Word of the Month for October 2025: DeepFake

The other day, as I was perusing through Internet-land, I came across an article about a CEO who had been the target of a deepfake.

Wait, what?!  What's a deepfake?

A DEEPFAKE is media in which a person’s face, voice, or body is digitally altered to make it appear as though they did or said something they never did. For example:

• A video of a politician giving a speech they never gave.

• A celebrity’s face swapped into a movie scene.

• An audio clip mimicking a person’s voice to scam someone.

So, back to CEO.  Apparently, CEO allegedly sent out an voicemail to all his employees to get them to send him their personal information.

Seemed sketchy since CEO hadn't  made this types of request before.  Turns out he didn't and that the email was a outed as deepfake before anyone lost any data.

Sounds pretty funky, huh?  Think I'm making this all up (because who can mimic another person's voice and mannerisms.).  Well, turns out these deepfakes happen a LOT.  For example:

AI Voice Fraud — Executive Impersonation Leading to Wire Transfers

• UK Energy Firm (~2019): Scammers used AI to clone the voice of a German parent company’s CEO, perfectly mimicking accent and “melody,” and convinced the UK-based CEO to wire €220,000 (approximately $243,000 USD) to a fake supplier.

Deepfake Video Conference — $25.6M Hong Kong Scam

• Hong Kong (2024): In a highly sophisticated scheme, employees participated in a video conference featuring deepfakes of their CFO and other colleagues. This led to HK$200 million (~$25.6 million USD) being transferred to fraudsters.

Deepfake Voice — $35M Bank Heist in Hong Kong

• Hong Kong (2020): A bank manager received what sounded like a phone call from a director using AI-generated voice, instructing a $35 million transfer for a supposed acquisition. The fraudulent request was combined with emails from supposedly real associates, making the scam convincingly authentic.

Rising Trend of Executive Deepfake Scams

• Several major companies have been targeted by voice or video deepfake scams aiming to extract sensitive information or payments. Details include:

  • Ferrari (2024): A deepfake impersonated CEO Benedetto Vigna in a video call to authorize a fraudulent wire transfer. An executive assistant foiled the scam by asking a security question only the real CEO would know.
  • Arup (2024) : Fraudsters impersonated the CFO in a video call and convinced a finance employee to transfer $25 million 
  • WPP advertising group (2024): A deepfake of CEO Mark Read, using a voice clone and public photos, was used in a scam to solicit money and details from a senior executive. The attempt failed due to employee vigilance.
  • LastPass (2024): An employee received an AI-generated audio call and WhatsApp messages impersonating CEO Karim Toubba. The employee became suspicious due to the "forced urgency" and unusual communication channel, and reported it.
  • Crypto Exchange (2023): Binance warned about deepfake impersonation scams after its executives were targeted. In one case, a deepfake video of a CEO was used to steal credentials. 
  • UK Energy Company (2019): An employee wired $243,000 to a fraudulent account after being tricked by a deepfake audio clone of their CEO

 

While the law is still catching up, major concerns involving deepfakes include privacy, defamation, fraud, and harassment. Ramifications vary by context:

1. Defamation / Reputation Harm

   • If a deepfake falsely portrays someone in a damaging way, they may sue under defamation laws.

2. Fraud & Identity Theft

   • Deepfakes used to impersonate someone (e.g., voice cloning for scams) may lead to wire fraud, identity theft, or securities fraud charges.

3. Harassment / Nonconsensual Pornography

   • A large portion of harmful deepfakes involve placing individuals’ faces into explicit content without consent. Many states are passing laws criminalizing this.

4. Election & Political Law

   • Some states (e.g., Texas, California) have statutes restricting deepfakes in election advertising or political campaigns.

5. Intellectual Property

   • Using a celebrity’s likeness without permission may violate right of publicity laws.

6. Federal & International Movement

   • In the U.S., there’s no single federal “deepfake law” yet, but bills have been proposed.

   • The EU’s AI Act and China’s regulations require labeling or banning certain deepfakes.

So, who is/are creating these deepfakes and why?  Money aside, it depends on who you ask and the intent of the entities.  Essentially, there are two groups: Malicious actors and Non-malicious creators.

Malicious actors

• Individuals and groups: Malicious individuals can create deepfakes for purposes such as extortion, revenge, or harassment.
• Fraudsters and scammers: These criminals use deepfakes for financial fraud and phishing attacks. Recent high-profile cases have involved impersonating company executives on video calls to deceive employees into transferring large sums of money.
• State-sponsored groups and political actors: Foreign intelligence operatives and political parties use deepfakes for disinformation campaigns, election interference, and undermining public trust. 

Non-malicious creators

• Content creators and artists: Artists use deepfakes for creative expression, to create memes, or for satire and parody of public figures.
• Researchers and academics: These individuals develop and experiment with deepfake technology to advance AI and machine learning, and to create detection methods for malicious deepfakes.
• The entertainment industry: Filmmakers and visual effects artists use deepfakes for high-tech digital effects, such as de-aging actors or creating digital clones. 

