Disgraced former Baltimore Police Sgt. Ethan Newberg has pled guilty to making at least nine illegal arrests during his time as an active police officer—and, despite damning video evidence, faces no jail time. Police Accountability Report returns to the case of Newberg with a look at two videos released as a result of the Baltimore District Attorney’s 32-count indictment against Newberg. The footage demonstrates not just Newberg’s capricious and often violent use of police power, but the culture of obedience and corruption within the police department that fosters and enables such behavior. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis discuss the wider implications of the Newberg case on not just the city of Baltimore but the question of police violence at a national level.
Production: Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing not one but two arrests by an officer who believed he could arrest someone without an underlying crime, an illegal use of police power that when you hear and see how this officer justified putting innocent people in handcuffs, I think you’ll just be stunned. It’s an example of just how dangerous the power of law enforcement can be when it goes unchecked. But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you.
And please like, share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there, and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts to show what a great community we have. And we do have a Patreon for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars. So anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.
Now, often on the show we focus on the video of a cop doing something inexplicable, jaw-dropping or just plain illegal, overreach through over-policing that needs to be exposed, but sometimes leaves us in the dark as to why it occurs at all. But now I’m happy to say that we have been able to obtain what could best be described as a video library of bad policing, a rare, and I mean rare glimpse into how unleashing unfettered police power on a community can be as poisonous as the social ills they purport to solve.
The videos themselves are the result of a 32 count indictment of Baltimore Police Sergeant Ethan Newberg. Newberg pleaded guilty to making nine illegal arrests, which were caught on body camera by the office of our former City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby. That’s why today I’m going to talk you through several videos that depict multiple arrests for simply standing on a sidewalk, talking back to an officer, and yes, allegedly running from him, which incidentally is not a crime, but it’s not just the unlawful detainment you’ll see as we review the evidence. Now, you’ll also witness, I think, with a profound clarity how bad policing works beyond the confines of a single corrupt cop. You’ll see a series of inexplicable decisions, bad faith actions, and outright illegal use of police power that will connect the dots in ways that, as I said, will pull back the curtain on how bad policing is designed to work, for lack of a better word.
Now, the first encounter begins in March of 2019. There a man had been placed on the sidewalk by police for reasons that remain mysterious. As the arrest unfolded, residents also happened to be on the sidewalk across the street, exercising their first amendment right to peaceably assemble. But shortly thereafter, Sergeant Ethan Newberg arrives on the scene and begins conversing with a fellow officer, and from there they make a fateful decision. Take a look.
Speaker 2:
This guy right here in the glasses.
Speaker 3:
Huh?
Speaker 2:
This guy in the glasses here. Remember him running from us that day?
Speaker 3:
I don’t think so.
Speaker 2:
Come on, take him.
[inaudible 00:03:48].
Taya Graham:
That’s right. Come on, take him. I mean, what does that even mean? The officers weren’t alleging the purported suspect was committing a crime or engaging in illegal behavior. In fact, the cop he talks to doesn’t even remember the so-called running crime that Newberg invokes. But they still continue without evidence. Just watch.
Speaker 2:
[inaudible 00:04:12].
Speaker 3:
Really?
Speaker 2:
Take him.
Speaker 3:
Put your hand behind your back, stop fighting.
Speaker 4:
I ain’t doing anything. I ain’t even [inaudible 00:04:38].
Speaker 2:
Disorderly.
Speaker 4:
Come on bro. You don’t got no right to lock me up, bro.
Speaker 2:
Well, that’s funny because I’m locking you up.
Taya Graham:
Now, I just want you to think about what you just witnessed, not just the act that despite the lack of evidence and multiple officers who participated in this illegal arrest, but something even more troubling. That a government, our government aided and abetted in the illegal caging of a human being, that this group of officers at the behest of a democratically elected government use the powers conferred upon them to illegally take a man’s freedom. Just look.
Speaker 4:
I think you don’t got nothing, bro. I’m just trying to… just chilling, bro.
Speaker 3:
You got nothing down here Keyshawn?
Speaker 4:
Come on, bro. I don’t got nothing, bro. I don’t know why I’m getting arrested, bro. Come on bro. I ain’t do nothing to this man.
Speaker 3:
Face me. Face me.
Speaker 4:
Ain’t do nothing to this man, bro.
Speaker 2:
Hey, you want to run him in?
Speaker 3:
Yeah.
Speaker 4:
No, wait.
Speaker 3:
Come on.
Speaker 4:
What the fuck, bro?
Speaker 3:
To the car, to your left. Where’s your car at?
Speaker 2:
You know me bud. You know better than that.
