The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today, we will achieve this goal by talking to popular cop watcher Long Island audits about his recent battles with federal authorities. He is one of the fiercest defenders of First Amendment rights and a fearless advocate for police accountability. And today he will be breaking down for us his recent encounters with federal officers and border patrol agents. Shocking video that shows just how tenuous our rights are and why it is vitally important that auditors like Sean are on the streets defending them. But before we get started, I don’t have a sponsor.

We don’t run any ads on our channel. All that we ask is that you like the video, share it and consider subscribing to our channel. That’s it. That’s all we’re asking. So please like, share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests get justice. And I also want to let you know how to contact me. If you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately@therealnews.com or reach out to me directly on Facebook or Twitter at tes Baltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And I’m going to thank all of my Patreon Patons at accountability reports at the end of this episode. Okay, now that part is out of the way. Now, as we have witnessed in Minneapolis and beyond, federal law enforcement has begun to engage in urban policing tactics that are both shocking and deadly.

In the past several weeks alone, two American citizens were shot dead on the streets of Minneapolis. One. Alex Preti was also exercising his Second Amendment right when he was killed. But along with the shootings, federal officers have stretched the boundaries of our constitution on a daily basis. Agents who have violently engaged protesters in ways that appear to consistently violate the first fourth and fifth amendments. And that’s why one of the most prolific cop watchers working today has decided to enter the fray. None other than Long Island audits concerned over what he was witnessing. He set out to test the constitutional IQ of Ice and Border Patrol agents with cameras and his knowledge of the law. Now, also known as Sean Reyes. He drove to Texas to put his rights at risk at a border patrol checkpoint and later at one of their regional offices. Fortunately, he has agreed to join us today to go through the videos and explain what he uncovered. So without further ado, I am joined by Long Island Audits. Sean, thank you so much for being here.

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Thank you for having me. I appreciate your time.

Taya Graham:

First, I want to take a look and get your thoughts on your stop at a Texas Border Patrol checkpoint. It’s worth noting that this facility fairly far from the border itself has been recently constructed by the current administration. Let’s run the video of you as you approach the checkpoint while we watch. And could you talk about what we’re seeing and where this is happening?

Sean-Paul Reyes:

So that was located in FIUs, Texas. It’s in southern Texas, about 80 miles from the United States border with Mexico.

Taya Graham:

So Sean, just talk a little bit about why you approached the way you did. What made you confident you were lawfully exercising your constitutional rights?

Sean-Paul Reyes:

From the case law that I’ve read, I don’t have to answer any questions. We have a Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions. The Constitution doesn’t disappear at an immigration checkpoint 80 miles from the border. It is still valid. So I exercised my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and not answer any questions by the border patrol.

Taya Graham:

So you approached the checkpoint and invoke your right to remain silent. Let’s watch what happened. And as we do, can you describe what you were feeling as this encounter unfolded?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I say citizen, sir. No, nothing, never dance I anything. No,

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Sure. So right from the beginning when I wouldn’t answer their questions, I remain silent. They immediately, they gave me some chances to talk to them and I remain silent.

Speaker 3:

So I understand you have your rights not going to lie to any room, right? Correct. I just need you to state your citizenship and you’ll be free to go. Now, if you don’t want to state your citizenship, it’s up to you. But then I’ll be referring you to secondary so you can speak to the agents over there. No, nothing. Alright, sir, if you don’t mind going to the number two parking spot, agents will waiting there for you. Okay,

Taya Graham:

So before I ask another question, I just want to run the video to show what happened when the supervisor on the scene confronted you. Let’s take a look.

Speaker 3:

Yes, I’m a medical emergency going on. If you look pale, sir, are you going to speak to us?

Speaker 4:

How are you doing, sir? Supervisor Ghetto. You’re in an immigration trip point, sir. So your job here is to respond whether you are U United States citizen or not,

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Instead of just asking me to step out of the car, which I would’ve done, I don’t want to escalate anything. I’m just trying to exercise my rights. If a law enforcement officer asked me to step out of the car, I’m going to step out of the car. There’s case law in it. Instead of asking me did they ask me while ripping me out violently from the car,

Speaker 4:

I’m going to tell you again or we’re going to place you under arrest. Are you a United States citizen? Sir?

