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.