Latest / WCHS Network Podcasts / 01/29/2026 Ask the Lawyer with Tom Peyton

Transcript

01/29/2026 Ask the Lawyer with Tom Peyton · WCHS Network Podcasts

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: The views and opinions expressed on this program do not
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: necessarily reflect the views and opinions of five eight whs
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: it's employees or WVRC media courts.
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: Oh created equally.
• 0:19
  Speaker 3: Well.
• 0:19
  Speaker 4: Last come here to kit.
• 0:21
  Speaker 5: I can rock well this morning. There's no reason to
• 0:33
  Speaker 5: fight the law. You can hit the law on your side.
• 0:35
  Speaker 5: The Paton Law Firm is here. Tom is in studio
• 0:38
  Speaker 5: with us this morning, and you can give us a call.
• 0:40
  Speaker 5: Three four five fifty fifty eight three four five fifty
• 0:42
  Speaker 5: fifty eight text threes or four non three five five
• 0:44
  Speaker 5: years or eight Tom Peyton from the Peyton Law Firm
• 0:47
  Speaker 5: online Peyton Lawfirm dot com.
• 0:49
  Speaker 3: Tom, how are you doing this morning?
• 0:51
  Speaker 6: Doing well?
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: Doing well, living in West Virginia, but feeling cold like Minnesota?
• 0:55
  Speaker 3: I know, right, yeah, very chilly. Yeah.
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: So we uh, last weeks I was going to kind
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: of do a little summary on the law and what's
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: happening up in Minneapolis and Minnesota, and we got some
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: really good calls actually, which if you got to call,
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: certainly call in. But I want to try and get
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: right to that because it's hot topic. And unfortunately, in
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: between our show last week, when I was mentioning Renee Good,
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: and this week we've had another unfortunate incident where a
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: person was killed Alex. I think his last name's pretty.
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: I don't know how you pronounce it, But unless you've
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: had your head in this end, you've seen one or
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: more videos of both the Renee Good situation where she
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: was operating a vehicle and ICE agents in mass approached
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: your vehicle cursing she's either blocking or at least partially
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: blocking the road, and then backed up, pulled forward at a.
• 1:52
  Speaker 6: Not a rapid pace.
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: But there was an ICE officer standing to the driver's
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: side left front of her vehicle, and her vehicle made
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: contact with him, and then of course he shot three
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: bullets and killed her. I think forensics has come out,
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: and at least the first shot probably went under her arm,
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: the second shot went through her breast, wasn't fatal, and
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: then the third shot, which it appears to me on
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: the video, she was clearly clear of the officer at
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: that point I think shot her in the that was
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: the fatal shot was the third one, and she was
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: past the officer and he didn't appear to be in
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: danger any longer at that time. And then of course
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: we have the pretty shooting where you know he is
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: part of this these protesters. I don't know if he
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: had a whistle was blowing it while Ice was driving
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: down the street. But there was two women there that
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: were doing that, I think, and Ice approaches one of
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: them on a public way and it's icy there, as
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: you can imagine annisoda and shoves her down and starts
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: to pepper spray her, and this fella gets in between
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: and ultimately results in a tussle on the ground where
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: he is he was carrying I think he had a
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: concealed carry permit. It wasn't He certainly wasn't carrying illegally,
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: but they removed the pistol from him, and then in
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: the fray they ended up. I think there were ten
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: shots killed him, and you can hear five of them
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: clearly after he was incapacitated laying on the ground. And
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: in this day and age, you have multiple views. There
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: was a woman just a I don't think she was
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: she wasn't part of the protest, but she was there.
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: I think she was driving to go somewhere else and
• 3:43
  Speaker 2: kind of was going to go around the Ice agents,
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: according to her, and then couldn't really get around, so
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: she pulled in and hopped out and had her phone on,
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: and so we have a really good angle there, and
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: it's a it's a shocking video because she, you know,
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: just went from a non aggressive, enthusiastic kind of protest
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: to just middle aged man just being shot and killed.
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: And so it's hopefully we never get conditioned to that
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: in this country. Have a fear that we might based
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: on what's happened here recently. But you know, what's the
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: law regarding these situations, and kind of start with how
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: I think we got here. We have First, we have
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: a we get an underlying court say hey, Ice, you
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: can't stop people just based on race, ethnicity generally where
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: they work.
• 4:35
  Speaker 6: Those are just.