Sean-Paul Reyes:

They put me the side of my car with my hands on the top of my car. They searched me, they brought me inside. They told me that I would need to put my fingerprints on this fingerprint scanner that they had. I said, I’m not doing that. They told me, well, if you don’t do that, you’re going to be here for a very long time. We’re going to force you to do it. I told them, well, you could force me. I’m not. He’s like, well, are you going to fight me if I get a bunch of guys in here to put your fingerprints on the scanner? Are you going to fight us? And I’m like, I’m not going to fight you, but I’m also not going to just comply. That’s completely unconstitutional. You have no legal right to do that. I said, well sit in the cell for a while. So they put me in the cell. They said, well, while you think about it, you could just think about it. Sit in the cell. They put me in the cell, they took me out of the cell. They kept asking me questions. I wouldn’t answer their questions. And the punishment for not answering their questions was being placed into the jail cell.

Taya Graham:

Now how long were you detained and what happened during your detention? And if you don’t mind, could you talk about what rights were violated during the encounter?

Sean-Paul Reyes:

For about 30 minutes was the total interaction time until they figured out who I was, which I assume I had a Long Island audit t-shirt on in my suitcase on the very top. So I assume when they opened up my suitcase unlawfully, they saw Long Island audit. They put two and two together because the supervisor did admit, she’s like, yeah, we figured out exactly who you are indicating that she knew that more than I was Sean Paul Reyes, that I was Long Island Audit, that I run the YouTube channel, long Island Audit. And she tried to explain her actions away, but I believe my, again, I’m not a lawyer, but I believe my first amendment right, the minute they shut off, my recording device was violated. I believe my fourth amendment right was violated when I was put inside of a cell. I’ve asked them multiple times, do you have reasonable suspicion that I am not a citizen? Do you have reasonable suspicion that I’ve committed any other federal crimes? They said, no, we just don’t know who you are.

Taya Graham:

Okay, so you’re released and they didn’t charge you, but how do you feel about the experience and do you think they understand the Constitution? And if they violated your rights, what can you do about it? I mean, how much are our constitutional rights in jeopardy right now?

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Eventually through facial recognition, whatever method they use, searching my vehicle, they found out who I was. They released me. And the supervisor told me that, I told her she couldn’t do what she just did. And she says, this is, this is a new administration. We don’t just let people go without answering our questions. But I definitely felt violated and I definitely felt that they violated my rights. They violated me as a human being. There’s one thing to conduct immigration enforcement and follow the law, but also to follow the United States Constitution and do it in the right way. And that was an unlawful way to do it. And learning after, from speaking to multiple attorneys, that holding federal agents accountable, especially with what’s going on, is very hard, if not impossible. Federal agents are not part of 1983 lawsuit claims. They are exempt from that. It’s not written in the statute. There’s only very limited remedies available like a bivins lawsuit. But courts have said that you cannot sue border patrol on Bivins lawsuit. So the legal remedies are very limited, maybe a tort claim, but they’re very limited. And without accountability, without a remedy, you don’t have rights.

Taya Graham:

You know what that is so well said. And truly bears repeating no rights without remedies. I feel like we all need to repeat that until its implications are understood and embraced now part of your odyssey to measure the viability of our rights in the face of ice and border patrol’s aggressive tactics. You ventured into another location in Texas, a border patrol station. Where was this and why did you decide to go there?

Sean-Paul Reyes:

So that was a little closer to the border. That was in Macallan, Texas. It was, I believe a detention facility or processing facility was that was Macallan, Texas. That’s pretty much closer to the border. I would say maybe, I don’t know, less than 20 miles from the border, if not less than that. But yeah, I just went there because I felt violated by border patrol. So now I’m going to audit water patrol. And then I talked to lawyers and for the first time I’ve really never dealt with the federal government. They told me there’s really no remedy for suing federal agents and I couldn’t believe it.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So you started filming license plates and inside the vehicles, and I assume you were sort of turning the tables, given how widespread license plate recognition is used by law enforcement. So just out of curiosity, was that part of your point saying you surveil us, why can’t we surveil you? And while you’re talking, let’s watch some more of your video.

