Home › Forums › Rhode Island › Cranston Police Department › Officer Andrea Comella
- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 weeks, 4 days ago by
CBKN76.
-
AuthorPosts
-
CBKN76KeymasterIncident Overview and Video Footage
On September 2, 2018, Anselmo Morales-Torres – a 32-year-old Providence resident – was conducting a self-described “First Amendment audit” outside the Rhode Island National Guard headquarters in Cranston
. Morales-Torres stood on a public sidewalk filming the facility with his phone. A National Guard security guard spotted him and reported a “suspicious person” to local police
. In a video later posted online (titled “Tyrant Alert: First Amendment Auditor Illegally Detained”), Cranston Police arrived and confronted Morales-Torres about his activities
. The video shows a Cranston officer approaching Morales-Torres after about 15–16 minutes of filming
. She tells him, “We got a call for a suspicious person… This is kind of suspicious behavior,” referring to him recording a government building
. Morales-Torres calmly explained, “I’m just taking some pictures and video… gathering content for a story,” asserting that he was an independent journalist exercising his First Amendment rights
.
When asked why he was filming the National Guard facility, Morales-Torres replied, “For my own purposes”
. He stated he had “no ill will” or intent to harm anyone
. The officer, however, expressed concern, saying “if you’re in front of a government building and you’re filming – it might be cause for concern who you are and if you intend to do anybody any harm”
. She told Morales-Torres, “I can’t take your word for it – I’m going to ask you to ID yourself. Until I can determine you’re not committing a crime I’m going to ask for an ID”
. Morales-Torres refused to produce identification, asserting “unless I’m suspected of a crime I don’t need to provide an ID”
. This led to a prolonged verbal exchange captured on video, in which both Morales-Torres and the officer insisted they needed to “review the laws”
. Morales-Torres repeatedly asserted that filming a public building from a public area is lawful and that he was not obligated to identify himself without legal cause
.
As the interaction continued, the officer grew increasingly insistent. She warned Morales-Torres that refusal to identify would “rise to the level of obstruction of justice”
. In the footage, Officer Andrea P. Comella (badge #516) – later identified as the Cranston patrol officer on scene – tells Morales-Torres multiple times that he must provide ID or face arrest for obstruction
. Morales-Torres stood his ground, stating he was on public property and had a right to film a public building on a public sidewalk
. He also explicitly said, “I have no ill intent” and identified himself only as “an investigative journalist” working on a story
. At one point he asked Officer Comella to call a supervisor to the scene
.
After several minutes of back-and-forth, additional Cranston officers arrived as backup
. The situation escalated when Officer Comella and other officers moved to detain Morales-Torres for failure to comply. The video shows police making physical contact as Morales-Torres objects: “Don’t put your hands on me – I do not consent to any seizures or searches”
. He can be heard protesting, “This is an illegal detention because I am a private citizen gathering content for a story”
. Morales-Torres repeatedly asserted that the officers were violating his rights and said he would file a formal complaint against them
. Ultimately, the officers grabbed his camera and placed him in handcuffs. The video ends with Morales-Torres seated on the ground, surrounded by Cranston police
. According to arrest records, Morales-Torres was taken into custody and charged that day, despite his on-scene insistence that he was being unlawfully detained
.
Officers Involved and Their Roles
Officer Andrea Comella was the primary Cranston Police officer who responded to the scene and initiated the confrontation with Morales-Torres
. Comella is the female officer visible in the footage, and she was the one who questioned Morales-Torres about his activities and demanded his identification. According to reports, Officer Comella arrived roughly 16 minutes after Morales-Torres began filming and took the lead in engaging with him
. She articulated the suspicion (a person filming a government facility) and repeatedly pressed Morales-Torres to produce ID, warning him that refusal could constitute obstruction
. When Morales-Torres continued to decline, Officer Comella decided to detain and arrest him. Video evidence shows Comella eventually grabbing Morales-Torres’s arm and conducting a frisk “for her safety” once he refused to comply, then attempting to seize his phone camera
.