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: Mere suspicions and I wouldn't even call it circumstantial evidence
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: of being quote illegally in the country or not having
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: permanent residence status. But that was a preliminary ruling and
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: it was appealed to the US Supreme Court, and then
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: they issued a ruling on their shadow docket, which usually
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: doesn't have full opinion, where they explain why they're making
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: their ruling, and they overturned the lower court, so, you know,
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: injunction terminated, which without that injunction in place, then Ice
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: could go back to doing using what has generally been
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: prohibited factors at least prohibited as soul factors for detaining
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: people and arresting people, like race or ethnicity, color their skin,
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: types of businesses or places of employment. But Justice Kavnall decided, well,
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: we need to explain this, so he actually issued what's
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: called a concurring opinion and explained expressly that, oh no,
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: it's a totality the circumstances. So you can considering all
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: the circumstances which you're allowed to use race, ethnicity, type
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: of business, type of employment where immigrants might be, or
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: of course using the color of their skin, which is
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: a departure from previous precedent racial profiling basically normally in
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: the past, other than right on the border, you would
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: have to have it would have to articulate objective facts
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: about this particular person which gives rise to enough evidence
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: that there's good cause to just make a stop and
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: then determine if the suspicions are dispelled at that point,
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: then you can't arrest them. You can do a brief
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: stop of inquiry. That's what Justice Kavanaugh points out, Well,
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: you know, these will just be is whether it's an
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: unreasonable search and seizure. Unreasonable is a way of factors,
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: and how long somebody's detained or stopped is one of
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: those factors as well. And so Justice Kavanaugh talks about
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: his opinion, well, these will just be brief stops, you know,
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: just long enough to for the citizen or the person
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: to notify ICE whether they're legal or not, or citizens
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: or not. He didn't bought to explain how persons to
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: do that. Now, I think, with all due respect to
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: Justice Cavanaugh, that's an idealistic, naive view of the of
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: the real world. Best, especially this was in September, especially
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: in the light of what's been actually happening, and now
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: we've seen the aftermath because ICE has taken that opinion.
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: Oh we we can use I mean there are count
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: these aren't one offs. There's countless stories that are not
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: stories there what actually happened. Even off duty police officers
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: that are African American or Hispanic just being stopped on
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: the street for no other reason there than they're around
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: where protesters are or in a particular area, seem to
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: be based solely on skin color. Some of them detained
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: and I don't know what papers you would carry to
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: show that you're a citizen. That's not really your burden
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: to prove. There should be some factual basis for isis stops.
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: And if a person says, well, here's my idea, and
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: I'm a citizen or I'm here legally, I mean I don't.
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: Normally in America, you don't have a stock pile of
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: documents in your pocket or on your phone that require
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: you know, that would allow you to prove beyond all
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: doubt that you're here legally. So combine that with a
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: memo that was just uncovered recently where we've also seen
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: situations where Ice has used a battering ram to smash
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: into people's homes, which in the entire history of our country,
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: into the constitution, the home is sacred in a way.
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: You have to basically have a warrant to go in
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: somebody's home to search or seize search property inside, or
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: seize property inside or humans inside, unless there's an exigent
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: what's called exitent circumstances. If a person committed a crime
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: and they're running from police, they're running their house and
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: close the door, no the police can go in, or
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: if there's a evidence a person's in danger inside a home,
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: they can go in. Otherwise you got to stop and
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: get a warrant.
• 9:41
  Speaker 6: Now, what.
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: This memo says is that we'll know we're going to
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: allow ICE to do these raids of homes. One based
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: on the factors in the Kavanaugh stops. Now this memobent
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: came out before then. But two, you don't need need
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: a real search warrant. So a real search warrant is
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: where an officer goes to a member of the judiciary,
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: a neutral and detached magistrate or judge, and they filled
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: out a naffa day but and the judge where the
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: magistrate looks at it, reads it, and from the four
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: corners of that document, is there probable cause that you know,
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: there's evidence of a crime or a person who committed
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: may have committed a crime or inside that residence. And
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: then they sun off on it. So it's a screening
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: measure by a neutral, detached manastrate. Now what ISA is
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: saying is we'll know we're going to use administrative warrants,
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: so that, as I understand, is not issued by a
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: member of the judiciary. It's an employee of the executive
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: branch that can be there's been evidence in the Trump
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: administration of you know, sanctioning or discharging what we'll call
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: them hearing examiners or administrative judges that are employees because
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: they don't rule certain ways or things like that. So
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: that's who is now issuing these They're not neutral and
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: detached members of the judiciary. They're just administrative judges. You
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: can say that are employees of the executive branch signing
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: off one and you can see where there would create
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: problems there. So you take all that.