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Alright, so when I was at the immigration checkpoint, they used a flashlight, looked all in my vehicle besides actually searching my vehicle unlawfully. But they looked into inside my vehicle, they used the plain view doctrine for that purpose. They’re able to look inside your vehicle. So if it works for them, it works for me. I said, I’m conducting an investigation. They thought I was with some sort of law enforcement. Who are you with? And I’m like, I can’t disclose that I’m conducting a lawful investigation. And they didn’t like that. So I’m looking inside the vehicles. I said I was searching for contraband, which I was, and they told me, you can’t be filming license plates. And I told them like this, and I filmed a license plate. Am I an agent? An agent of border patrol? Yeah. No, no, no. I’m investigating. I’m conducting an investigation. What’s your name? I’m conducting an investigation On what? For legal contraband. Huh? Illegal

Speaker 5:

Contraband. Illegal contraband. With what agency? I didn’t say it was with an agency.

Taya Graham:

So I want to play a clip of your interaction with one officer in particular who seems to take the lead in impeding you. Let’s watch for a second and then we can discuss it afterwards. I’m

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Conducting investigation. Who are you? Okay, so well,

Speaker 5:

I’m asking the questions right now, so let me

Sean-Paul Reyes:

See. Well, no, I’m the one conducting the investigation. You investigating?

Speaker 5:

I don’t care. I don’t care. Are you investigating? If you’re not telling me who you are, okay, I’m not going to asking. Are you investigating questions?

Sean-Paul Reyes:

I’ve been a big, I’m very anti-government surveillance. And with the advent of these flock cameras that are everywhere, they are all over the United States. The law enforcement can literally follow you wherever you go and see exactly where you’re at at any given time. And that’s a huge problem for me. So license plates are public view. I’m allowed to fill license plates, so why not? And again, I use it as a teaching tool to show people that look, they don’t like it when you film their license plate, you’re going to be off the premises. Is that simple? I’m not in a restricted area. Am I in the restricted area?

Speaker 5:

You’re around the vehicles. It’s not a restricted area. And that puts every vehicle right here in danger. Because I don’t know who you, and you’re not telling me who you are and you’re not telling me who me finding contraband and you’re not telling me who you are. Is that

Sean-Paul Reyes:

In danger of me finding

Speaker 5:

Contraband is a legal, how do I know

Sean-Paul Reyes:

That there a legal, how do I know that? Is there a legal substances that, do you have legal substances? How do I know that these vehicles, I’m just checking for illegal substances. That’s all I guess

Speaker 5:

I’m conducting. And you have no business searching these vehicles. Okay. And if you’re not going to tell me who you’re working for, then you need to get off the premises.

Taya Graham:

You know what? Let’s just watch a little bit more of your encounter with the Border Patrol agent Sean. And I’m just curious how angry did he get and what did he say when you confronted him about your rights?

Speaker 5:

A lawful investigation. So tell me what law you’re representing.

Sean-Paul Reyes:

I just told you I’m looking for

Speaker 5:

Controversy. No, no, no, no. What law Are you representing

Sean-Paul Reyes:

The First Amendment, sir?

Speaker 5:

No, no, no. First Amendment, all that crap. You over here. This is what you’re doing right now. Okay. I’m glad that’s what you think about the First Amendment. So what? What’s your name? I

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Didn’t give it to

Speaker 5:

Yeah, exactly. And I’m asking that’s why I’m asking.

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Yeah, so that was a Border Patrol agent who said he was a supervisor. I saw Ada and he did not like that I was recording. He did not like I was conducting an investigation. He was very upset. You can be upset. It’s fine. I don’t think if you’re a law enforcement officer, you should be upset with people taking pictures. I think they should promote transparency. They should respect our First Amendment right. He was very upset. He did not like the fact that I was recording license plates or recording inside of vehicles, but he let his, one of my biggest things is never let anyone else control your emotions. They control you completely. And whether he thought that what I was doing was wrong or not, he wasn’t in control of his emotions. And as a federal officer, that is extremely dangerous and that’s why I do what I do. It’s not just going recording in license plates and for recording inside vehicles for no purpose. I just exposed a border patrol supervisor who has zero control of his emotions. Where you’re standing is a restricted area.

