Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ronald Preston Harper, Petitioner v. North Carolina

1

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

JUN 0 7 2023

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

No.

ai-150

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

RONALD PRESTON HARPER JR,

Petitioner

v.

NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

Appeals Court of North Carolina

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Ronald Preston Harper Jr

Pro Se

484 Cider Press Road

Manheim, PA 17545

717-469-5669

Ron@OfficialObserver.com

RECEIVED

AUG - 9 2023

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Is it illegal to criticize police in North Carolina? Do

citizens, using their God-given rights of life, liberty and

pursuing their happiness, have the right to expect that

police will respect those rights and not expect them to

immediately kowtow? If police are given the "objective

reasonableness" standard, shouldn't citizens, when

confronted with gun carrying “public servants”, be given

grace as they move from being free to being detained?

Especially as it related to the growing false accusations of

“swatting”?

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

111

LIST OF PARTIES

IV

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

IV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

v

OPINIONS BELOW

vi

JURISDICTION

vi

RELEVANT CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS

Vll

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

19

CONCLUSION

20

APPENDIX

21

m

LIST OF PARTIES

1. Ronald Preston Harper Jr, Petitioner

2. Ms. Juliane L. Bradshaw, Assistant Attorney

General, For State of North Carolina

3. Faris Dixon, District Attorney for Pitt County North

Carolina

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

1. State of North Carolina vs. Ronald Preston Harper,

Supreme Court of North Carolina, No. 324P22

2. State of North Carolina vs. Ronald Preston Harper,

North Carolina Court of Appeals, 21-752

3. State of North Carolina vs. Ronald Preston Harper,

Pitt County, North Carolina, 19CRS56608

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Cases

City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

State Cases

State v. Mobley, 83 S.E.2d 100 (N.C. 1954)

In the Matter of D.B., 714 S.E.2d 522 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)

State v. Otto, 366 N.C. 134, 136, 726 S.E.2d 824, 827

(2012)

State v. Johnson, 204 N.C. App. 259, 264, 693 S.E.2d 711,

715 (2010)

State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200, 208, 539 S.E.2d 625, 631

(2000)

v

OPINIONS BELOW

The published opinion IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF

NORTH CAROLINA, 2022-NCCOA-630, No. COA21-752

(are attached in Appendix 1) and the Supreme Court of

North Carolina, No. 324P22, Denied.

JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court of North Carolina denied review on

March 1, 2023 (see Appendix 2). This petition is timely

filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.1. This Court

has jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Code § 1254.

vi

RELEVANT CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall

issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or

vn

indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the

land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual

service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any

person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in

jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any

criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,

without just compensation.

vm

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter is about a single arrest for the sole charge of

Resisting Arrest in Winterville, NC on September 14, 2019

by Officer Jordan Cruse of the Winterville Police

Department. Petitioner was able to beat all the significant

police retaliation that followed for the 'crime' of the

Petitioner's political position of holding police accountable.

Every single moment of Petitioner's arrest and arraignment

was captured on Officer Cruse's body-cam as well as

Petitioner's wife who captured the arrest on video and is

available for the court.

Petitioner successfully sued, in part, for the right to film

police after being falsely arrested in 2004. As a result of

that experience and to avoid similar situations, Petitioner

comported his life to the United States Supreme ruling of

City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 that states "The

freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police

1

action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal

characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a

police state."

The Petitioner AKA "Public Investigator" as

stated on his business card, and outspoken liberty lover,

had business cards made with this United States Supreme

Court quote on the back, in order to hand to police and

remind them of this lawful order so that they would

conduct themselves accordingly. Petitioner also bought the

domain name OfficialObserver.com, "America's

Constitution Police", had magnetic signs made for his

vehicle, obtained a professional reflective vest prominently

marked OFFICIAL OBSERVER, and carries business cards

which have on the back, "Lawful ORDER by the United

States Supreme Court:" with the above City of Houston v.

Hill quote.

Petitioner was arrested for his political views on police.

While Petitioner was handcuffed and in the police cruiser,

Officers Cruse and Fuquay were laughing with Sgt.

2

Santiago when Officer Cruse said, "He was harassing him

because of his Blue Line Sticker." and Sgt. Santiago

responded, "He's got a Blue Line Sticker on the bumper?"