My next question would be (and is, since this is a legal-related blog) how have different jurisdictions handled (or have started to handle) these deepfakes?

Minnesota — civil & criminal deepfake protections

• Civil cause of action (nonconsensual sexual deepfakes): Minn. Stat. § 604.32 — “Cause of action for nonconsensual dissemination of a deep fake depicting intimate parts or sexual acts.” (Defines “deep fake,” creates private cause of action, remedies).
• Election-related criminal prohibition: Minn. Stat. § 609.771 (as amended by HF1370/2023) — criminalizes knowingly using deepfake technology to influence an election under specified timing/intent rules. (See HF1370 enacted language and SOS overview.).

California — private right and expanding statutes (nonconsensual digitized sexual material)

• Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.86 (existing right / cause of action for digitized sexually explicit material) — California already had statutory civil remedies for digitized/“deepfake” sexually explicit material; recent legislative action (AB 621 / AB 2839 and related bills) expanded and clarified definitions, added remedies and presumptions against deepfake-porn services. See AB 621 committee analysis for text and changes
• Criminal/other provisions: Recent California updates (and Penal Code cross-references) explicitly treat AI-generated intimate material in various contexts.

Texas — election deepfake statute

• Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 255.004 (from SB 751, 2019) — one of the earliest state statutes addressing “deepfakes” in election communications (text focuses on video misrepresentations in campaigns). Texas has also passed other bills addressing AI-created intimate imagery.

Virginia — nonconsensual intimate image / deepfake pornography

• Va. Code § 18.2-386.2 et seq. — Virginia’s statute criminalizes creation/distribution of nonconsensual sexually explicit images, and has been applied to deepfakes (statute text and practitioner summaries describe penalties and elements).

New York — amendments to intimate image dissemination law

• NY legislation (e.g., S.1042/A. proposed amendments) — New York bills and amendments explicitly fold “digitized”/deepfake images into unlawful dissemination of intimate images; see NY Senate amendment language (S1042A) that inserts deepfake/digitization language into the statute. (Check final compiled bill text where enacted.)  

OK, OK, so the statutes in place don't actually deal with people stealing personal data or squeezing someone for money - rather for sexual gratification and election interference - which  are both important but given the rate at which cyber criminal are expanding operations, it's easy to see that governmental entities are lagging behind the times.

This is not to say that there has not be any action in the courts.  In fact, there are a number of cases that have dealt with deepfakes in recent years.

Lawsuits related to non-consensual deepfake pornography

• City of San Francisco vs. Deepfake Websites (2025): The City Attorney's office sued websites that generate nonconsensual explicit deepfakes, resulting in a settlement with one company, Briver LLC, for $100,000 and a permanent injunction. The city is continuing litigation against the remaining defendants, some of which are located internationally.
• Kyland Young vs. NeoCortex, Inc. (2023): The reality TV star sued the developer of the deepfake software Reface, alleging the app violated his right of publicity under California law. This case highlights how deepfake apps can be misused. 

Cases concerning intellectual property and likeness

• George Carlin Estate vs. Dudesy Podcast (2024): The estate for the late comedian sued the Dudesy podcast for using AI to create a deepfake comedy special titled George Carlin: I'm Glad I'm Dead. The lawsuit was settled quickly, but it brought attention to using AI to replicate an artist's likeness and voice.
• Disney & Universal vs. Midjourney (2025): Major studios filed a lawsuit against the AI image generator Midjourney for the "wholesale appropriation" of their characters, such as Darth Vader and Minions, to train its AI. The suit alleges copyright infringement and dilution of their intellectual property.
• Amazon vs. Illinois Biometric Privacy Class Action (2025): The facial recognition startup Clearview AI agreed to a $50 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit for scraping billions of facial images from the internet without user consent. The suit was brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). 

Lawsuits involving election interference and misinformation

• New Hampshire Robocall Case (2024): A political consultant was charged with orchestrating a deepfake robocall campaign that used an AI-generated voice mimicking President Biden to deter Democratic voters from casting ballots.
• X (formerly Twitter) vs. California (2025): Elon Musk's social media company X challenged and won a legal victory against a California law restricting election-related deepfakes. A federal judge blocked the law, citing concerns that it could lead to censorship of protected political speech, such as parody. 

Other ongoing deepfake-related litigation

• Elon Musk vs. Tesla Wrongful Death Lawsuit (2023): As part of a wrongful death lawsuit involving a Tesla, the company's attorneys questioned the authenticity of a video showing Musk making statements about Tesla's self-driving safety. Musk was ordered to testify under oath to determine the video's authenticity, highlighting how deepfakes can affect the admissibility of evidence in court.
• Mark Walters vs. OpenAI (2025): A radio host sued OpenAI for defamation after ChatGPT generated a false summary that accused him of embezzlement. The court granted summary judgment in favor of OpenAI, ruling that ChatGPT's output was not a factual assertion given the known fallibility of the technology.

and the list goes on and on and...  The point to all this is that while AI is helpful, it can also be a pain in the neck because if you can't believe your own eyes, what can you believe in?