Speaker 5:

You know what? You’re just like this right now. That’s all you are, right? You’re doing more than talking than I am. That’s right. Because I have the right to, and I’m the one that’s here and because I work here.

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Interesting. I’m working right now too.

Speaker 5:

Yeah. Okay. That’s what you’re saying. Yeah. But

Sean-Paul Reyes:

You don’t tell me who you’re working for. Your Honor, do you have any complaints against your supervisor here that you’d like to come forward as a whistleblower?

Speaker 5:

You’re pretty ridiculous, right? But

Taya Graham:

One thing that always strikes me when I watch your video is I guess basically the disregard, or at least the lack of respect for your rights. I know it’s not something they’re used to or perhaps they’re just wary of it, but they seem to just always overreact to a camera, which shouldn’t be a threat. So why do you think he was so obviously angry during the encounter? I mean, I know filming can make someone uncomfortable, but it’s a totally protected, right? I mean, it seems to happen every time you show up somewhere to film, a cop becomes angry for no obvious reason.

Sean-Paul Reyes:

So I think it all comes down to power and ego. I think that they believe that. When I just saw a video just before I came on this interview of a nice agent, someone was filming them, you took a picture of their license plate and of their face and she’s like, I’m just recording you, exercising my rights. And she’s like, why do you need to record my things? Why do you need to record me and my gim? Oh, he says, because we have a database that now you’re a domestic terrorist. So for this woman, this is an ice agent that I just seen the video. I wouldn’t say it if it wouldn’t happen. He says, because you’re now a domestic terrorist, we have a database. So it’s scary. But to your question, they hate it because it holds them accountable, especially if they’re engaged in their duties or something. But even something as mundane as filming them while they’re just standing outside or anything like that, they’re not doing anything. They don’t like it.

Speaker 6:

You can record all you want record over there on the street.

Sean-Paul Reyes:

This isn’t a restricted area.

Speaker 6:

Where’s the signs? This is government property

Sean-Paul Reyes:

And where’s the signs

Speaker 6:

Look, the PDs on the way.

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Oh, that’s

Speaker 6:

Fine. I’m giving you one chance. Where do you think I’m going?

Sean-Paul Reyes:

I’m not over there giving a chance for anything. You’re violating my rights. They hate our rights. That’s been made clear to me time and time again over the last four years is that law enforcement, the people in power hate that the people have rights. They don’t like it. They don’t like being filmed. They have a power trip. It’s all, when I do speak speaking engagements and trainings at law enforcement agencies, I always harp on, it’s about ego. It’s about ego. They always just want, they can’t allow and lack of emotional control. Oh, how dare you film me? How dare you or turn that off. A lot of the times, the real thing, the real contention comes when they give you an order, an unlawful order, turn that off, give me your id and you just say, I’ll just say, no, no, I’m not going to do that. And they’re not used to hearing that because most people just, sure, sir, I’m going to hand you my id, I’m going to turn off my camera. I’m going to do whatever you want because you’re the law. And when they hear that pushback and when they get that pushback, they don’t know how to respond to that, they have no idea how to get out of that situation. It just immediately turns into anger and contempt for the person that’s in front of them.

Taya Graham:

So I just want to talk a little bit about some of the pushback you’ve received over your work regarding ICE and Border Patrol. I know there are people who watch you and support you but don’t like you holding ICE accountable. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Sean-Paul Reyes:

It has been very eyeopening to me to how my personal viewership has responded to me auditing Ice Border Patrol and speaking about these different topics. Some of my audience likes to think that this is a political stance that I’m taking. It’s not. It’s just objectively not a political stance. They might think that, but this is not political. This is the law. All I’m advocating is for the law and the Constitution, which I’ve been doing since I started my channel. And it has nothing to do with politics regardless of your feelings for illegal immigration. And if you want reasonable, people can disagree reasonably, and we can have different opinions on how the law is enforced, but the law is the law. The Constitution is the Constitution and the immigration. What happened to me at Border Patrol was completely unlawful. And for the people who says, well, and I did get that, we have a big illegal immigration problem, Sean, here in this country.