(AXON_Body_2_Video_2019-09-14_1456.mp4,states

evidence 2019-09-14 T1859:242)

At the arraignment for Resisting Arrest at the Pitt County

Detention Center, Magistrate Kim McCauley (States

evidence AXON_Body_2_Video_2019-09-14_1536.mp4,

2019-09-14 T19:37:301) was told by Officer Jordan Cruse of

the Winterville Police Department "A gentleman called and

saying he was being harassed by Mr. Harper about his Blue

Line Sticker." Later, the Magistrate asked, "The issue is

with a Blue Line Sticker?" to which Officer Cruse

answered, "I guess he doesn't like police." Petitioner quoted

City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 in the courtroom.

A few minutes later, as Officer Cruse was rolling Petitioner

out in a wheelchair because of his multiple handicaps,

3

Petitioner said, "You told her that I was exercising my

constitutional rights. I am allowed to criticize a Blue Line

Bumper Sticker without being arrested. Except here in

Winterville." Officer Cruse responded, "Ok, well you’re in

North Carolina you're not in Pennsylvania anymore."

(AXON_Body_2_Video_2019-09-14_1536.mp4, States

evidence 2019-09-14 T19:58:263)

On the way to jail for Resisting Arrest, Petitioner warned

Officer Cruse that he was going to use his First

Amendment rights to investigate Officer Cruse. If there

were any doubt about whether Officer Cruse heard

Petitioners warning, Officer Cruse, while Petitioner was

literally in jail for an unpopular opinion, searched the

internet and subscribed to one of Petitioner's YouTube

channels which features police accountability videos,

thereby communicating that Officer Cruse was going to be

monitoring Petitioner's First Amendment outlet.

4

Everything that follows was Winterville Police targeting

Petitioner as punishment for holding police accountable.

Over the next three months, Petitioner began filming a

number of Officer Cruse's traffic stops and, utilizing rights

spelled out in City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451,

protested Officer Cruse's warrant-less searches that

seemed to be predicated on racial profiling.

Unknown to Petitioner, Officer Cruse in concert with the

Winterville Police command structure, on December 17,

2019, filed a false charge of COMMUNICATING

THREATS, using a synthesis of multiple stops for a

complete fabrication. In the charging documents, Officer

Cruse said that petitioner used a finger gun and said the

quote, "I'm watching you Jordan, you asshole!" In every

instance where Petitioner was filming Officer Cruse in the

performance of his duties, he was wearing a reflective vest

5

prominently marked OFFICIAL OBSERVER and driving a

vehicle with signs that say "OFFICIAL OBSERVER,

America's Constitution Police, WARNING: Recording

Device in use". Petitioner wears the vest and has signs on

his vehicle to allay any concerns police might have while

also being visible to police so they're aware they're being

filmed.

On December 20, 2019, Petitioner went to his medical

provider to drop something off. Coincidentally, Officer

Cruse was there with his father. Petitioner got into his

"OFFICAL OBSERVER" vehicle and soon was surrounded

by multiple Winterville officers who arrested Petitioner.

The responding officer refused to use two sets of handcuffs

and the resulting rough treatment sent Petitioner to

hospital for 15 days over the next 6 weeks. While

Petitioner was in the hospital a week later, Officer Cruse

filed a Protection From Abuse petition using his on duty

activities and Petitioner filming them, along with the

6

chance meeting at our common medical provider as reasons

he needed protection. Citizen Cruse checked the box that

Petitioner should EXCLUDED from the entire 4.5 square

miles of Winterville - thereby ensuring that Petition can't

film him or he would face arrest. Appendix 3

Petitioner and his wife owned property on Forlines Road in

Winterville, NC, which is about 200 feet from the town of

Winterville proper. Officer Cruse used Petitioner's travel on

his road between their house and a fixer-upper property as

proof that he needed a Protection order from Petitioner.

Because of COVID-19 and Petitioner's health, this

unconstitutional, illegal order remained in effect for a half a

year until a hearing was held and it was dismissed at the

lowest court. Petitioner was found guilty of Resisting Arrest

and Communication of Threats and sentenced to 45 days in

jail.

7

The Protection From Abuse (PFA) petition and the

Communications of Threats were essentially the same set

of facts. The legal threshold for the finding guilty of the

criminal matter is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and yet the

judged dismissed the lesser civil matter and guilty for the

criminal.