 

I guess the bottom line to all this is stay informed, be aware of your surroundings, and know that everyone is out to get you.

That's not paranoia, that's just gut-reaction common sense.

Nothing be to afraid of

Picture it.

It's summer time.  Blue sky, a few clouds, light breeze....and you decide to go out for a morning jog like you always do when it's not raining or snowing or flooding or there's a tornado brewing.

Anyway, you're out running and dang it but (and it most always happens), you get this sharp pain in your side.  I mean, those things HURT!

Have you ever gotten those sharp, side pains?  I know I have and, as it turns out it is not a rare occurrence.

The problem is that those sharp pains actually have a term.  They're called exercise-related transient abdominal pain, or ETAP.  Around two-thirds of runners experience them every year.  But unfortunately for weekend joggers everywhere, this medical term does not come with a medical solution.  

Why?

Well, turns out even though side stitches are common, researchers haven't really studied them. 

What???  How is it that something as common as side stitches are ignored but there is time and money to research things for which drugs were invented to prevent:

• Male/Female Impotence, or 
• Hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating), or
• Restless Leg Syndrome, or
• Nail Fungus (could be toe or fingers), or
• Cosmetic Wrinkle Reduction, or
• Male Pattern Baldness, or
• Mild Anxiety for "Performance" (I'm guessing this one is sexual in nature rather than an inability to speak in public), or
• Mild Cosmetic Acne

Dang but there are a lot of things I can think of that could really use some serious like:

• Social Isolation
• Grief or Bereavement
• Procrastination (imagine a drug that could cure this?  Employers everywhere would like up for that one!)
• Aging-related frailty
• Mild hearing loss (a cure-all for guys who don't hear their wives) 
• Caregiver burnout (that's a big one, right there)
• Something to fix that ringing in your head (I can handle the voices, but the ringing...!) 
• The fear you get when you walk into a law library

This last one is actually curable without a pill.  I should know because I've helped cure thousands of people overcome their fear of law libraries (aka law library anxiety).

I can't count the number of people I've seen walk into a law library and watch the color drain from their faces as they look at all the books on shelves.  

Can you say TERRIFIED?!?

But you don't have to be.  How, might you ask?  There are four (4) rules you need to know to help you overcome law library anxiety.

1. Rule ONE:  Primary Authority is that which is handed down by a governing body.
2. Rule TWO: Secondary Authority is that which explains, interpret, or analyzes Primary Authority.
3. Rule THREE: Mandatory Authority is that which courts MUST follow.
4. Rule FOUR: Persuasive Authority is that which courts MAY follow.

So, how do these four rules work and help with library anxiety?  Let's take each Rule and break them down into manageable bits.

Rule ONE: Primary Authority is that which is handed down by a governing body.  

Most people hear things and immediate thing statutes and court court decisions.  Yeah, but that doesn't really cover what the law is governing your situation.  

Situation?  What situation?!

Years ago, I helped a guy who had just been kicked out of his book club.  Seems he wanted to review a book that the other members did not want to review and they kicked him out.  He was angry with their decision and wanted back in. 

The problem was he didn't know what law would govern book clubs.

So, under rule one, what is a governing body?   A formal definition is a group of people who formulate the policy and direct the affairs of an institution.  So, what we're looking at here might be something that looks like:

What are some other governing bodies not specifically related to they typical government structure?

• Residential & Community Governance 
• Homeowners Association  (HOA)
• Condominium Associations
• Mobile Home Park Associations
  
• Property & Facility Governance 
• Business Improvement Districts
• Property Owners Associations
  
• Timeshare Associations
• Religious & Organizational Governance
• Church Boards
• Parish Councils
• Synagogue/Temple Boards
• Educational Governance
• Parent/Teacher Associations (PTA) 
• School Boards
• Charter School Boards
  
• Recreational & Clubs Governance
• Swim Club Boards
• Tennis Club
• Private Club Boards
• Cooperative & Shared Business Governance
• Worker Cooperative Boards
• Agricultural Cooperative Boards
  
• Artist Cooperative Boards
• Specialized District Governance
• Special District Boards
• Water Board
• Fire Protection Boards
• Library Districts
• Parks and Recreation Districts
• Other Community Group Governance 
• Neighborhood Associations (non-HOA)
• Tenant Associations
• Block Associations

See that one under Recreational & Club Governance: Private Club Boards?  That's the one guy targeted. See, the problem is that guy was dealing with a book club - not a monstrously HUGE government entity.  

All guy had to do was look at the rules of the tiny/virtually insignificant book club - which is/was the governing body for his book club.  

I mean, why would a courts use codes/ordinances from a monstrously HUGE government structure when all it has to do is use the small/virtually insignificant local/neighborhood book clubs' own rules and procedures that govern how its members inter-relate?