As the incident unfolded, additional Cranston police officers arrived on scene to assist. The exact number and names of these backup officers have not been officially released (the police chief initially declined to name the officers involved, citing safety concerns
). However, the video and eyewitness accounts confirm that multiple officers participated in surrounding Morales-Torres and effectuating the arrest
. These officers helped physically restrain Morales-Torres when he refused to put down his camera, and they placed him in handcuffs while Officer Comella took the lead in giving commands
. One of the responding personnel was likely a supervisor, since Morales-Torres had requested “a supervisor” during the encounter
, though it’s unclear if a ranking officer arrived before the arrest or only afterward. In any case, the collective role of the additional officers was to provide backup, secure the scene, and assist Comella in detaining Morales-Torres. They can be seen in the video surrounding the suspect and taking control of his equipment and person once Comella decided to make the arrest
. All told, Officer Comella was the arresting officer who initiated the stop and decided on the charges, while the other officers (whose names were not publicized) carried out supportive roles in subduing Morales-Torres and transporting him following the arrest. Morales-Torres later indicated he would be filing a complaint against all the officers involved in what he called an unlawful detention
.
Charges, Criminal Proceedings, and Outcomes
Cranston Police charged Anselmo Morales-Torres with obstruction of justice (obstructing an officer in the execution of duty) and disorderly conduct as a result of this incident
. Officer Comella formally accused Morales-Torres of hindering her investigation by refusing to identify himself, and of acting disorderly during the confrontation
. After the September 2, 2018 arrest, Morales-Torres was held for arraignment. He was initially released on bail, but the legal saga did not end there. Just days later, Morales-Torres undertook another “audit” at a different location – the Woonsocket police station – and was arrested again under similar circumstances (police said he refused to leave a restricted back-area of the station)
. This second arrest in Woonsocket, coming so soon after the Cranston incident, had significant consequences. Because he was out on bail from Cranston, the new arrest led to his bail being revoked; as a result, Morales-Torres was jailed for several months awaiting trial on the charges
.
Facing the prospect of extended pre-trial detention, Morales-Torres ultimately entered a plea deal rather than contest the charges at trial
. In early 2019, he pleaded guilty (through a plea bargain) to the misdemeanor charges stemming from the Cranston arrest
. According to his own account and court records, the court sentenced Morales-Torres to one year of probation on the obstruction and disorderly conduct counts
. No jail time beyond the months he had already served was imposed; instead, he was given a suspended sentence with probation, allowing his release but marking a conviction on his record
. Morales-Torres later lamented that he “pled guilty to a crime he did not commit,” indicating he felt coerced by the circumstances (sitting in jail with a trial many months away)
. It appears that by April 2019, the Cranston case was resolved via the plea agreement, bringing the criminal case to a close.
Criminal outcome summary: Morales-Torres’s refusal to ID himself during the Cranston audit led to his arrest and two misdemeanor charges. Those charges were not dropped; instead, after a second similar arrest complicated his situation, he agreed to plead guilty. He received a sentence of 12 months’ misdemeanor probation (and likely fines or court costs) for obstruction of an officer and disorderly conduct
. In other words, he avoided additional incarceration but conceded to a guilty finding in exchange for time served and probation. This outcome was reported on Morales-Torres’s own YouTube channel “Auditing America,” where he informed his followers of the legal result
. The case did not go to trial, so no judicial ruling on the merits of his First or Fourth Amendment claims occurred in the criminal court.
Internal Repercussions and Civil Litigation (or Lack Thereof)
After the incident, Morales-Torres indicated he would file a formal complaint against Officer Comella and the other officers involved, alleging misconduct
. It’s unclear the extent to which any internal investigation was conducted by the Cranston Police Department. The Cranston Police did not immediately comment to media on the incident – at the time, a department spokesperson declined to provide details, and the Police Chief (Col. Michael Winquist) even refused to publicly name the primary officer involved (Comella) due to “safety concerns” amid intense public backlash
. The arrest video went viral in the “First Amendment audit” community, and the Cranston Police reportedly received a flood of complaints from citizens who believed Morales-Torres’s rights were violated
. According to one report, the stream of phone complaints to Cranston PD was so large it “nearly disrupted the department’s operations” in the days following the video’s release
. This public outcry put pressure on the department to review the conduct of its officers.
Despite the controversy, there is no evidence of formal disciplinary action against Officer Comella or any other officer arising from this incident. The department never announced any punishment or remedial training stemming from Morales-Torres’s complaint. In fact, Officer Andrea Comella continued to serve in the Cranston Police Department and was even recognized in 2020 with a Distinguished Service Award for her performance in the line of duty
. This suggests that internally the department did not deem the September 2018 incident as requiring discipline – or at least, not discipline severe enough to derail her career. Chief Winquist, when asked by reporters, defended his officers’ concerns for security (given the sensitive nature of the National Guard facility) and did not concede wrongdoing. There was no public apology to Morales-Torres.
