Friday, December 2, 2011
Everything Else Kid Handcuffed for Not Wearing Helmet at New City Skate Park
Posted by Bianca Phillips on Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:25 PM
When skateboarder William Faulhaber was dropped off by his father at the new city skate park on Friday, November 18th, he assumed he'd be leaving a couple of hours later when his dad came back to pick him up. Instead, the 12-year-old left in handcuffs. His offense? Not wearing a helmet.
Just a few minutes after William's father Hans dropped his son off, Memphis Police officer Otto Kiehl arrived at the park and handcuffed William for not wearing a helmet. In a video of the arrest, taken by an unknown bystander, Kiehl is shown walking William to his squad car in cuffs, as he says, "I will be arresting every time I come by. I will be arresting somebody, whoever is not wearing a helmet."
Several onlookers protest the arrest, yelling "There's n*** getting raped and stabbed, and you want to arrest little kids" and "You need to be fired!"
Although the officer said he'd be "arresting," William was not taken to jail. The officer put him in a squad car and drove him home, but he was given a juvenile summons and must appear in court for criminal trespassing.
According to the summons, Kiehl says he made an announcement on his PA system advising "that it is illegal to use this facility without a helmet." It doesn't say what time that announcement was made, but Kiehl does state that he came back fifteen minutes later and made another announcement, and nearly all skaters not wearing helmets had stopped skating, except for William.
However, William's father said his son never heard an announcement. He believes William may have been dropped off after the first warning was made.
"It didn't occur to me until later that William couldn't have been there for the warning," Hans said. "He didn't know anything about that."
There are several rules posted outside the skate park, and one of those does suggest skaters wear helmets, but currently there is no law against not wearing a helmet. The Memphis City Council is expected to vote Tuesday on a proposed city ordinance mandating that skaters and cyclists wear helmets, but once passed, violators will face a $50 fine. The ordinance language does not state anything about arresting violators.
Kiehl drove William to his father's house and explained to Hans why his son was taken out of the park in cuffs. Because there's no law against not wearing a helmet, William was charged with criminal trespassing.
"I wasn't really that upset about it until the officer said he was going to write a summons. That means I have to appear in juvenile court. It also means I have to engage the services of an attorney, which I've already done," Hans said.
"The cop keeps telling me it's not going to matter. It's not going on his record. He said he was more or less being arrested to be made an example of. But it is a big deal, and it became a bigger deal when I saw the video," Hans said. "When my son showed up on my doorstep, he was standing beside the cop. But [on the video], when my son was put into the squad car, he was handcuffed."
William didn't have a helmet with him because he'd forgotten it at home, Hans said. And although his father agrees with the park's helmet rule, he thinks the officer went too far.
"I don't disagree that helmets should be worn. Helmets are a good thing. They protect you from skull fractures. But I disagree with the way this went down," Hans said. "I'm sure the cop carries a cell phone. Why didn't he just call me and have me come to the park?"
Cindy Buchanan, director of Parks Services, couldn't comment on this situation without input from the Memphis Police Department, and they were unavailable at press time. But Buchanan did confirm that the Memphis Police are charged with enforcing the rules in city parks, and she said the helmet rule is among the most important at the park.
"We're very excited to have a skate park, but we also know that you have to take safety precautions because skateboarding is not a risk-free sport. People are always trying new things and taking risks," Buchanan said. "We just want [skaters] to have fun and be as safe as they possibly can."
Read more on this story in next week's print edition of the Memphis Flyer.
Comments (43)
Showing 1-43 of 43
I think arresting the minor was a bit much. Heck, they didn't even arrest the Councilwoman's son for possession, they just gave him a summons.....maybe William Faulhaber's father needs to run for City Council.
Let's see no City Ordinance about wearing a helmet to use the park, so just what law did young William break? Officer Keihl, don't you really think there were some other crimes you could be going after folks for that might just have a slightly higher priority?
It's things like this that really make you wonder just how hard is it to qualify for the MPD?
like
dislike
Spend an afternoon in the emergency department at leBonheur, then talk about the seriousness of not wearing a helmet when skate boarding.
Geezz, folks. The officer was trying to be helpful. Grow up.
John, no one is faulting the officer for attending to the young man's safety, the issue here is with his methods. If he's got a big enough heart to try to teach a kid a lesson about helmets, then he ought to know he could have resolved this another way.
