Storm chaser arrested in Texas

[James Langford]

Good response Bill, and pretty much right on IMO.

James

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

I'm surprised by the response of so many who seem to suggest that they just bow down to the police. Sure if your doing something wrong and get caught, follow directions and comply, but when your obeying all laws and you get a bad attitude, power tripping cop trying to push you around, to hell if I'm going to let it fly, it's no different then if were at the bar enjoying a beer and some big bad biker dude who says its his territory tells me to leave, I'm gonna have to get thrown out. As long as you haven't done anything wrong, you got the leverage in that situation. Many of my friends have gone on to be cops, I know, and have had pleasant experiences with many cops, yet like anything else you get your bad apples (though with LEO's it seems more common). From some of my observations, I have seen instances and trends where victims of bullying at a a younger age tend to become cops, and end up being power trippers trying to get back at society, I can think of two specific instances of this. These guys are typically easy to recognize right off the bat, your best defense is knowing your rights and having witnesses, or a video camera recording the events. It is very discouraging when law abiding citizens are targeted by the bad apples (not sure, but seems to be the case here) I hope this guy gets just compensation in the end. For those outside of the plains, don't let this discourage your image of the plains, 99.9% of are LEO's are great people who will treat you more than fairly.

 

[Scott Weberpal]

Just found another TV station which ran the story. Apparently the deputy who arrested Brian is the Sherriff's son-in-law, and is standing by the arrest. It also states that an attorney from Midland has offered to represent Brian for free.

http://www.cbs7.com/news/details.asp?ID=5998

You have to click on "more" by the videos to find the actual newscast video.

 

[RickRutledge]

My Two Cents

Longtime lurker here...since I get VERY little worthwhile action in my neck of the woods, this is my first post.

In all my encounters with the law (mostly in my younger years) conviction has been based on evidence that proves your guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt. Which in this case, I don't think, or see any evidence that proves he violated the charge he's being hit with. Now, if an officer requested him to move and he refused, that's a different charge. I'm NOT a lawyer nor a judge, but I still really feel like this officer acted way out of line and has no business being a Sherrif sworn to protect and serve the public he is employed by. While there is, admittedly, some guilt on the part of Mr. Barnes, I still feel like this is officer is doing the opposite of what he took an oath to do, IMO.

As for the John Qs who were "stopped" behind him, the officer should have spent more time getting those people off the road then someone who had the right and assumed duty to serve a purpose for the greater good, even if it's only for 5 people per square mile...LoL

I'm so upset by this that I've written to the Governor (overkill? Maybe.) who should know first hand the importance of what we do.

Here's what I wrote:

Dear Governor Perry:

As a former citizen of the State of Texas and avid storm chaser I am appalled at the conduct of the Crane County Sheriffs Department concerning a case that was brought to my attention today.

Conducting a routine spotting, warning and documentation mission in support of the National Weather Service Office in San Angelo, a storm chaser named Brian Barnes (whom I've never met before) was arrested for "Blocking a Public Street" as he was relaying information on a Tornado on the ground, to ensure the safety of the citizens of Crane County.

While I don't have to tell you the importance of safety for citizens during severe weather season I should point out the vital role that these trained spotters play in both research for better warning systems in severe weather situations as well as relaying vital information to the agencies that inform and direct the public in a weather emergency. Again, as an avid storm chaser, I have seen lives saved due to the information that storm spotters gather while observing these weather events on public roads. In almost all cases (in every event in my career) law enforcement supports and encourages us to continue, thus supporting their missions of protecting the public.

Unfortunately, the deputy involved in this case did quite the opposite. The deputy was quite abusive with his language and attitude to those who were, just trying to help.

Luckily, KEWS-TV in Midland-Odessa, has documented both raw video of the arrest as well as statements of the witnesses of the event.

Although I am not a current resident, I do ask, on behalf of other storm chasers that you please step in and request that the charges be dropped against Mr. Barnes. In addition, I ask that there be both a formal apology and reprimand of the officer involved. Otherwise, the risk of increased danger to citizens could be a real possibility since we will have gotten the message that we are not welcome in West Texas. In fact, I personally think that the deputy should be terminated as he is violating the oath that he took to protect the citizens of Crane County at any cost.

I would like to hear a response and I will be forwarding this correspondence to both the State Attorney General's office as well as the County Attorney's office in Crane County.

Thank you for your time and consideration and I look forward to reading your response.

Rick Rutledge


Call me crazy, but I think it's worth his attention. Could there be a license to chase in the State in the future? Maybe, but at least we'll know our rights and WE can continue to "protect and serve."

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I just read that article. It's pretty funny when you have a cop telling chasers where they are and are not safe on a supercell. If the guy has even taken so much as a spotter course I would be surprised. They don't call them sheriffnadoes for nothing.