• 11:24
  Speaker 6: And we just have this scenario where.
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: People that are citizens, people that are not charged with
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: the crime, but they're here going through the asylum process
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: where they've been allowed to stay, and say now they're
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: being captured, arrested, detained, not provided due process. Judge a
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: good One just issued to ruining this week allowing someone
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: who is detained to be released. They had to hire
• 11:56
  Speaker 2: a lawyer to fillo what's called a habeas corpus petition.
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: It could be released. The government provided no evidence as
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: to which would justify detaining this person. As Judge Goodwin
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: pointed out, what's not the person being detains burden to.
• 12:13
  Speaker 6: Prove they should be free.
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: Freedom is the default so government, you have to prove
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: why you can continue to detain this person, and he
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: just summarily dismissed it. And the government didn't provide any events.
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: I think they tried to dismit some kind of check
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: the box form that was wholly insufficient. And so that's
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: where we are now. You go to Minnesota where we
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: have this surge of ice agents, and I think you've
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: got a calamity of issues there. One being a law
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: enforcement officer. I mean, I know local police officers, deputies,
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: they have a tough job. It's not easy to go,
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: you know, even just to think about a regular traffic
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: stop in a big city or here out in the
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: country and you go just to approach a car that
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: might be swerving a little bit, maybe it has out
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: of state plates, in the middle of the night by yourself.
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: That could be an intense situation for a lay person,
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: and law enforcement.
• 13:19
  Speaker 6: Deal with that every day.
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: But they're trained, they have I looked up the sheriff
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: at least the Putnam County Sheriff's deputies training mean they
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: get months and months of training, continuing education. I assure
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: you that a significant amount of that training is devoted
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: to proper search and caesar techniques, how to de escalate situations,
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: not escalate situations. And you know, now we have ice
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: agents who are hired quickly. I think they're given fifty
• 13:56
  Speaker 2: thousand dollars hiring bonuses. And what I've understood is they
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: reduced the training period from a matter of months to
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: a few weeks at least anecdotally, some have said it's
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: forty seven days of training, which represents the forty seventh president.
• 14:13
  Speaker 2: And then they throw them out in these situations where
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: it's already.
• 14:20
  Speaker 3: Stewing.
• 14:20
  Speaker 6: I mean, there's alway.
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: Things are running, tempers are running high, and you know,
• 14:25
  Speaker 2: you throw these guys in there that you have weapons,
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: they wear masks, they I don't think they're training. You
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: get in these intent they That's why police get a
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: lot of difference in these situations. Normally it's because they're
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: they're bang banged decisions you got. You don't see a
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: lot of officers get convicted of crimes for their behavior
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: as law enforcement officers. You don't see a whole lot
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: of successful civil cases against them, even when there's not
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: an immunity, because they get a lot of difference because
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: they have a difficult job and you throw these agents
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: in there that don't have much training at all, and
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: you got citizens blowing whistles in their ear and yelling
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: and standing in the street, most of which they're.
• 15:15
  Speaker 6: Entailed to do.
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: Some of it goes over the line, for sure, and
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: here we go. It's just we're seeing it play out.
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: When you get this circumstances that just it's like a
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: series of unfortunate events that are culminating now.
• 15:31
  Speaker 6: So hopefully it'll get better. I don't know.
• 15:38
  Speaker 2: If it will, and I don't think it's anything that
• 15:43
  Speaker 2: should have been unforseeable when we have a civil justice system,
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: and so that's you know, as opposed to the criminal
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: justice system. You can't as a regular citizen charge somebody
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: with a crime. Normally there's a couple exceptions, but you
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: have to go to the law enforce and long or
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: a prosecutor, and then they make the decision where to prosecute.
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: And then if they do charge somebody with a crime,
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: they can consult with a victim, but ultimately it's up
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: to the government to decide how to prosecute that clime,
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: whether to dismiss the case, push it to trial intro
• 16:17
  Speaker 2: plea agreement that's not for normal citizens to decide, and
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: so the way in which citizens can seek redress when
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: they're done wrong is through the civil justice system. So
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: you can hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit if
• 16:31
  Speaker 2: you've been harmed physically or financially. And you know, the
• 16:41
  Speaker 2: civil justice system has there's kind of some global overwhelming
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: points to it. One, it provides some sense of deterrence
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: for bad conduct. You know, you have negligence cases somebody
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: just isn't paying attention to rearing somebody, and then you
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: have cases that involve reckless or intentional behavior. And if
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: you have reckless or intentional behavior, normally absent quote tort
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: reform or or other measures to prevent cases from going
• 17:10
  Speaker 2: to a jury, there's the potential for punitive damages. And
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: part of punitive damage awards is to deter bad conduct
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: not just for the person that committed it, but for
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: others that might be observing the case. And in a
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: more global perspective, the civil justice system gives regular people,
• 17:34
  Speaker 2: other than having to rely on the government in a
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: criminal case, to have some recourse if they feel they've
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: been done wrong, and that prevents things like significant civil
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: unrest or people taking the law into their own hands.
