number of reasons the arrest could be legit but the charges are still later dropped.
I know, but I'm just saying. They were dismissed, so why not sue? There's no barrier to prevent it since he was never convicted of anything.
I worked in a law enforcement adjacent field and deal with LEO daily. It is not uncommon to see someone arrested have their charges dismissed after someone a bit higher than the arresting officer takes a look at the case. Sometimes the witness becomes uncooperating or recants. Sometimes the prosecutor doesn't think they'll win the case and dismisses. Sometimes the arresting officer is on the Brady List and the prosecutor will refuse to take it or the officer has a high rate of complaints against them and the prosecutor refuses to go forth. He has the right to sue, and is it a money grab? Yeah. Most cases like this settle out of court for relatively low amounts.
Literally all the reasons you just gave were legit reasons and they will absolutely not settle. There was PC for arrest, just because they were dropped, doesn’t mean he was wrongfully arrested
And just because he was arrested with PC and the charges were dropped it doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to sue or a good case for suing. We don't know.
"The show’s production company, Half-Moon Pictures, made a motion last week to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that the crew was simply filming what was taking place and had know knowledge of Myrick’s guilt or innocence."
Yikes. How's that voice to text working out for you? :-)
They should get new legal counsel lol
Yeah, whoever wrote that doesn't no what they're talking about.
Not only did the victim identify him as a suspect, the suspect also had potential PWID-level marijuana on his person, but the cops are responsible for his life choices? SMH…
There’s no presumption of privacy on a public street. Anyone can film in a public space. This has been tried before I think in Richland County and it was thrown out.
Why does OPL blur the faces during many of the recorded segments?
The clips were recorded before air if the faces are blurred, therefore making it not live tv.
Every recording is made live in a public place. I'm curious as what the difference is in recording in public and Broadcasting live while making a recording. The Wednesday night reruns do not blur faces. So is nothing blurred while broadcasting and recording in near real-time?
The way it was explained to me is if it was previously filmed before they went live it no longer classifies as live news and therefore requires signed consent. Live news does not because it’s legal to film live news on public streets.
So why aren't they blurred out on COP'S?
Honestly have no clue
People can sign consent to be shown on TV. During live segments there is no expectation of privacy. The recorded segments are not live and people have to consent to be shown.
Thats why on some happened eariler segments they could have blurred out faces.
What difference does that make if they are in public?
In public you have no expectation of privacy. You can be filmed at any point, hence first amendment auditors. Just like public places, you can be filmed at any point in time.
Exactly. That's why I'm asking what difference it makes of it was live or not.
Oh see my other comment. During live events they don’t have an expectation but on recorded they are required to have a concert from the person to be shown.
I've never heard of that. Have a source that details this?
Didn’t find anything hard set but what I read is that live is considered “news” and they don’t have to blur while pre-recorded are not considered news and have to blur faces.
According to google AI
“News organizations often do not have to blur faces because in public spaces, individuals generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and journalists are protected by freedom of the press, allowing them to photograph or film without explicit consent. However, blurring may be done as a defensive measure or to protect individuals' privacy in specific situations like when they are accused of a crime but not yet convicted, or if a person has not consented to being filmed”
I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!
The best response to that is, "What are they?" It shut up a girl who must have repeated that line 100 times. I say it in my head after every knucklehead who throws those words.
Not the first lawsuit, not the last
The lawsuits is going to bring 10 times more attention than the arrest ever did. Dumbass
Exactly, but he’s all in it for a total money grab
"The victim identified this subject." Also, sick and tired of people who film everything and anything in public themselves, then complain when they get filmed. Nuisance lawsuits should come with a nuisance penalty when they're deemed ridiculous.
A lot of states have either passed or proposed Anti-SLAPP laws to cover these nuisance and groundless lawsuits. While they don't have any real penalties, the party bringing the suit can be forced to pay the defendants lawyer fees, which can sometimes run into the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lawyers who take the cases can also be sanctioned for truly frivolous lawsuits, as they should know better. I heard one time where a lawyer was forced by the judge to pay the legal fees, rather than his client. I think it was overturned.
You can't even really even see his face.
That probably won't work. The video didn't show him in any light. It showed him exactly as he is.
Pathetic attempt at a cash grab
[deleted]
I upvoted because I agree ! The “blue” is down voting you !
i got a DUI (yes stupid, leave me alone I know) in Brevard County just as they stoped being like the major force on COPS. There was a LOT of cops (over 70) I asked: Did I hurt or kill anyone? no cool lets go to jail, and if that is COPS I don't consent. They LOL'd they weren' doing it anymore and they all said they were thankful to be off the show
no one but a rank seeking and look at me “cop” wants to have a camera; COPS or OP, riding with them day in and day out.
Those random solid cops that get assigned a crew are voluntold and the tension is visible lol.
Just another moron in the courts.
And, the should find this guys lawyer and disbar him.
Is everyone who has their arrest featured on the news going to sue news stations too?
STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!
- Jim Carrey/Fletcher Reede (Liar Liar)
SHUT UP, CRIME!
