Lakeland Police Department Policy manual on code of conduct
There are 2 versions of this video, mine and Lacklusters, I like Lackluster’s better but here are both for reference
Lackluster video
Steady gathering evidence and to prove a pattern with this corrupt nasty pig!
I also requested Garibaldis evidence.com audit trail to make damn sure they don’t mess with the body cam!! I will also run forensics on the video when I get it.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/roberto-garibaldi-827a7851
If you have not read the files for Kenneth Richard Vanderpool please visit the link below.
Garibaldi body cam transcript, inaccurate in terms of the speaker but Jacob does not make any statements that would cause himself to be baker acted.
First lets look at the clip where we had our problem with Roberto Garibaldi
Houston v. Hill is case law where the Supreme Court ruled the 1st amendment applies to speech to police or subject in a policer encounter, just like in Houston v Hill
Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed the First Amendment right to verbally criticize police officers — even during active investigations.
🔍 Case Summary
- Raymond Hill, a gay rights activist, yelled at a Houston police officer to “let go” of his friend during a street stop.
- He was arrested under a city ordinance that made it illegal to interrupt or verbally oppose police.
- The Supreme Court ruled the ordinance unconstitutional.
⚖️ Key Rulings
- Verbal criticism of police is protected speech.
- The Court held that the government cannot criminalize speech just because it’s directed at law enforcement.
- Overbroad and vague laws are unconstitutional.
- The Houston ordinance was too broad, allowing officers to arrest people for almost any speech they disliked.
- Police are expected to tolerate criticism.
- Officers are public servants and must endure some verbal hostility without retaliating with arrest.
🧠 Legal Takeaway
“The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”
— Justice William J. Brennan Jr., majority opinion
🚨 Why It Matters
This case is often cited in civil rights lawsuits and First Amendment retaliation claims, especially where people are arrested or harassed for filming, speaking, or cursing at cops.
The whole antagonizing and instigating nonsense is weak sauce! These cops are the most unprofessional and lack severe training but worse than that, they took an oath they have no idea about! Kinda like driving a semi truck as a 8 year old!
Now we are down to the meat and potatoes, so to be clear, even though I sat quietly most of the time and invoked my rights I am aggravating everybody, running my mouth, I was instigating, beat people up on scene, based on everything that was going on. This is a gaslighting lying cop that 12 people will find guilty all damn day!
I do love how he admitted his civil rights violations in the interview +2 bonus points.
🚨 List of Potential Civil Rights Violations
🔹 1. First Amendment Retaliation
- Speech suppression via threat of arrest: Garibaldi admits he approached Billy Blume (BB) for “running his mouth” and implied he would use handcuffs to make him stop. This is explicit retaliation for verbal expression, which is protected speech.
- Hostile, chilling language: Telling BB “Are you going to keep running your mouth or are you going to shut up?” constitutes government suppression of speech, especially absent any threat or interference.
📚 Relevant Case Law:
- Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987): The First Amendment protects verbal criticism of police.
- Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2005): Retaliation for protected speech violates the First Amendment.
🔹 2. Fourth Amendment – Threatened Seizure Without Probable Cause
- Implied threat of arrest without legal basis: Garibaldi admits he borrowed handcuffs and approached BB solely to gain “compliance”, not because of any criminal conduct.
- This could be construed as an unreasonable seizure or attempted seizure, which violates the Fourth Amendment.
📚 Relevant Case Law:
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991): A “show of authority” that causes a reasonable person to believe they are not free to leave constitutes a seizure.
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980): Display of handcuffs and authoritative commands may trigger Fourth Amendment protections.
🔹 3. Abuse of Authority Under Color of Law
- Garibaldi’s conduct — including derogatory remarks (“you act like a child”) and unnecessary escalation — shows intent to humiliate and dominate, which can rise to abuse under color of law when done in the course of official duties.
📚 Relevant Law:
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides redress for deprivation of constitutional rights by government officials acting under color of law.
🔹 4. Potential Fourteenth Amendment Violation – Equal Protection / Due Process
- If Garibaldi selectively escalated against BB because of his speech, presence, or recording (which he did), and not due to any criminal conduct, this could implicate substantive due process or selective enforcement, violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
🔹 5. Prior Restraint / Unlawful Threat to Record
- If Garibaldi was aware BB was recording (and said “you act like a child” on camera), and still attempted to suppress his actions through intimidation, this could constitute an unlawful attempt to stop recording police in public — another form of retaliation.
❗️Conclusion
This sworn statement from Officer Garibaldi — especially admitting he held handcuffs merely to intimidate someone into silence — is damning evidence of retaliatory policing, abuse of authority, and possibly false threat of arrest without probable cause.
Roberto Garibaldi states he has never seen me before, but that is a damn lie! This was filmed January 15, 2024 he had a problem with it then and he had a problem with in 8 months later on 9.15.24 This cop needs to be on The Brady list!