Petitioner appealed and represented himself in a three day

jury trial where he was sent to jail at night without

paperwork for his defense and forced to wear a leg brace on

his 'good leg' during the trial. The trial judge refused to

permit side bar discussions for EVERY issue and forced the

jury to exit the courtroom, go into another room, and wait.

After awhile, the fatigue and annoyances on the jury were

evident and Petitioner was forced to make a calculation on

objections, knowing the jury was getting impatient. Also,

the prosecutor was caught walking over to Defense council's

desk and reading Petitioner's notes and the judge did

nothing about it. After finding Petitioner "Not Guilty" of

8

the more severe charge of Communication of Threats, the

trial Judge didn't release Petitioner but instead sent him

with the jailers who placed him in the back of a cruiser

without a seat belt. The petitioner who had heart attack

after being falsely arrested, slid back and forth as they

drove 'like they stole it'.

Arresting someone for the sole offense of resisting arrest

gives police the power to turn a non-criminal interaction

into a crime anytime they want. No crime happened as

evidence by the lack of charges. The lower court

incorrectly turns the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on its

head by repeating slanderous and defamatory accusations

made by caller and police. The court incorrectly uses these

lies in their decision and even at one pointed gave a

defamatory heading entitled it “Willful and Unlawful

Conduct” as though Petitioner had received due process and

was found guilty of the crimes listed. There was no law

broken and therefore Petitioner was not subject to arrest.

9

The responding police, had the power to arrest Petitioner

but they would have to prove it in a court of law! Allowing

their unproven lies to be used against Petitioner is against

the principles of “innocent until proven guilty”.

Next the court admits that there's no legal requirement to

present a government issue identification but then defines

it such a way that only a government issue identification

fits the bill.

The North Carolina Supreme court in State v. Mobley, 83

S.E.2d 100 (N.C. 1954)

The offense of resisting arrest,

both at common law and under

the statute, G.S. § 14-223,

presupposes a lawful arrest. It is

axiomatic that every person has

10

the right to resist an unlawful

arrest. In such case the person

attempting the arrest stands in

the position of a wrongdoer and

may be resisted by the use of

force, as in self-defense. State v.

Beal, 170 N.C. 764, 87 S.E. 416;

State v. Allen, 166 N.C. 265, 80

S.E. 1075; State v. Belk, 76 N.C.

10; State v. Bryant, 65 N.C. 327;

State v. Kirby, 24 N.C. 201; State

v. Curtis, 2 N.C. 471; 4 Am.Jur.,

Arrest, Sec. 92; 6 C.J.S., Arrest, §

13, page 613. See also 28 Va. Law

Review, p. 330.

The video of the arrest clearly shows that Cruse is

handcuffing Petitioner with his state issue identification in

his hand less than 10 seconds after retrieving his wallet.

11

Officer Cruse detained Petitioner so he couldn't get to his

wallet. This 10 seconds is the delay that Officer Cruse is

citing as cause for why Petitioner should be guilty of

Resisting Arrest.

The caller told lies to 911 about petitioner. “Swatting” has

become prevalent as miscreants use the 911 system to 'get'

their enemies. However, the Petitioner, knew exactly what

did or did not happened. Petitioner knew that this was not

a police matter and that the caller was angered because he

had said, “And you, a black man, while my brothers and

sister are getting abused and even gunned down in the

streets, are supporting police?!”

Officer Cruse on the other hand, wasn't there and had no

clue what the truth or facts where. The one thing Officer

Cruse did know was that the Petitioner didn't like the pro­

police Blue Line sticker and this is what motivated the

aggressive approach to Petitioner (entire exchange is on

12

video) . Officer Cruse, in his incident report, described his

actions, "I approached him and asked him to speak with

me: he replied "I'm attending to my pumping duties". I

COMMANDED him to talk to me and he turned to me"

(emphasized)

Why did Officer Cruse and Officer Fuquay rudely REFUSE

to take Petitioner's Official Observer business card which

has his name and phone along with the citation of Houston

v Hill? Officer Cruse characterized it as a “Constitutional

rights card” and never looked at the card to see Petitioner's

name and phone number, which would have been adequate

for his report. Petitioner knew that the 911 caller's debate

was a political discussion about policing in America and

that the business card, with the lawful order of the United

States Supreme Court, was directly applicable if only

Officer Cruse had approached Petitioner with an open mind

as to what had/had not happened.