You got to show off? What happened?
Taya Graham:
Now remember, because this man that only Newberg recognized as a runner was never ID-ed, there is no confirmation that this is the same man. And again, simply running when you see a cop isn’t a crime. And you may have also noticed that the officers did not find anything illegal on his person. So now after illegally arresting one man, Newberg continues to threaten others. Just watch.
Speaker 2:
You guys going to walk? There’s plenty of room. Take a walk. Say something. I want you to.
Taya Graham:
And then of course Sergeant Newberg lied. And believe it or not, he did something even more troubling. Just look.
Speaker 4:
Can you tell me why I’m getting locked up?
Speaker 2:
I already told you why you’re getting locked up. Disorderly. You put my officer’s safety in jeopardy. You incited a crowd.
Speaker 4:
I’m over here, bro. Oh my God.
Speaker 2:
You incited a… you better take a walk. Okay, I’m going to treat you like a child on a count of three and then I’m going to put you in timeout.
Speaker 4:
Hey, yo.
Speaker 2:
Oh God.
Taya Graham:
Seriously? Time out? I’m going to treat you like a child? All of this, all of this, while he and the other officers laughed like this whole ordeal was funny, caging a man and twisting the law to suit their needs was just a lark, a fun story to tell the other officers at the water cooler later. But this is just the beginning of what I promised at the top of the show because just one month later, Newberg and his colleagues were at it again. This time in a different part of the city, both the exact same MO. Take a look.
Speaker 2:
He is. He’s going to bolt. Hey boss.
Hands behind your back. Put your…
Taya Graham:
Now notice that Sergeant Newberg does not ask the man to comply or says a single word about why he’s doing what he’s doing. He doesn’t announce or identify himself. Instead, he immediately turns to force as the arrest unfolds, grabbing the man by the shoulders without explanation. But that’s just the beginning of how this crime, and it literally was a crime, unfolds. Just look.
Speaker 5:
I am not going nowhere.
Speaker 3:
I see you guys, it’s fine.
Speaker 2:
Can you? Thank you.
Speaker 5:
[inaudible 00:08:51].
Speaker 2:
1032 is 2000 block of West Pratt. He’s in custody, 1032.
Taya Graham:
Now at this point, we have a man who at the time has committed no crime that we can see. And Officer Newberg and the other cops who violently took him to the ground seemed to have no idea exactly why they stopped him. But that didn’t prevent a massive show of force to effectuate the arrest.
Speaker 2:
It’s a warrant? Is it a warrant? What is it?
Speaker 5:
It’s nothing.
Speaker 2:
Negative.
Speaker 5:
What?
Speaker 2:
Get him ID-ed.
Taya Graham:
And then even though police had already made an illegal arrest, they decided to make another. A bystander who took issue with their illegal actions is arrested as well, a fellow resident of my city cuffed because he spoke up when he saw injustice. Just watch this.
Speaker 2:
[inaudible 00:09:49].
Taya Graham:
Now after making not one, but two illegal arrests, things get really interesting. That’s because when a supervisor comes to the scene, he asks a simple question, “Why did you arrest the man who is now forced to sit on the sidewalk?” And Newberg’s answer is stunning. Just listen.
Speaker 2:
With him? What’s that?
Speaker 6:
Casanso the primary? Who’s-
Speaker 2:
No, no, it was me and Valdez had it.
Speaker 6:
Okay, all right. All right. So y’all good? You okay?
Speaker 2:
He just fought us.
Speaker 6:
All right, so-
Speaker 2:
He fought us like he did the last time.
Speaker 6:
So we’ll get a car about… then we’ll clear this up. We’ll get car out to come do the UFF, if it’s one. What’s he wanted for?
Speaker 2:
He was the one these last couple of days ran from me and I saw him in the store. He was going to bolt again because the last time I had him stopped, he gave a bunch of different names and date of births that didn’t match. So that’s when he fought and ran last time. And I recognized him. I knew it was going to turn out… I knew he was going to fight. Stack, I guarantee nothing comes back on that info he gave you.
Speaker 3:
Yep, that’s all I’m waiting for them to come back down.
Taya Graham:
Okay, so let’s break down the crimes that prompted police to make a violent arrest. One, he allegedly ran from Newberg. But can you blame him? And two, he gave conflicting addresses and three… well, there was no three. But tell me this, what of any of this justifies a violent arrest? And why on earth would you need a dozen cops to put this man in cuffs? You saw the same man I did. Compliant, confused, just another person suffering the poverty and mental health issues in my city. Why would the supervisor simply accept the officer’s answer and not probe deeper, demanding details to justify the use of force in handcuffs and the exceptional waste of nearly 10 officers to control the scene? But again, there was no pushback at all. In fact, officer Newberg decides to light a cigarette and again, delight in the suffering of another Baltimore resident. He and the other officers are basically celebrating a useless, violent and illegal arrest.
