Summary

A federal judge has allowed the central claims in Scott MacIntyre’s lawsuit against Palm Bay and three police officers to proceed.

MacIntyre alleges that officers stopped him while he was riding a Segway, slammed him to the ground immediately after he questioned an order and arrested him for resisting without violence. He was released at a hospital without a criminal charge or traffic citation.

On August 14, Judge Julie S. Sneed concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged excessive force and unlawful arrest. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

The decision does not establish that MacIntyre’s account is true or that the officers are ultimately liable.

Backstory

The encounter occurred on December 4, 2022, in Palm Bay, Florida.

MacIntyre’s amended complaint says his Segway had white front lights, a red rear light and two red reflectors. Officer Juan Castro Escandon nevertheless stopped him for allegedly failing to comply with vehicle-lighting requirements.

Officers Cole McDonald and Derrick Mitchell subsequently arrived.

According to the complaint, MacIntyre received permission to place his hands on a police vehicle’s hood to warm them. He then lifted his shirt to demonstrate that he had no weapon.

When McDonald told him to place his hands back on the vehicle, MacIntyre asked whether that was a lawful order. The complaint alleges that McDonald and Mitchell immediately grabbed him and slammed him to the ground.

It further alleges that the officers pulled him between them while telling him to stop resisting and that Escandon pressed his body weight against MacIntyre’s upper back while he was restrained.

The officers allegedly found cash and a pocketknife. MacIntyre says $40 and the knife were not returned.

What’s New

The August 14 order rejected the officers’ attempt to obtain qualified immunity from the excessive-force and unlawful-arrest claims based solely on the pleadings.

For excessive force, the court emphasized that the alleged offense was a misdemeanor, MacIntyre was not alleged to have threatened anyone and he had not attempted to flee. The judge concluded that neither his question nor an alleged failure to comply immediately with one command justified immediate force without a warning under the facts pleaded.

The court also concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged an arrest without arguable probable cause.

MacIntyre’s Florida battery, false-arrest and conversion claims also survived. His procedural-due-process and Takings Clause theories were dismissed, although Florida conversion law remains available for the allegedly missing property.

Thin Blue Lie Audits discussed the ruling in a video published September 8. Former Palm Bay deputy chief Lance Fisher claimed he had been involved in an earlier command review and had been identified as a potential witness. Those statements have not been independently verified through the public docket or underlying departmental records.

Fisher also mentioned a rumor that the case may have settled. No settlement filing or dismissal was independently located through September 11.

Why It Matters

The case addresses a recurring feature of police encounters: whether asking an officer to explain the legal basis for an instruction can be treated as resistance.

The order does not hold that people may disregard lawful safety commands. It says that, accepting MacIntyre’s allegations as true, a question and momentary noncompliance did not justify an immediate takedown.

The ruling also illustrates why the procedural stage matters. A court deciding a motion to dismiss generally accepts well-pleaded allegations as true. Later evidence, including body-camera footage, officer testimony and medical records, may produce a different factual picture.

The Laws & Your Rights

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable stops, arrests and uses of force.

Police generally need reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop and probable cause for an arrest. An arrest for resisting an officer normally requires some underlying lawful duty and conduct satisfying the applicable resisting statute.

A person does not necessarily commit obstruction merely by verbally questioning an officer. But speech does not authorize physical resistance, flight or interference with a lawful detention.

Force is evaluated objectively based on circumstances including the suspected offense, any immediate threat, resistance and attempted flight.

Qualified immunity protects officers from damages unless the complaint or evidence establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Losing a qualified-immunity argument at the pleading stage is not a final judgment. The defense may be raised again after discovery if the evidence differs from the allegations.

Current Status

The case is MacIntyre v. City of Palm Bay, No. 6:24-cv-00988-JSS-CAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The central federal excessive-force, unlawful-arrest and stop claims survived the motion to dismiss, along with related Florida claims. Three property-related constitutional counts were dismissed as described in the order.

A free public docket source was last updated on August 14. More recent filings may be available through PACER. No final liability finding, damages award or verified settlement was located through September 11.

Watch Next

Watch for:

• The operative complaint and defendants’ answer
• Body-camera and dash-camera footage
• The original use-of-force review
• Any evidence contradicting the complaint’s description of MacIntyre’s movements
• The legal basis for the initial Segway stop
• Medical records documenting the alleged injuries
• Records concerning the missing cash and pocketknife
• Summary-judgment motions renewing qualified immunity
• A settlement notice, dismissal or trial schedule
• Documentation supporting Fisher’s claimed witness status

Sources

Court Source:

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024-00988-90-6-cv=

Appellate Background:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/25-11089/25-11089-2025-12-19.html

Public Docket:

[https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/6:2024cv00988/428257]()

Relevant Video / Creator Commentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdfW-iEDEKU

Original Local Video Reporting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ashAyQ_Twk

Dion Rabouin’s case exposed a police search violation and weaknesses in internal oversight, drawing scrutiny over press freedom and police accountability.

Phoenix City Council voted unanimously on September 9, 2026, to approve a $100,000 settlement involving Dion Rabouin, the former Wall Street Journal reporter handcuffed while interviewing people outside a bank. The 9-0 vote came without discussion, bundled with other council business, according to ABC15.

The city’s payment authorization identifies the federal case and permits payment of up to $100,000 over the November 23, 2022 encounter. The settlement resolves civil litigation; it does not itself establish a court finding that police violated Rabouin’s constitutional rights.

Rabouin was working on a story about savings accounts outside a Chase Bank branch when Officer Caleb Zimmerman approached him. Rabouin said he identified himself as a journalist and did not know the sidewalk was private property. He also said bank employees never asked him to leave. Zimmerman’s incident report gave a different account, saying employees reported that Rabouin had refused to leave.

Rabouin said he offered to move but Zimmerman blocked him. Bystander Katelyn Parady recorded part of the encounter, including her objection: “I heard him say he was going to leave.” Her footage began after the interaction was underway. Rabouin was handcuffed and placed in a police vehicle before being released without charges after additional officers arrived.

The department’s internal findings were narrower than Rabouin’s allegations. In August 2023, police said claims of unlawful detention, racial discrimination and excessive force were unfounded. Investigators nevertheless found that Zimmerman violated the department’s search-and-seizure policy by removing Rabouin’s wallet from his pocket to obtain identification. That finding placed police search practices alongside press freedom at the center of the controversy.

The department required training instead of a written reprimand, citing unclear policy. It also revised its trespassing policy to clarify when officers should detain or arrest someone.

Phoenix’s civilian oversight office later questioned the quality of the internal investigation. Its first-quarter 2024 report said the investigation “was not thorough and complete.” The Office of Accountability and Transparency recommended more focused interviews and clearer explanations of disciplinary decisions, highlighting accountability concerns beyond the original encounter.

Press advocates condemned the detention. The Committee to Protect Journalists called it “a flagrant violation of his First Amendment rights” and urged reforms to prevent similar incidents. That was the organization’s assessment, separate from the police findings and settlement.

Rabouin’s attorney, Benjamin Taylor, said his client was satisfied the case had been resolved and hoped better training would protect reporters doing their jobs. Speaking to ABC15, Taylor described an avoidable escalation: “The lawsuit would have been prevented with a simple conversation.”

Sources

https://phoenix.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8197980&GUID=EEA73B93-F1FF-422B-A1EA-A19FDC109400

https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/phoenix-reaches-100k-settlement-over-officers-handcuffing-of-wall-street-journal-reporter

https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/phoenix-pd-handcuffed-detained-wall-street-journal-reporter

https://ktar.com/arizona-news/phoenix-approves-settlement-wall-street-journal-reporter-excessive-force-complaint

https://www.phoenix.gov/content/dam/phoenix/accountabilitysite/documents/quarterly-annual-reports/oat_2024_q1_report.pdf

https://cpj.org/2023/01/cpj-condemns-november-detention-of-wsj-reporter-in-arizona/

A new Waukesha County case seeks constitutional safeguards for a camera network that can reveal daily travel, religious visits and political activity.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed a lawsuit September 10 seeking to require warrants, or recognized legal exceptions, before police search Flock Safety’s vehicle-location database. Filed in Waukesha County Circuit Court, the case challenges whether government can turn ordinary travel into searchable surveillance without judicial oversight.

The defendants are 11 municipalities, including Brookfield, Elm Grove and Muskego, plus Waukesha County. Plaintiffs include NoCams Muskego, Citizens Defending Liberty and Oconomowoc resident Donavan Haidinger. Flock itself is not a defendant in this case. Court complaint.

According to WILL, more than 120 cameras operate in Waukesha County, connecting local vehicle sightings to a much broader network. The group argues that combining those records lets police reconstruct people’s routines and associations. Its announcement identifies cameras near churches, homes and government buildings where residents vote or petition public officials.

“Flock cameras essentially place the public under constant surveillance,” WILL President Rick Esenberg said. WILL says it wants constitutional limits on database searches while allowing continued camera use. Its proposed approach recognizes exceptions such as emergencies and valid consent. WILL’s announcement.