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: If you didn't have a civil justice system, there would
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: be so much frustration with folks.
• 17:59
  Speaker 6: That are on the wrong side.
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: Of people who are negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, or intentionally
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: do bad things that physically or financially harm others. And
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: you would have mobs with pitchforks. So that's just the
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: way it is. That's reality on a policy level. So
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: you take that, and then we have this situation with
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: Ice where everyone's seeing them behave routinely in a way
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: that violates our notions of due process.
• 18:43
  Speaker 6: We'll call him the.
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: Kavanaugh stops, where he has expressed the right to use
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: these factors that have been disfavored in the history of
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: our country to detain and stop people.
• 18:54
  Speaker 6: But.
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: They're violating I'm not blaming Justice Kavanaugh. I just think
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: his opinion was naive at the time when you're looking
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: at the reality of the situation. Now it's his his
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: verbiage has been parleyed into stops and detainments and arrests
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: that go far beyond what he described. But so what
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: recourse is there in the civil justice system. And so
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: we'll say, all right, well, this officer shot my dad
• 19:32
  Speaker 2: or my spouse and they didn't have a right to
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: do so it was illegal. Our supreme courts also immunized
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: those individual officers from civil suits. Basically, can't file a
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: suit against individual officers. They'll it'll be dismissed for immunity grounds.
• 19:53
  Speaker 2: So there's no civil recourse to the extent that a
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: person can hire lawyer and prosecute the individual actors who
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: did the shooting if they're working as a federal agent
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: for RICE. Now you can file a claim under what
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: it's called the Federal Twurt Claims Act. You don't get
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: a jury trial, your damages are limited compared to a
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: regular case, but you don't it's not a suit against
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: the individual actors. It's against the US government. When the
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: US government pays any resulting judgment, which cannot include punitive damages,
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: so it doesn't have a it's not satisfactory to the
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: harmed party. It doesn't address the individual actors who actually
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: committed will call it the offense. So you've got this
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: situation where there's just total frustration because routine there's routine
• 20:53
  Speaker 2: violations of our constitutional norms. There's routine violations of even
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: the Kavanaughs stopcase, and the folks that are being harmed
• 21:03
  Speaker 2: and don't have, at least in their mind, an adequate remedy.
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: I mean, there's no way to really take action in
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: our civil justice system against these individual actors for ICE
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: that are that are doing this other than potentially a
• 21:18
  Speaker 2: civil case with limited damages that is against the US
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: government versus any type of individual actors. And it just
• 21:26
  Speaker 2: has created a boiling point. And and that's that's where
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: we've gotten. I don't think I don't condone damaging property
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: and in in as part of a protest for sure.
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: And uh, there shouldn't be obstruction of law and actual
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: law enforcement officers actually carrying out legitimate duties. But the
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: First Amendment is pretty strong as far as protecting protesters
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: based on noises they make or things they say and
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: that kind of thing.
• 22:06
  Speaker 6: And so that's what we're seeing. So then.
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: You know, you've got some other issues in these cases.
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: We'll see whether you know, the state charges any of
• 22:24
  Speaker 2: these ICE agents with crimes. That'll be interesting to see
• 22:26
  Speaker 2: how it plays out.
• 22:27
  Speaker 3: It's it's if there's some local.
• 22:32
  Speaker 5: Attorney generals and things along the attorney's general and things
• 22:34
  Speaker 5: along those lines that are that they're making those statements
• 22:37
  Speaker 5: that our council's telling us that we can pursue charges
• 22:41
  Speaker 5: in these cases, and so we're going to pursue charges
• 22:43
  Speaker 5: of these cases.
• 22:44
  Speaker 2: Sure, and that's a possibility. I mean, talk about the
• 22:48
  Speaker 2: technicalities of that, but it's it's going to be. They
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: still have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: and meet the elements of a criminal charge. I think
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: from what I've seen on the videos and the forensics
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: thus far, there's enough to charge one or more officers
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: in both not saying they be convicted, but at least
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: enough for you to charge.