I’ve gotten comments, emails, you should just, you’re a citizen. You should have just said you were a citizen. You would’ve a nice day. I look at it twofold. One immigration checkpoints really, other than having a dog, which they did, they ran a dog around my car. Other than having a dog and maybe shining a flashlight into your car, they really have no legitimate purpose for any function because if someone’s an illegal immigrant, do you think they’re just going to be like, yeah, I’m an illegal immigrant. They just say they’re a United States citizen and then you keep going because that’s what happens. I passed through that checkpoint again after, and they just let me through without answering any questions. It’s a whole different shift, a whole different set of officers, and they just allowed me to go through. I said, you’re not going to violate my rights here today.

And they were like, well, have a nice day. You have that right? And they let me through the same exact checkpoint, just a different time of the day. But again, if you don’t exercise your rights, then you don’t have them. I don’t care what problem this country is facing, whether it’s illegal immigration, terrorism problems, our rights are non-negotiable. We should not surrender our rights just because there’s a problem in our country. Because if they’re going to do it now, but for example, I’ll just go really quickly. I posted a story that ICE has an internal memo. The Department of Homeland Security has internal memo that they said that administrative warrants are good enough to enter someone’s home. That’s simply just not true. So I posted that this is very concerning as an American, and they’re like, well, illegal immigrants have no rights. Again, that’s not true.

Whether you want them to have rights or not, they just do. I’m not taking a position on whether they should or not. I’m just saying that they do. I’m operating with what the law is right now, and they do. The Constitution says they do. It uses persons and the Supreme Court has interpreted that way. If they can go into illegal immigrant’s homes with an administrative warrant, you need an Article three judicial warrant in order to enter someone’s home. First rights always erode from another group, first happens to one group and then it’s going to fall back on you. Because once you give up your rights and you give power to the government, in this case the federal government, they’re not going to give it back.

Taya Graham:

I just want to say, Sean, how much I appreciate you and your work, not just your videos, but your courage in fighting for the betterment of all of us. It is honestly inspiring to watch you defend our rights and to witness your talent and engaging your audience all for preserving our most valuable commodity without which our democracy cannot survive. And that is the civil right to dissent. So Sean, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us and now to get a reaction to what we just watched, I’m joined by our reporting partner, Steven. Janice. Steven, thank you so much for joining me Te

Speaker 7:

Thanks having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So Steven, what are your thoughts on this engagement by Sean with federal authorities? I mean, what do you think,

Speaker 7:

Man, that guy is brave. Okay, I just want to say going up to a federal checkpoint in this day and age when people are disappeared on a regular basis, and to see him go up and just say nothing was bravery that I have not seen in a long time. I mean, cop watchers are pretty brave. I mean, I’ve watched a lot of people go out and confront police in places that I wouldn’t have done it, but in this particular case, that was exceptionally brave. And I really want to take my hat off to Sean just for how he handled it.

Taya Graham:

Steven, you’ve witnessed this kind of constitutional violation before. This is not new to you.

Speaker 7:

Tell you the first thought I have is Cop Watchers. We’re right. You can’t watch Sean’s videos and not think that what he’s doing is just what he’s done in other situations, just a different federal agency. So I think all the cop watching we have covered in the past has culminated in this moment of ICE’s unconstitutional policing and I think Sean is a big part of the people who’ve been keeping police in check and it’s good actually to see it happening.

Taya Graham:

Steven, what are your concerns about the actions of ICE and border patrol in our cities?

Speaker 7:

I think the thing that’s struck me in the most is how cop watchers for the past six, seven years that we’ve been covering them have been talking about constitutional policing and how important it is and how those ideals and principles have been utterly abandoned by the ice surges in places like Minneapolis and what it has led to it’s tragedy. Constitutional policing is not optional. It’s not really like something that limits your ability to enforce a law. What it does is make sure that you don’t violate people rights to the extent that you start hurting them and creating tragedies and creating pain and sorrow in these communities. The constitution was well thought out and has been well tested in court and should be implemented. Cop watchers have been saying this for almost a decade and we have been paying attention, obviously maybe more people, maybe more people in the administration need to start watching YouTube because the truth is, without constitutional policing, you have nothing but lawlessness.

