Mountain State Justice responds to bodycam video shared online
Her comments come days after footage of Morgantown Police Officer Matt Starsick's Oct. 23, 2024 interaction with Anthony Rowand showed up on a Morgantown Facebook group page.
Rowand is the named plaintiff in a class action First Amendment lawsuit brought against the city by Mountain State Justice in April 2024.
In the video, Starsick writes Rowand a disorderly conduct citation for being in the road at the intersection of U.S. 119 (Grafton Road) and 4-H Camp Road.
Rowand tells Starsick he's been waiting to receive a citation.
When questioned further, Rowand explains "My lawyer said I've got to get a couple of them."
His lawyer, he later confirms, is Lesley Nash with Mountain State Justice.
When asked if he and Nash are conspiring to break the law, Rowand said, "No, she just doesn't think it's right for you guys to be targeting us."
The Dominion Post reached out to MSJ about the video.
"We can't disclose attorney, client privileged conversations, but what I can say is that neither Lesley nor anyone at Mountain State Justice has ever directed a client to engage in unlawful activity, " Milnes said. "We have provided advice to clients about what is lawful, what is unlawful and what we think is going on. I don't know why Mr. Rowand phrased things the way he did, but we have not directed a client to engage in unlawful activity."
A little over a month after MSJ filed suit against the city, Morgantown City Council repealed its panhandling ordinance prohibiting solicitation of persons traveling in vehicles on public rights of way.
Even so, Milnes said, the city continues to target panhandling.
"What we saw was the Morgantown police officers began issuing tickets for the same conduct using other means. So, instead of ticketing specifically for panhandling, they're ticketing for crossing a roadway outside of a crosswalk, or disorderly conduct, " she said. "Our concern is that this is basically pretextual ; the use of other ordinances in order to continue to prevent people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech."
She also noted the city's disorderly conduct code exempts constitutionally protected activities from falling under the law.
In the video, Starsick tells Rowand the issue is not with panhandling, but the fact that he's standing in the roadway.
"I would target anybody who's standing out in the middle of a five-lane intersection for any reason, " Starsick said, later adding, "If you want to go over there to the side of the road, or to that side of the road, I don't care. You're off of the road."
Starsick later walks Rowand to the shoulder.
"I know you don't make the money over here, but man, I'd rather you make a little bit less and be safer, Ok ?" he says before leaving.
Starsick urges Rowand to question whether his attorney would care if he was struck by a vehicle and insinuates "a fu —ing payday " may be the real motive.
Milnes said that is not the case.
"I know there's a sort of allegation that Lesley or MSJ is in it for the money or something. We're a nonprofit. Our attorneys are not paid based on what cases they bring or what recovery they get in a case or anything like that, " she said. "I think that's completely unfounded."
As for Rowand's lawsuit, filings indicate the parties are directed to provide the details of a proposed settlement to the court on or before Feb. 21.
The Dominion Post reached out to the moderator of the Facebook group to ask who submitted the video but did not receive a response in time for this report.
The city confirmed that three individuals submitted requests for bodycam footage — Nash, Mike Nolting with WAJR and Todd Stainbrook.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
27 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana mom sues school district after it banned her for recording a meeting
A mom and a national public policy organization are taking her northeast Indiana school district to court to challenge a school policy they say violates her First and 14th Amendment rights. The Goldwater Institute, a conservative-leaning Arizona-based think tank, filed a complaint Aug. 12 in the Northern District of Indiana that, if successful, could overturn the school district's meeting recording policy and clarify a gray area of First Amendment law. Whitley County Consolidated Schools' policy says a building administrator must first give permission before parents and others can record private school meetings such as parent-teacher conferences. Goldwater argues that the policy is unconstitutional, saying there is "no compelling, substantial, important, or even rational reason" to prohibit parents from recording. "We think there's a clear idea that the First Amendment protects more than just verbal speech. It protects conduct, and especially conduct that's inherently expressive," Goldwater attorney Adam Shelton said. "We think that presents a very good and important First Amendment question." In a previous statement to IndyStar, district Superintendent Laura McDermott said Nicole Graves was restricted from campus for "a pattern of aggressive interactions with school staff and public commentary involving children other than her own," not for expressing concerns. IndyStar has reached out to McDermott regarding the newly filed litigation. Last year, Graves recorded a meeting with her school principal about an incident on her daughter's school bus concerning the driver's behavior. She decided to record the meeting so she could accurately recount what was said, according to Goldwater. Discontent with the principal's answers, she posted part of the recording on social media. The district then notified Graves in a letter, which IndyStar obtained, that she broke policy and was given a school grounds ban and restrictions