Morales-Torres, for his part, did not file a civil lawsuit against the Cranston Police (at least not successfully). Because he ended up pleading guilty to the charges, it would have been difficult for him to pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit – a legal doctrine (the Heck v. Humphrey precedent) generally bars civil claims that would imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction. Since his conviction was not overturned, suing the police for false arrest or First Amendment violations would face legal hurdles. There are no records of a §1983 civil rights suit by Morales-Torres against Cranston as of the latest updates. However, the incident did contribute to a broader conversation in Rhode Island about citizens’ right to record public officials. Local civil liberties groups took note. It was reported that around that time, community organizations and the RI ACLU urged police departments statewide to adopt clear policies affirming the public’s right to record police activity
. (In fact, even before this incident, in 2014, nine RI organizations sent a letter to all police chiefs reminding them that “members of the public have a First Amendment right to video record the activities of police officers, as long as they do not directly interfere”
.) The Cranston incident – and another high-profile recording incident in Providence shortly thereafter – underscored that some officers were still unfamiliar with these principles.
From 2019 to present, Morales-Torres has remained an active (and polarizing) figure in the First Amendment audit community under the moniker “Auditing America.” Following the Cranston case, he continued to conduct audits at various public buildings. In July 2019, for example, he attempted an audit at Warwick’s Buttonwoods Community Center, prompting that city to post signs restricting filming in certain areas
. Media coverage in late 2019 described Morales-Torres as “no newcomer” to this game, noting he had been arrested twice within a year (the Cranston and Woonsocket incidents)
. Those articles suggest Morales-Torres at times seemed eager to provoke litigation or settlements (“cash in”) from these encounters, though in the Cranston case he did not obtain any civil settlement
. There is also an indication that the Department of Homeland Security itself took notice of such incidents: in 2018, DHS’s Federal Protective Service issued a nationwide memo reiterating that the public has the right to photograph the exterior of federal facilities from public forums
– guidance that directly aligns with what Morales-Torres was doing. This DHS order (HQ-ORO-002-2018) reminded security personnel that “photography and videotaping, absent a criminal predicate, is a First Amendment protected activity”
. The Cranston arrest, involving a citizen recording a military building, exemplified the tension that memo sought to address. In summary, since 2019 there have been continuing discussions and training in Rhode Island around First Amendment audits, but no public indication that Cranston Police disciplined the officers or that Morales-Torres received any vindication beyond the court of public opinion.
First Amendment Rights Analysis
Was Morales-Torres engaging in protected First Amendment activity? Most likely yes. Filming government buildings and officials in public spaces is a form of information-gathering and expression safeguarded by the First Amendment’s guarantees of free press and free speech
. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (whose jurisdiction includes Rhode Island) has explicitly affirmed that “a citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”
This principle was stated in the landmark case Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011) and has been widely accepted across the country. In Morales-Torres’s scenario, although he initially was filming a building (and not yet the police themselves), the same rationale applies: he was openly recording matters of public interest (a National Guard facility) from a public area. Such recording is generally protected as long as the person is not trespassing or truly interfering with security operations. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security’s 2018 directive to federal security officers explicitly notes that “the public has the right to photograph the exterior of federal facilities from public forums”, and that officers must “maintain security without adversely impacting the public’s rights relating to photography.”
. In short, absent special restrictions or a genuine security threat, Morales-Torres had a constitutional right to film what he could see from a public sidewalk.
It does not appear that Morales-Torres was in any restricted area – he was on a public sidewalk adjacent to the facility’s front gate
. There were no signs forbidding photography. Simply labeling his behavior “suspicious” did not strip it of First Amendment protection. Courts have held that the First Amendment protects photography and recording as a form of speech and press, which serves the vital role of informing the public about what their government is doing
. Unless Morales-Torres was filming with nefarious intent (for example, as part of a criminal plot), his recording activity in itself was lawful and protected. The Cranston officers, however, arguably treated his filming as a crime in progress. Officer Comella’s own words on camera – “I can’t take your word… Until I can determine you’re not committing a crime, I’m going to ask for an ID”
– suggest a presumption that filming a government building might be criminal until proven otherwise. This is the opposite of how constitutional rights work: exercising a First Amendment right (like news-gathering through video) cannot be grounds for detention absent specific evidence that the person is committing or about to commit a crime. Morales-Torres asserted he was “gathering content for a story”, i.e. a journalistic endeavor
. Even if the officers found that explanation odd, the First Amendment does not allow police to demand identification or stop someone simply for engaging in photography of public buildings
.