FYI Tyler deadly force laws vary by state. It's not a federal statute and resisting arrest in Texas (or any other state for that matter) is not justification for anyone to use deadly force.

The deputy that did this is the sheriff's son in law? Shocker... And he is standing by the arrest? Another shocker... I'm sure the good sheriff could explain how his deputy/son in law was justified in telling an experienced chaser where he is and is not safe around a storm. I'm also sure the good sheriff could cite the law that empowers them to play usher on severe storms. In their minds I'm betting there are few limits to their authority. They know best, period. If you don't want to listen and respect their authority then they'll show you by throwing you in jail for no reason. The cop should be the one behind bars in this situation and I really hope he gets what he deserves. I applaud Brian for standing his ground when that cop tried to bully him.

I am also very surprised too at some people's instinct to bend over just because it's a cop. I totally agree with Dustin. Being a cop doesn't make you right. I just can't understand the "thank you sir may I have another" mentality. I don't want to go to jail as much as the next guy, but I have to take a stand on principle at some point. Yeah it will probably get me in trouble in the short term, but I feel better about myself knowing that I have a firm set of beliefs don't waiver from them when confronted with adversity.

 

[Shane Adams]

I thought most law enforcement in the Plains would have a basic recognition of dangerous weather; esp if patrolling anywhere in Tornado Alley. If this is not the case, they should all be required to go though spotter training. Seems like a no brainer to me.

The kid who was being trained by the FTO who stopped us on May 6 had no clue part of his job was to spot for severe weather; he was most-displeased when he found out. Hence my 10-minute speech of how to get started in SKYWARN training and all that crap.

LEOs in Tornado Aley are no more educated/enlightened about severe weather than your average spotter - scary.

 

[Shane Adams]

oAnd yes Adam...the whole DOW/TIV crew is consistently among the people out there I have seen who are blocking or obstructing traffic the most. You may say...they are doing scientific research etc. etc. etc. but they still have to follow traffic laws. Something that they probably should realize they need to get better at.

This is another great point...they've been out there 11 years, what have we learned? There's a reason the TIV is even involved in the DOW 'research', which is available on almost any night of the week via some channel. Nobody cares, and the DOW expedition continues to exist solely because of the TV gimmick the TIV brings to the mix. Kind of an "I'll scratch your back you scratch mine" deal.

IMo the DOW/TIV circus has no more reason to block a road than me or anyone else...otherwise, show me some applicable scientific results from all these years of intercepts. I'm tired of being expected to kiss DOW ass and I have no more info in 2008 than I did in 1997.

 

[Shane Adams]

What about certain 'people' let's say...trying to get legislation passed in Oklahoma that would ban chasing unless you had an 'official' reason to be out?

That will never happen. The day some f*ckhole tells me the guy ahead of me can pass while I cannot, will be the day I get real evil real quick.

 

[Alan Broerse]

LEOs in Tornado Aley are no more educated/enlightened about severe weather than your average spotter - scary.---Shane Adams
__________________
Shane...while some of that may be true, I can vouch for Oklahoma City Police. Over the past 10 years...approx. 400 of the 1000 officers have had at least Basic spotter training by the NWS...and in addition to that visits by the 3 major TV stations chief mets. I have taught over 200 officers myself...or participated in teaching Basic. The last class was just over a month ago......at the police training center with co-worker Michael Armstrong (broadcast meteorologists) with KWTV. We target working street officers and their supervisors....trying not only to educate them on storm safety/ structure ect.....but holding HAM radio classes to certify them to report to NWS. This effort must be broadened....because it is successful . We have some great city wide spotters. Spread the word when you encounter a LEO....NWS will teach your department for free...all you have to do is ask them....The more knowledge they possess on the matter....generates more interest from them and more understanding for both chasers and the LEO's....you will never reach them all....but you will never get every chaser to complete compliance either....we just need to close the gap..............Alan

 

[Scott Weberpal]

IMo the DOW/TIV circus has no more reason to block a road than me or anyone else...otherwise, show me some applicable scientific results from all these years of intercepts. I'm tired of being expected to kiss DOW ass and I have no more info in 2008 than I did in 1997.

Quite often results (or a solution to a problem) are not released until after the full study is complete. It could be a number of years until any significant results come to pass.

 

[Shane Adams]

Quite often results (or a solution to a problem) are not released until after the full study is complete. It could be a number of years until any significant results come to pass.

Obviously. VORTEX comes to mind, and that was 13-14 years ago.

But they're not out there every chase causing a huge scene, or keeping a DDC motel booked for 3+ years with television crews who invade the residents of Greensburg, KS almost daily.