• 23:09
  Speaker 3: You just have to have probable cause.
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: So I think some homicide level offense, there's enough there
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: to charge one or more of the officers in both
• 23:22
  Speaker 2: of these killings in Minneapolis. It might be hard to
• 23:30
  Speaker 2: convict for a multitude of reasons, one evidentiary because as
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: I understand, the federal government is not cooperating with the
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: local law enforcement agencies. And if you don't have the
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: information you need to conduct proper forensics, or it's not
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: being shared, or evidence is being what they call spoliated,
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: it's disappearing, and now we can't go back.
• 23:53
  Speaker 5: And there were apparently phones collected from the government apparently
• 23:58
  Speaker 5: collected phones around the Pready shooting actually detained some people
• 24:01
  Speaker 5: that were around there.
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, and maybe they have phones from the officers,
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: and maybe there's other video on. Then some agent might
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: have in wearing a camera body camera or a helmet
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: camera or something like that, but I don't know if
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: that's being.
• 24:18
  Speaker 3: And the goovery said they're not releasing it, releasing.
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: It to other law enforcement agencies, so it's a little
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: bit of protection. You combine that with this over the top, amateurist,
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: embarrassing rhetoric that comes out within minutes of these incidents
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: happening from Christy Nome and Bonvino or whatever his name is,
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: you know, calling these citizens you know who's coming there
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: to massacre ice and just over the top statements that
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: shouldn't be made by anyone, certainly not the highest echelons
• 24:55
  Speaker 2: of our federal government, that are conclusory inflammatory. I mean why,
• 25:01
  Speaker 2: but it's just I find it all embarrassing. They put
• 25:04
  Speaker 2: out memes, they make these over the top, goofy, I'll say,
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: even dangerous type statements right off the bat, and any
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: American citizen puts up with that, which you don't I
• 25:16
  Speaker 2: don't know what you can do other than, you know,
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: continue to put pressure on the politicians. But it's it's
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: something I never thought I would see in my lifetime,
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: for sure, and but that just feeds the problem.
• 25:33
  Speaker 6: And so.
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: Now other than you probably want to take a break
• 25:41
  Speaker 2: whenever you want to. We gotta take one break, right, yeah,
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: just one? Okay, take it now. Yeah, let's okay, let's
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: go do this. If we're gonna take a break. If
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: you have any comments or want to call in, you're
• 25:50
  Speaker 2: welcome to three zero four three four five fifty eight
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: fifty eight. You're listening to ask the Lawyer this morning.
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: It is Tom Peyton from the Peyton Law Firm online
• 25:57
  Speaker 2: Petin Lawfirm dot com. Peyton Lawfirm dot com, pe In
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: Peyton Lawfirm dot com. You can find them in Nitro,
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: West Virginia. Their phone number three zero four seven five
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: five fifty five fifty six seven five to five to
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: fifty five fifty six. You can get ahold of us
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: this morning at three zero four three four five fifty
• 26:11
  Speaker 2: eight fifty eight three four five fifty eight fifty We'll
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: be back right after this. You're listening to ask the
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: Lawyer on five ADWCHS. The boys of Charleston.
• 26:18
  Speaker 4: If you've been injured, you need a lawyer who knows
• 26:20
  Speaker 4: West Virginia because they live in West Virginia. Tom and
• 26:24
  Speaker 4: Harvey Peyton were born and raised here. They've spent decades
• 26:28
  Speaker 4: fighting for injury victims and they know how to get results.
• 26:32
  Speaker 4: At the Peyton Law Firm, you get straight talk, strong representation,
• 26:36
  Speaker 4: and local attorneys who care. Call seven five five fifty
• 26:40
  Speaker 4: five fifty six today or visit Peyton Lawfirm dot com.
• 26:44
  Speaker 7: The attorney's referenced in this ad are lifelong residence and
• 26:46
  Speaker 7: are licensed to practice law in the state of West Virginia.
• 26:49
  Speaker 6: The latest in news, talking sports.
• 26:50
  Speaker 7: When five ADWCHS has brought to you about Jarrett Construction,
• 26:54
  Speaker 7: called three zero four three for four ninety one forty
• 26:56
  Speaker 7: for more information.
• 26:57
  Speaker 3: Time right on bot, Come on.