Speaker 2:
What do you got? A warrant on you?
Speaker 5:
No, I don’t have a warrant on me.
Speaker 2:
So what’s your deal?
Speaker 5:
Because dude, I was down there, working in the corner for the people.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, but what about here? Did you started fighting here too? I don’t understand.
Speaker 5:
Because I didn’t really know what was going on and I see-
Speaker 2:
So I mean I guess that means you can fight the police.
Speaker 3:
I guess.
Speaker 2:
I don’t understand. What’s going on here?
Speaker 6:
Yeah. Unified police officers were enough for me.
Speaker 3:
People don’t run and carry on like that for no reason.
Speaker 2:
That’s what happened last time that we-
Speaker 3:
That’s not you. Nice try.
Speaker 2:
It’s the same thing when he fought me last week when he got away from me. How many times you rode from me during all this? Three times?
Speaker 6:
No. So his first thing-
Speaker 3:
Twice.
Speaker 2:
Twice? I told you he was going to fight.
Speaker 6:
Y’all want to switch now?
Speaker 3:
Yeah, that’s what I told him.
Speaker 6:
All right.
Speaker 2:
I told you. Hey, I tell you he was going to fight, bro. I told you.
Speaker 3:
He wasn’t going to get away. He wasn’t going to get away.
Speaker 6:
Dude, he wasn’t going anywhere. Dude, he was clogged up like a vice grip.
Speaker 2:
He was trying to fight in the beginning though. I got to give him credit, he was fighting.
Taya Graham:
So as I said at the beginning of the show, there is something unique about these videos when it comes to understanding policing and specifically how it goes wrong. Because what we just witnessed was a literal failings of cops executing crimeless arrests that have little to do with public safety. In fact, this is a textbook example of what happens when you trade the desire to be safe for basic constitutional protections, a policy that looks like it took half the police force to execute even as police partisans in our city and others argue we are desperately short of officers.
Seriously, I can’t even count how many cops it took to put this nonviolent man in a set of handcuffs. But there is much more to this story than just a couple problematic arrests, a history of how this policing came to be and how it affected the people who were subject to it, which we will be discussing shortly. But first, I need to speak to my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who has been delving into some of the important records regarding this case, which reveal even when police are charged with crimes, there are loopholes that allow them to evade punishment. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
So Stephen, you’ve been digging into the payroll records for the Baltimore City Police Department. Tell me what you’ve uncovered.
Stephen Janis:
Well, it’s really interesting. Baltimore City has a database of employee salaries. It goes back years. So I looked into Ethan Newberg and he got paid in 2019 after he’s indicted. He got paid in 2020, over a hundred thousand dollars a year. He got paid in 2021 over a hundred thousand a year. So he’s charged with all these crimes, these offensive crimes that we’ve seen against people of the city and the city taxpayers were still funding his salary. I can’t think of anyone, any of us who had a job who did what he did would actually get paid for it. So yeah, he had two-
Taya Graham:
So wait a second. While this case was making its way through the legal system, he was being paid?
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, yeah. I mean it’s kind of amazing. It’s right there in black and white. I’m showing you on the screen, roughly $200,000, this guy was making money. And I think what happened is in 2021, he might have retired. A lot of police do that. They get charged with something, they write it out until retirement, and then they take two thirds of their last salary so he could conceivably be making 60, $70,000 a year in a pension, which cannot be taken back because of criminal charges. So really he did quite well, thanks and courtesy of the taxpayers that he was arresting.
Taya Graham:
Stephen, as a reporter who’s covered policing in cities like Baltimore, what do you make of what you just saw and how does it jive with your reporting and your experience?
Stephen Janis:
Well, it’s funny because I think there we saw the total futility of this idea, that just unleashing police on a neighborhood would somehow tamp down crime. Because really when you leave police to their own devices in this situation, I think they picked the easiest target. And in that sense, I think we saw how they just bully someone, book a stat, put them in the back of the car and feel like they did some work, which really isn’t true. And I think that in a sense, like you said in the script, this was a glimpse into something that people have never seen before. For me it was like that, even though I’ve reported on it and written about it and written about tons of bad arrests. For me, it was kind of the first time I’ve seen how that mentality and the psychology of zero tolerance just makes people do bad policing. But I’m going to throw this one back at you Taya, because you actually lived in a neighborhood that was under that kind of policing. So why don’t you give us some sense of what that was like?