 

[Darrin Rasberry]

TEXAS PENAL CODE
§ 42.03. OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAY OR OTHER PASSAGEWAY.
(2) disobeys a reasonable request or order to move
issued by a person the actor knows to be or is informed is a peace
officer, a fireman, or a person with authority to control the use of
the premises:
(A) to prevent obstruction of a highway or any of
those areas mentioned in Subdivision (1); or
(B) to maintain public safety by dispersing those
gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire, riot, or other hazard.
(b) For purposes of this section, "obstruct" means to render
impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or
hazardous.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

This makes it legal for a police officer or fireman to request or order people to move when maintaining public safety in dangerous proximity to a hazard. Arguments can be made all day about just what "dangerous proximity" means, and that would be an issue for a court/jury to determine. Like I said earlier, our rights are unfortunately absolute, even though we like to think they are. The portion of the law the Brian violated came from refusing to move along when the police officer told him to. He allegedly said that he made the decision that because of what he was doing, he was not going to move. Reporting to the NWS is not "legal privilege or authority" which would exclude him from the reasonable request to move. His right to be in the rest area was superseded by the police officer's need to maintain public safety. According to the News West 9 story, Brian said he thought it was his "obligation to stay and follow the storms" after being told by the deputy to leave. Apparently the deputy told him to leave and he said he was "helping out the NWS in San Angelo" to which the deputy replied that he didn't care and Brian had to leave. At that point Brian decided not to comply. He was given the second chance when the deputy listened to his explanation for being there and repeated his request.

(NOTE: The videos from the first post are mentioned once again below, so I'll repost the link to them here for reference.)

The law you stated above - which was the law apparently applied to Brian to charge him - does not itself give the officer legal authority to move Brian and his van due to danger, since this law deals directly with unlawful road obstruction. The officer must state to Brian under this law not that Brian himself is in danger, but that he is presenting an obstruction to the dispersement of others from a dangerous area. Section B, in bold but not underlined above, is written with the intention that this officer has authority to ask Brian to move his vehicle if and only if his position potentially obstructs others from safely evacuating. Note on the side this can mean that the officer can ask Brian to leave even if he would have otherwise had total and complete legal right to stay in a normal situation.

Some notes proving that the local department was incorrect in their charge:

*Brain's position was in a rest area, parked correctly on the side of the throughway designated for vehicle stoppage. Evidence for this statement comes from the fact that trash cans are present on the side of the rest area's throughway, and also that the throughway was wide enough to allow reasonably safe passage relative to the size of the throughway itself. Therefore, Brian's vehicle did not potentially impede traffic flow from the danger area in the physical sense.

*At any rate, the officer stated on the video that the above was not the actual charge for Brian. The officer clearly charged on the tape that he believed Brian's position wasn't physically impeding anyone, but instead was impeding dispersement due to the deputy's judgment that the chase vehicle presented a distraction to those leaving the area. This statement was given to Brian to present how the officer believed the law was broken and why he was arresting Brian; once again, it can be heard plainly on the raw video.

*Should that department stuck with the shaky reason the officer gave Brian for the arrest (presenting a distraction that impeded evacuation from a dangerous area), Brian could still have been easily acquitted in court; however, the department did not follow correct procedure, and changed the nature of Brian's charge significantly (changing to charging Brian with obstructing the park sideroad). The raw video as opposed to Brian's actual charge shows this change. Even though the same law is still stated against Brian, law enforcement cannot change the way in which they believe the law was broken if they lack sufficient evidence to both overturn the officer's stated reason for arrest and establish a new angle to the charge. As I stated above, there was no evidence for, and there is plenty of evidence against, Brian's vehicle presenting a "reasonable" impediment to evacuation from a dangerous area. The department should have followed procedure and stood by the deputy's word. They didn't.

*Therefore, Brian could probably be acquitted by Harvey Birdman, more or less a hired attourney, if the case even survives to trial.

------------------------

Some other points to make:

*The deputy, if he knew his stuff, would have recognized his right to force Brian and his chase crew to leave the area under the following law, of which everyone should be aware while in Texas:

§ 545.305. REMOVAL OF UNLAWFULLY STOPPED VEHICLE.
(a) A peace officer listed under Article 2.12, Code of Criminal
Procedure, or a license and weight inspector of the department may
remove or require the operator or a person in charge of a vehicle to
move a vehicle from a highway if the vehicle:

... (9) is, in the opinion of the officer, a hazard,
interferes with a normal function of a governmental agency, or
because of a catastrophe, emergency, or unusual circumstance is
imperiled.
(b) An officer acting under Subsection (a) may require that
the vehicle be taken to:
(1) the nearest garage or other place of safety

This means any officer can issue a "nice" reason to any chaser parked near a storm the officer considers dangerous, to move their vehicles, as this law states clearly that officers may require drivers to move their property off of public roads that are in what he considers a dangerous area. Note the officer's decision is now directly about the danger of the situation where the vehicle is present, and no longer (as in Brian's case) about deciding whether the vehicle presents a risk somehow to motorists exiting the danger area. So be aware - at least in Texas - that peace officers do have the right to ask you to move your private property off of public roadways they consider in danger, if you are parked alongside such an area. It doesn't mean it's moral for them to do so, but they do have the legal authority to tell you to do so - and you have the right to attempt to convince the officer (peacefully) why you are not placing yourself in the danger he believes is present for you.