Which is what the court did aaaaaaaand guy was still kicked out of the club as the book club had followed all of its procedures and guy didn't have a leg to stand on.

Summary:  A governing body can be BIG (think Federal or State or County or City) or it can be small (think tennis club or book club).  All that is required is that there be a semblance of established rules/procedures which must be followed by its members.

RULE TWO:  Secondary Authority is that which explains, interpret, or analyzes Primary Authority.

Have you ever needed to know the definition of a word?  Regardless of whether it was online or in-print, you used a dictionary to look it up.

Have you ever had to do a book report or some other paper in school?  Regardless of whether it was online or in-print, you used a book(s) or articles to help you explain your position to help you write that report.

Resources other than case law/statutes are secondary authority are used to help explain how primary authority is applied, used, or interpreted.

Court use secondary authority/evidence all the time to help interpret the law when they are trying to formulate an opinion.

(State/Federal) member of congress (house/senate) use secondary authority all the time when they're looking to create laws/statutes

Been to a library (public or law) lately?  The shelves are jammed packed with secondary authorities to help you explain what it is you are writing/arguing about. 

The kicker between Rule 1 and Rule 2 is that you can cite to primary authorities with reckless abandon in legal documents.  You use secondary authorities to help understand what's what and develop oral arguments.  You DO NOT cite to secondary authority unless you want to run the risk of the judge ignoring and/or sanctioning you for citing to authorities that have NO legal authority.

True, there are attorneys who only cite to secondary authority (and I'd steer clear of them because that shows a lazy lawyer), but for my money, I'd want someone representing me who knows the difference between what qualifies as legal authority and what doesn't. 

RULE THREE: Mandatory Authority is that which courts MUST follow.

Things get tricky when looking at rules three (Must) and four (May).  

What does MUST mean?  Defined, must is an imperative need to duty.  How this works is that when looking at laws from other courts, a court MUST follow decisions/laws from it's own jurisdiction. 

So, California courts MUST follow the laws/statutes handed down from the California legislature.  California Superior courts MUST follow decisions handed down by the California Supreme Court and the California Appeals Courts. 

Arizona courts of limited and general jurisdiction MUST follow the law statutes handed down from the Arizona legislature, and Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction (Court of Appeals and Supreme Court). 

Wyoming Circuit Courts MUST follow the laws handed down by the Wyoming legislature and by the Wyoming Supreme Court, District Courts.

Texas Trial Courts MUST follow the laws handed down by the Texas legislature and by the appellate courts, and the two courts of last resort (Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals).

New York Trial Court (which include the Supreme Court, Court of Claims, Family Court, Surrogate's Court, and local courts (City, Town, and Village)) MUST follow the laws handed down by the New York legislature and the intermediate appellate courts, and the Court of Appeals (which is the highest court in New York).

See how that works.  Trial courts in a specific jurisdiction (or area of control) MUST follow the laws/decisions in the specific jurisdiction.

RULE FOUR: Persuasive Authority is that which courts MAY follow.

If MUST is critical, MAY expresses permission or possibility.  MAY indicates that something could happen but it is not certain.  When it comes to things legal, MAY indicates allowance or consent.

So, how MAY works is Utah courts MAY use laws handed down by New York, but it doesn't have to. 

Wait, what?

So, as it turns out, New York was the first state to create a law regulating the Internet.  In 1990, New York passed a law amending its Penal Law § 235 to address “obscene material” and computer networks, making it a crime to disseminate obscene material to minors via a computer.

What this means is that New York, being the first, was the only real authority on the regulation of the Internet.  Do you think, though, that no other states in the Union didn't have issues related to Internet regulation at that time?  

Sure they did!

But even though New York had a law DIRECTLY ON THE TOPIC of Internet regulation, other courts did not have to follow it.  They could, if they wanted to but weren't REQUIRED to use it.  Other courts might have looked at the New York law; they might have tasted it, licked it, touched it, poked it, prodded it, provoked it, or kicked the wheels - but they didn't have to use the New York law.

So, if a Wisconsin court was looking at an issue but didn't have any laws/decisions on the books for that particular issue, it MAY look to the laws of any other jurisdiction, but it doesn't have to and could rule based on it's own belief (because I'm sure the judges in Wisconsin as just as competent as any other judge in any other jurisdiction).

Nevada courts MAY look at Oregon Court decisions but doesn't have to use them.

North Carolina courts MAY look at North Dakota court decisions but doesn't have to use them.

Florida courts MAY look at Rhode Island court decisions but doesn't have to use them. 

Montana courts MAY look at South Carolina court decisions but doesn't have to use them.

Ohio courts MAY look at Mississippi Court decisions but doesn't have to use them.

So, what does "doesn't have to use them" suggest/mean?  It means that courts can use other jurisdiction decisions as SECONDARY authority to help interpret their own laws/decision.