• 27:02
  Speaker 7: Chairs, get your questions answered by the experts. Soon in
• 27:07
  Speaker 7: to ask the expert on five ad WCHS hosted by
• 27:10
  Speaker 7: Dale Cooper. From finance to health, home improvement to legal advice.
• 27:14
  Speaker 7: Our experts are here to take your calls and texts
• 27:16
  Speaker 7: weekday morning at eight twenty gone five ad w C Chap.
• 27:32
  Speaker 5: Every Thursday when we take our break and we come
• 27:35
  Speaker 5: back and we get to chill out just a little
• 27:37
  Speaker 5: bit from the commercial break with this nice rendition of
• 27:40
  Speaker 5: all of our favorite songs.
• 27:43
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good, good way to come back into it.
• 27:48
  Speaker 3: But was we stopped.
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: We stopped kind of talking about, you know, criminal charges,
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: and I was saying, you know, I think from what
• 27:53
  Speaker 2: I've seen and there's there's probable cause to charge some
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: of those officers with it, that would be a a
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: state crime. So Minnesota state law would apply now, other
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: than the evidentiary hurdles they might run into because of
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: potential lack of evidence due to the federal government not
• 28:12
  Speaker 2: cooperating with local officials. Is some technical things. So there's
• 28:18
  Speaker 2: the supremacy clause in the US Constitution with basically says
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: that you know, the states can't infringe on a federal
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: officer carrying out his federal duties. So if any of
• 28:29
  Speaker 2: these officers are charged in state court, I presume they'll
• 28:33
  Speaker 2: they have a right to remove the case to federal court,
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: which is normally can't be done. In normal you get
• 28:40
  Speaker 2: charged with the crime in Knall County and violation of
• 28:42
  Speaker 2: state law, you don't get a choice to So I
• 28:44
  Speaker 2: don't want this to be in Kannall County. I want
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: to take it to the federal court over here, so
• 28:49
  Speaker 2: we have a different jury pool and different judge.
• 28:51
  Speaker 3: That kind of thing.
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: Federal officials, when they're charged with a crime, at least
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: it arises during their even remotely during their employment, they
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: can remove the case to federal court, and then the
• 29:04
  Speaker 2: federal court has to conduct an analysis basically stemming from
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: the supremacy clause to figure out whether it's complicated. Really,
• 29:13
  Speaker 2: I don't think there's been a US Supreme Court case
• 29:16
  Speaker 2: interpreting this in a century, but there certainly have been
• 29:20
  Speaker 2: some other cases that have filtered through. So the federal
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: court will then have to determine whether that officer, when
• 29:28
  Speaker 2: the alleged criminal conduct was occurred, whether they were carrying
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: out their their federal duties as a federal agent, and
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: whether what they did was quote necessary and proper to
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: carry out those duties. And then necessary and proper language
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: has been interpreted all different ways. So well, it obviously
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: wasn't necessary and proper because they didn't need to shoot
• 29:52
  Speaker 2: Renee good after and kill her after she was clear
• 29:55
  Speaker 2: of the officer and driving the opposite direction. But it's
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: not nearly that that simple and I think the state charges,
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure they'll be complete roadblocks, but there's going
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: to be major hurdles to those types of cases because
• 30:15
  Speaker 2: it has to do with analysis maybe of the intent
• 30:18
  Speaker 2: of the officer and that kind of thing. Now, if
• 30:21
  Speaker 2: there's different versions of events, which I'm not sure there
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: would be here with all the video and forensics, but
• 30:27
  Speaker 2: if you had back in the olden days, and you
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: have a witness that says, well, this is what he did,
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: and then the defendant or another witness says, no, this
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: is what he did, and you have conflicting facts. Usually
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: that results in a trial. But there has to be
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: a kind of a summary proceeding by the judge, not
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: by a jury, to determine whether the federal officers' actions.
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: I kind of define it as operating within the scope
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: of their employment. If they get outside the scope of
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: their employment, then they're probably not going to be immune.
• 30:58
  Speaker 6: Either way.
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: The the federal officer has a right to ultimately have
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: a trial about guilt or innocence in the federal system
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: versus in the state system, and it either way, if
• 31:09
  Speaker 2: they charge them, it's not gonna I don't think a
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: result of that proceeding will be anytime real soon because
• 31:18
  Speaker 2: of all the legal hurdles involved with immunity and that
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: kind of thing. So we'll see. If I was betting,
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: i'd say they'll charge one or more of the officers
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: in these two incidents. But if I was also betting,
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: I would say it's probably a decent chance of federal
• 31:36
  Speaker 2: court or rule that they're immune from federal prosecution based
• 31:41
  Speaker 2: on what I've seen.
