Storm chaser arrested in Texas

[Warren Faidley]

RE: Forcing people to leave.

I did a lot of research about this when writing my storm survival book after Katrina. On a large scale, no one can "force" you to leave an area. There are constitutional issues involved. The most recent example was during Katrina when snipers were delaying rescue efforts. A court must approve such a measure, which was not done during Katrina and rarely done at all. Even during a "mandatory" evacuation, the authorities have no legal right to physically remove you. (That's why they go around asking for next of kin notifications). Again, constitutional issues -- although LEO's often stretch the laws and no one fights it in a serious situation. However, the police can remove you, or prevent you from entering an area if you are posing a danger to others, yourself or if the area is closed by law, e.g., you cross a fire line or try to enter a closed disaster site where hazards exist or looting is being prevented. On the local level, which is what we deal with, the law is wide open for local interpretation, like we saw when Barnes was likely falsely detained and imprisoned without a real cause of action. This is why he was charged with a crime that makes no sense. If the rest area charge don't fit... you gotta acquit!

Law enforcement can use a number of laws to force you to leave or arrest you. I was often hit with "obstruction" or "interfering" charges when covering a fire or SWAT operation, but I was always careful to gain some authorization or permission (even from a single firefighter) beforehand to cover my rear, and not one charge ever stuck. States and local jurisdictions have varying laws, so it's difficult to know for sure what you are facing in different locations. If LEO's really have it out for you, they can hit you with a host of charges, which Barnes could still be charged with, from traffic violations, obstruction to who knows what. Local jurisdictions are scary because they know most people don't bother to fight back. The bottom line is if you are told to leave, you should -- then complain later. Even if you are right, it can cost thousands of dollars to fight it.

W.

 

[JR Hehnly]

It's like arresting a fireman because he's standing too close to a fire. Or a racecar driver because he was speeding on the track. As chasers this is just what we DO.

I think a closer analogy to this incident might be a divemaster getting arrested as he gets his group of scuba divers ready to enter the underwater world where they might encounter dangerous currents, spooky fish, or even SHARKS!

Or, how about a Scoutmaster taking arrested in a national park where he was putting his Boy Scouts at risk from mountain lions, snakes, and dangerous cliffs?

It's for their 'protection', right?

 

[Jody Radzik]

The bottom line is if you are told to leave, you should -- then complain later.

This is the distillation of this whole discussion.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

I think a closer analogy to this incident might be a divemaster getting arrested as he gets his group of scuba divers ready to enter the underwater world where they might encounter dangerous currents, spooky fish, or even SHARKS!

Or, how about a Scoutmaster taking arrested in a national park where he was putting his Boy Scouts at risk from mountain lions, snakes, and dangerous cliffs?

It's for their 'protection', right?

Yes, these are much better analogies! ... Perfect, actually.

On the other topics, my days of worrying what 'could' happen are done. My preference if asked to leave an area is to just leave and like Warren mentioned, do something about it later. I think a person will get further doing that than by forcing an issue. Back when I was doing TWC video this used to happen with local security folks a lot in KC. I knew about how much time I had to get the shots I needed in a public place before being asked to leave, so I would just hurry and pack it up when I saw the guards coming. I was aware of my rights, but don't like the confrontation.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

This is the distillation of this whole discussion.

The thing about complain later is, it's not even clear *how much* he even objected before getting cuffed. For all we know he may have said it was legal for him to be there, then yank, you're going to jail (or close).

So for those that say just leave, where do you go? Do you go 2 miles, 3 miles and stop again? Do you go home? I mean really, you'd be acting just the same if you kept chasing the storm at all! He could still come along and say you have to leave again! For you to completely comply you'd have to stop chasing the dangerous storm....or know when it was not a dangerous storm to the cop.