The officer is a friend of mine and a truly kind human being--I just got off the phone with him and he's up in Covington volunteering on a dog rescue tonight. I wear my helmet when skating at the park and make all the minors I know wear theirs. I hope Otto remains vigilant. I'd rather have kids (and parents) get hassled than read about a paraplegic ex skater in this or any other paper.
To the parent: Hans, if you need help with the case, let me know--I'm sure something relatively painless can be worked out.
Well-intentioned though he may have been, the officer clearly went too far.
State law, for example, already requires that anyone under 16 wear a helmet while bicycling. That law makes it an offense punishable by a small fine to violate it, but it only authorizes a warning for a first offense and a citation for a second or subsequent offense. Instructively, for this purpose, it also PROHIBITS a police officer from arresting (or placing in custody) anyone who violates it, regardless of how many times they've done so.
I never knew there was such a thing as a statute that prohibited a police officer from doing anything. Bike-riding kids must have a very powerful lobby.
People don't seem to understand criminal trespass. You don't have to be breaking a law while trespassing to commit criminal trespass. You simply have to be somewhere you aren't authorized. As soon as you break the rules of the park you are no longer authorized to be there. The officer warned the people breaking the rules, and left for a while to give them the opportunity to put on a helmet or leave. When he returned he arrested someone. Kudos to this officer. He could have saved this kid's life. I wear my helmet when I skate at the park ALWAYS. These kids are not used to this type of terrain because we've never had anything this nice in Memphis before. Safety first!
Let's talk about the real issue. Why is this kid at the park without a parent or guardian? He's 12. That is too young to be at the skatepark by himself. Parents need to step up and take part in their children's lives instead of using activities as a babysitter. This is a city park. It is not a privately owned space where who comes and goes can be moderated. Want to keep your kids out of trouble? Spend time with them.
Arresting a person for something that is not a crime is called false arrest...and it is itself a crime. If this article is correct the cop's actions violated the law, and since we seem to be hell-bent on arresting everyone where are the cuffs for him?
What Bubsc said. Old Skater's engaged in just a wee bit of "I'm a cop; the law is what I say it is"; you know, like when a cop trumps up charges to cover his/her own butt (e.g. resisting arrest). Maybe he thinks he's working for Mayor Bloomberg's private army. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20… No judge (at least not one who's faithful to his/her oath) would uphold what OS is advocating.
The sign says very clearly that all skaters must wear helmets. Doesn't that make not wearing one criminal trespass?
Good grief, talk about chickenshit overkill. Handcuffing a 12 year old for this? Memphis (and the mid south)are never going to overcome being the little redneck node of ignorance and stupidity that we are. Never. I really need to start looking for a job out west and move. This place sucks.
Scott: not IMHO. There would have to be an ordinance or statute specifically codifying the helmet requirement before someone could conceivably be arrested for violating its mandated use, and even then, as the state bike statute indicates, an arrest wouldn't be justified, especially not when the violation in question has so little to do with public order or the safety of others. People who violate the seat belt law aren't arrested (in fact the law prohibits that), nor are they arrested for violating the motorcycle helmet law.
In the meantime, nothing would prevent someone in authority (a city worker or even a police officer) from evicting someone from the park for violating the requirements for its use, though not forcibly. They're already empowered to, and do, do that in various park facilities from swimming pools to golf courses.
It concerns me, as I'm sure it does you too, how we, as a society, are increasingly becoming a police state, with conduct being criminalized that doesn't need or deserve to be and law enforcement being given, de facto, power, authority and discretion far beyond what they need (and what we want them to have) to maintain public order and safety.
If parents do their jobs and people observe the rules then the police don't have to step in. People give the police that power and authority once they decide to ignore the rules.
The bottom line is that a parent should have read the rules, enforced them on his/her own kid and not left the park since the park rules state that kids under 12 must have a guardian present. Two weeks ago a user sustained a serious head injury at the park and will be off his board for 4 months. He was fortunate it wasn't worse. I am glad the officer made an example of the kid, albeit extreme, because splitting your head open on the concrete is a very serious deal.
Our City just gave us a $500K gift in this park, users can show some gratitude by obeying some pretty simple rules.
Scott: I'd rather live free or die. I'm sick of this nanny-state mentality. What I risk - my brain, my life - is none of your damned business, nor of Officer Otto's.