By arresting Morales-Torres and seizing his camera, the Cranston officers likely violated his First Amendment rights. The arrest effectively punished him for refusing to stop filming and for refusing to identify himself during that activity – both refusals tied directly to his assertion of constitutional rights. Federal courts have consistently held that officers may not retaliate against individuals for recording them or public scenes. The U.S. Department of Justice has even intervened in cases to make this clear, stating: “Recording governmental officers engaged in public duties is a form of speech… [and] individuals’ First Amendment right to record police activity” must be upheld
. In this case, although the initial recording was of a building, once police engaged with Morales-Torres, he continued to record them, which is unquestionably protected. He was not interfering with the officers – the video shows him standing at a respectful distance, merely asserting his rights verbally. Under Glik, such non-interfering recording of police is protected and had been “clearly established” in the First Circuit since 2011
. Thus, to the extent that Morales-Torres’s arrest was motivated by a desire to stop him from filming or to retaliate for his refusal to stop, it runs afoul of the First Amendment. The Department of Justice has also noted that officers violate the Constitution if they seize or destroy a person’s recordings without due process
. Here, police seized Morales-Torres’s camera when they took him down; had they deleted or destroyed his footage, it would compound the First Amendment (and Fourteenth Amendment) violation. Fortunately, the footage survived (it was uploaded), but the seizure itself was tied to an arrest that appears predicated on disapproval of the recording activity.
In sum, Morales-Torres was arguably exercising core civil rights – documenting public officials and facilities – when he was arrested. There was no sign he intended to incite violence or engage in unprotected conduct. Therefore, the First Amendment implications are that his right to free expression and to petition (by documenting and later criticizing the police) was violated. Morales-Torres’s civil rights were potentially violated because he was punished for an activity that is constitutionally protected. Subsequent commentators noted that filming a public facility from a public sidewalk is not a crime and, while it may draw attention as “suspicious,” it “does not warrant” police demands for identification absent other evidence
.
Fourth Amendment and Arrest Legality Analysis
The legality of Morales-Torres’s detention and arrest must also be evaluated under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In order for police to lawfully detain (Terry-stop) someone, they must have reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity. And to arrest someone, they need probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. In this case, Officer Comella responded to a call of a “suspicious person” but lacked any specific indication of a crime – filming in public is lawful. The only articulated basis for suspicion was the location (a military facility) and Morales-Torres’s refusal to immediately identify himself. Standing alone, neither of these is a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in Brown v. Texas is highly relevant: in Brown, police officers stopped a man in an alley simply because he looked suspicious and demanded his ID under a Texas law. The Supreme Court unanimously held that “the application of the [stop-and-ID] statute to detain [Brown] and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe [he] was engaged in criminal conduct.”
In other words, being in a high-crime or sensitive location and refusing to cooperate is not enough – there must be specific facts indicating a crime. Likewise, in Morales-Torres’s situation, the officers had at most a generalized hunch (“this could be reconnaissance for a crime”) but no objective facts of any actual unlawful act. Filming a gate, even a military one, is not illegal per se; DHS’s own rules confirm no general ban on exterior photography of federal sites
. Therefore, the initial detention of Morales-Torres was on shaky legal ground. If the stop was unlawful from the start (no reasonable suspicion), then ordering him to identify himself was also unlawful under Brown v. Texas, and arresting him for refusing ID was doubly unlawful
.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Cranston officer had enough reasonable suspicion to briefly detain Morales-Torres (for example, to ask if he was scouting the base for criminal purposes), the scope of the stop was exceeded when she arrested him solely for noncompliance. Morales-Torres was charged with obstruction of an officer and disorderly conduct. Let’s examine those:
-
Obstruction of an Officer: Rhode Island law makes it a misdemeanor to “obstruct any officer…while in the execution of his or her duty”
. However, courts typically interpret “obstruction” to mean actively interfering with police work – such as physically hampering an officer, providing false information, or refusing to obey a lawful order in a way that hinders an investigation. In Morales-Torres’s case, what did he do? He remained silent (with respect to providing his identity) and continued filming. Silence or refusal to answer questions is not illegal; the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that citizens have the right to not speak to police. Importantly, Rhode Island does not have a “stop and identify” statute compelling one to show ID absent a lawful detention. (Under Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. of Nevada (2004), states can require ID during a valid Terry stop, but if no Rhode Island statute does so, there’s no obligation to identify.) Here, Morales-Torres correctly stated, “unless I’m suspected of a crime I don’t need to provide ID”
. He was right: an individual who is not driving or otherwise required by a specific law generally cannot be arrested just for refusing to identify themselves. The Fourth Amendment problem is evident – the officer had things backwards. As one commentator noted, “In order to detain someone you have to suspect them of a crime, right?”