* The officer is not some bully looking to pick fights. He was nervous and disheveled about the storm, as was said by Brian on his blog, and probably thought he was being some superhero by "saving" the chase van's occupants and all the lookie-loos from what he no doubt believed to be Brian's evil clutches and poor decision-making. He probably believes everyone out on a storm is trying to be in their own version of Twister, and his harsh language against Brian during his scolding really proved that. Imagine hearing about a chaser on these boards intentionally driving headlong into an EF-5 thinking he's gonna be fine - we'd call him the same names and drag him by the neck out of there if it came to that. From this deputy's perspective, Brian is the same kind of fool, and such misinformation is yet another clear case for severe training for all emergency personnel.

He wasn't looking to start a fight or flex his muscle or take out all his childhood anguish on Brian. If he was, he would've thrown Brian to the ground and broken his nose at the six-second mark in the "raw" video, when Brian turned straight into the officer's face and lunged angrily at him before wisely thinking twice and stopping himself a few inches in. What Brian did wasn't at all threatening in and of itself, but given that I've seen Wichita Falls cops gang-tackle arrested people for simply arguing with them, this deputy could have reacted violently to Brian's lunge and probably gotten away with it. It's probably for that reason that there will be no reprimand on this officer, since his superiors will overblow Brian's reaction and say "the guy was violent and uncooperative anyway."

*Related to all this mess, I dread truly for the day where an officer lays a reckless endangerment felony charge on the driver of a chase van if the driver initially complies then is caught turning right back around into the storm. I don't think this particular story will be of significant national importance, but I can see a true chaser-hater LOE leveling a felony RE charge on a chase van driver while the hapless passengers with cameras strapped around their neck look on with wide, horrified eyes. A wandering LOE could see the van heading straight in to a tornado, for instance, and as experienced and trained as the driver may be, a judge and jury of laypersons might still look at the stigma of a tornado above all of that. Knock on wood if such a thing ever happens, but reckless endangerment could be a viable charge a true arsehole LOE could levy knowing that Joe Public in the courtroom won't understand the concept of being trained to reasonable safety.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

That's a very good letter Rick. If you have the address for the governor already please share it. I sent an email yesterday to the station that had an article on this and asked for information on who to contact in order to file a formal complaint, but unfortunately they haven't responded yet. Obviously we aren't going to get any help out of the sheriff, so I think sending a letter to the governor is the best approach.
It definitely isn't overkill to send in a formal complaint IMO. If nobody ever took the time to do things like that then these kinds of problems would never get fixed. Somebody has to take the initiative and in this case I'm happy to do it too. That cop blatantly abused his authority. Now the sheriff is backing him up, so you have to go higher up the food chain. Please post the contact information for the governor if you have it. BTW I think a letter gets more attention than an email.

PS I'm on fire lately. I just sent a letter to the Kansas governor last week compaining about the fact that we are in the middle of tornado alley and don't have a mesonet. All I got back though was some generic letter telling me to complain to my representative in the state legislature.

 

[Darrin Rasberry]

Furthermore, if we as chasers are pulled over, if we are unclear as to why we are being detained, we need to ask what law is being broken. If the officer does not state a law, you have the right to move up to the next rest stop or safe shoulder. If the officer states you are in a dangerous area and should move, you have the right to ask the officer's judgment on where he does not consider the area dangerous.

If he acts nervous and erratic and just tells you "to leave," then leave, phone the Highway Patrol or the deputy's higher-up to report his erratic behavior (he is a nervous man with a gun, after all) and then get from those LOE's their thought on the danger area, if they believe you are in one as a trained spotter. They will likely relay to the officer what they told you, and will probably tell him to get his arse out of there. If your phone is dead, call it quits. No storm is worth a legal risk, even if the LOE is clearly in the wrong as in this case.

 

[Alan Broerse]

PS I'm on fire lately. I just sent a letter to the Kansas governor last week compaining about the fact that we are in the middle of tornado alley and don't have a mesonet. All I got back though was some generic letter telling me to complain to my representative in the state legislature.

---------------------------------------------------------------------Mikey.....I think a task force comprised of fellow Kansan Chasers, T.V. mets. and Possibly a KU or KSU representative....would be a great ground breaking team of getting a mesonet for that state. I suspect the local NWS office would generate interest for not only scientific purpose ....but to assist in saving lives. Senators love to be attached to popular ideas that make them look good......fire it up!!!! sounds like positive energy in action......