But hey - this is a city park. If there is a rule requiring helmets, so be it. IANAL, but if lack of a helmet (or violating other rules) is in fact criminal trespass, that fact should also be on the sign. Otherwise - why criminal trespassing? What crime was committed? Why does he need to be "made an example of", and who authorized this "example making", and why?
On another topic: if the city passes a helmet ordinance, officers will use a lack of helmet to shake people down - just like the seat belt law. I wear my seat belt - in fact I think everyone should. I just don't think the government should have the power to toss my vehicle for not wearing it (aka "easy end run around the 4th amendment").
You simply cannot legislate common sense, and trying to do so always backfires in the long run. By "backfires" I mean "erodes freedom". Keep this shit up, and some bureaucrat (with a cousin in the helmet business of course) will decide that pedestrians would likely survive accidents better if *they* wore helmets: helmet law for sidewalks. Then they'll look at falls in the bathroom: helmets on toilets. End game: helmeted from the cradle to the grave.
Bah - guess I'm cranky today ;) Like Packrat, I sometimes wonder about the wisdom of living here...
The important things to note are that there is a fence around the park, and there is a sign stating that helmets are mandatory (whether a specific rule or a law is immaterial in a trespass case). These are very important in trespass cases in TN. Do some research, folks. The officer wasn't making things up as he goes along. Arresting someone was an option all along. It is a tricky thing, I admit. He was arrested for trespassing because he wasn't wearing a helmet and the skaters not wearing a helmet were previously asked to leave. He was not arrested for not wearing a helmet. He was arrested for staying after being told to leave. His defense is that he wasn't there during the warning which may or may not turn out to be true. It is a fine line, but it is a defined one.
"The sign says very clearly that all skaters must wear helmets. Doesn't that make not wearing one criminal trespass?"
No.
There are right ways to handle things and wrong ways to handle things. Unfortunately, many agents-of-the-state do not know the difference. There seems to be a lack of what grandma calls 'common sense' among them. The cop could have just told the young man to step outside the skating area and then called the young man's father. Instead, the cop deliberately made a spectacle. I wonder if he moonlights on the UC-Davis campus.
Whether Otto took things too far is a matter of personal opinion but I know one thing for sure, he did not do it to harass the skaters--I can personally attest that Otto is above that.
The bottom line is that helmets are required to be worn while skating at the park and for good reason. If young (or old) rebels don't want to wear helmets, go skate somewhere else.
@ Everyone who seems to want to comment on the issue of parenting rather than the content of the article - I can assure you that William's parents thought that he had his helmet in his backpack. I can also assure you that there are plenty of people at the park to look out for him, older friends, friends' parents, etc. This is coming from a family member, from William's twenty year old sister. It infuriates me that people in this thread find it necessary to insult my parents and their concerns with safety. My parents paid $100 for a new D.O.T. certified helmet for me over the summer since I bike everywhere. I assure you that safety is not low on my parents' laundry list for me or my brother. They are glad that wearing helmets is something being enforced, they are not happy with the way the situation was handled. According to other skaters, my brother included, and my father - William was dropped off in between the time of the announcement and the time the officer returned to make arrests. A warning would have been sufficient, William could have called my father to bring his helmet to him. Now my family has to fork over a stupid amount of money for an attorney and submit to a court date.
When I asked William about his experience being arrested, the first thing I asked was if he was read his Miranda rights. He asked me what that meant and when I rattled off the list, "You have the right to remain silent, etc, etc" we all know it. He told me he was not read them. Unacceptable.
Scott - this is not about Otto being a good samaritan or a good cop. it is not about him rescuing dogs in his free time. it's about the fact that he put arresting a child in priority over catching someone who should legitimately be arrested. we live in memphis, one of the most dangerous cities in the united states. i'm sure someone was being shot at the same time william faulhaber was arrested. will that person be caught? probably not. this article says way more about the memphis police department than it does about people needing to be safer while skateboarding.
I find it particularly ironic that part of the raison d'etre for the skate park was to give skaters a refuge, a place where they could skate without fear they would be hassled by the police, as they frequently are when they skate in public spaces. I guess someone forgot to tell the police that.