See how these rules fold in onto themselves?  You do this enough times and it becomes easier to understand/apply.

Now, here's a zinger.  Say a court has a decision that it uses on a particular issue and you submit a brief with a law from another jurisdiction because you think the law from the other jurisdiction/court helps to clarify the issue you are trying to argue better than what the court in your jurisdiction has on its books?

Your Judge/Court might laugh at you (in the way of sanctions) OR it might ask for clarification on why you would include a decision that is persuasive, at best.  

Hey, it's could happen (and has).

Annnnnnnnnnd, that's how it all looks.  

No longer do you need to have that deer in the headlights look when you walk in a law library.  Sure, you might (still) be terrified to talk to a god-like visage like a law librarian, but at least you know (now) you can find your way around a law library without being scared out of your pajamas.

When the Badge Becomes the Bully

I don't know about anyone else but do you know why I went to law school?  I went to law school because I wanted to help the underdog.

OK, yes - when I think of underdog, I think of the cartoon but, and more specifically, I'm talking about the little guy on the street who is getting his face smooshed into the asphalt by a bunch of thugs and bullies.

Or the old lady getting her house taken by eminent domain by some fat cat that has it in with city hall just so he can build another office building.

Or the guy just standing on a sidewalk and police come up to him and demand to see ID just because.

I mean, doesn't that bother you - police walking up to people demanding ID and then arresting them when they don't provide it?  Sounds a just a bit underhanded.

The thing with demanding ID just because has always bothered me and I got to wondering why it is police think they can just walk up to people, demand their identification and arrest them when they don't cough it up?  I mean, it seems like it happens all the time what with the hundreds of YouTube videos online.

So, picture it - guy is standing on a sidewalk just minding his own business.  Cops show up and demand to see his identification.

 

In most cases, and depending on context (traffic stop, pedestrian stop, private property, etc.) and jurisdiction, there are several situations where U.S. citizens are NOT legally required to produce identification such as:

1. No “Stop and Identify” Law

• In states without a stop-and-identify statute, you generally don’t have to show ID just because an officer asks.

• You may still have to state your name if an officer has reasonable suspicion you’re involved in a crime (per Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)).

• If there’s no reasonable suspicion, you can decline to provide ID.

2. Pedestrian Stops in Public

• If you’re simply walking in a public place and not suspected of a crime, police cannot demand ID.

• Example: Just standing on a street corner or filming police does not automatically create legal grounds to demand ID.

3. Passenger in a Vehicle (Some States)

• In many states, only the driver must show a license during a traffic stop.

• Passengers often don’t have to produce ID unless:

  • There is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, OR

  • State law specifically requires passengers to identify themselves (rare).

4. Casual Encounters (“Consensual Encounters”)

• If a police interaction is voluntary (you’re free to leave), you can refuse to show ID.

• Officers typically must clarify if you are being detained or if you are free to go.

5. Private Property (Not Driving)

• If you’re on your own property AND not suspected of a crime, police cannot compel you to produce ID.

6. Non-Criminal Contexts

• In most states, there is no general law requiring you to carry ID at all times.

• Exceptions:

  • If you’re driving (must carry license).

  • If you’re flying (TSA requires ID).

  • If you’re buying age-restricted items (store can refuse sale if you don’t show ID).

7. Exercising Certain Rights

• Filming police, protesting peacefully, or attending public meetings typically does not require you to show ID unless there’s a lawful order (e.g., dispersal order, arrest). 

Wait, Wait, Wait.  Let's back up a bit - a stop-and-identify statute?  What is a Stop-and-Identify statute?

“Stop‐and‐identify” statutes (or similar laws) allow police to require a person to identify themselves (usually by name, sometimes address, date of birth) when the person is lawfully detained and there is reasonable suspicion.  In such states, failure to identify can in many cases lead to arrest or criminal penalty, depending on the statute. 

Presently, there are only 24 states in the Union that have a stop-and-identify statute, as follows:

Alabama

Ala. Code §15-5-30

Arizona

A.R.S. §13-2412 & §28-1595

Arkansas

Ark. Code §5-71-213 (loitering)

Colorado

Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)

Delaware

Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902 (suspicion of crime) & 1321(6) (loitering)

Florida

Fla. Stat. §901.151 (Stop and Frisk Law); §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)

Georgia

Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)

Illinois

725 Ill. Comp. Stat. §5/107-14

Indiana

Ind. Code §34-28-5-3.5

Kansas

Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402

Louisiana

La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 215.1(A); La. Rev. Stat. §14:108(B)(1)(c)

Missouri

Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)

Montana

Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401

Nebraska

Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829

Nevada

Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123

New Hampshire

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6

New Mexico

N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3

New York

N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §140.50 (suspicion of crime)

North Dakota

N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21

Ohio	Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29

Rhode Island

R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1

Utah	Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15

Vermont

Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24 VSA §1983

Wisconsin

Wis. Stat. §968.24

OK, so, there are two things that allow a cop to stop you and ask for identification.  ONE is the Stop and Identify statute.  TWO, is reasonable suspicion.  So, what is reasonable suspicion?