. The officer’s stance – “until I can determine you’re not committing a crime, I need your ID” – is not the constitutional standard. Our system does not allow police to detain someone to prove their innocence. The burden was on the officer to have reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime first, before detaining Morales-Torres or forcing identification. Since that was lacking, Morales-Torres’s refusal to show ID was not a crime in itself. Therefore, charging him with obstruction for asserting his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unwarranted interrogation is improper. Courts would likely find that passive non-compliance (remaining silent or refusing ID) does not constitute obstructing an officer, especially when the underlying police order was not lawfully justified. Thus, the obstruction charge had no true legal basis and indicates his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure was violated.
-
Disorderly Conduct: Disorderly conduct in Rhode Island (and generally) involves behavior such as causing a public disturbance, using fighting words, or engaging in tumultuous conduct that alarms or annoys the public. Nothing in the video suggests Morales-Torres was disorderly in the conventional sense – he was not yelling at random people, not threatening the officers, and not physically resisting. His tone remained relatively calm, if assertive about his rights. The only conceivable basis for disorderly conduct could be that his actions and refusal caused a “commotion” or forced police to spend time on the scene. But that is a stretch – a citizen cannot be deemed “disorderly” simply for asserting constitutional rights or causing an officer frustration. The Supreme Court in City of Houston v. Hill (1987) struck down a city ordinance that made it unlawful to interrupt police, noting that police officers are expected to tolerate verbal criticism and non-criminal protest. Morales-Torres’s persistent declarations of “I do not consent” and “This is illegal” are protected speech, not a crime. Charging him with disorderly conduct for that is very likely a violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech (the content of his speech was basically protesting the police’s actions). It’s also a Fourth Amendment issue because without genuine disorderly behavior, there was no probable cause to support an arrest. In short, the disorderly conduct charge was unfounded given the facts. Its inclusion suggests the officers may have been looking for any plausible charge to justify taking Morales-Torres into custody.
In assessing the arrest’s legality: At the moment Officer Comella decided to arrest Morales-Torres, what crime did she have probable cause to believe he committed? Filming a federal facility is not a crime (and DHS explicitly says it’s allowed)
. Refusal to identify in that context is not a crime (per Brown v. Texas and because RI has no such statute)
. Arguably, no probable cause existed. Therefore, the arrest was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Morales-Torres’s civil rights were potentially violated because he was handcuffed and hauled off to jail without adequate legal justification – essentially for exercising his rights and not bending to an unlawful order. The Department of Justice has recognized that such scenarios implicate the Fourth Amendment: they stated in a 2012 guidance letter that officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they detain individuals without proper cause or “seize…such recordings without a warrant or due process” simply because a person is recording
. That is effectively what happened in Cranston. Morales-Torres’s camera (his “recording”) was seized and he was arrested not because of any actual crime he committed, but because the officers did not like his lawful behavior and non-compliance with an unlawful request.
Finally, it’s worth noting that Morales-Torres’s arrest had no legal basis under constitutional standards because the police lacked authority to criminalize refusal to identify or to detain someone solely for “suspicious” photography. The First Circuit (covering Rhode Island) had clearly established by 2011 that the right to film is protected and that police officers should be well-aware of this
. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decades-old ruling in Brown v. Texas should have guided the officers that they cannot detain/arrest a person absent reasonable suspicion of a crime
. In this case, all Morales-Torres did was engage in constitutionally protected conduct and then refuse an officer’s command that had no lawful predicate. That is not a crime – it is the very scenario the Constitution protects against (the Founders enshrined the Fourth Amendment precisely to prevent arbitrary stops and demands for “papers” without cause). Thus, the Cranston officers had no legal authority to arrest him under these circumstances. Their authority is bounded by the Constitution, and here those bounds were exceeded. As a result, Morales-Torres’s First Amendment right to film and Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure were arguably violated by this incident, a conclusion shared by many who viewed the footage and by legal experts who later reviewed the case.