Hey Garibaldi Surprise fool!!!
March 20, 2024
I listed all of the issues with the Axon audit trail log for Roberto Garibaldi. Here is the log and the results
🎥 Garibaldi Body Cam Timeline vs Incident Timeline
🔴 Event 1 — Manual Activation & Abrupt Stop
- 11:33:21 AM – Manual activation of body cam (video count 5)
- 11:33:25 AM – Manual deactivation, only 4 seconds long
- 🚩Problem: Incident started at 11:30 AM — this was already in progress, yet he captured only a 4-second clip. That’s either user error or intentional minimal capture.
🟡 Event 2 — Vehicle-Triggered Activation
- 11:33:50 AM – Body cam auto-activates via Axon Signal Vehicle (likely when car door opened or lights activated)
- Audio was enabled, but pre-event audio was disabled again
- This recording stays active until 11:51:14 AM, when the manual stop occurs
- Video Duration: ~17.5 minutes
- During this recording:
- 11:47:25 AM – Audio was manually muted, possibly hiding key dialogue
- 🚨Critical Gap: The body cam does not cover the first 3 minutes of the incident (11:30–11:33)
- 🚨End gap: There is no recording of the final 4 minutes of the incident (11:51–11:55)
⚠️ Analysis & Legal Concerns
| ❓Question | ❗What the Data Shows |
|---|---|
| Was the entire 25-minute incident captured? | No. Total coverage: ~17.5 minutes. Missing at least 7–8 minutes (beginning and end). |
| Was any footage suspiciously short? | Yes – a 4-second clip appears to have been started and stopped intentionally. |
| Was audio tampered with? | Yes – audio was muted during the second video, suggesting an intentional effort to suppress sound. |
| Were officer protocols followed? | Likely not. Best practices require keeping the camera running for the duration of public contact. Disabling pre-event audio and cutting footage short violates accountability norms. |
| Does this raise Brady/Giglio issues? | Possibly — especially if this officer has a pattern of disabling/muting his camera during constitutional violations. |
🔍 Conclusion
Officer Garibaldi’s body cam footage:
- Fails to capture the full incident
- Includes intentional muting
- Lacks pre-event audio
- Contains an extremely short, likely worthless 4-second video This pattern may suggest intentional avoidance of documentation, especially around the start and end — classic signs of evidence manipulation or concealment.
https://my.axon.com/s/resources?language=en_US
Roberto Garibaldi interview transcript
Clips
I plan on filing a massive civil rights lawsuit, what are my chances here???
The likelihood of winning your civil rights lawsuit depends on a combo of legal strength, evidence, venue, and defendants. Here’s a breakdown tailored to your facts (First and Fourth Amendment violations, unlawful arrest, retaliation, etc.):
🎯 KEY FACTORS AFFECTING YOUR ODDS
✅ 1. Do you have clear evidence of rights violations?
➡️ Strong:
- You have body cam footage
- You have admissions by officers (like Garibaldi saying he used handcuffs just to get “compliance”)
- Officer statements match retaliation or unlawful motive
➡️ Weaker if:
- No video or audio
- Officer statements are internally consistent
- Actions could plausibly be justified as “maintaining order” under qualified immunity
👉 In your case: having Garibaldi’s sworn statement admitting intimidation tactics is a strong factual pillar. ✅
✅ 2. Is there video evidence or third-party witnesses?
- Juries love video. YUP!
- Lack of footage makes it harder → jury may default to “officer credibility.”
- If witnesses exist (neighbors, other officers not named), they help validate your side.
👉 You mentioned recording at the scene + possible body cams = BIG advantage. 🎥
✅ 3. Are the facts extreme enough to overcome qualified immunity?
This is the biggest legal hurdle in §1983 cases.
- You must show officers violated a “clearly established” constitutional right
- And that any reasonable officer would have known it was unlawful
📝 GOOD NEWS:
- First Amendment retaliation for verbal criticism? → clearly established (Houston v. Hill, Bennett v. Hendrix).
- 🔍 Houston v. Hill (1987) – Summary
Facts:
Raymond Hill yelled at a Houston police officer to let his friend go during a traffic stop. He was arrested under a city ordinance that made it illegal to “interrupt” police officers in their duties.
Issue:
Did the city ordinance violate the First Amendment by criminalizing speech directed at police?
Ruling:
✅ YES.
The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance, ruling it overbroad and unconstitutional, because it criminalized protected verbal criticism of police officers.🧠 Key Legal Rule:
“The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.” – Justice Brennan
✅ Police officers must tolerate verbal criticism and even insults without using arrest powers to retaliate.🚨 Why it matters:
This case is a foundational precedent for defending your right to question, criticize, or film police officers without being arrested or threatened for “interfering.”