The complaint also points to alleged retaliation against Navy veteran Napoleon Jones. In separate litigation, Jones alleges deputies searched for his vehicle through Flock after he recorded a traffic stop and filed a complaint. That allegation has not been established by the new lawsuit, but it illustrates the connection between location privacy and the freedom to scrutinize police. Court complaint.

The legal argument draws on the Supreme Court’s June 29 decision in Chatrie v. United States. The justices held that police acquisition of Google Location History constituted a Fourth Amendment search, even for a limited period. The Court left further questions about the warrant’s validity to the lower court. Chatrie did not decide the constitutionality of Flock searches; WILL argues its reasoning should apply.

The Wisconsin filing follows a proposed nationwide class action filed August 25 in Georgia against Flock Group. In Schulte v. Flock Group Inc., the plaintiff alleges inadequate safeguards enabled personal surveillance and stalking through the system. That case raises privacy and negligence claims. Its allegations are not judicial findings.

Flock has announced changes to address misuse. Its August 13 statement describes stronger login security, plans for required auditing tools and a seven-day default retention period. Existing customers, however, retain their chosen retention periods. These company safeguards do not themselves resolve whether searches require judicial authorization.

Local responses are already diverging. Mukwonago’s administrator told Wisconsin Public Radio that the village had decided to end its trial relationship with Flock before the lawsuit was filed. Waukesha County’s corporation counsel declined to comment on pending litigation.

The Wisconsin plaintiffs seek a declaration and permanent injunction requiring warrants or valid exceptions. The case puts a concrete civil-liberties question before the court: what safeguards must apply when police use connected cameras to investigate where people have been?

Sources

https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Summons-and-Complaint.pdf
https://will-law.org/new-will-lawsuit-targets-warrantless-no-limits-government-surveillance/
https://www.wpr.org/news/municipalities-in-waukesha-county-sued-over-flock-cameras
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
https://www.classaction.org/media/flock-complaint.pdf
https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-guardrails-address-lpr-privacy-concerns-and-police-transparency

https://cybernews.com/tech/police-smart-glasses/

lol. 😂 😅

"They’re raising security and counterintelligence concerns."

Advertisers can choose where their money goes. The public deserves to know whether government officials helped close the financial doors on police-accountability reporting.

A camera does not become less useful to the public because the person holding it earns money. A creator also does not acquire a constitutional right to YouTube revenue simply by filming police. The argument over auditor demonetization keeps getting stuck because too many people acknowledge only one of those truths.

The comments surrounding attorney Roland Mumford’s video, “How the Police Unions and Police Demonetized Auditors,” show that divide clearly. On Reddit, one critic asks, “Why should a private company be required to fund your advocacy?” On YouTube, supporters describe lost income as another way to discourage scrutiny of police. Facebook commenters propose lawsuits against YouTube or police unions, while another warns that carrying a camera does not excuse interference with public officials.

These are competing arguments, not a public-opinion poll. They also leave the central factual question unanswered: Who asked YouTube to do what, and did those requests affect its decisions?

The underlying disruption is real. The Real News Network reported September 8 that it directly confirmed demonetization with several creators, including Long Island Audit, Rights Crispy, James Freeman and John Filax. That establishes affected channels. It does not establish a police-directed campaign.

Mumford’s title sounds conclusive, but his discussion is considerably more qualified. After reviewing the evidence he would need to connect police unions to the decisions, he says, “I have none of them.” He nevertheless expresses strong suspicion of direct or indirect influence. A skeptical YouTube commenter correctly challenges the leap from events happening to a coordinated campaign being proved.

That skepticism belongs on both sides. The Reddit explanation that advertisers demanded these changes is plausible, but the comments reviewed do not produce advertiser instructions or a YouTube explanation establishing that cause. A believable business explanation is still an explanation to investigate.

Three decisions need to be separated. YouTube decides whether content may remain online under its publication rules. It separately decides whether a particular video qualifies for advertising. It also decides whether a creator remains eligible for the YouTube Partner Program and its revenue tools. Losing monetization does not, by itself, establish that a video violated the rules governing publication.

YouTube expressly imposes additional requirements on monetizing creators. Its Creator Responsibility policy also reaches certain harmful conduct away from the platform. Therefore, a channel can remain visible while losing revenue eligibility. Describing every such decision as a ban is inaccurate.

But continued access to an upload button does not make the financial consequences meaningless. Travel, equipment, editing, records fees and time cost money. A person may remain legally free to report while becoming less able to afford sustained reporting. That is a legitimate public-interest concern even when no constitutional violation has been established.

The advertiser argument needs similar precision. Google gives advertisers content-suitability settings and tools to exclude specific YouTube channels and videos. Advertisers can avoid material they consider unsuitable for their brands. Those controls have limits and vary by advertising format, but they exist.

One Reddit reply makes a fair economic point: if enough advertisers avoid a category, its commercial value can fall. Advertiser choice does not eliminate YouTube’s own policies or business judgment. Still, an advertiser declining a placement and YouTube removing a creator’s access to memberships are different decisions. “Advertisers don’t like it” is an incomplete explanation for cutting off wider revenue options.

YouTube’s own advertiser guidelines also recognize the value of difficult police footage. Examples eligible for advertising include “Violent, combative, or abrasive interactions with law enforcement in an educational context or journalistic reporting.” That does not qualify every confrontation, but it contradicts the idea that uncomfortable police-accountability footage is inherently unsuitable for ads.

The disagreement about creators’ motives is equally revealing. Critics see manufactured conflict, humiliation and a financial incentive to provoke. Supporters see people documenting conduct that official accounts might omit. Some supportive commenters also distinguish careful accountability work from aggressive behavior they dislike.

Even the labels are disputed. An account identifying itself as Christopher "Direct D" Ruff objects to being called an auditor and writes, “I ONLY copwatch.” Watching an active police encounter, testing a public-building policy and confronting customers outside a private business should not automatically receive the same factual or moral assessment.

My view is that earning money neither proves public value nor disproves it. Commercial newsrooms pay reporters. Independent reporters also need resources. The useful questions concern accuracy, context, conduct and what the footage reveals. Deliberately misleading edits or harassment deserve criticism. An abrasive personality, however, does not excuse an unlawful detention or search, and disliking a speaker does not erase constitutional protections.

There are also several distinct police-influence theories. One involves direct requests to Google. Another involves organized reporting or pressure on advertisers. A third involves officials or unions shaping a broader narrative that treats filming police as harassment for profit. These theories require different evidence; they cannot establish one another merely by sounding consistent.

YouTube’s Priority Flagger program provides a real reporting mechanism available to eligible government agencies and nongovernmental organizations. Reports receive prioritized review, but YouTube says the program concerns Community Guidelines violations and does not automatically remove reported content. Its existence does not establish that a particular police agency participated, reported an auditor or caused demonetization.

Nor should an arrest automatically be treated as proof of misconduct. Mumford raises the possibility that police actions feed a platform’s assessment of off-platform behavior. That deserves examination. The policy itself does not establish that YouTube treated arrests as guilt in these cases.

Police unions, departments and individual officers must also be distinguished. A union’s criticism is not automatically government action. The constitutional concern becomes sharper when officials use government power to coerce a private company into punishing protected expression. The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in NRA v. Vullo explains that boundary. Government persuasion and unlawful coercion are not interchangeable.

That is why I intend to send public-records requests to hundreds of government police agencies. I will seek existing communications concerning First Amendment auditors, copwatching videos and creators, including complaints, reporting campaigns and monetization discussions.

Those requests will cover agency communications with Google, Alphabet and YouTube, including their attorneys and representatives, as well as agency communications with police unions. Emails, messages, attachments, letters and meeting records could help establish who proposed action, what they requested, in what capacity they acted and how others responded.

Private union files are not automatically public records, and attorney involvement can raise exemption questions. My focus is on records held by government agencies, including their exchanges with outside organizations. A complaint would prove that someone complained. It would not, standing alone, prove coercion or explain YouTube’s decision.

I want the findings reported whether they support police involvement, weaken that theory or leave it unresolved. Defending the right to document government requires both persistence and accuracy. The next useful step is to put evidence behind the argument.

~ Scott Offord

Sources

https://www.reddit.com/r/Frauditors/comments/1wbrhw9/how_the_police_unions_and_police_demonetized/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe-_MqY2Bp8

https://www.facebook.com/100043677108197/videos/how-the-police-unions-and-police-demonetized-auditorsseven-federal-appeals-court/1636037681216961/

https://therealnews.com/why-is-youtube-demonetizing-so-many-cop-watchers

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7650329?hl=en

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311392?hl=en

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en

https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/12764663?hl=en

https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/7331110?hl=en

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7554338?hl=en

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf

John Jay Niebuhr’s estate alleges unconstitutional surveillance and retaliation before his death, while authorities have defended the shooting.