Relevant Case Law & Guidance: In summary, key legal precedents bolster the view that the arrest was unlawful: Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011) confirmed the right to record police/public officials
; Brown v. Texas (1979) confirmed that police cannot detain and demand ID without reasonable suspicion
; and Hiibel (2004) allows states to require ID only if a stop is lawful (which it was not, here). The U.S. DOJ’s 2012 letter to police agencies emphasized that policies must recognize the First Amendment right to record and cautioned that officers should not arrest people for exercising that right
. Additionally, the DHS 2010 & 2018 memos instruct federal security that photography of federal buildings from public areas is not a crime and is First Amendment protected
. All these authorities illustrate why the Cranston officers’ actions had no solid legal footing.
Conclusion
The Cranston First Amendment audit incident involving Anselmo Morales-Torres highlights a clash between citizens’ constitutional rights and law enforcement’s security concerns. All told, Officer Andrea Comella (and the assisting Cranston officers) detained and arrested Morales-Torres for activities – public photography and declining to show ID – that are not crimes, thereby infringing on his civil rights. Morales-Torres suffered tangible consequences (arrest, prosecution, a guilty plea under duress) while the officers faced little repercussion, even though the arrest’s legality is highly questionable under the First and Fourth Amendments. No court directly ruled on the constitutionality of the officers’ actions because the criminal case ended in a plea, but based on established law and DOJ guidance, the arrest appears to have been unconstitutional. Morales-Torres’s First Amendment right to film was likely violated when officers stopped and arrested him without legitimate cause, and his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure was violated when he was taken into custody with no probable cause of any crime
. In practical terms, the officers had no legal authority to arrest him simply for exercising his rights. This incident serves as a cautionary example that police must have a clear legal basis (beyond a “suspicion” label) before curtailing a person’s liberty, especially when that person is engaged in protected First Amendment activity.
Sources: Official news reports, video evidence, and legal references support this analysis. Contemporary press coverage by Patch and GoLocalProv documented the incident and charges
. The Warwick Beacon summarized that Morales-Torres was “arrested twice in the past year – first for…filming outside…the National Guard headquarters in Cranston”
. Court records and Morales-Torres’s own statements confirmed he pled guilty and received probation in 2019
. No civil suit or discipline was reported in the aftermath. Pertinent legal standards are drawn from First Circuit case law affirming the right to record
, Supreme Court decisions on police stops
, and U.S. Department of Justice and DHS guidelines which unequivocally state that photography of public buildings and police activity is not illegal and is constitutionally protected
. These authorities underscore why observers have concluded that Morales-Torres’s rights were violated and the Cranston officers’ actions were not legally justified under the First and Fourth Amendments.
Identified Officer:
Officer Andrea P. Comella
-
Role: Primary responding officer and arresting officer.
-
Involvement: Officer Comella was the first Cranston Police Department officer to confront Morales-Torres during his recording outside the National Guard facility. She engaged in prolonged questioning, repeatedly demanded ID without lawful justification, and ultimately initiated his detention and arrest. She was the officer who physically frisked him and seized his camera.
-
Outcome: No disciplinary action has been reported. She remained with the department after the incident and was even awarded a Distinguished Service recognition in 2020.
Other Officers (Names Not Publicly Disclosed):
Several additional Cranston Police officers responded to the scene to assist Officer Comella in detaining and arresting Morales-Torres. While their faces appear in the video, the department declined to release their names publicly.
-
Cranston Police Chief Michael Winquist at the time stated that the officers’ names would not be released due to “officer safety concerns,” despite media and civil rights groups calling for transparency.
-
These unnamed officers assisted in:
-
Securing the scene
-
Physically detaining Morales-Torres
-
Confiscating his camera/phone
-
Transporting him to the station
-
[Return to blog post](https://watchaudits.com/cranston-first-amendment-audit-arrest-of-anselmo-morales-torres/)
-
-
AuthorPosts