LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- A Louisville man filming a police situation he wasn't involved with ended up being hit by an officer and put in handcuffs.

Joseph Bennett was driving by the McDonald's off Blankenbaker Parkway in Jeffersontown on Tuesday when he noticed a large police situation.

"Given the current climate that we live in, I was inclined to pull over, to observe as a citizen," Bennett said. "That's what we should do."

Standing across the parking lot, Bennett decided to start a Facebook Live video.

"I even said, 'This is going to be the most boring live video ever,'" he said. "And to my horror, I found myself quickly involved."

After a few minutes Jeffersontown police officers approached Bennett. An officer asked for Bennett's ID and said it was because he was "filming a crime scene investigation" and Bennett was "involved." After Bennett refused to show his ID, stating he was simply filming in public, things escalated within seconds.

Bennett said he was hit by an officer and taken to the ground.

"When he asked for my ID and I said, 'I refuse,' you should have seen the look on his face," Bennett said. "Just anger as that fist is coming up, and he hits me with a left hook ... It blacked my entire eye top to bottom."

Bennett was handcuffed and cited for menacing and resisting arrest.

Lt. Col. Steve Schmidt, Jeffersontown Police's assistant chief, said there was a check fraud investigation at a bank across the street. Officers were detaining suspects at McDonald's, and Schmidt said the officers were told Bennett was involved, and that's why they approached.

Bennett was not involved, and Schmidt said he is not a suspect. An internal investigation into what happened is now underway.

Bennett said some people have implied he should have just cooperated with the officers, but he feels he did nothing wrong.

"Some folks will say, 'Why don't you just show your ID?'" he said. "We have personal rights in this nation. I have personal rights against unfair searches and seizures."

Bennett said he did not pull over and start filming for attention and never imagined he would be in the position he is now. But he said he wants to use his voice to send a message about what happened.


"Civil servants need to remember their oath, to protect and to serve," he said. "What happened here is a minor of taste of when that fails to happen. That's not protecting. That's not serving."
Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmUp...ature=emb_logo

Kentucky isn't a "stop and identify" state. The man being assaulted under colour of law in the video was under no obligation to identify himself. However, the Sixth Circuit hasn't identified a right to record police under the First Amendment, so there's essentially zero chance of this officer being held accountable for the assault under colour of law.

Kavanaugh v. Commonwealth, a Kentucky Supreme Court decision holding state law doesn't require citizens to identify:


In the context of a Terry stop, an “officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Whether a Terry detainee is required to provide identification to an officer is determined by state law. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al., 542 U.S. 177, 188, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (holding that “[a] state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions”). In support, the Hiibel Court cited twenty other states with so-called “stop and identify” laws. Id. at 182, 124 S.Ct. 2451. Kentucky is not listed as one of those states. The Hiibel Court further held that, in states without such laws, “a suspect may decline to identify himself without penalty.” Id. After reviewing pertinent federal and Kentucky law, we conclude that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is not a “stop and identify” jurisdiction. Therefore, absent a statute requiring disclosure, Kavanaugh could not have been arrested and prosecuted for failure to provide identification. However, since an officer is constitutionally permitted to request identification, any failure to comply may still be considered along with other sufficient factors demonstrating reasonable suspicion.
Personally, I don't think a refusal to identify where it's not required by law should be part of demonstrating reasonable suspicion. But I'm not the Kentucky Supreme Court.