13

Instead, Officer Cruse put Petitioner in handcuffs and

heading to jail within 90 seconds of contacting Petitioner.

In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) this court:

Held: All claims that law

enforcement officials have used

excessive force -- deadly or not -in the course of an arrest,

investigatory stop, or other

"seizure" of a free citizen are

properly analyzed under the

Fourth Amendment's "objective

reasonableness" standard, rather

than under a substantive due

process standard. Pp. 490 U. S.

392-399.

What about citizen's perspective while walking about

14

believing they have God-given rights of life, liberty and

pursuing their happiness? If we are to give police the

"objective reasonableness" standard, shouldn't citizens be

given time to process that they've been falsely accused and

that someone called the police and lied about them? Police

have taken an oath to protect Constitutional Rights.

Shouldn't they be required to give an "objective

reasonableness" standard when they approach a free man

who has been falsely accused?

There was nothing reasonable about Officer Cruse's

approach. In his official report of the arrest, he walked up

to Petitioner and according to his own words “I

COMMANDED him to talk to me and he turned to me"

(emphasized), clearly sending a message that Petitioner's

5th Amendment right to be silent was considered

disobedience. Watching the video of the arrest, it's clear

that Officer Cruse is totally controlling the conversation,

and between Officer Cruse and Fuquay, they rudely refused

15

to take the Petitioner’s business card nor acknowledge the

so-called “constitutional rights card” offered to them more

than a half dozen times. Shouldn't a "objective

reasonableness" standard apply to police before handcuffing

someone less than 10 seconds after reaching for his driver's

license?

In the end, the question must be asked: Would Officer

Cruse have been ready to arrest Petitioner if instead of a

pro-police bumper sticker it said something like, “SATAN

IS THE BEST”?

When talking to the 911 caller, Officer

Cruse thanked him for calling and “wished more people

would” (AXON_Body_2_Video_2019-09-14_1456.mp4,states

evidence 2019-09-14 T1859:242)

Finally, in State's evidence Axon_Body_3_Video_2019-1217_1754.mpg Officer Cruse, while training another future

officer, admits to using speed traps as a pretext for

targeting a minority community because they are “...not

16

the best of people living there...obviously."

Trainee "What did she say?"

J Cruse "She didn't have a reason

for going that fast."

"That's a speed trap right there"

Trainee "Yeah it is"

J Cruse "Because all of Reedy

Branch is 45. The main reason I

sit there though is, most people

speed through there, but I get a

lot of drugs sitting right there

'cause, uhm... Most of these

people are going to Patton Circle

right up here behind Taco Bell.

Trainee "umh."

17

J Cruse "And um, not the best of

people living there...obviously."

This is why Winterville Police Department did not want

Petitioner to continue filming, them.

18

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Petitioner lives in Pennsylvania and no longer owns

property in North Carolina as a result of the deprivation of

liberty experienced at the hands of “the system”.

Petitioner can live with this charge on his otherwise

spotless record but what about the thousands and

thousands of victims that have and will continue to be

abused by police? Ironically the Pitt County District

Attorney sent the video that demonstrates Winterville

Police is actively targeting minorities and training their

new officers to do the same.

Petitioner has spent $10,000 fighting this case and this

Writ is a “hail Mary” in the hopes that those souls who are

arrested solely for Resisting Arrest in North Carolina will

get relief.

IF this ruling is allowed to stand, millions of North

19

Carolinians will be expected, not to enjoy “Life, Liberty and,

the Pursuit of Happiness but will instead have to “yes'em

boss” whenever police come around. Can the people of

North Carolina hold police accountable? Only when this

ruling is stricken.

This grandpa of 9 grandchildren (with two more adult

children yet to produce) and descendant of Declaration

Signer John Morton, wants to leave this world with more

freedom than we currently enjoy.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner prays that the court will see that there are

literally millions of people that still live where they truly do

not have freedom and liberty as this great country is to

provide.

Respectfully Submitted,

1

U "

Ronald P Harper Jr

484 Cider Press Road

Manheim, Pennsylvania 17545

717-469-5669 ~ Ron@OfficialObserver.com

20