I personally commend him for standing up. More people should.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Yea, the MAIN issue here is did he flat out refuse to leave, or was his argument that he "was relaying critical information to the NWS" (which he was) seen by the deputy as saying no. Maybe he did not want to move because of some tactical safety issue involving the storm. Who knows? There is a big difference here depending on the details. I seriously doubt he was stupid enough to say "I'm not leaving." If that is the case, then it's a different issue, even though he had every right and liberty not to move. However, after reading the Sheriff's comments yesterday, one is left with the impression the deputies "problem" and cause for arrest was that Barnes was not "an official spotter," not his parking or endangerment issue" as charged. This implies some conversation and an "authorization" check took place before the arrest (unlikely) -- or as a sidebar discussion behind closed doors afterwards. I still cannot see the deputy taking the time to call officials to check on this. Who would he call -- Ghostbusters?

If this is indeed the arrest reasoning, then chasers are in for a hell of the ride in the future if this case establishes a legal precedence for arresting chasers/spotters based on a chaser or spotter's "official reporting status" with the charge of "endangerment" if they are not. Thus, why I am personally keeping track of this. This may not seem like a big deal, but trust me, bad things start at the bottom.

I wish someone involved in this would speak-up and let us know what is going on, or what actually happened.

W.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

I wish someone involved in this would speak-up and let us know what is going on, or what actually happened.

My guess is they are abiding by the advice of counsel not to do so. He mentioned in his initial post that he was unable to release the entire video for this reason, and it is likely why they can't go into further details at this time as well.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Did it take till page 18 to really get the serious chaser regulation talk in this thread? I know it was sort of mentioned, but now it seems really mentioned, lol. I hope they try, get it over with. Go full bore, whoever's job that will be! I think this thread seriously has it all now. All that remains is a good ol fashion ST lock down! If the deputy was here I'm sure he'd handle that. Too much typing = danger.

Chaser regulation, lol.

Cop pulls up: "What ya doin there with that vid cam?"
Chaser: "Doing a timelapse of the cattle for a school project."
Cop: "Ok, carry on!"

 

[Jody Radzik]

The thing about complain later is, it's not even clear *how much* he even objected before getting cuffed. For all we know he may have said it was legal for him to be there, then yank, you're going to jail (or close).

Unfortunately and despite what we feel about that, it's well within his power to do so.

So for those that say just leave, where do you go? Do you go 2 miles, 3 miles and stop again? Do you go home? I mean really, you'd be acting just the same if you kept chasing the storm at all! He could still come along and say you have to leave again! For you to completely comply you'd have to stop chasing the dangerous storm....or know when it was not a dangerous storm to the cop.

You go where he is not. It might mean leaving his jurisdiction, it might mean just moving on as he gets involved in other stuff.

I personally commend him for standing up. More people should.

There's no doubt it was a very brave thing to do. Brian Barnes was standing up for all of our rights. I do commend him for it, Lord knows there's no way I would have done it. However, was it worth all the trouble it caused when moving would have been so much easier?

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Did it take till page 18 to really get the serious chaser regulation talk in this thread?

Oh nooooo. This is indeed The Perfect Thread.

Time for me to head inland and let this storm pass.

 

[Gerard Jebaily]

Apparently this whole situation has made a good bit of national news. I got a phone call from a family member back in SC who saw the story on the news. Sooner or later something like this was bound to happen. What follows in its wake may very well be what defines our liberties as storm chasers from now on. Having this happen was a good thing and a bad thing at the same time because there has been some friction that has been generated between storm chasers and LEO's. This may put some clarity and definition in some of those grey areas that apply to us.

Side note: Im glad to see that this thread isnt completely serious and some of you guys have taken time to lighten up the atmosphere a bit. The pictures especially are clever and amusing

 

[Jay McCoy]

This is a huge case. many people may think its just some guy getting harrassed but it could set a precedent that could change chasing as we know it. If it stands then LEO's alll over the state and beyond could arrest any chaser for stopping on the side of the road or in a rest stop if he felt like it. We would all be in danger. It only takes 1 court case to set a legal precedent to be used by all others.