 

Briefly, reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in U.S. criminal law that allows a police officer to briefly stop, question, or detain a person if the officer can point to specific and articulable facts, together with reasonable inferences from those facts, that suggest the person is involved in criminal activity. 

NOTE: under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), police can't just have a hunch (or gut feeling) that you've committed a crime.  They must be able to articulate specific facts that led them to believe that a crime has or is about to be committed BEFORE they can stop and ask for identification.

For example: 

• Hunch: “That guy looks suspicious.”

• Reasonable Suspicion: “The man circled the same block three times, peered into the closed store window, and kept adjusting something at his waistband.”

• Hunch:  Observed you just standing on a public sidewalk

• Reasonable Suspicion: Observed you standing on a public sidewalk, looking in car (or business) windows, checking for locked doors.

To summarize, unless you are pulled over while driving a car or are otherwise looking suspicious and are acting like you are or are about to commit a crime, then police have no business walking up to you and demanding to see your ID.

You know, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.  Nice to see all those years of studying how to conduct research has finally paying off.

So, when next you are approached by the police AND (provided you're not in the above noted 24 states - or even if you are) you're not doing anything suspicious, know that you are well within your rights to deny police access to your secret identity.

A fancy way of saying you can't leave

Lately I've noticed that I write a lot about things criminal and I got to wondering why?

I mean, there's a lot of stuff out in legal land I could be writing about but all this criminal stuff keeps popping up (and it's so easy to write about).

Take, for example, James McCoy Taylor.  You remember him, right (yeah, I didn't either)?  A bachelorette alum, Mr. Taylor was relatively recently arrested for assault and unlawful restraint.  Seems the girl he was with didn't want to be with him and she tried to walk away.  When he restrained her, she screamed, police were called, and now he's not such a happy guy.

Or how about Richard and Nora Ramirez of El Paso, Texas?  Court documents say on that the El Paso Police Department received a call from a witness, stating a 15-year-old boy was not eating and was being locked up in his room by his adoptive parents. Nora admitted to locking the boy in his room from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. but that he was being home schooled.

Or how about Archie Banks of Naperville, Illinois.  Mr. Banks was arrested and charged with two counts of Armed Violence (Class X Felony), one count of Attempted Aggravated Vehicular Hijacking with a Firearm (Class 1 Felony), two counts of Aggravated Battery (Class  3 Felony), one count of Aggravated Kidnapping While Armed with a Firearm (Class X Felony), one count of Armed Robbery with a Firearm (Class X Felony), one count of Aggravated Vehicular Hijacking with a Firearm (Class X Felony), and one count of Aggravated Unlawful Restraint (Class 3 Felony) in conjunction with a carjacking. 

What do all these people have in common?  That's right - they were all charged with unlawful restraint.  Before we get to far into this, what is unlawful restraint?

"Unlawful restraint" is a criminal offense that generally refers to intentionally restricting another person’s freedom of movement without legal justification. It’s a lesser offense than kidnapping, but it still involves interference with someone’s liberty.  

What we're looking at is:

• Locking someone in a room against their will.
• Holding someone down physically so they cannot leave.
• Threatening someone with harm if they try to move away.
• Taking a person somewhere against their will (without rising to the level of kidnapping). 
• Telling someone “you can’t leave until you pay me back” and blocking their exit.
• Pretending to be law enforcement and saying, “You’re under arrest, you have to come with me,” when you don’t have that authority.
• Luring someone into a space (like a basement) and then locking the door behind them. 
• Keeping a child somewhere without a parent’s consent (not quite kidnapping, but still unlawful restraint).
• A caretaker tying down or excessively restraining an elderly or disabled person without medical or legal justification. 

So, how might this look in real life?

1. Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011) – A man was convicted of unlawful restraint for preventing his girlfriend from leaving their apartment by holding the door shut.

2. People v. Dominguez, 39 Cal. 4th 1141, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575, 140 P.3d 866 (California, 2006) – The defendant was convicted of unlawful restraint after forcing a victim to remain in his car against her will, even though she wasn’t abducted a long distance.

3. Michigan – Tent Captivity & Sexual Assault (2025)

A 21-year-old woman was allegedly held captive in a tent for a week by a homeless man, William Paul Thompson (22), in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. During her confinement, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted and threatened with a weapon. She escaped and reported the ordeal to investigators, leading to Thompson’s arrest on multiple felony counts, including criminal sexual conduct and unlawful imprisonment. The case is now with the Isabella County Prosecutor’s Office.

4. State v. Elbaz (2025) – Attempted Abduction, Restraint & Physical Assault

In New Haven, Leran Elbaz (43) violated protective orders by confronting a woman at a daycare, physically assaulting her, and attempting to force her daughter into his car. A good Samaritan intervened. Elbaz now faces a long list of charges including attempted kidnapping, unlawful restraint, strangulation, and child endangerment.