Taya Graham:
Stephen, that’s a really interesting question. Let me try to answer it, but I might have to leave my basement and my bookcase.
So for once, I’m the one outside. I’m here in my old neighborhood on Middle Street, just a block down from where I used to live on Mira. And as I would take the bus to work and walk home, I was often stopped by a police officer. I’d be asked to provide ID, I would be asked where I had come from and where I was going. And you would think this is really inappropriate to be asked these questions and provide papers. Well, it’s because of something known as zero tolerance. For about a decade in my city, people were stopped for crimes like loitering, for drinking an open container of beer on a stoop, not having ID or believe it or not, expectorating, which is spitting. Now these kinds of crimes which are considered quality of life crimes or low level crimes or nuisance crimes, they were used to try to stop more violent crime in our city and it resulted in over a hundred thousand people a year being arrested, people just like me.
Take a look around. Does this look better? Does this look healthier to you? Does this look like a community that’s thriving? Well, I have to say, it doesn’t look like this kind of policing really made this community stronger. Now, I’m not saying policing is the cause of all ills, and I’m not saying there’s a solution to all ills, but I am saying it had a devastating effect on this community and it had an impact on people like me. And let me say this, I have to thank the cop watchers out there because they showed me that I had the right to say no. I had the right to say I don’t have to provide ID. But now thanks to cop watchers and a lot of people who’ve been advocating for change, we can.
Okay, now that I’ve given my little tour, I think I’m about to embark on what might be the most important rant of my life, an argument I will make about the broader implications of the arrest that we have just witnessed, that I dare say is the whole reason this show exists. But first I want to make another important point about our show. Often when I try to analyze the broader implications of bad policing during this segment, I get a little pushback. People who disagree or think I push things a bit too far or just simply don’t like the way I frame my arguments about a variety of phenomena that I believe are tied to bad policing. Among them are the people who thought that my discussion of the high price of asthma inhalers as an intrinsic part of an unequal system that fuels rampant inequality and by extension bad policing was just a step too far, that I should stick to talking about the cops and not the inequality in our economy.
So they disagreed with that analysis. Fair enough. But let me say this, I am more than okay with that. In fact, I invite it. I mean the whole reason we produce this show is to generate discussion. Better yet, embrace a fulsome debate and thoughtful disagreement on a variety of issues. I read your comments because I want to understand. I need your comments because I want to learn. So even if I disagree with your disagreement with my work, I welcome your thoughts. To me, it’s not the sign of some sort of deeper problem that we can’t agree on everything. In fact, it makes me feel more assured in my work when you push back and say, “Hey Taya, wait a second, here’s another way to think about the issue.” It’s okay to disagree. It’s okay to criticize. All we have to agree on is that we all have the right to respectfully debate and express ourselves.
So keep on commenting because I welcome you, even if you disagree with my analysis of the information I present. Okay, I had to get that off my chest before I said this. Now, as you’ve just witnessed, the indiscriminate arrest powers deployed by the police and the video we just dissected was not the result of some random decision by a couple of cops. It was not, to be clear, the result of a couple overeager officers trying out illegal arrests as some sort of devious sociology experiment. No. It was in fact an intentional government policy based upon the dubious premise that has wreaked havoc on this country for decades. An idea that is so powerful, it is in part responsible for most of the acrimony surrounding the debate over law enforcement that continues to prevent clear-headed thinking about the difficult task of keeping our communities safe.
Namely this, more cops mean less crime, more aggressive policing is even better. And when cops don’t do their jobs, crime goes up. I mean, that’s the idea that’s been the impetus behind some of the worst aspects of American policing that I can think of. It was a core philosophy behind zero tolerance that turned my former neighborhood into a wasteland. It’s the primary imperative that encourages cities to allocate the bulk of their budgets to new cop cars. And it’s why even in rural communities like Milton, West Virginia, the police budget swelled into the single largest line item for a town mired in poverty. Now wait, again, I can hear the naysayers saying, “But Taya, what about the last few years? Police departments struggled with staffing while crime went up.” The protests against policing across the country in the wake of George Floyd’s death and many other victims made cops too afraid to do their jobs, and as a result, crime was rampant.
Well, not really. That’s not the whole story because while it’s true that police departments have had problems filling jobs and staffing in some departments like our own city’s has dropped dramatically, there is something curious that happened as law enforcement struggled to fill vacancies. A change in the rate of crime that belies the argument that more cops automatically equals more safety. That’s because while cops kept quitting, crime went down and not just down by little, down by a lot. Murder dropped at the fastest rate ever according to statistics released by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, crimes of violence dropped practically in every major city in the country. Now, there are some caveats. For example, in our city, car thefts are way up as [inaudible 00:22:58] really take advantage of the lack of security of Kias and Hyundais, for example. And the perception that crime is up, which is also important, continues to linger.