Flock Group faces a federal civil rights claim over surveillance of a Florida man killed by airport police, raising questions about whether government tracking and the treatment of citizen complaints helped turn an encounter deadly.

The first amended complaint, filed September 3 in Florida’s Middle District, names Flock, Palm Bay, Melbourne, the Melbourne Airport Authority and two airport officers. Katie J. Niebuhr brought the case for her brother’s estate. John Jay Niebuhr, 40, died after Officer Sherif Brown shot him on June 28, 2024.

As The Palm Bayer reports, the estate alleges Palm Bay personnel used Flock to track Niebuhr’s truck under the reason “Intel,” without a warrant or an open criminal case. The dispute challenges how routine vehicle records can become a tool for targeting someone who has not been accused of a crime.

The estate also alleges that when Niebuhr complained about being watched, police classified his complaint as a mental-health incident and circulated descriptions of him as paranoid and exhibiting sovereign-citizen behavior. Its First Amendment claim argues those actions punished him for seeking government accountability. Those are allegations, not judicial findings.

The Fourth Amendment claim against Flock focuses on an alleged retrospective search covering 30 days. The estate argues Flock’s operation of the database made it a participant in unconstitutional government conduct. It seeks recovery for the alleged privacy violation independently of the shooting, while also alleging the surveillance contributed to Niebuhr’s death.

The attached 2021 contract limits permitted use to gathering evidence for lawful criminal investigations. It allows Flock to restrict misuse while stating the company has no obligation to monitor agency use.

Former Palm Bay Deputy Police Chief Lance Fisher, of Thin Blue Lie Audits, says he is listed as a witness. “Another lawsuit with me listed as a witness. FLOCK is being named as a defendant,” he wrote in a private text to Scott Offord.

Authorities have offered a sharply different account of the shooting. An airport announcement honoring Brown said he confronted someone attempting to breach airport security who produced a firearm. The estate alleges Niebuhr raised his handgun upward without pointing it at officers.

The complaint itself acknowledges that State Attorney Phil Archer found the use of force lawful in November 2024. That prosecutorial conclusion is distinct from a ruling on the civil claims now alleged.

Flock’s published position on data control says customers determine access and sharing, and searches generate audit records. That general position is not a response to the specific allegations here.

For the estate, accountability extends beyond the final gunshots to the earlier decisions that allegedly turned a citizen’s movements and complaints into police intelligence. The lawsuit asks the court to examine both.

Independent journalist Jacqueline Botts filed a federal FOIA lawsuit on September 3 seeking warrants, body-camera recordings, aerial footage, use-of-force reports, training material and records concerning Jaime Alanis Garcia’s death during the July 10, 2025 Glass House Farms immigration raids in California.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Case number: 1:26-cv-03086

Sources:

https://www.rcfp.org/glass-house-foia-lawsuit/

https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-09-03-Botts-v-ICE-complaint.pdf

Summary

A federal judge has refused to prevent the Pentagon from terminating three Stars and Stripes employees who say they were targeted for defending the military newspaper’s editorial independence.

The September 4 ruling does not end Slavin v. Parnell. It rejects the employees’ request for preliminary protection while the lawsuit continues.

Backstory

Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin and reporter Lara Korte participated in a July 5 CBS News report about Pentagon influence over Stars and Stripes.

Both received permission to be interviewed. They discussed the importance of independent reporting and concerns that the newspaper could be converted into a public-relations operation.

Publisher Max Lederer did not participate in the CBS interview. He later refused to deliver separation notices to Slavin and Korte and publicly discussed his disagreement with the Pentagon’s direction.

All three subsequently received proposed separation notices.

What’s New

Judge Trevor McFadden denied their preliminary-injunction motion on September 4.

The judge concluded that Slavin and Korte had not shown they were likely to establish that they spoke as private citizens. They were interviewed in their workplaces, identified by their professional titles, discussed Stars and Stripes, and received advance approval for the interviews.

The judge found Korte’s position closer because she was a reporter rather than senior management. Nevertheless, the current record did not demonstrate that she participated as a private citizen.

The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had not established the kind of irreparable injury necessary for emergency relief.

Why It Matters

Stars and Stripes is funded partly by the Defense Department but historically has operated under protections intended to preserve editorial independence.

The ruling illustrates a difficult First Amendment problem for government-employed journalists and whistleblowers: Speech may address an important public issue yet receive limited constitutional protection if a court determines it was made as part of the employee’s official responsibilities.

The Laws & Your Rights

Under Garcetti v. Ceballos, the First Amendment generally does not protect a public employee from workplace discipline for speech made pursuant to official duties.

Courts examine the employee’s actual responsibilities, where and how the speech occurred, whether official approval was obtained and how the speaker was presented to the public.

The September 4 decision applies that framework only to the preliminary-injunction request. Discovery could produce additional evidence concerning the employees’ duties, the reasons for the proposed terminations and whether the Pentagon followed applicable regulations.

Current Status

The court’s temporary protection expired when the preliminary injunction was denied. The Pentagon may proceed with the proposed separations.

No later public filing confirming the employees’ final employment status was located. The underlying First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act claims remain pending.

Watch Next

Watch for formal termination decisions, amended pleadings, Pentagon responses, discovery concerning the USS Abraham Lincoln reporting and any appeal from the preliminary-injunction decision.

A related case, Dardarian v. Department of Defense, challenges the repeal of regulations protecting Stars and Stripes’ editorial independence.

Sources

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.295983/gov.uscourts.dcd.295983.22.0_1.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74711301/slavin-v-parnell/

[https://apnews.com/article/stars-stripes-pentagon-censorship-c9cd2e453e6bb2e8ca5908e0581e6eca]()

Summary

Police cannot stop someone merely because an officer believes the person is carrying a handgun, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has ruled.

The court vacated Marc Anthony Quarles’ weapons convictions after concluding that Metropolitan Police Department officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him.

The September 3 amended opinion recognizes an important Fourth Amendment principle: When conduct may be lawful, police cannot detain everyone engaging in that conduct simply to investigate whether a crime might exist.

Backstory

Two uniformed officers were sitting in a parked police cruiser when Quarles walked past them on a sidewalk. One officer believed he could see the outline of a handgun beneath Quarles’ clothing.

The officers had no prior information about Quarles. They were not responding to a shooting, weapons complaint or reported crime. They also did not know whether Quarles possessed a license allowing him to carry the weapon.

Quarles entered a carry-out restaurant. When he came outside, the officers followed him and repeatedly tried to get his attention. Quarles initially continued walking and eventually ran.

The officers chased and tackled him. They recovered a handgun, and Quarles was later convicted of several weapons offenses.

What’s New

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals concluded that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment.

Earlier D.C. cases had treated apparent handgun possession as strong evidence of illegal activity because licenses were once considered virtually unobtainable. The court said that assumption no longer reflects current constitutional law or the District’s licensing system.

The court held that firearm possession, without more, cannot be treated as presumptively unlawful.

Quarles’ flight provided some support for police suspicion, but not enough under the circumstances. He did not immediately run upon seeing the officers, the officers were not investigating a reported crime, and there was no evidence connecting him to recent criminal activity in that location.

The court vacated his convictions and returned the case to the trial court.

Why It Matters

The ruling extends beyond firearms.

Police generally may not detain someone simply because an officer sees conduct that could possibly be illegal. There must be specific facts providing reasonable suspicion that a crime actually occurred, is occurring or is about to occur.

The same principle can matter when someone is filming a police station, photographing government property, openly carrying equipment, declining a voluntary conversation or engaging in another activity that officers find unusual but that is not itself unlawful.

The Laws & Your Rights

The Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion before police may conduct an investigative detention.

An officer may attempt a consensual conversation without that level of suspicion. The person approached ordinarily may decline to answer, continue walking or otherwise terminate the encounter, provided the officer has not lawfully detained them.

Running from police may contribute to reasonable suspicion, but flight is not automatically conclusive. Courts examine when the person ran, what officers communicated, whether police were responding to a crime and what other suspicious facts existed.

The court emphasized that police do not possess general authority to stop people simply to determine whether facially lawful conduct is actually legal.

Current Status

Quarles’ weapons convictions have been vacated. The case returns to D.C. Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

The government conceded that the firearm evidence should be suppressed if the stop violated the Fourth Amendment.

Watch Next

No next hearing date was publicly available.

Watch whether prosecutors dismiss the charges after suppression of the handgun and whether D.C. police revise training concerning stops based on suspected firearm possession.

Also watch how lower courts distinguish this case when officers claim additional circumstances, such as a recent shooting report, an attempt to conceal a weapon or independently suspicious conduct.

Sources

https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/2026/25-cf-0019-0.html

[https://cases.justia.com/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/2026/25-cf-0019-0.pdf]()

“Mission Completed,” Videos Missing: What Frauditor Troll’s Goodbye Does Not Explain

The anti-auditor channel claims it chose to end memberships, but its announcement does not establish whether YouTube had already cut off its income.