5. Texas (Houston) – Child Tied Up and Caged (2024)

Rose Anderson (55) was charged with unlawful restraint and injury to a child after allegedly tying a 7-year-old girl to a cage next to a Christmas tree using zip ties, denying her food, water, or bathroom access for hours. The child even urinated on herself, and Anderson reportedly kicked her and taped her mouth shut.

6. Rutecki v. Rensselaer City School District (2025)

Parents filed a lawsuit claiming their autistic son was improperly restrained by school staff at Van Rensselaer Elementary on February 9, 2024. The incident, captured on video, allegedly resulted in a brain injury, concussion, and lasting trauma. The family asserts the restraint was unlawful, as the student did not pose an imminent threat.

7. Illinois (Alton/Bethalto) – Domestic Restraint Charges

Multiple domestic violence incidents in the Alton area led to several individuals being charged with unlawful restraint. One 21-year-old in Bethalto was charged after allegedly detaining a relative and causing physical harm.

8. West Virginia – Grandmother Arrested After Grandchild Escapes

Laura Southworth (54) was arrested after her granddaughter fled the home with a handcuff still on her arm. The 13-year-old told authorities she had been handcuffed by her grandmother as "punishment" for stealing food, and had been restrained for about 13 hours. Southworth was charged with child neglect and unlawful restraint.

9. Workplace Detention – Unlawful Restraint in an Office

In Champaign, Illinois, a franchise owner of an elder care company allegedly detained a care worker in an office during a dispute over company property. Video posted to TikTok shows the owner blocking the worker from leaving for about eight minutes. The worker described feeling “trapped,” and authorities served the owner with a notice to appear for unlawful restraint.

10. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) – Eighth Amendment Challenge

In Hope v. Pelzer, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the use of a “hitching post,” where inmates were handcuffed in painful, sun-exposed standing positions for extended periods. Though the guards were ultimately granted qualified immunity, the Court acknowledged that this method was cruel and unusual, raising constitutional concerns related to restraint.

11. State v. Watson, 191 Conn. App. 1 (2019) – Nine-Hour Apartment Restraint

A Connecticut appellate court ruled that restricting a victim in an apartment for approximately nine hours—blocking the bathroom, taking away phones, preventing exit, and grabbing her sweatshirt hood—constituted unlawful restraint, even separate from related assault charges.

12. Police/Medical Restraint & Death

• In the U.K., Joy Gardner died after police gagged and restrained her with handcuffs and straps during an immigration raid, leading to asphyxia. The case sparked civil rights outrage.
  

• In California, Max Benson, a 13-year-old autistic student, was held in a prone restraint for over 90 minutes by school staff. He suffered catastrophic injuries and later died. This tragedy led to “Max Benson’s Law,” banning prone restraints in California schools.
  

• In the U.K., Olaseni Lewis, restrained by police in dangerous positions, lost consciousness and died due to restricted breathing and mistreatment.

Yep, there's a whole lot of crazy out in legal land.  If you don't want to land in the pokey (or be a subject of my blog posts), you might I suggest you steer clear of things unlawful.

Word of the Month for September 2025: Interfering with Police

Lately, I've been on a roll finding off the cuff situations to blog about.  One topic that keeps popping up (and, which happens, to be a hot topic) is people being charged with Interfering with the Police.

Of all the things people can be arrested for, this one seems a bit sketchy and subjective and which might lead to a lawsuit (against the po po) if not used judiciously. 

So, how might interfering with the police play out in real time?  Well....

On July 31, 2024, Trooper Myron Jackson of the Kentucky State Police initiated a traffic stop in Franklin County, Kentucky, alleging that the vehicle operated by Christina Calvert had expired license plates. Calvert, upon being pulled over, drove into her daughter, Christen Johnson's, driveway.  As Calvert engaged with the officer, Johnson exited her home and was instructed by Trooper Jackson to return inside (actually the cop flipped out and screamed at her to go back inside her house). 

Despite complying initially, Johnson reappeared moments later, recording the interaction on her phone. Trooper Jackson then flipped out again (I guess he didn't want any evidence against him arresting an old lady) and arrested Johnson for alleged interference with the traffic stop. The entire incident was captured on body camera footage. 

Following the arrest, Johnson faced charges of obstructing governmental operations and resisting arrest. However, in April 2025, a judge dismissed these charges, citing the absence of probable cause.

 

So, what it looks like is the police officer was angry to begin with (probably someone messed with his coffee/donut time) and was looking to exact revenge on whomever it was that had the misfortune of getting in his way.  In this case, it was a lady who was recording what Officer was doing to her mother on her property.  Huh, who'd have thought that was his trigger point?

Well, as most every knows (or should realize by now) police really, REALLY hate it when people start to record them when they are doing (or about to do) something sketchy - like arresting someone for having expired tags.

