He videotaped police officers’ excessive force. So why is Kansas City prosecuting him?

In the midst of nationwide protests to denounce aggressive police tactics, Kansas City is prosecuting a witness to police brutality.

Roderick Reed videotaped portions of an arrest that led to the recent indictment of two officers with the Kansas City Police Department. In the process of recording the alleged assault by the officers, Reed was ticketed for a minor traffic violation and failure to obey a lawful order.

The questionable citations always appeared retaliatory and without merit. Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker credited Reed’s video with helping bring criminal charges against the officers involved.

In February, Kansas City Municipal Judge Keith Ludwig threw out the traffic charge but found Reed guilty of failure to obey police instructions to move his vehicle from blocking traffic.

Video from Reed’s phone clearly showed there was little traffic to impede. He eventually moved to the side of the road but continued to film the incident.

“I was guilty as soon as I walked into the courtroom,” Reed said.

After the verdict was handed down, Reed requested a new trial. Why was he found guilty in Municipal Court? Ludwig and city prosecutors are not allowed to speak publicly about the case, city officials said.

Now, a measure sponsored by Kansas City Council members Katheryn Shields, Ryana Parks-Shaw and Brandon Ellington would permit the recording of police without fear of prosecution.

The proposed city ordinance would prevent law enforcement officials, firefighters and other public employees from restricting the right of people to record police. The measure is expected to pass out of committee on Wednesday and then be sent to the full council for vote on Thursday.

As Gwen Grant, president and CEO of the Urban League of Greater Kansas City said, law-abiding citizens should never be arrested, charged or convicted for using their mobile devices to record the actions of police in public settings.

“We do not live in a police state,” she said. “Never should any local ordinance obviate our right to free speech as set forth in the First Amendment.”

While Reed never should have faced retaliation for simply hitting “record” on his cellphone, the proposed ordinance would be a good step toward protecting the basic rights of all citizens.

Attorneys with the City Prosecutor’s Office are scheduled to take Reed to trial in late July. They should rethink that plan.

Reed is a good Samaritan who witnessed two police officers slamming a transgender woman’s face into the pavement while she was handcuffed and pinned to the ground. Because the Kansas City Police Department has not seen fit to deploy body cameras, Reed provided crucial evidence showing what appears to be excessive force.

Recording questionable police interactions with criminal suspects is not actually a crime.

“Unfortunately, our municipal judges take the position that a police officer can tell you anything, and you have to do it, or you will be charged with a crime,” Shields said. “Citizens have the right to observe with their eyeballs or film police with their phones as long as it doesn’t interfere with police.”

Jackson County Circuit Judge John Torrence will hear the city’s argument that Reed failed to obey police officers who arrested Brianna “BB” Hill last year.

Thanks in large part to Reed’s cellphone footage, Kansas City police officers Matthew Brummett and Charles Prichard were recently indicted by a Jackson County grand jury in connection with Hill’s arrest.

Prosecutors charged Brummett and Prichard with fourth-degree misdemeanor assault. Both were summoned to appear in court in August and now face up to a year in jail.

The footage from the May 24, 2019, incident provides a damning close-up of the violent encounter.

“I thought I was doing the right thing,” Reed said.

He was. And if Reed’s reward for documenting police misdeeds is potentially 30 days in jail, a $350 fine and 50 hours of community service, the justice system is indeed in need of reform.

“Why would anyone be a witness to a crime?” he said.