• 31:43
  Speaker 5: Is there any there's so much, you know, I guess
• 31:47
  Speaker 5: aggressive stance around all of this, and there's some elements
• 31:52
  Speaker 5: of playing cute with some things. And this is something
• 31:55
  Speaker 5: that I came across yesterday where there's these photos that
• 31:58
  Speaker 5: are being released by the government of some of the
• 32:00
  Speaker 5: bookings and arrests and things along those lines. And they're
• 32:03
  Speaker 5: manipulating the people that are arresting everybody there to continue
• 32:08
  Speaker 5: to do it. And and I don't mean that that
• 32:09
  Speaker 5: they're making a means I mean they're actually changing their
• 32:12
  Speaker 5: facial structures to make them look like more sinister or
• 32:16
  Speaker 5: in some cases more I mean frankly more darker skin
• 32:20
  Speaker 5: than what they actually are, with more exaggerated features than
• 32:23
  Speaker 5: what they actually have. Is there anything where this can
• 32:26
  Speaker 5: show some sort of intent on. I mean that it
• 32:29
  Speaker 5: is not a serious thing to do.
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: I mean it's manipulation and propaganda, which I think they've
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: come out and said, not President Trump directly, but somebody
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: on his behalf. So we're going to keep putting out
• 32:42
  Speaker 2: means which there is no real meaningful purpose to any
• 32:47
  Speaker 2: of That is their recourse. I don't know when it's
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: the government doing it, not just in the setting I've
• 32:52
  Speaker 2: been discussed. There's there are a lot of legal hurdles
• 32:56
  Speaker 2: to do that.
• 32:57
  Speaker 5: It's just wowed to think that not only I mean,
• 32:59
  Speaker 5: what even your you could be guilty of something, but
• 33:03
  Speaker 5: it just seems like a bald faced problem for you
• 33:06
  Speaker 5: to actually get your picture manipulated to lean into some
• 33:10
  Speaker 5: sort of caricature. I mean, if you have the evidence,
• 33:13
  Speaker 5: you have the evidence, why do you need to go
• 33:14
  Speaker 5: so far?
• 33:15
  Speaker 6: Well, they don't.
• 33:16
  Speaker 2: I mean we've seen obviously that they make grandiose statements
• 33:22
  Speaker 2: that are false, not based on actual evidence, right off
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: the bat. And that's fine for me or you or
• 33:28
  Speaker 2: everyday person to type into Facebook or some other social media.
• 33:32
  Speaker 2: It should never be tolerated from the top officials in
• 33:36
  Speaker 2: our government because they you know this, we've been conditioned
• 33:42
  Speaker 2: to these tweets or whatever the president sends out. But
• 33:44
  Speaker 2: that's we shouldn't be conditioned to that. That office should
• 33:48
  Speaker 2: be above that type behavior. And and the folks I
• 33:53
  Speaker 2: talked to, well, I agree with his policy, sort of
• 33:56
  Speaker 2: ignore all that. I don't ignore that. And that's one
• 33:57
  Speaker 2: of the reasons I can't. I agree with his at
• 34:02
  Speaker 2: least some of his underlying policies. I do, but I
• 34:05
  Speaker 2: just can't stomach myself to tolerate that type of behavior.
• 34:10
  Speaker 2: So going back to the issues in Minnesota. Here, I
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: see some rhetoric on social media about well he had
• 34:16
  Speaker 2: a gun or you know, they just need to do
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: whatever the police tell them to do. That's interesting, Well,
• 34:21
  Speaker 2: what's the law on that. It's actually looked up. There's
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: a case in West Virginia. It's actually State v. Settle
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: s E. T. T L E. It's from twenty twenty.
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: And if law enforcements coming to arrest you, is it
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: absolutely you just have to comply with everything they tell
• 34:40
  Speaker 2: you to do. And I think, first of all, disclaimer,
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: if you have a legitimate law deputy, local police, and
• 34:50
  Speaker 2: you know, I would never I can't imagine a situation
• 34:52
  Speaker 2: when I would advise somebody to he's forced to try
• 34:55
  Speaker 2: and escape the police. You do that, you operate at
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: your own risk. I'm not talking about risk of death
• 35:02
  Speaker 2: from being shot. I'm talking about risk of committing a
• 35:06
  Speaker 2: crime or being criminally prosecuted. But this case from twenty
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: twenty was involved an officer state trooper I believe, pulling
• 35:13
  Speaker 2: somebody over rural area. I think they're a weaving or something,
• 35:17
  Speaker 2: probably suspected the UI. Well, then I think the guy
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: doesn't pull over, he speeds off, recks his car, flips
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: his vehicle. The officer goes to help or get him
• 35:29
  Speaker 2: out of the vehicle, and during the process, even though
• 35:31
  Speaker 2: he had his gun out, he didn't. The guy starts
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: to struggle with the officer, and the officer uses multiple
• 35:37
  Speaker 2: means to try and subdue him. I think he had
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: a baton and maybe pepper spray I can't remember that
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: fact for sure, but gets the guy of the vehicle.