The problem I have is that is seems in every case I've ever heard of, the go to charge police file against anyone is interference.  It happens so often that it's almost a joke.

So, what constitutes “Interfering with Police?”

While every state has their own definitions and some states use different terms to refer to similar offenses, such as "resisting arrest," "interfering with a peace officer," or "hindering apprehension," INTERFERENCE generally means obstructing, delaying, or hindering a police officer’s lawful duties.  

Examples include:

• Physically blocking or resisting an officer trying to make a lawful arrest or investigation.

• Refusing to comply with "lawful orders" (e.g., to step back from a crime scene).

• Trying to stop or impede an arrest, search, or investigation.

• Providing false information or lying to police when legally obligated to identify yourself.

• Destroying evidence or warning a suspect to flee.

• Using threats, intimidation, or violence against officers.

Ok, that's clear enough but what does not count as "interference?"

• Recording police performing their duties (protected under the First Amendment).

• Verbally questioning or criticizing police conduct without threats or violence.

• Standing on your own property peacefully without obstructing police movement.

• Refusing to consent to searches (you have the right to say no).

• Remaining silent or politely refusing to answer questions beyond providing identification if required by law.

Did you happen to notice that the 2nd and 3rd item on this list is EXACTLY what Christen Johnson was doing when she was arrested for "interfering" with the Officer?  Which all makes the charge of interference sound faaaaar too subjective.

So, how have some of these interference or obstructing police charges generally pan out?

Scottie Scheffler – Louisville, Kentucky (May 2024)

• Incident: Professional golfer Scottie Scheffler was arrested during the PGA Championship at Valhalla Golf Course after a misunderstanding with Detective Bryan Gillis. Scheffler claimed the detective struck his vehicle with a flashlight, leading to a miscommunication.

• Outcome: All charges, including felony assault and three misdemeanors, were dismissed by the Jefferson County Attorney, citing insufficient evidence.

Los Angeles Protesters – Los Angeles, California (June 2025)

• Incident: During immigration-related demonstrations, several individuals were charged with felony obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from reports by U.S. immigration officers that were later found to be false or misleading.

Vivian Augustus – South Whitley, Indiana (January 24, 2024)

• Incident: 18-year-old Vivian Augustus was arrested during a traffic stop for allegedly refusing to identify herself and resisting law enforcement.

• Outcome: All charges were dismissed by the Whitley County Prosecutor after video footage prompted nationwide calls for an investigation into the officer's conduct.

Ebony Holmes – Norfolk, Virginia (July 5, 2021)

• Incident: Ebony Holmes was charged with obstruction after alleging that a Norfolk officer struck her during a traffic stop.

• Outcome: A judge dropped the obstruction charge after reviewing the case.

Jose “Chille” DeCastro – Las Vegas, Nevada (March 2023)

• Incident: YouTuber Jose DeCastro was accused of obstructing a police officer while filming a traffic stop.

• Outcome: A Las Vegas judge overturned his conviction, stating the case concerned "First Amendment-protected conduct."

Kern – Cleveland Heights, Ohio (October 3, 2023)

• Incident: Kern was charged with obstruction of justice during a traffic stop.

• Outcome: The charge was dropped due to a lack of evidence, supported by body camera footage showing the officer apologizing for the arrest.

Rodolpho Vela Sr. – Harris County, Texas (September 9, 2021)

• Incident: Vela Sr. was charged with interfering with law enforcement after stepping outside his home during his son's arrest.

• Outcome: The charge was dropped due to lack of evidence, and a federal judge allowed a lawsuit against the deputy to proceed.

Ryan and Benjamin Brown – Colorado Springs, Colorado (September 25, 2015)

• Incident: The Browns were charged with interference after being pulled over for a cracked windshield.

• Outcome: The ACLU won the dismissal of the charges, highlighting concerns over racial profiling.

Jonathan Guessford – Delaware (March 11, 2022)

• Incident: Guessford was cited for "improper use of a hand signal" after warning drivers about a speed trap.

• Outcome: The charge was dismissed, and Guessford received a $50,000 settlement for the infringement of his constitutional rights.

Le'Keian Woods – Jacksonville, Florida (September 29, 2023)

• Incident: Woods was charged with narcotics offenses following a traffic stop and foot chase.

• Outcome: All charges related to narcotics were dropped, and he only faced a minor charge for running.

Teenager from Cromwell – Cromwell, Connecticut (June 4, 2025)

• Incident: A 19-year-old was arrested for allegedly speeding over 130 mph during a traffic stop.

• Outcome: All charges were dropped after body and dash camera footage contradicted the officer's account, leading to an apology from Connecticut State Police

Given the fact that so many drivers can be classified as "lookyloos" and "rubberneckers," it's probably no wonder so many people are charged with obstruction/interference what with everyone having to see what is going on.

I suspect, the bottom line to all this is if you don't want to be on the evening news, be cool and don't be a target.

...which sounds like blog post for another time...