As the parent of a 15-year old skater that frequently gets dropped off at the skatepark I have to agree with William's sister. This is not about parenting. I am concerned about the safety of my son and prefer that he wear a helmet. I also know that there are friends and other skaters he knows there to watch out for him, and yet, the next day after this happened I dropped my son off at the park thinking that he had his helmet which he did not. Now we make sure he has his helmet every time which is a good thing. How the situation was handled leaves something to be desired. I would be very upset if this had happened to my son. Why did William need to be made an example of? It is nice that Otto was concerned about William's safety but please, if that was the case did he really have to take it so far? Several good points have been brought up. Couldn't he have called his father to come pick him up? Couldn't he have given his father a warning first or written him a citation? You don't take people to jail for not wearing a seat belt.
Putting a 12-year-old in handcuffs for not wearing a helmet is just wrong. I don't care who you are or how many stray puppies you save. I've always heard that you should judge your date by the way he or she treats the waitress. Officer Otto may be the nicest guy around, except when he's handcuffing little boys. He should admit he made a mistake and learn better ways of handling this situation. His friends should take him aside, not defend his behavior.
Hopefully the judge will toss this out and reprimand the officer. He deserves it.
Kristi, I'm glad that you prefer that your child wear a helmet but I've skated the park many times since it's been open and very few youth are wearing them, even if they have them with them. It seems to be a matter of being "cool".
Every skater that refuses to wear a helmet is disrespecting the tireless efforts of those that lobbied for and won us the skatepark. Furthermore, they are impeding current efforts to get the park lit for evening skating.
AND, this is absolutely about parenting. I would no sooner allow my kids to climb a cliff without a harness, rope and helmet than let them skate without a helmet in bowl where they could very easily fall from more than 10' onto their cranium.
This is a public facility and liability will ultimately fall on the taxpayer. There is not a single privately run skating facility that does not mandate the use of safety gear. The City will not be able to insure the park if they can't demonstrate that EVERY effort is being made to enforce the use of safety equipment. Again, Otto's actions may seem harsh, but what would you have him (or the City) do? Let someone get seriously hurt before they make it clear that helmets MUST be worn?
As for the inconvenience to the family, I doubt seriously that a lawyer is required--I'm fairly certain that the charges will be dismissed and, if not, the most punishment that might be meted out would be picking up the litter (caffeine drink cans) that disrespecting skaters have been leaving lying about their new playground.
I've been at the skatepark when the police make the helmet announcement. I've watched as a lot of kids bitch and whine about helmets to the police officer, trying to make their case, while the helmeted kids use the time to get in twice the play. I got the feeling the cops don't want to bother with the skatepark one way or the other, but they've been told this is what they're expected to do.
I also know that if a twelve year old breaks his head open at the park, helmet or no, laws or no, there'll be a apocalypse of lawyers on his parents' doorstep within minutes telling the parents how much money the city can be made to pay them.
There's not a fix. There's not some magic arrangement that'll suit everyone. There's not even an arrangement that would upset everyone equally. There are a lot of disparate needs and wants that have to be mashed into a decision that the Ungoverned will think serves enough of what they imagine 'the public' to be. Then there'll be some ordinance that will be used or ignored as serves a case-by-case situation.
It's not an option of arresting kids or letting them bust their heads open. Those without helmets should be forced to leave, not arrested. I haven't been to the skatepark, so I have to ask - are there no park employees on duty? They should be the ones checking helmets at the gate, forbidding entrance to anyone without a helmet, and tossing those who skate without wearing one.
Unfortunately, Jeff, there are no park employees present, nor will there ever be funding for it. The bottom line is that skaters must self regulate and barring that the City (MPD) needs to make 'em.
Oh my. All I can say is, if I were a young personal injury lawyer on the hunt for my first big payday, I'd find me a bench at that park and wait. It's coming.
Seriously, how can they even open the park without regulated access and supervision? How can you have rules and no one to enforce the rules? The police are there to enforce the law, not park rules.
This isn't a basketball court. It's more like a public swimming pool. This is a disaster waiting to happen.
1. Someone is going to get hurt. 2. A judge or the city's insurer is going to force them to staff the place. 3. There won't be money to staff it. 4. The skatepark will close and be filled with concrete or dirt.
This all comes down to one thing, the cop was wrong. Period. Warn the kid, ask him to leave, call his parents, or any half dozen other solutions, but placing this kid in hand cuffs and "arresting" him is flat out wrong.
