Defying a direct order from his supervisor, Akron Police Officer Donald Schismenos had a woman arrested on false felony charges last summer after she refused to hand over a video camera which she used to film him making an arrest.
The woman ended up spending 18 hours in
jail before her charges were dropped.
The cop ended up with a 15-day
suspension, which he has yet to serve. Schismenos has appealed the suspension
and is scheduled for a hearing next month.
The woman, Sarah Watkins, is now
considering filing a lawsuit. I don’t know what’s taking her so long.
The incident occurred last June when
Watkins stepped outside her home and began filming police arresting a man on
disorderly conduct charges. After the arrest, Schismenos demanded she hand over
the camera as evidence.
As a couple of attorneys explained on Photography is Not a Crime last year, unless that camera
is used in a commission of a crime, police must first obtain a warrant.
In its article on the incident, the Akron Beacon
Journal interviewed a law professor who further confirmed this.
Under some circumstances, police can
seize a citizen’s video as evidence. However, because Watkins was merely a
witness and not a suspect, police should first seek a search warrant to
confiscate the camera, said University of Akron law professor Dean Carro.
”The general rule is if a police
officer has probable cause to believe the item was used in a crime or is the
fruit of a crime, he can seize the item,” Carro said. ”In this situation, it
doesn’t appear that either circumstance is met. So therefore, my inclination is
that the officer would need a search warrant in order to obtain it.”
Here is an excerpt of the exchange that
took place between Watkins and Schismenos, according to the video, which can be
seen by clicking on the article.
”How ya doing, ma’am?” Schismenos says,
according to the videotape.
”Appreciate you getting that on video
for us. What’s your name?”
”You don’t need to know my name,”
Watkins replies.
”Yes, I do,” the officer responds. ”And
I need to seize the video and so I can get it back to you, I need your name.”
”No,” she replies.
”Ma’am, I’m seizing the video. Don’t
walk into the house with it because it’s evidence. You can get it back, but we
need to make a copy of it.”
”This is my camera. This is my personal
camera,” Watkins says.
”And we’re going to seize it, ma’am,
for evidence. If you have a problem with that, call a supervisor.”
Watkins still refused to surrender the
video and at one point tried to go inside. Schismenos grabbed her arm to stop
her.
”Ma’am, you’re going to give me the
camera, or I will take the camera.”
”No.”
”If you don’t, you’ll be arrested for
obstructing.”
”No.”
”And you’ll be arrested for tampering.”
Lakura Watkins intervened, asking the
officer why her mother would be charged.
”Because that’s evidence now. She got
[Baker's] disorderly conduct on tape and we’re going to use that in court,” he
says.
Eventually, Schismenos’ supervisor,
Sgt. David Hammond, ordered him to “let it go” when learning about him trying
to obtain the video camera.
”Don, it’s not worth all that,” Hammond
told Schismenos. ”We are not taking her video for a [misdemeanor disorderly
conduct].”
And Schismenos did let it go. At least
for the time being.
But he ended up writing out a felony criminal
warrant for Watkins, charging her with tampering with evidence and obstructing
justice.
The following day, a couple of officers
knocked on her door and arrested her, where she was forced to strip, shower and
sleep in a jail reeking of urine.
A county grand jury eventually
dismissed the charges.
Even though Schismenos defied his
sergeant’s direct orders, he still doesn’t believe he deserves a 15-day
suspension. And the police union is backing him up.
Union President Paul Hlynsky proved to
be as ignorant of the law as Schismenos when he said that the officer ”had a
perfect right to seize the camera as evidence.”
He had absolutely no right, which is
why Watkins should be suing.