-Kickass, Kickass
People sue for just about anything, and most of these cases get dismissed instantly
TLDR: You are correct. People can sue for anything, and the current legal system in most states provides financial incentives for doing so, even when the claim is completely frivolous.
The problem with the legal system (well, one of the problems) is the cost it takes to even get a case dismissed.
This leads insurance companies to settle frivolous claims for relatively "small" amounts to avoid the time, expense, and very slight risk the case would go and/or ultimately be decided against the insured or require a larger settlement to resolve -- so basically insurance companies are willing to make a known "smaller" payment to avoid even a minor chance of having to make a larger / more substantial payment in the future. Sometimes you can get a very, very obviously frivolous claim dismissed quickly and inexpensively, but "good" plaintiffs lawyers know the arguments to make to stretch things out & keep the bill running on even the most ridiculous claims.
The term commonly used in the legal & insurance industries is the "nuisance value" of a claim, which basically just means the estimated cost / expenses (such as court costs, filings, pleadings, discovery, depositions, attorneys fees, etc.) that are likely to be required to get even the most frivolous claim dismissed. Given the fact that those costs are essentially unavoidable, insurance companies will often settle at or below that amount regardless of how frivolous or absurd the actual claim is.
This of course creates a self-perpetuating cycle where plaintiffs (and plaintiffs attorneys) have financial incentive to bring frivolous claims, insurance companies have financial incentive to resolve those claims at or below nuisance value, and the people, businesses, and governments that have the insurance policies ultimately bear the costs via increased premiums / risk ratings (which ultimately, indirectly affects everyone in the insurance pool).
I won't go into detail on the potential solutions to the problem (which can include tort reform & provisions allowing the prevailing party in any claim to seek reimbursement of costs and expenses, more aggressive posturing by insurance companies to set better precedent, enhanced sanctions on attorneys bringing frivolous claims, insured parties holding larger deductibles / retention amounts to enable more control over claim defense, etc.), but suffice to say that it is a very real, very serious, and very, very expensive problem.
A couple scumbag lawyers (redundant?) is California had a scheme where they filed suits against small auto repair companies alleging non-performance.
These mom and pop shops would cut $5000 checks to make it go away; cheaper than defending clearly frivolous lawsuits.
System eventually caught up with them and took their law licenses.
Shouldn’t he be suing the police dept? The show is within their legal rights to film just like any other citizen can stream what they want to youtube or facebook.
The first rule in lawsuits is "sue everyone".
Especially deep pockets
The first rule in lawsuits is to find a lawyer crazy enough to take this case
The first rule in lawsuits is sue every one that has deep pockets. No use suing someone who is indigent or destitute. You won’t get a return on investment
He’s also suing the city and police dept. his charges were dropped so maybe there’s a chance this will get settled outside of court?
That's why shows like this, and police in general, are very careful to use terms like "suspect" instead of "criminal", "perp", or "drug dealer", when referring to people. Same with terms like "allegedly broke into the gas station" or "substance that appears to be methamphetamines." It maintains that "innocent until proven guilty" aspect.
Apply that to this case. He was arrested as a suspect, which is public information that can be pulled right off the police department's website (I assume, that is usually the case.) That arrest was filmed. What are his legal damages that would be deserving of a settlement? The video never claimed he did anything so there is no defamation of character or slander.
That does bring up a point in the greater picture though. How many times do you see front-page newspaper (I'm dating myself) articles about people arrested for crimes, but if they're acquitted you maybe see a little one-sentence blurg in a follow-up section? I do think something should be changed to make sure follow-ups are just as prominent as the original articles. Take this case as an example, the suspect's claims are that he was seen as if he commited a crime which is negatively affecting his life. Assuming charges were dropped, is OPL doing a follow-up to announce that? Nope. It's legal, but from an ethical standpoint I can understand his complaint.
You can’t expect the right to privacy in public places.
I mean you can literally sue for anything. It doesn't mean you have a case or will win. There is zero expectation of privacy in public. Didn't the Supreme Court rule on this years ago?
Correct. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. And he'll have a challenge making a case for damages simply for being arrested for suspicion of a crime. OPL provides a disclaimer at every commercial break that suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This guy is looking for a settlement, nothing else. It will get quickly dismissed with prejudice.
Maybe he should ask himself..why are the cops here to talk to me?
My uncle was arrested on COPS once. He was guilty.
Had a daily customer get arrested for kidnapping his own two kids when Cops was a brand new show. Turned out the ex-wife had gone to another state after permanently losing all custody in FL and lied to the Judge, courts and that states agencies (WV I think.) She somehow managed to get custody there and said the ex-husband had kidnapped her kids. He was arrested on live TV and all that before the FL cops and COPS Show realized the lady was a massive liar and flat out manipulative. She spent a few years in prison and he was released about 6 hours after the arrest. She had lost all custody because she was a crackhead and stealing to support her habit. COPS apparently started vetting their stories a lot better after that.
Guy was one of the sweetest people too. Him and his working buddy/Boss always stopped by the store after work to pick up a pack of cigarettes and maybe a loose beer or two. Even offered me a job at one point at their printing business which I turned down because of a long commute.
He’s just looking for check.