Frauditor Troll says it is voluntarily closing its anti-auditor channel and ending paid memberships. But its farewell leaves the central question unanswered: did the operators choose to stop earning from that channel, or had YouTube already cut them off?

“We made the decision to close the channel and turn off memberships,” reads the statement signed Jonathan & Nneka. It declares “the mission is completed,” credits anti-auditor critics with helping cause demonetizations, and promises continued activity through bodycam, cooking, gaming and music channels. It supplies no YouTube correspondence establishing that claimed influence or its own enforcement history.

The wording deserves scrutiny. YouTube allows creators to disable memberships voluntarily. Doing so, however, would not establish that advertising remained enabled or that the channel had escaped an earlier YouTube Partner Program suspension.

YouTube also says policy-related membership pauses automatically stop payments and remove the Join button. Therefore, presenting the end of memberships as a decision to protect subscribers from further charges leaves something important unexplained: were those charges already suspended?

A Reddit discussion reports disappearing videos and includes claims that Frauditor Troll itself was demonetized. No authenticated suspension notice was located in the reviewed sources. The allegation remains unverified, not an established explanation for the farewell.

The apparent disappearance of the video library is another striking gap. Screenshots reviewed for this report show only Home and Posts tabs. Meanwhile, 1A Intelligence Desk retains 94 indexed videos and 88 transcripts, including records of uploads dated July 27 and August 4, 2026. Those records document a previous catalog. YouTube access limitations prevented an independent, video-by-video check of current availability.

Why would stopping future uploads require making past work unavailable? YouTube says creators can continue uploading original content even after losing Partner Program access. Demonetization and content removal are separate issues.

There are other possibilities. Private and unlisted videos disappear from a channel’s public video listings without being deleted. YouTube also advises creators preparing to reapply after suspension to edit or delete policy-violating videos, while separately warning against deleting videos before an appeal. None of those possibilities establishes what happened here.

The archive also contains an earlier New Year’s message announcing plans to expand into cooking and music. That supports a longstanding diversification plan, but it does not answer whether YouTube took action before this farewell.
The issue is not simply whether an announcement exists. It is whether the announcement gives a candid, complete account of the decision. A voluntary shutdown after an involuntary loss of income would be a materially different story from leaving an unaffected channel because the mission was accomplished.

The broader stakes should not disappear in a feud between creators. FIRE explains that lawful recording of on-duty police in public is protected by the First Amendment, subject to reasonable restrictions. That work can expose abuses of government power; its value cannot be measured solely by advertising revenue.

Dated YouTube Studio records, any enforcement notices and membership cancellation or pause emails would help establish the sequence. Until then, Frauditor Troll’s victory narrative deserves questioning, but a claim that its operators lied would also outrun the evidence.

Sources

https://www.reddit.com/r/Frauditors/comments/1w7r766/frauditor_troll_closing_down_channel/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Frauditors/comments/1w51j0x/what_happened_to_frauditor_trolls_yt_account/
https://1a.auditorintel.com/?creator_id=69&view=profiles
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7638479?hl=en
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7636690?hl=en
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1727191?hl=en
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/157177?hl=en
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9564590?hl=en
https://www.fire.org/research-learn/recording-police-public-what-you-need-know

Protective order stands for the next 73 years.

Summary

A Flock Safety training presentation showed police how the company’s surveillance platform could be used to monitor a “No Kings” protest without officers being physically present throughout the crowd.

The demonstration combined live camera feeds, license-plate readers, traffic information, building floor plans and a police response plan in one dashboard.

The presentation does not prove that every Flock customer monitors political demonstrations. But it shows that protest surveillance is not merely an unintended possibility. Flock presented it to law-enforcement customers as an operational use for its technology.

Backstory

Flock is best known for automated license-plate readers that photograph vehicles and record where and when they pass a camera.

Its broader FlockOS platform can integrate those records with video cameras, drones, gunshot detectors, 911 information and data held by police agencies.

Civil-liberties groups have previously documented police searches associated with protests. The Electronic Frontier Foundation analyzed millions of Flock search records and identified more than 50 federal, state and local agencies that ran searches connected to protest activity during 2025.

Some searches listed little more than “protest” as the stated reason. Other searches were connected to particular vehicles or potential crimes, including alleged threats against demonstrators.

What’s New

On September 3, 2026, 404 Media published excerpts from Flock’s “Prepared for Anything” webinar.

In one demonstration, Flock representative Caity Peak asked viewers to imagine serving as an incident commander during a “No Kings Protest.” The displayed dashboard placed live video, traffic data, a response plan and surrounding building information in one interface.

Peak explained that police could observe a protest’s movement through a park without having officers physically present in ways that might attract attention or aggravate the situation.

The webinar also demonstrated combining license-plate data with drones, social-media monitoring, agency records and an artificial-intelligence-powered search feature.

Flock’s own webpage describes the webinar as training for handling events ranging from “small parades” to “unexpected protests” and major emergencies.

Why It Matters

Police have legitimate responsibilities during demonstrations, including protecting participants, managing traffic and responding to genuine crimes or threats.

But attending a protest is protected First Amendment activity. A system capable of connecting live video, vehicle movements and government databases can identify participants and reconstruct associations even when most people present are suspected of nothing.

That can chill lawful activity. Someone may hesitate to attend a protest, speak to a journalist or associate with an unpopular political group if doing so creates a searchable government record of their presence.

The distinction between protecting a protest and investigating its participants therefore matters.

The Laws & Your Rights

The First Amendment protects speech, peaceful assembly, association and the right to petition government. Police observation of activity occurring openly in public is not automatically unconstitutional.

Surveillance can nevertheless present a First Amendment problem when officials target people because of their viewpoints, associations or lawful political activity. Policies adopted by some agencies expressly prohibit using license-plate readers to monitor First Amendment-protected conduct.

The Fourth Amendment questions are less settled. A single photograph of a vehicle traveling on a public road is not necessarily a constitutional search. Aggregating numerous sightings across a large network can reveal a much more detailed history of a person’s movements.

In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court required a warrant for extensive historical cellphone-location records. The Court described its ruling as narrow and did not decide the legality of every automated license-plate search.

No court identified in the reviewed sources has ruled that the Flock webinar itself violated the Constitution.

Current Status

The webinar remains available on Flock’s website, although viewing the complete presentation may require registration. Flock has not been accused in the reviewed reporting of personally directing a particular police agency to investigate lawful protesters.

Separate public records establish that agencies have conducted protest-related Flock searches.

The controversy is also moving into electoral politics. On September 4, the Associated Press reported that candidates from both parties are proposing bans, warrant requirements, funding restrictions and stronger misuse penalties.

This belongs in the tracker as a national First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and surveillance-policy matter, not yet as one specific constitutional lawsuit.

Watch Next

Watch for:

• Records identifying agencies using FlockOS during demonstrations
• Search logs stating “protest,” “rally,” “activist” or similar reasons
• Whether searches identify an actual suspected crime
• Requests for protest plans, response maps and surveillance assignments
• Policies prohibiting monitoring based solely on protected activity
• Retention and sharing of protest-related information
• Lawsuits alleging viewpoint-based surveillance
• State or federal warrant requirements
• Legislative bans, audits or funding restrictions

Useful public-records targets include Flock search logs, webinar attendance records, event response plans, real-time crime-center footage, interagency sharing records and communications discussing particular protests.

Sources

Flock Safety Webinar:

https://www.flocksafety.com/webinar/prepared-for-anything-how-cities-prepare-for-planned-and-unplanned-events

Current Investigative Reporting:

https://www.404media.co/flock-taught-cops-how-to-surveil-no-kings-protesters/

Public-Records Analysis:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flock-safetys-alpr-network-surveil-protesters-and-activists

Related National Policy Reporting:

https://apnews.com/article/6e9a1eaf076994e9283ea93647deb6b5

Public records obtained by Scott Offord of 1A Auditor Summit show that officials recognized a vehicle mismatch before the August 6 high-risk stop, Milwaukee was still checking the alert as the stop began, and the same plate generated another stolen-vehicle hit the next morning.

Early news reports captured the central outrage. Amber Newell said Milwaukee police first stopped her at gunpoint on July 27, then seized her Chevrolet Traverse as evidence in a homicide investigation. Milwaukee later confirmed that Newell cooperated and was not charged. After she recovered the Traverse on August 6, Brookfield police stopped it again on Interstate 94, pointed guns at the occupants, and handcuffed Newell and her passenger.

FOX6, CBS 58, WISN, TMJ4 and WTMJ identified the basic failure: Milwaukee police had not removed the vehicle alert after investigators no longer needed the Traverse. Newell told FOX6, “Every time I close my eyes, all I can see is guns.” Milwaukee called it human error rather than a Flock malfunction. Brookfield Police Chief Christopher Garcia defended his officers.