on staff communications. The punishment has since expired. As she brings her fight to court, Graves said she is surprised it has come to this but not that the school won't back down. She said she is continuing to fight to establish better policies for parents and protect children. "This is not fun for me. This is not something I ever thought I would have to fight for," she said. "But I am more than happy to stand up and fight and talk to who I need to talk to to get things to change because I think it's important for all the families in this school district." With her four children still attending school in the district, Graves is concerned about retaliation. She said she is keeping a close eye on her children's schooling and is "terrified" the school will ban her again. The right to record public officials engaged their official duties in a public place has been solidified through previous case law. Goldwater, through its complaint, is attempting to deepen those rights by arguing that some private conversations are protected as well. In its complaint, Goldwater argues that people have the right to record meetings with government officials as long as the recording doesn't violate the rights of other private individuals and the person is lawfully present. "When it's just a conversation between a parent and a school official about their child and doesn't implicate any privacy rights of other students, we think a parent has the right to record that meeting," Shelton said. If the school restricted Graves from talking about the meeting or drafting a transcript, Shelton previously said, it would undoubtedly violate the First Amendment. He questions why a recording would be any different. The complaint also says the policy violates Graves' 14th Amendment rights to control her child's education in several instances, overlapping with their First Amendment argument. Goldwater is seeking an injunction halting the recording policy and a judgment finding the school district violated Graves' First and 14th Amendment rights. This is Goldwater's second crack in two years at clarifying First Amendment case law on recording conversations with school officials. The institute petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024 to take up the case of a Massachusetts dad denied the ability to video-record his son's special education accommodation conferences. The high court did not take up the appeal after a district court ruled the act of recording was not protected by the First Amendment. Shelton said the institute is hopeful the courts will take a full look at their arguments in Graves' case. "We think we have a very good argument here that the recording of this meeting is protected both by the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment," he said. "We look forward to expressing those ideas in court." The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Indianapolis Star
a day ago
- Indianapolis Star
Why 17-year-olds are exempt from new Indy youth curfew passed after mass shooting
Indianapolis officials have made the youth curfew two hours earlier for all children younger than 17 for at least the rest of this year. About a month after a July 5 mass shooting left two teenagers dead, the Indianapolis City-County Council voted Aug. 11 to make the youth curfew stricter effective immediately. An initial proposal that included 17-year-olds was amended at the last minute by Democratic councilors who felt that older teens should be granted more independence. The new rules mean that children ages 15 and 16 won't be allowed in public unsupervised past 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and past 9 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays. Children under 15 will face a 9 p.m. curfew every day. The city's emergency curfew will remain in place for 120 days, which means the council must decide in early December whether to extend or relax the policy. Teens who are 17 will still be subject to the state curfew of 1 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 11 p.m. on Sundays through Thursdays. The 25-person council's Democratic majority passed the amendment that excluded 17-year-olds from the new curfew despite the opposition of all six Republican councilors. "The sun doesn't even go down in the summer until near 10 p.m., and I don't think we're putting ourselves in a good position pushing 17-year-olds to break curfew at 10-10:30 p.m.," said Councilor Jared Evans, who introduced the amendment at Monday's council meeting. Republicans like Councilor Joshua Bain said that excluding 17-year-olds from the new policy weakens the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's efforts to keep people safe. "It is not the goal of IMPD to go around arresting every 17-year-old that's out at night," Bain said. "This is a targeted way for them to get in between a 17-year-old that's about to make a really bad decision and possibly ruin the rest of their life." The ordinance doesn't create a criminal offense for children who break curfew, but it does grant police the authority to detain them. The policy carves out several exceptions for kids who are returning home from work, a school activity, a religious event or activities protected by the First Amendment such as political protests, among others. IMPD Chief Christopher Bailey said he was unbothered by the change exempting 17-year-olds from a stricter curfew. (He mentioned in jest that his daughter, who is nearly 17 and has been criticizing her father at home over the new curfew, would be "very pleased.") "My direction to the officers is not some sweep of everyone that's out," Bailey said. "It's really behavioral-based." Democratic Councilor Dan Boots spoke bluntly in support of more leniency for 17-year-olds. "Seventeen-year-olds are rising seniors