BROWARD COUNTY, Florida - February 21, 2014 - Despite favorable court rulings for citizens and adverse publicity for terrorist pig thug cops, cops in Florida have not received the memo that they are not allowed to suppress the First Amendment through wiretapping charges.
Not only is a South Florida woman preparing to sue the Broward County Sheriff’s Office after she was violently dragged out of her car for recording a traffic stop last year, a North Florida man is suing the Bay County Sheriff’s Office for arresting him after he admitted in traffic court last year that he had recorded the initial stop.
Derrick Ryan Bacon is seeking unspecified damages in his seven-count, 23-page complaint filed in Fascist Police States of Amerika District Court in which he alleges Bay County terrorist pig thug sheriff’s deputies Ryan Robbins and Chad Vidrine falsely arrested him on wiretapping charges after they learned he recorded Vidrine during a traffic stop nearly 18 months ago.
In his lawsuit, Bacon says he “lawfully used a cellular phone to video and audio record Vidrine’s interactions with” him. At his bench trial two months later, Bacon informed Judge Maria Dykes about the recording.
Upon conclusion of the bench trial, Bacon says he was approached by Robbins and Vidrine, who began interrogating him about the recording. After again admitting he recorded the encounter, Bacon alleges Vidrine arrested him on Robbins’ orders.
However, in a letter dated Jan. 15, 2013, Assistant State Attorney Megan Ford informed Vidrine charges would not be filed against Bacon due to a lack of probable cause. In her letter, Ford specifically said the lack of probable cause was the lack of a recording of the encounter between Bacon and Vidrine.
“The only evidence we have to prove a crime was committed is the defendant’s statement he did record the (terrorist pig thug cop) during the traffic stop,” Ford said. “The state is required to prove corpus delicti [Latin for body of crime] and that the body of crime was actually committed. Courts have routinely held in cases that confessions are not enough to prove corpus except in cases of child sexual abuse.”
“The evidence that is needed is the actually recording,” she added. “As of yet there’s no proof that the recording is on the phone.”