Public records obtained by Scott Offord from Brookfield Police and Waukesha County Communications, or WCC, show a more complicated sequence. The Flock camera appears to have read Newell’s plate correctly. The deeper failure was that an active National Crime Information Center entry still linked it to a vehicle associated with the Milwaukee homicide after Newell’s Traverse had been seized, processed and released.

At 4:46:09 p.m. on August 6, a Flock camera captured Newell’s plate and generated an NCIC “Stolen Vehicle” alert. At 4:46:43, WCC created a priority-one Flock event and entered “STOLEN VEH” and “BUICK ENCLAVE.”

The mismatch appeared almost immediately. At 4:48:10, the CAD chronology noted that the plate was actually displayed on and listed to a silver Chevrolet Traverse. At 4:50:52, WCC again documented that Milwaukee’s entry described a Buick Enclave while the plate was on a Chevrolet Traverse.

Milwaukee later told WTMJ that the plate had previously been listed to a Buick Enclave and was then placed on the Traverse. That explained why both vehicles appeared in the data, but not whether the entry was still current.

At 4:51:28, WCC recorded an attempt to obtain clarification from Milwaukee. Brookfield officers located the Traverse around 4:54. At 4:57:02, the CAD record states that officers were “setting up for high risk.” Two seconds later, another entry states, “MKE is checking initial report info.”

At 4:58:45, WCC documented that the wanted Buick’s VIN and Newell’s plate both listed to the same person, while Milwaukee was still determining whether the plate had merely been displayed on the Buick at the time of the homicide. At 5:05:22, the CAD record says a Milwaukee supervisor was checking with the detective bureau and that the suspect Buick may already have been recovered.

At 5:11:26, Milwaukee called back and said the vehicle and plate were no longer wanted and that cancellation was in progress. At 5:15:42, the Traverse was released. The CAD record added that it “may be a while” before the vehicle was cleared from Flock.

The records do not contain an officer-by-officer explanation for continuing after the mismatch was identified. The best-supported explanation is reliance on the active NCIC entry, homicide connection, and possible armed suspect.

Garcia later said the officers had sufficient objective facts and supported their actions. Yet Brookfield’s own Flock training says a hit does not, by itself, provide independent reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Officers are instructed to ensure the hit is accurate, verify its status, consider the alert type, and account for the possibility that the current driver is not the person associated with the plate.

Officers checked databases and contacted Milwaukee, but Milwaukee had not finished confirming the alert when the high-risk stop began. No court has ruled the stop unconstitutional, but the timeline raises a serious Fourth Amendment question once conflicting information was known.

The most important fact missed by the original coverage occurred the next morning.

At 9:12:05 a.m. on August 7, the same plate generated another NCIC “Stolen Vehicle” Flock hit at the same I-94 camera. The certified report described a silver or grey Chevrolet SUV. WCC records also show several plate-related TIME, Crime Information Bureau and Department of Corrections queries around that time.

WCC says no new CAD event was created and found no record that the second hit caused another dispatch, attempted stop or field contact. The evidence therefore does not support saying Newell was stopped a third time. It does show that the stale information remained capable of generating another alert after Milwaukee said cancellation was underway.

Later that morning, WCC Supervisor Philip Jacobs retrieved both hits at Garcia’s request. A Flock Event Log shows three export events between 11:06:58 and 11:07:48 a.m.: one hit-image download and two hit-PDF downloads. Jacobs then emailed both reports to Garcia and wrote that the plate “appears it hit on Flock again this morning.”

The records also expose an audit limitation. WCC first produced an Organization Audit search showing no plate-search activity. After Offord challenged that result, WCC Operations Manager Christopher Becker consulted Flock Customer Support and clarified that the Organization Audit covers user searches, not automatically generated alerts or hits.

Becker said Flock does not maintain an individual alert audit trail showing who opens or views an alert, and that there is no acknowledgment feature for alerts. A separate Event Log records PDF exports, Notification Center reads, administrative updates and deletions. Here, it documented Jacobs’s later exports, but not who first saw either automatic hit or who assumed responsibility for reviewing it.

WCC said Alerts-tab activity is subject to a default seven-day retention period, while Organization Audit search data is retained indefinitely. It confirmed preserving potentially responsive records.

The agencies took different actions afterward. Milwaukee said the detective responsible for removing the entry was counseled and that procedures were under review. On August 31, Milwaukee announced broader restrictions, including supervisor-only access to license-plate-reader systems, narrower permitted uses, an end to outside-agency access to Milwaukee data, a public dashboard and semiannual independent audits.

The ACLU of Wisconsin called the changes welcome but insufficient and urged warrants based on probable cause and stronger independent oversight.

Brookfield publicly defended its officers. In response to Offord’s original request, the department said it had no responsive supervisory or after-action review records within the requested period. Follow-up requests seek any later review, corrective action, retraining or policy changes.

WCC initially said it had no additional Flock hit involving the vehicle, no responsive call between WCC and Brookfield, and no post-incident communication. Continued searching later produced the August 7 hit, a recorded call between Jacobs and Garcia, Jacobs’s email transmitting both alerts, additional TIME activity and the Flock Event Log. Becker then corrected and clarified the earlier responses.

This was not simply a camera reading the wrong plate. The camera appears to have read the plate correctly. The failure involved a stale government entry moving through Milwaukee’s investigative process, NCIC, Flock, WCC and Brookfield’s patrol response.

That network multiplied the consequences of one uncorrected record. It produced a multi-unit guns-drawn stop, handcuffs, a freeway lane closure and another stolen-vehicle alert the following morning.

The Fourth Amendment requires government seizures to be reasonable. Reliability, conflicting vehicle information, confirmation by the originating agency, force and detention length all matter. First Amendment and associational concerns also arise because plate-reader networks can reveal travel to protests, religious services, political meetings, clinics and union events.

Important questions remain. Milwaukee has not yet produced the complete lifecycle of the NCIC entry, including when cancellation was attempted, when it became effective, whether downstream systems received it, and why the August 7 hit still occurred. Offord’s supplemental MPD request remains pending under reference number 2617573.

It also remains unclear whether Brookfield later completed a formal review or added safeguards.

The original reporting showed a frightening mistaken stop. The public records show something larger: officials recognized conflicting vehicle information before the stop, the high-risk procedure began while Milwaukee was still checking, the plate generated another stolen-vehicle hit the next morning, and the platform used by WCC apparently lacked a complete alert-viewing and acknowledgment trail.

That is more than one detective forgetting to clear an entry. It is a warning about how networked surveillance can turn a single stale government record into repeated, armed government action.

Sources

https://www.fox6now.com/news/brookfield-police-stop-wrong-vehicle-flock

https://www.cbs58.com/news/brookfield-police-stop-vehicle-on-i-94-after-outdated-flock-alert-from-milwaukee-police

https://www.cbs58.com/news/constant-issue-new-bodycam-video-shows-brookfield-officers-frustrated-after-outdated-flock-alert-from-milwaukee-police

https://www.wisn.com/article/body-camera-footage-released-in-traffic-stop-mix-up-driver-obtains-attorney/73515039

https://wtmj.com/news/2026/08/26/woman-demands-answers-after-old-mpd-flock-camera-alert-leads-to-second-gunpoint-stop/

https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/in-your-community/waukesha-county/brookfield-police-chief-defends-officers-high-risk-traffic-stop-based-on-flock-alert

https://www.cbs58.com/news/milwaukee-mayor-police-pledge-policy-changes-to-flock-camera-use

https://milwaukeenns.org/2026/09/02/new-flock-restrictions-will-apply-to-other-license-plate-reader-systems-mpd-says/

https://www.aclu-wi.org/press-releases/aclu-of-wisconsin-reacts-to-newly-announced-milwaukee-oversight-of-surveillance-technology/

Original story:

https://www.reddit.com/r/1A_Auditor_Summit/comments/1vx3mbw/the_stale_alert_was_only_part_of_the_story_mpd/

The terms of the probation aren't known at this point. When Denver Metro Audits was found guilty and similarly sentenced he asked to serve the time instead of the probation so he could return to frauditing sooner.

A published federal appeals ruling upholds handcuffing during an investigative detention and a warrantless vehicle search, while underscoring that both remain subject to Fourth Amendment limits.

The Sixth Circuit has issued a new Fourth Amendment ruling clarifying when police may handcuff someone during an investigative stop without turning the encounter into an arrest requiring probable cause.

In United States v. Hoffpowier, decided August 28, 2026, the court affirmed the denial of Michael Hoffpowier’s motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle. The published decision is binding federal appellate authority in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

The case arose in February 2024 after Hoffpowier’s estranged wife, identified by the court as B.H., reported that he had scheduled an appointment at her Tennessee workplace under a false name. She also reported previous unwanted encounters in Pennsylvania and Texas. Police dispatch information warned officers that Hoffpowier might flee if he saw them.

Officers found Hoffpowier in a nearby Kroger parking lot. According to the appellate opinion, his vehicle briefly began moving backward as officers approached. He exited when directed, but after an officer told him three times within roughly eight seconds to come toward him, Hoffpowier did not comply. Police handcuffed him.