Taya Graham:

Now, if there is one aspect of my discussion with Sean that I think is worth unpacking in detail, it is the through line that connects all the aggressive tactics of ice and the people who argue that they are necessary. And what I mean is that from the onset there has been a singular and still unaddressed justification for ice overreach. And it’s an argument that needs to be addressed directly if for no other reason to make clear what is at stake. To put it simply, every time ice conducts an illegal search on someone’s house, arrest an American citizen or even kill someone. There is one simple rhetorical device used by government officials to counter any concerns raised by their recklessness. It’s a fairly straightforward offering that’s supposed to negate any claims that this whole enterprise is spiraling out of control here it goes short. We violated the Constitution and sure we took a life without justification and sure we don’t care about the First Amendment or the second Amendment, but we’re doing all of this because there are rapists and murderers out there who remain free.

Otherwise we are just trying to catch violent criminals who need to be behind bars to make our community safe. So stop worrying about your pesky rights or overly aggressive use of deadly force. Well, that is certainly one way of looking at it, but let me paraphrase this for you so that it is clear what this very public and I would say terrifying justification boils down to. We can’t enforce the law unless we break the law. Think about it. What they’re saying is that you can be safe or you can have rights, but you can’t have both. Or put another way, unless you allow us to abandon the Constitution, you will not be safe. The rules aren’t for us just for everyone else. If this weren’t such a naked power grab, it would be comical. If this wasn’t a devil’s bargain that demands we relinquish our constitutional rights so ice can make an arrest, it would be a parody.

How else could you explain a federal government asking us to look the other way while they tear apart the very foundation of what it means to be an American in the first place? I mean the Bill of Rights are not suggestions. They’re not like a menu of options that can be embraced or ignored at your convenience. They don’t enumerate rights and protections. So federal officials can decide arbitrarily which ones are in fact and which ones aren’t. Or let me put it another way so that our federal government can understand. The fourth, the fifth and sixth amendment aren’t negotiable. The rights to convey are not provisional. The constitutional protections people in our nation fought and died for are not up for debate. More importantly, they can’t simply be taken away when the government says. So that’s not how the Constitution, which I remind you, all of ice included, pledge to defend works.

It’s not how the whole idea of a constitutional republic functions, the version that protects our rights, operates within the law. The other version, which seems to become more and more a reality, perceives rights as perishable and subject to the whims of unfettered power. I mean, remember the famous quote of Benjamin Franklin, one of our country’s founders about this topic. He said very famously, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Just think about it. If there is one topic we have covered on this show for years that consistently reemerges is the idea of police overreach. And if there is one argument I have heard over and over again when police partisans try to justify it is that there is some criminal menace or evil gang member or sex offender whose very existence makes it necessary to abandon our founding principles.

The only path to safety they say is to follow Franklin’s adage and trade our liberty for temporary safety. And temporary is the key word here because there are always going to be people who break the law. There are unfortunately bad actors who one way or another will harm or menace other innocent human beings. Aberrant behavior is just one of the few universal traits of humanity. It is just a fact that crime will always be something we have to choose how to confront. But enter that fundamental truth of humanity into the ice equation and you will find that you’re left with something almost incomprehensible, no rights at all. Because as we know, there’s always another criminal around the corner. There’s always another dangerous law breaker lurking in the shadows. There’s always a threat that can be used to make us fearful, irrational, and willing to accept unlawful policing.

But remember this before you grasp at that very fragile straw ICE’s offering, there’s only one outcome to the deal. They’re offering one state of affairs if we accept their devil’s bargain. And that would be a country without rights and a community without safety. We only have to give them up once to lose them forever because they will not let go. Once we acquiesce to fear, do you really trust the government to hand back our rights once we’re all safe and the coast is clear, ask yourself, is that really a chance you are willing to take? I want to thank our guest, Jean Reyes from Long Island Audits for his incredible work. We wish him good luck in Minnesota and wherever he heads next to defend the First Amendment. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Steven, Janice for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you, Steven. It is so good to have you back,

Speaker 7:

Ted. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey are for their support. Thank you and a very special thanks to our accountability report, Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny Ya, David k Louis p Luta Garcia, super Friends, Shane, b Kenneth K, pineapple Girl, matter of Rights, and Chris r. And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police accountability report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. Or of course you can always message me directly at tia’s baltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And if needed, we can take our conversation to a different platform like WhatsApp or Signal. And please like and comment why. Read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.