I am proud of Bryan for standing up to this guy. Yes he could have just folded and moved on but he knew he had the right to be there. It is like the USA. everybody enjoys our freedoms but it takes a special few with that bravery who fight and sacrifice who provide those freedoms. I see alot of people on here saying they would have just bowed down and moved on and argued it later. Later wouldnt have done any good. Appeasing the wrong just makes them bolder. Sometimes you have to stand up for whats right. I commend Bryan for standing up for all of us.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

This is a huge case. many people may think its just some guy getting harrassed but it could set a precedent that could change chasing as we know it. If it stands then LEO's alll over the state and beyond could arrest any chaser for stopping on the side of the road or in a rest stop if he felt like it. We would all be in danger. It only takes 1 court case to set a legal precedent to be used by all others.

I am proud of Bryan for standing up to this guy. Yes he could have just folded and moved on but he knew he had the right to be there. It is like the USA. everybody enjoys our freedoms but it takes a special few with that bravery who fight and sacrifice who provide those freedoms. I see alot of people on here saying they would have just bowed down and moved on and argued it later. Later wouldnt have done any good. Appeasing the wrong just makes them bolder. Sometimes you have to stand up for whats right. I commend Bryan for standing up for all of us.

By all means, all of you go out and say; "No, we won't go."
Then you can get arrested, spend a lot of money, time, and resources. That should really help things out and enhance your image and everyone else in this field. A big handfull of rebellious, "stand up for your rights" chasers against 43,000 Police Officers in the U.S. That should really work.
Some of us do this for a living and prefer not to have an already tarnished image further run down.
Pretty much the same as some of the people here run down everyone from the yahoo chasers, police, to volunteer fireman who run around with flashing lights. Run everyone else down and try to convince everyone how good you really are.
Where is the guy that puts up the polls? Please start a poll and see how many feel they should move on versus how many SAY they are willing to get arrested to make their point.
I would put the poll up, but don't know how it is set up.

 

[Jay McCoy]

Dennis this isnt about chasing as it is about personal freedom and attitudes like that will end most freedoms. Where do you think we would be if all americans had that attitude when opression comes knocking. Sometimes you have to stand up for freedom. I know most people are afraid of the consequences and become passifists. Trust me I am no liberal ACLU nut. In fact I am usually pretty conservative but I do understand a persons rights afforded them by law.

I am not talking anarchy and wild protests marching through that county. I am talking about making a stand legally. There is a difference in be unlawful and disobeying a LEO doing his duty and standing up for you protected rights when being given an unlawful order by some local yahoo who is falsely accusing somebody of something and being a jerk. I work daily with LEO's and am on their side 99% of the time and have nothing but respect for them but when 1 decides to go above and beyond the law he needs to be called out.

I have been chasing for 23 years and have NEVER had a situation like this but it only takes 1 to set a legal precedent. Go on and roll over and the next time your chasing you may be told to leave and the next time and the next until your not allowed near a storm. How you going to "make your living" then????? If you actually use this as a money maker you of all people should be worried about this. To be able to arrest somebody who is legally parked in a rest stop sets a very dangerous precedent. So go on and say yessaa boss and let him kill your business.

I work with my local Emergency Service (DEM) and one of our jobs is crowd and traffic control around major scenes like fires, wrecks, hazmat, etc so I have experience in this area.. I know legally what I can and cant do to limit access and that doesnt even address weather. yes after the fact when there is a disaster scene we can control access and make people move but before weather hits we have NO legal authority to make people leave the area threatened by weather. Even in manditory evacuations you cant physically make them leave. They still have the right to stay. That has already been decided by the courts. Also we have our own EOC and we have never "required" chasers or spotters to commmunicate with us if in the county. In fact we prefer they call the NWS direct. Our EOC frequency is reserved for DEM/AES/Police/Fire only. It is not a ham frequency.

 

[J Holder]

That wouldn't stand the test in any court of law. You'd have to make a) driving in, through, or around a thunderstorm illegal, and b) parking on the side of a road illegal.

No one is safe when your state legislature is in session!