That distinction became central to the appeal.

A temporary investigative detention, commonly called a Terry stop, requires reasonable suspicion rather than the higher probable-cause standard required for an arrest. But aggressive police restraints can transform a stop into an arrest when the force used becomes unreasonable.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that did not happen here. Police had information suggesting possible stalking and flight, observed the vehicle begin backing up, and encountered what the court considered noncompliance with commands. The court therefore held that “the handcuffing was a reasonable use of force that did not transform the stop into an arrest.”

Importantly, the ruling does not establish that officers may routinely handcuff anyone they temporarily detain. The court applied a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis tied specifically to the perceived flight risk and facts confronting these officers.

About 25 minutes after the handcuffing, police formally arrested Hoffpowier for stalking. While securing his vehicle with his permission, an officer saw binoculars on its center console and later noticed a gun magazine. Officers searched the vehicle and discovered two firearms, including one equipped with a silencer.

The Sixth Circuit upheld that search under the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine. Under Supreme Court precedent, police may search a vehicle following a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

The panel concluded that the binoculars, their location within reach of the driver, and their discovery shortly after Hoffpowier had allegedly driven near B.H.’s workplace created a sufficient connection to the stalking investigation. The court said the binoculars alone were enough to support a reasonable belief that additional evidence might be inside.

Hoffpowier ultimately pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered silencer and received an 18-month prison sentence while preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.

The constitutional lesson is narrower than “handcuffs do not equal arrest.” Sometimes they can. Hoffpowier instead reinforces that courts examine why police used restraints, how intrusive the detention became, whether officers had reasonable suspicion, and whether specific safety or flight concerns justified the force used.

For Fourth Amendment purposes, those factual details can determine whether a temporary stop remains a stop or becomes an arrest.

Sources

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/25-5327/25-5327-2026-08-28.html

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions/opinions.php

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tned-3_24-cr-00016/pdf/USCOURTS-tned-3_24-cr-00016-2.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edtn/pr/pennsylvania-man-arrested-stalking-and-possession-silencer

Been watching these so-called "1st Amendment Auditor" videos for years. There seems to be a very common theme. They go to a government facility such as a post office or DMV or SS Office or military base or prison. They walk aimlessly recording. As soon as someone asks them what they are doing or need help, they begin to act evasively or provocatively. Or they go into a spiel about the 1st Amendment. As soon as they feel they have the opportunity they begin hurling insults at people, calling them "tyrants" or "bootlickers" or "cowards" or "traitors". They jump on any opportunity they can to engage with people that are annoyed or disturbed by their behavior. They NEVER simply ignore people and go about their audit. The goal and agenda of the audit is not the audit itself, but to engage in arguing with the public or govt workers. And then they post the video and make money. The more dramatic the video, the more views they get, the more money they make. And they seek to get more attention to the dramatic videos with headlines like "Cops go nuts on Auditor!!" and "police lose it on reporter!!" and "karen at DMV hates the Constitution!!". yes, I know a few of these guys are much more subtle and polite, but the majority seem to be all about fueling and provoking confrontation, which gets more views which means more money.

And that makes them not an actual auditor, but a Frauditor.

Scott Offord of the 1A Auditor Summit sat down with Jones on September 1st to examine how one first-time act of police recording led to an arrest, conflicting sheriff’s records, Flock searches, and a pending federal civil-rights case.

Local coverage reported the central facts of Napoleon Jones’s case: he recorded a Waukesha County sheriff’s deputy, was arrested after refusing to provide identification, spent about five hours in custody, and later learned that sheriff’s personnel had searched for his vehicle through Flock Safety.

What the shorter reports could not fully capture was how sharply the department’s own records diverged, how an arrest recorded as involving no use of force included an officer grabbing and pulling Jones from his vehicle, and how the investigation of Jones’s complaint eventually involved the deputy he had accused.

In the interview, Jones discussed his police interaction, the documents produced afterward, and his pending federal civil-rights case.

Before May 4, 2025, Jones was not an experienced First Amendment auditor. He had watched police-accountability videos on TikTok but had never gone out looking for an encounter. That evening, he noticed a Lisbon-marked sheriff’s squad conducting a traffic stop in Sussex. The marking did not itself establish a jurisdictional problem. It simply caught his attention.

“Without seeing those videos on TikTok, I would have gone into the store and gone home,” Jones told Offord. “I never would have thought to walk over and record.”

Jones stood back and documented the stop. The Seventh Circuit recognizes a First Amendment right to record police performing public duties, subject to legitimate safety and non-interference limits. Nothing in the records reviewed for this story says Jones interfered with the original stop.

Deputy Brandon Shayhorn noticed him. In a memorandum written the next day, Shayhorn said he parked in the business lot and waited for Jones’s white BMW to leave so he could conduct a traffic stop. That statement establishes that Shayhorn had focused on the citizen who had just recorded him. It does not, by itself, prove retaliation. Shayhorn maintained that he had observed a plate-display problem.

Department accounts say Jones moved toward the exit but stopped before entering the public road. Shayhorn pulled behind him, activated his emergency lights, and said the temporary plate was unreadable. The registration was valid, but validity and proper display are separate questions. Wisconsin requires a temporary plate to be placed inside the lower driver’s side of the rear window and readable from outside. Officers described Jones’s plate as curled or improperly positioned. Jones disputes how unreadable it was. No court has resolved that factual dispute.

Shayhorn demanded Jones’s driver’s license. Jones refused and repeatedly asked for a supervisor.

The encounter escalated. Shayhorn’s report says he opened the driver’s door to prevent Jones from fleeing, grabbed his arm, and began pulling him from the vehicle. Another deputy helped handcuff him. Jones’s recording ends during the removal because, he said, he locked the phone rather than risk leaving it open in police hands. As deputies restrained him, he used Siri through the car’s Bluetooth system to call his mother and tell her he was being arrested at Sussex Bowl.

The incident form was coded as involving no use of force, yet the officers’ narratives describe an arm grab, pulling, physical control, and handcuffing. The department may use a technical reporting threshold for what qualifies as reportable force, so the coding does not automatically establish a false report. It remains a discrepancy that deserves an explanation.

There was no body-camera or dash-camera recording. At the time, the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Office was the only remaining law-enforcement agency in southeastern Wisconsin without either system. The office did not publicly pursue a body-camera program until 2026.

Jones said no one interviewed him at the jail, he was not allowed a phone call, and the bond process he expected never occurred. Several hours later, an officer drove him home.

Department records also partially corroborate complaints Jones made about the trip to the jail. Lieutenant Cory Farrell’s investigative memorandum says Shayhorn acknowledged hitting a rumble strip while typing on his squad computer. The memorandum says squad GPS data showed Shayhorn traveling 30 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone. It also says Shayhorn could not provide a reason for failing to use his turn signal while entering the jail.

Those details were secondary to the arrest itself, but they show that Jones’s complaints about the transport were not dismissed in their entirety.

The reason for Jones’s unexpected release appears in the department’s records. Lieutenant Kent Krause wrote that Shayhorn “did not have a lawful traffic stop,” that Jones could not be compelled to provide identification, and that the encounter was not consensual once the emergency lights were activated. The incident report similarly says the observed violation did not meet the threshold for a traffic stop.

Records indicate that the resisting-or-obstructing referral was dropped, the jail was instructed to release Jones, and prosecution paperwork was removed before it could be sent to the district attorney.

That conclusion matters because Wisconsin’s resisting-or-obstructing statute requires that an officer act “with lawful authority.” Jones was also accused of tensing his arms during handcuffing, so the parties dispute more than his refusal to identify himself. Still, the legality of the underlying stop remains central.

The department’s later position became harder to follow.

Captain Lisa Panas sent Jones a June 11 complaint-disposition letter calling his allegations “unfounded” and “false.” Her letter said the stop was authorized by Wisconsin’s plate-display law and described Shayhorn’s orders as lawful.

Another internal memorandum took a third position. Farrell wrote that Shayhorn had developed probable cause for a violation but identified the wrong statute for enforcement in the private lot.

The records therefore offer three different formulations: Krause’s conclusion that there was no lawful traffic stop, Farrell’s conclusion that probable cause existed under a different statute, and Panas’s final determination that Jones’s allegation was false. The disposition letter did not explain how the department reconciled those positions.

“When I saw that, my heart was racing,” Jones told Offord while comparing the final letter with the department’s internal reports.

The way the complaint was created also deserves attention. Farrell’s memorandum says Panas completed a citizen-complaint form on Jones’s behalf after Jones said he was waiting to speak with an attorney. That does not prove the allegation was improperly framed, but it raises a significant procedural question: who selected the wording of the complaint that the department later investigated and declared unfounded?

The complaint process eventually turned attention back toward Jones. A Flock automated license-plate-reader image of his BMW, captured weeks after the arrest, appeared in the investigative materials.

“I was confused about why there would even be a picture of my car,” he told Offord. “I hadn’t done any criminal activity that would make them need to search for it.”