in high school, a step away from being able to vote and be drafted and killed for our country," Boots said. "I think they have a right to stay out past 9 to go to a movie and come back." Republican Councilor Michael-Paul Hart, who also voted against the last-minute change, introduced a new proposal Monday night that would fine parents whose children violate curfew. State law allows the city to impose thousands of dollars in fines, according to city attorney Brandon Beeler, but it's unclear how harshly violators would be prosecuted. Hart's proposal would give parents one written warning for a first violation, followed by a $500 fine for a second time and a $1,500 fine for each subsequent occurrence. Councilors will consider the proposal in committee later this month before a likely vote in September. The harsher curfew change comes after hundreds of unsupervised teens lingered downtown in the hours following the Fourth of July fireworks show, culminating in a mass shooting after midnight that killed Xavion Jackson, 16, and Azareaon S. Cole, 15. Two other teens and three adults were also injured. Four teenagers ranging from 13 to 17 years old have been charged in connection with the shooting for illegally carrying guns.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Ghislaine Maxwell Holds the Key to Trump's Murdoch Lawsuit—and Her Jail Cell
In case you haven't noticed, there is nothing more important to President Donald Trump than enriching himself. The uproar over releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files may have angered some of his base, but, remember, Trump has been covered with scandal his entire life, and it hasn't held him back. So, if you think that the only thing Trump wants from Epstein's co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell is for her to say Trump's friendship with Epstein was only a matter of their common interest in Rococo decoration, you'd be wrong. Sure, she will say something like this, but Maxwell can also put money in Trump's pocket. In the end, that will matter more to him. Here's how she'll do it. Trump has sued media titan Rupert Murdoch and others because his newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published a bawdy letter it said Trump sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday. According to the Journal article, Trump's letter was part of an album Maxwell assembled containing notes from Epstein's friends. To authenticate Trump's note and the obscene drawing that accompanied it, Journal reporters claim to have seen the album and talked to people knowledgeable about it. Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, in Palm Beach, Fla.,... Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, in Palm Beach, Fla., on Feb. 12, 2000. MoreBut Trump emphatically denies ever writing the note, including its wish for Epstein that "may every day be another wonderful secret." He sued Murdoch and the others for defaming him—for publishing false and damaging statements about him with intent to harm his reputation. Murdoch and his fellow defendants want the case dismissed. They certainly have powerful First Amendment free speech claims to make, but they may not get an exoneration so easily. Trump may be able to drag Murdoch and his empire through the mud for a while before there's any decision about whether The Wall Street Journal was telling the truth. On that score, Maxwell may hold the key. It would be one thing if the Journal had incontestable evidence that Trump wrote the letter. Murdoch and the newspaper might win a quick judgment if that were the case, but Maxwell could block that by aiding Trump. Without a quick win, Murdoch and company will face the ugly business of the evidence gathering process known as discovery. Trump will demand to pry into the inner workers of the Murdoch empire. He will seek mountains of documents, pose endless written questions, and demand pre-trial testimony from a parade of witnesses. Too often judges don't adequately police the discovery process, and it leads to endless fights, expenses, and for Murdoch, unwelcome publicity for his personal and business life. Maxwell's course to help give Trump his chance to engage in this torment is simple. Remember, Trump has no case if it turns out he wrote the licentious letter. All Maxwell has to say is that she assembled the album and doesn't recall any letter in it from Donald Trump. In the world of Trump bribery, this should be worth a commutation—a shortening—of her sentence. For a pardon, she would do better to say that she specifically recalls that Trump did not send a greeting and that the two former friends fell out because Trump felt there was something fishy about Epstein. Wait for it. It's coming. If it wasn't discussed between Maxwell and Trump's personal lawyer and now Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche during their recent long interview together, Maxwell probably doesn't need to be told what to do about it. After all, she has already received an incentive having been moved to a comfier prison. Sadly, each new Trump bribery nightmare seems to keep coming true. Some hoped he really wouldn't accept the $400 million plane from Qatar, until he did. Some thought maybe CBS would show some backbone when Trump sued it, until it didn't. And now here's the scariest thought of all. If Trump can keep his lawsuit in court and Maxwell in his pocket, Trump's Wall Street Journal lawsuit might prove to be his biggest payoff of all. Why not? Murdoch also owns Fox News. He has been Trump's biggest booster in the past, so why shouldn't Murdoch be glad if Trump's lawsuit stays in court? It becomes a perfect way for Murdoch to willingly give Trump what he wants more than anything else—money. Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