The MPD just released their official statement late today regarding the boy's arrest. I am disappointed to note that the police chief and the mayor back the officer 100%. I don't think this is over yet. The officer was wrong. Instead of a court summons, the family should get an apology.
Skateparks are all over the country (I've skated 'em), and they don't have full time attendants or drama like this.
If your kid skates the park and you aren't there to supervise them...do a quick pass by the park and see if they're wearing the helmet you bought them. No? Take the board away for a while. That trick always worked for my dad when I was a kid.
Kids get dropped off at parks all the time. I had to take care of a kid at a skatepark once because another kid decided to throw something at him. I took care of him, but it shouldn't have been my responsibility. It should have been the parent that wasn't there.
MKB: I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked! Shades of the UC Davis police chief and chancellor, both of whom rushed to the defense of the pepper-spraying cop.
Jeff: your comparison to a public swimming pool is spot on. The police would never arrest someone just for running around a city swimming pool, even though that's one of the posted rules. By the same token, the city would never operate one of its pools without on-site supervision. The major cause of premises liability is the failure of the owner/operator to adequately monitor those premises. If the city can't afford on-site oversight of the skate park, then it can't afford the park.
I can't help but think that part of the motivation for the treatment this skater got (and the city is apparently now defending) is a remnant of the attitude that skaters are stoners, slackers or otherwise second-class citizens, which, except in Scott's case (:-), is shameful.
I just hope people start wearing helmets so we can keep our park out of the press, and keep our park.
Better get an attendant if you want the rule enforced - like a lifeguard at a swimming pool.
If the rules state you are required to have a helmet, then that's the way it is. Put one on or stay out of the park. You have the freedom to choose. Or you can build one in your own back yard and make your own rules. So what if an officer arrested someone, he didnt beat him with a night stick, he took him home and brought attention to the problem. I guess he should have listened the first time the officer warned them. The first time an inexperienced skater busts his skull all we'll see is comments on why the rules weren't enforced and that they should close the park down.
I thought they wanted to build more skate parks, but if it's to big of a hassle this will probably be the first and last. Follow the rules or stay home and stop your whining and don't ruin it for everyone.
I, for one, absolutely abhor nanny state policies and over-reaching rules. While this particular rule appears to be reasonable and sensible, it is still no grounds for placing someone in hand cuffs (this is the over-reaching, nanny state aspect).
I'm sure Marty (and attorneys everywhere) will disagree, but I feel that if someone chooses to ignore/disregard/flat out disobey the posted warnings and skate without said helmet, then all bets are off. If you get injured, you have no grounds what so ever upon which to sue the city, or anyone else for that matter.
I'm not a lawyer, Merc, but posting a sign doesn't and shouldn't remove your liability. What if I can't read, or didn't notice the sign? What if you put up a sign to save yourself the cost of installing basic safety systems?
Bottom line - there needs to be park employees on site to enforce the safety rules, just like a public swimming pool.
Who is liable? The city for providing an amenity to give people a place to skate that is free from traffic and helps to protect businesses and skaters from trespass issues, or the nitwit that got on a board without a helmet?
I really do understand the reality of our litigious society, but just feel that a bit of common sense should apply. The nitwit mentioned above has taken all liability upon himself, IMHO.
It's along the lines of me choosing to work in places that are generally dangerous doing potentially fatal things. I have assumed a certain amount of liability and determined that it is worth it for me to continue to do what I do. I would not consider suing my employer if I broke one of their rules and became injured. I broke the rules. A little personal responsibility goes a long way. On the flip side, proper maintenance of the park is far more important than arresting people without helmets for protecting the city, as I see it.
These are my perceptions :-)
Cops like skaters like Republicans like Obama. This was nothing more than an ego-boosting power trip, and the "example" was to shake up the other children to respect the law.
If this was my son, we'd be in court for the summons, and then in court again to sue the officer, the MPD, and the city for the violation of miranda during arrest, unlawful arrest and/or kidnapping (he took this kid from where he was without parental consent), and interrogation of a juvenile without the presence or consent of his legal guardian. (how'd he get the kid's father's name?). If a cop arrests a juvenile, don't they have to go to the station? Can they just drive them to some house or hotel? At what point is Social Services involved?
Or the cop could just apologize publicly. And maybe attend some training for dealing with juveniles. And how to conduct an arrest.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