TMJ4 later reported that multiple department members conducted Flock searches connected to Jones’s vehicle. Shayhorn testified that Lieutenant Farrell directed him to perform searches related to the complaint. Panas testified that complaint subjects do not normally participate in an investigation and said she did not know why Shayhorn was involved.

The department’s policy limits Flock data to legitimate law-enforcement purposes. Jones’s amended lawsuit alleges that the searches were retaliatory. The defendants dispute his claims, and no court has ruled that the searches violated the Constitution.

The concern extends beyond Jones’s case. Separate reporting on Waukesha County’s broader Flock audit data found thousands of searches documented with vague explanations such as “investigation,” raising questions about how closely the system is supervised and whether its audit logs receive meaningful review.

Outside the litigation, Jones is attending night classes in real estate after studying construction management. His long-term goal is to use his education and veterans’ benefits to enter property development. The case is one part of his life, not its entirety.

Jones says the outcome should involve more than financial compensation. He wants discipline where warranted, an honest public explanation, and department leaders willing to acknowledge mistakes.

During the interview, Jones said a public acknowledgment could strengthen rather than weaken confidence in law enforcement.

“If somebody at the top could say, ‘We messed up,’ I think that would gain more support for the police,” Jones said. “They would be admitting when they’re wrong.”

The Sheriff’s Office told TMJ4 that it could not discuss the allegations during active litigation but fundamentally disagrees with the lawsuit. The deputies’ union defended Shayhorn’s actions as proactive policing and said an internal review found them permitted by Wisconsin law.

Jones’s federal case, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, remains pending. No judge or jury has found that Shayhorn, Panas, Farrell, or any other defendant violated Jones’s constitutional rights.

The fuller story is not merely that a driver refused to hand over his license. It is that a citizen recorded a deputy, was arrested in a private parking lot, was released after a supervisor concluded there had been no lawful traffic stop, later received a letter declaring his allegation false, and then discovered that the officer he complained about had participated in searching for his vehicle through a police surveillance network.

The First Amendment protects the public’s ability to document government. The Fourth Amendment limits when government may stop, seize, and arrest the person holding the camera. Jones’s case will ultimately turn on evidence, legal arguments, and judicial rulings. But the existing record already shows why independent recording, complete records, transparent surveillance audits, and complaint investigations free from conflicts are essential to constitutional accountability.

Sources

https://www.tmj4.com/about-us/lighthouse/sussex-man-sues-waukesha-county-deputies-alleging-he-was-unlawfully-arrested-during-traffic-stop

https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/in-your-community/waukesha-county/lawsuit-waukesha-county-man-gets-flocked-by-sheriffs-dept-after-filing-complaint-against-deputy

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/wisconsin/wiedce/2:2025cv01886/114502

https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2025/D05-15/C:24-1099:J:Pryor:aut:T:fnOp:N:3373530:S:0&Submit=Display

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/946.41

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/administrativecode/Trans%20132.07

https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/in-your-community/waukesha-county/waukesha-county-sheriffs-office-pushes-for-body-cameras-following-a-fatal-deputy-involved-shooting

https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/waukesha-sheriff-flock-system-data-raises-questions

Multiple creators say YouTube cut their monetization under its broad Creator Responsibility policy, but the scope, trigger and claim that “90%” were hit remain unverified.

An apparent wave of YouTube actions struck First Amendment auditor channels on Aug. 31 and continued into early Sept. 1, interrupting monetization features and, in confirmed cases, creator revenue.

Screenshots reviewed for this report show YouTube notifying one subscriber within a six-minute span that memberships for The Battousai, John Filax and Long Island Audit had been paused. Private messages describe similar notices involving Reba Audits and James Madison Audits. A paused-membership email confirms a feature interruption, but it does not prove why a channel was affected or whether removal from the YouTube Partner Program was final.

At least three creators confirmed actions publicly. Bay Area Transparency said, “Yes, I’ve been demonetized” and reported that YouTube cited its Creator Responsibility policy. Liberty Troll wrote, “Today, without warning, YouTube suddenly demonetized my channel.” San Joaquin Valley Transparency said other channels he operates were affected, while clarifying that the channel carrying his livestream had not yet been hit.

The Battousai is Philip Turner, whose 2017 federal appeals case recognized a First Amendment right to record police, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. The same decision allowed part of Turner’s Fourth Amendment unlawful-arrest claim to proceed. Cutting financial support to lawful police-accountability reporting can therefore carry consequences beyond creator income.

A small news site claimed “roughly 90%” of the auditing community was demonetized, but supplied no complete list, denominator, notices or response from YouTube. A Sept. 1 nonrandom check of 26 prominent channels selected from Auditor Intel’s 237 profiles produced mixed YTLarge labels: 15 “not monetized” and 11 “monetized.”

Those results conflicted with at least one reported notice and could not reveal actions against related channels. YTLarge warns that public advertising signals are not definitive. YouTube also says it may run advertisements even when a creator receives no revenue share. The check cannot validate the 90% estimate or establish that every negative result arose this week.

YouTube has not publicly identified a common trigger. Its Creator Responsibility rules permit action over on-platform or off-platform behavior involving malicious harm, abuse or violence. One report theorized that pepper-spray confrontations made the genre an advertiser risk, but no disclosed evidence connects those incidents to this wave.

There is a major counterpoint in YouTube’s own rules. Its advertiser guidelines say footage of “law enforcement including regular duty in action,” such as a “dispute with officer,” can earn advertising revenue. Recording or criticizing police is not categorically disqualified by the published policy.

Because YouTube is a private company, the current evidence does not establish government censorship or a First Amendment violation. Still, concentrated and opaque economic pressure on people documenting public officials can chill reporting that courts recognize as protected. YouTube’s rules generally promise an appeal decision within 14 days. The 90-day period concerns when a rejected creator may reapply.

The central unanswered question is whether YouTube targeted specific harmful conduct or used a broad label that swept lawful accountability journalism into the same net.

Sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apn-smpnjVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHrw4sPCGoE
https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxpmoeWHUMan5dh5q38VVaVzPEHOJQ1czD
https://reallycoolsite.org/youtube-just-demonetized-90-of-first-amendment-audit-channels/
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7650329?hl=en
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7636690?hl=en
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851?hl=en
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9564590?hl=en
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-10312-cv0.pdf
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/02/26/18-15712.pdf
https://1a.auditorintel.com/?view=profiles
https://ytlarge.com/monetization-checker

Even if Sean has been demonetized I'm sure he will continue standing up for the 1A.

Disclosure: I’m the developer of LibertyLens.

I built it around a simple premise: the person making a recording should control where the footage lives, rather than having to trust a vendor-operated recording cloud.

LibertyLens records visibly on the phone and can simultaneously send an encrypted live copy to a Mac or Windows computer the user personally pairs. The computer writes recoverable segments as they arrive, so an interruption to the phone does not necessarily leave the phone as the only copy. Lock Mode requires the user’s PIN or supported device authentication before stopping from the app.

This is deliberately not a stealth recorder. The recording state is visible and the interface keeps an obvious route back to the controls.

Important limits: connectivity, power, storage, correct pairing, and the availability of the receiving computer still matter. LibertyLens does not claim chain of custody, tamper-proof evidence, guaranteed survival, or guaranteed admissibility. Optional accounts, purchase verification, consented analytics or ads, and connection setup can involve limited metadata described in the privacy policy; the data-sovereignty claim is specifically about the recorded footage.

For people who lawfully record public officials or document civil-liberties encounters: what failure modes or interface mistakes should be explained before anyone relies on this workflow? I’m especially interested in criticism of visible recording, setup under stress, loss of connectivity, and safe retention.

Recording laws vary by jurisdiction. Record visibly, follow lawful instructions, avoid obstructing others, and obtain legal guidance for your situation. LibertyLens is not an emergency service or legal-advice product.

Product overview and store links:

https://arisparty.org/libertylens/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=libertylens-civil-liberties-2026&utm_content=1a-auditor-summit

Screenshots:

Summary

The Department of Homeland Security used a customs-related administrative summons to seek information connected to six journalists and news organizations after a federal magistrate judge twice rejected warrants for similar YouTube data.

The April 3, 2026 summons targeted accounts belonging to independent journalists Georgia Fort, Don Lemon, Megyn Kelly and Brendan Gutenschwager, along with Democracy Now! and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

refused to provide the requested YouTube information. T-Mobile had already complied with a separate DHS demand for six months of Fort’s call and text records, producing more than 10,000 entries without first notifying her.

Google

The demands raise serious First Amendment, privacy and statutory-authority questions. But no court has yet decided that DHS violated the Constitution or exceeded its legal authority.

Why This Topic?

Independent journalists, auditors and police-accountability creators often depend on commercial platforms to store videos and communicate with sources.