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: He's still fighting with the officer and maybe even ran
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: on foot. Eventually they capture him and the guy's charged
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: with like eight different counts, some of them stending from
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: his driving behavior, some of them from his behavior and
• 35:56
  Speaker 2: interacting with the officer, and a salting the officer base
• 36:00
  Speaker 2: that kind of thing. First, he wasn't shot. He lived
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: and had a trial. But even in that case, and
• 36:08
  Speaker 2: this wasn't. The Supreme Court approved the judge's jury instruction.
• 36:16
  Speaker 2: And I think this was probably a little probably favorable
• 36:20
  Speaker 2: to the defendant and may not have been necessary, but
• 36:22
  Speaker 2: the judge gave the jury an instruction on this guy
• 36:25
  Speaker 2: had a self defense defense based on that scenario. I
• 36:28
  Speaker 2: just went over even though the officer certainly had cause
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: to arrest him detain him, and he basically fought with
• 36:35
  Speaker 2: the officer, And so I was just trying to defend
• 36:37
  Speaker 2: myself against an unlawful arrest. So here's what you'd be
• 36:42
  Speaker 2: told if somebody says, well, I was only resisting that
• 36:46
  Speaker 2: officer because I thought it was an unlawful arrest and
• 36:50
  Speaker 2: I was just trying to escape. So here's what a
• 36:52
  Speaker 2: jury would be told. And it's a little dry, but
• 36:58
  Speaker 2: this is all you get if you're if you're a
• 36:59
  Speaker 2: j listening to the case. Under the laws of this state,
• 37:03
  Speaker 2: a person who is subject to an attempted unlawful arrest
• 37:06
  Speaker 2: may use such reasonable force proportion to the injury attempted
• 37:11
  Speaker 2: on him as is necessary to affect his escape, but
• 37:15
  Speaker 2: no more. And he cannot do this by using or
• 37:18
  Speaker 2: offering to use a deadly weapon if he has no
• 37:21
  Speaker 2: reason to believe that he will receive greater injury than
• 37:24
  Speaker 2: a mere unlawful arrest. So you can't use a deadly
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: weapon to I mean, whilst he weaponized the car, well maybe,
• 37:33
  Speaker 2: I mean it's a car a deadly weapon in that situation.
• 37:37
  Speaker 6: I don't know.
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: Oh we got to go yeah, Well continues on talks
• 37:40
  Speaker 2: about whether I'm lawfulrested, But point being, I never prescribed
• 37:45
  Speaker 2: resisting arrest from a legitimate lawful officer, trying to make
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: just go with it, be arrests, get it arrested, and
• 37:51
  Speaker 2: then deal with it later. But this attitude that you
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: just have to do everything these massmen say in Minnesota
• 37:58
  Speaker 2: and if they if you don't, you should be nick
• 38:02
  Speaker 2: you're begging to be shot or her is not.
• 38:05
  Speaker 3: In the law.
• 38:07
  Speaker 5: That's Tom Payton from the Peyton Law Firm Peyton Law
• 38:09
  Speaker 5: Firm Online, Peyton Lawfirm dot com, Peyton Lawfirm dot com.
• 38:11
  Speaker 5: P E y tw in seven five five fifty five
• 38:13
  Speaker 5: fifty six threes are A four seven five five fifties
• 38:16
  Speaker 5: fifty five fifty six. Tom will see you next week.
• 38:18
  Speaker 5: Thanks a lot, look forward to it.
• 38:19
  Speaker 6: I'll be here.
• 38:20
  Speaker 3: Have a great day everyone on five AD w c
• 38:21
  Speaker 3: H O.
• 38:24
  Speaker 7: Fight E E w c HS A M six point five.
• 38:26
  Speaker 7: That's on Charleston one oh four point five Cross Lane'll
• 38:29
  Speaker 7: w UVRC Media Station.
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: We're proud to live here too,