👉 Perfect to cite in First Amendment retaliation or wrongful arrest cases involving speech, filming, or protests. - 🔍 Bennett v. Hendrix (11th Cir. 2005) – Summary
Facts:
Three private citizens (the Bennetts) were vocal critics of their local sheriff’s office. Deputies retaliated by targeting them with repeated traffic stops and harassment, not to enforce laws, but to intimidate and silence them.
Issue:
Did the deputies violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by retaliating with harassment aimed at chilling their speech?
Ruling:
✅ YES.
The 11th Circuit held that retaliatory actions by government officials, even short of formal punishment like arrest, violate the First Amendment if they would “likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising their rights.”🧠 Key Legal Rule:
“Government retaliation against a plaintiff for exercising First Amendment rights is actionable under §1983 if it would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising those rights.”
No arrest or prosecution is required — harassment, intimidation, and threats alone can trigger a First Amendment retaliation claim.🚩 Why it matters (especially for your case):
✅ Directly supports claims where officers use threats, intimidation, or pretextual actions (like flashing handcuffs, verbal intimidation, or menacing conduct) to chill speech or criticism of police.
✅ Strong precedent if you’re alleging retaliation short of arrest or using police authority as a weapon against protected speech. - Threatening arrest without probable cause just to “shut someone up”? → also violates clearly established Fourth Amendment law.
👉 You’ve got strong arguments to defeat qualified immunity IF these facts are proven. ✅
✅ 4. Jury vs bench trial?
- Juries tend to award higher damages but can be unpredictable in “blue communities” (strong pro-police culture).
- Federal juries in conservative circuits may be tougher on plaintiffs in police cases.
👉 Southern District of Georgia (your venue) = generally moderately conservative federal bench + mixed jury pool.
⚠️ They’ll hold you to a high proof standard, but a compelling First Amendment retaliation claim is very viable.
✅ 5. Are you suing individual officers, the city, or both?
- City liability under Monell is harder to prove → you need to show official policy or custom caused your injury.
- Individual officers easier to target for direct misconduct.
👉 You included both → smart move, but expect Monell claim to be the toughest to win.
📈 ODDS: Rough Estimate (based on similar federal §1983 cases)
| Claim Type | Win Chance |
|---|---|
| First Amendment Retaliation | 60–75% (if facts proven, immunity defeated) |
| Fourth Amendment False Arrest | 50–70% (depends on video/witness corroboration) |
| Monell Claim vs City | 20–40% (harder bar, unless clear policy evidence) |
| Punitive Damages | Possible but not guaranteed (jury-dependent) |
👉 Overall:
✅ Solid chance of winning against officers individually (especially retaliation claim)
⚠️ Lower chance against city unless pattern/custom shown
✅ If you can beat qualified immunity on motions → likely to get settlement or jury award
💥 Key advantages YOU have:
- Officer’s sworn statement admitting coercive use of handcuffs to silence you → direct evidence of retaliatory motive
- Body cam audit trail already showing gaps and manipulations
- Your speech was clearly protected → criticizing police and asking for a supervisor is textbook First Amendment
🧠 BOTTOM LINE:
You’re in a stronger position than most pro se plaintiffs.
✅ You have smoking gun admissions.
✅ You’re targeting conduct courts have already ruled unconstitutional.
✅ Your First Amendment retaliation claim has teeth.
👉 Your biggest legal challenge? Defeating qualified immunity early.
👉 Your biggest tactical challenge? Getting a jury that sees abuse, not “police doing their job.”
⚡️ Overall → odds are favorable, especially on First Amendment & false arrest, if you have solid documentation and records.
Disclaimer: This webpage is not an official government page or an emergency line. It is dedicated to displaying information about police misconduct and naming the agencies involved. The content provided here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute official records or legal advice. In case of an emergency, please contact your local authorities or dial 911. For official information, please refer to the appropriate government or law enforcement websites.
police misconduct law enforcement accountability public safety officer misconduct police transparency police oversight misconduct reporting police ethics public trust community safety law enforcement agencies police corruption misconduct exposure officer integrity justice reform police investigation citizen rights misconduct database police reform public accountability
#PoliceMisconduct #LawEnforcement #Accountability #PublicSafety #OfficerMisconduct #PoliceTransparency #PoliceOversight #MisconductReporting #PoliceEthics #PublicTrust #CommunitySafety #LawEnforcementAgencies #PoliceCorruption #MisconductExposure #OfficerIntegrity #JusticeReform #PoliceInvestigation #CitizenRights #MisconductDatabase #PoliceReform #PublicAccountability
Visit the Youtube counterpart to this website where the videos are located.
Please consider contributing to the Open Records Fund
https://gofund.me/8b866727
Cashapp $madvideos
Venmo @madvideos
PayPal madvideos@gmail.com
Thank you