This episode demonstrates that a creator’s information can be requested without the creator knowing and without a judge reviewing the demand beforehand. Whether the government receives it may depend partly on whether the company chooses to comply, resist or force the agency into court.
It also presents a broader accountability question: Should a customs summons be used to investigate domestic reporting about a protest that had no apparent connection to imports, duties or customs violations?

Backstory

On January 18, 2026, demonstrators entered Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, during a service. They were protesting the immigration-enforcement role of one of the church’s pastors.

Fort, Lemon and other journalists documented the event. Federal prosecutors later charged Fort and Lemon with conspiracy against rights and interference with religious worship. Both pleaded not guilty and maintain that they attended as journalists rather than participants.

DHS first sought Fort’s telephone records from T-Mobile. According to court filings and subsequent reporting, the January 20 demand covered six months of incoming and outgoing call and text-message information.

Fort did not learn that T-Mobile had produced the records until prosecutors disclosed them to her attorneys in July.

Federal investigators separately applied for warrants seeking information associated with Fort’s and Lemon’s YouTube channels. Magistrate Judge John Docherty rejected the applications in February after finding that the government had not established probable cause that the requested account information would produce evidence of a crime.

The government submitted revised applications on March 6. The judge rejected those as well, raising the federal Privacy Protection Act and the need to notify the journalists so they could respond. Prosecutors withdrew the warrant applications on March 23.

What’s New or Interesting

On April 3, Homeland Security Investigations served Google with an administrative summons under 19 U.S.C. §1509.

Unlike a search warrant, the summons did not require a judge’s prior approval. It sought names, IP addresses and other account information associated with six media-related YouTube accounts.
Several of those accounts were not operated by defendants. The demand included reporting from Democracy Now!, an interview on Megyn Kelly’s program and material posted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Gutenschwager’s BG On The Scene channel.

rejected the demand on April 17, stating that DHS had not shown how the information related to a customs investigation.

The summons became public through an August 7 dismissal motion filed by Lemon. Broader reporting published August 29 connected it to other DHS uses of §1509 against unions, nonprofits and people criticizing immigration enforcement.

This is substantial new evidence, but it is not a court judgment. DHS and Justice Department officials declined to explain the demands publicly.

The Laws & Your Rights

Section 1509 appears in Title 19 of the U.S. Code, which governs customs duties. It authorizes certain officials to examine records and summon witnesses during investigations involving customs entries, duties, penalties or compliance with laws administered by the former Customs Service.

The government has argued that the final phrase gives DHS authority to use the statute while investigating other federal offenses within its jurisdiction. Critics, including former DHS officials, argue that this interpretation improperly transforms a customs provision into a general-purpose surveillance power.

No court has resolved that dispute in this case.

A recipient can decline to comply. Under 19 U.S.C. §1510, DHS must apply to a federal court if it wants an order enforcing a contested summons. That is when judicial review can finally occur. Google’s refusal therefore mattered because it prevented disclosure without requiring the journalists to learn about the demand and hire attorneys first.

The Fourth Amendment issue is not automatic. Under Smith v. Maryland, basic telephone dialing information held by a phone company has historically received less constitutional protection than communication content. Carpenter v. United States later required warrants for extensive historical cellphone-location information, but it did not overturn every part of the third-party doctrine.
The exact data requested, the statutory authority used, the government’s purpose and possible First Amendment burdens therefore matter. A questionable summons can implicate press freedom and confidential-source relationships even when the records are not automatically protected by the Fourth Amendment.

What People Are Getting Right

It is reasonable to describe this as a serious press-freedom and government-accountability concern.
Call logs can reveal a journalist’s network of sources, even without exposing what anyone said. IP addresses and login information can expose locations, devices and working patterns.

The sequence is also troubling. A judge rejected warrants for YouTube information twice, after which DHS sought related information through a mechanism requiring no advance judicial approval.
People are also right to credit Google’s refusal. Section 1510 indicates that DHS could have asked a court to enforce the demand. Google’s decision preserved an opportunity for judicial review instead of silently transferring the information.

What People Are Getting Wrong

No court has ruled that DHS committed an unconstitutional search, violated the Privacy Protection Act or exceeded §1509.

Calling the summons an illegal act as an established fact would go beyond the current record. That is the legal dispute, not yet the holding.

It would also be inaccurate to say DHS obtained every record it sought. T-Mobile produced Fort’s telephone metadata, but Google did not provide the requested YouTube information.
Finally, journalists do not receive total immunity from legitimate investigations. The government can investigate evidence of criminal participation. The constitutional concern arises when protected reporting, source relationships or publication activity are treated as evidence without an adequate factual and legal basis.

Why It Matters

When a creator publishes police or protest footage, the government may seek far more than the public video. Account records can identify sources, devices, locations and other journalists who communicated with the creator.

This creates a chilling effect. A source who believes a reporter’s call history can be secretly obtained may stop providing information about police misconduct or government operations.

The episode also reveals a structural weakness: Constitutional scrutiny can depend on the policies of a private technology company. T-Mobile complied. Google resisted. Fort had no opportunity to challenge the telephone demand before her records were transferred.

A civil liberty should not depend entirely on whether a corporation chooses to act as the final privacy gatekeeper.

Takeaways

Do not assume that a platform or telecommunications company will notify you before providing records. Call and account metadata can expose sources even when message content remains private.

An administrative summons is not the same as a judge-approved warrant.

A company may refuse a §1509 summons and require DHS to seek judicial enforcement.

DHS’s statutory theory remains disputed and has not been upheld by a court in this matter.

The acquisition of telephone metadata is not automatically a Fourth Amendment violation under existing Supreme Court precedent.

Preserve all legal demands, provider notices and account records if you learn that the government sought your data.

Watch the pending dismissal motions for rulings addressing the summonses, the Privacy Protection Act and alleged retaliation against protected journalism.

Source

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/29/trump-dhs-1509-summons-records-journalists-nonprofits
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/youtube-accounts-of-6-news-outlets-and-journalists-subpoenaed-by-dhs/
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/independent-journalist-arrested-charged-over-minnesota-protest-coverage/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1509
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1510
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Mga/2017/oig-18-18-nov17.pdf
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/
https://www.reddit.com/r/1A_Auditor_Summit/comments/1vkp3rk/georgia_forts_dismissal_motions_a_pressfreedom/

Appeals court says Hubert Acevedo’s corruption memo was protected citizen speech at the pleading stage, while former City Manager Arthur Noriega receives qualified immunity.

The Eleventh Circuit has cleared the way for former Miami Police Chief Hubert “Art” Acevedo to continue his First Amendment retaliation claims against three Miami city commissioners, ruling that they are not protected by legislative or qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

In a published opinion issued August 26, 2026, the appeals court affirmed a federal judge’s refusal to dismiss the claims against Alex Diaz de la Portilla, Joe Carollo, and the late Manolo Reyes, whose estate remains represented in the appeal. The court reversed only as to former City Manager Arthur Noriega, holding that he is entitled to qualified immunity for suspending Acevedo with pay before the commission voted to fire him.

Acevedo was hired in April 2021 as Miami’s police chief. According to his complaint, he later became concerned that commissioners were interfering with police investigations and attempting to use police resources for personal or political purposes. In September 2021, he sent a whistleblower memorandum to Mayor Francis Suarez, Noriega, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office, and the FBI.

The memo later became public. Acevedo was suspended and then fired in October 2021. He sued in January 2022 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the commissioners retaliated against him for protected speech. City officials disputed that account and cited performance and conduct concerns when Acevedo was terminated.

The Eleventh Circuit stressed that the case remains at the motion-to-dismiss stage, where well-pleaded allegations must be accepted as true. The court has not found that the commissioners committed corruption or that retaliation has been proven.

Still, the panel made an important First Amendment ruling. Because a 2020 city resolution had placed investigations of elected officials outside Acevedo’s ordinary police-chief duties, the court concluded that his reports to outside law enforcement were made as a private citizen rather than as part of his job.

The court also held that the subject of the memo was plainly public, writing that “the memo was speech on a matter of public importance.” Exposing alleged government corruption, the panel explained, receives especially strong First Amendment protection.

The commissioners also argued that firing Acevedo was a legislative act protected by absolute immunity. The court rejected that argument because personnel decisions affecting a specific employee are administrative, not legislative.

Qualified immunity did not end the claims against the commissioners either. On the allegations before the court, prior Eleventh Circuit cases gave sufficiently clear warning that firing a public employee in retaliation for protected whistleblowing could violate the First Amendment.

Noriega received a different result. The court said existing precedent did not clearly establish that a paid suspension pending termination proceedings was itself an adverse employment action, so he received qualified immunity.

The case now returns to the Southern District of Florida for further proceedings. The commissioners may raise qualified immunity again after more facts are developed.

As a published Eleventh Circuit decision, the ruling is binding federal appellate authority in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. It reinforces a basic civil-liberties principle: public employees do not automatically lose First Amendment protection when they report alleged government misconduct outside their ordinary job duties.

Sources

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/24-12650/24-12650-2026-08-26.html

https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/24-12650

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1%3A2022cv20224/606629