But again, big picture, crime is actually down across the board even though there are less police on the street. And as we reported in our last show, Ethan Newberg himself says police are taking the proverbial knee because according to him, effective cops like himself are being prosecuted for doing their jobs. I’ll stay no comment on that assertion. In fact, in this just released audit of overtime spending by the Baltimore Police Department, we learned that the agency has a record 762 vacancies, and yet city leaders just held a press conference touting a 20% drop in homicide. How does that happen in a world where aggressive policing is the elixir to the crime laden anxieties of police boosters who would have us place a cop on every corner? It just doesn’t make sense, which is why I said at the beginning of this rant, this might be one of the most important arguments I’ve ever made.
The reason we have so many videos, so many examples, and so much over-policing is based upon the simple premise that the recent crime stats have made dubious at best that somehow some way crime can only be stopped by throwing more cops and more money and having more law enforcement. And when that’s not enough, tell them to book stats, make more arrests, lock up more low level offenders, lock up more innocent people, and as a result, crime will suddenly disappear. As I said earlier in the show, that attitude has led to some of the most unimaginative public policies in the annals of human history. I mean, why in my city where vacant homes are more prevalent than well-paying jobs, have we spent billions, and I do mean billions, putting cops on the street and paying them hundreds of millions of dollars in overtime? Why do we have brand new SUV cop cars roaming around neighborhoods that are blighted to the point of terminal despair?
And for those who might’ve missed our last report, why do we pay officers like Sergeant Newberg over a quarter million dollars a year? I mean, all the rhetoric surrounding policing, defund, underfund, refund, I don’t know, take your pick, drives right past a simple point. Does it work? Can it ever work? Is it the most effective and just important fiscally sound prescription for reducing crime? Will we be better off taking some of that money and funding other priorities that might actually build something like a park or community garden, afterschool programs, a mental healthcare center, or maybe we should even just pass the cash out to residents to spend on themselves? And please don’t start posting comments about how I am surreptitiously touting some sort of clandestine socialism. I’m talking about making our communities healthier and therefore safer. And I’m just making a point about what I’ve witnessed firsthand.
Investing in policing instead of the people is emphasizing chaos over community. Showering cash on cops prioritizes punishment over productivity and trying to solve complex social problems by locking them away and throwing away the key puts our minds, our communal creativity in a cage of our own making. This is why if I achieve anything through doing this show, I want to dispel the myth that the relationship between crime and cops is as simple as police partisans would want you to believe, that our country’s addiction to law enforcement is as pernicious and implausible as a flat earth geolocation system that not only doesn’t make sense, but is flat out delusional. Okay, that pun might’ve been intended. It’s actually a point Stephen made 10 years ago when he co-wrote a book with a former Baltimore homicide detective called You Can’t Stop Murder. The book recounted how a detective who was steeped in constitutional policing during his career was shocked after he retired and taught at the city’s police academy.
There he administered a test to sergeants and lieutenants on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. They all failed, every single one. But it gets worse. He discovered at that same academy, the top brass was training officers to be soldiers, not students of the law or investigators. It was a process he felt was far field from the best and the only way to prevent future crimes, by solving the crimes of the past. This again, was a rare glimpse inside how American law enforcement intentionally abandoned the principles on which our country was founded. It’s a firsthand look at how often the expedient desire for some sort of fix for rampant poverty and communal abandonment was effectuated by cops chasing innocent people, making bogus arrests and otherwise sowing chaos with cuffs and their capriciousness. Well, as the book pointed out, it won’t work. Because two years after the book was published and its warnings were ignored, Freddie Gray died in police custody.
My city was set on fire, figuratively and literally. And the world watched as our police department tried to justify the death of a handcuffed man who died in the back of a van after being chased, yes, chased, because officers didn’t like the way he looked at them. Interesting that four years later they were still doing the same thing. And that’s why we’ll keep reporting on bad policing, and that’s why we’ll keep reporting for you because someone has to tell the truth and try to build hope for something different no matter how painful that can sometimes be. I have to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece and for going to my old stomping grounds and interviewing me. Thank you so much, Stephen.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
And I want to thank mods of the show, NOLA D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you and a very special thanks to our accountability report Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R., David K., Louis P., and Lucita G., and super friends Shane B., Pineapple Girl, Chris R., and Matter of Rights. And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you.
Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
