Are you having fun? Cuz this is boring for me. You've been asked to leave. I don't know why you're still harassing me. >> You are legally obligated to identify yourself. >> Really? >> Post your video, Scott. I I don't mind. I >> I'm sending it to Lackluster. And >> Welcome [music] back to the Lackluster channel. Today's story was originally published in May of 2023. It was submitted to me by a viewer named Scott, who has since updated me on the results of the interaction. The channel has grown substantially since [music] then. So, for those who haven't seen the original encounter or need a reminder, the incident began just a few days after New Year's of 2022. Scott had engaged in a heated verbal dispute with his sister over a phone call. Shortly after, uniformed officers of the Prescott Police Department arrived at his residence, alleging that they were responding to a neighbor's call to 911. Scott's elderly mother made the mistake of answering the door, but immediately confirmed that no threats, domestic incidents, or other crimes had been committed within the home. >> I've already told you you're not welcome on the in the property, and you and I'm not cooperating with you, and I'd like for you to leave. >> And Scott, you don't have to answer any questions if you don't want to. >> Yes, I was in a argument with my sister on the phone. I've already told you that. It's already been proven. My mom's corroborated it. You've been asked to leave. I don't know why you're still harassing me. >> I'm not harassing you. We have the duty. >> Are you having fun? cuz this is boring for me. >> You're repeating for your camera and I'm going to repeat it as well. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Scott, at this point, you're like like Officer Harris said, you don't have to answer any questions. >> Yes. >> But you are legally obligated to identify yourself. >> Really? On my private property? >> Yes. >> With in in my home? >> Yes. >> No, I'm not going to. >> Do you have to provide your full and truthful? >> No. No. Can you state your uh badge number and names, please? >> Scott. We're >> Your name's Scott? No, he's totally >> You see, Mom, this is what I told you about. You made a huge mistake even cooperating with them. >> Scott, like I said, >> because we were arguing on the phone. >> Any questions about what happened? I'm talking to my mom. >> Identify yourself. >> I know >> what who I am. >> But you know who I am. You just stated who I was. >> Scott, I don't know who you are. >> Of course you do. I'm her son. >> I don't know who you are. I've never >> Mama, who am I? >> Scott Gy. >> There you go. I'm her son. Now what? >> Okay. >> Why is your foot there? >> Can I have your date of birth? >> No. will go away. >> In order for the officers to enter Scott's home, they would need an arrest or search warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances, but the officers have none of the above, and due to the constitutional limitations to the officer's authority. Scott is wise to stay within his home. While seemingly harmless, the act of placing a foot inside the door frame is a violation of Scott's Fourth Amendment rights, and many circuit courts have ruled in favor of shutting doors on officers making an unlawful entry. For example, and as recently as 2018, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Arizona, stripped officers of their qualified immunity after they forced their way into a home after one resident gave permission to enter and the other resident explicitly told them to stay out. But at this point, the officers refused to leave or shut the door without Scott's ID. >> Scott, I'm not going to go away until you identify who you are so I know. >> Is he stupid? I just told him who I was. >> You know what? My husband just died. Okay, you guys. Come on. >> They don't care about stuff like that. Mom, they're cops. >> On edge and I got a heart issue and I don't even need >> that. I don't want you to be out here for too long. >> We can do this all day, guys. You can go ahead and arrest me. It'd be unlawful arrest. I'll sue. And >> so on and so forth. [clears throat] >> Is that the that called or >> That's crazy, man. You You never got in an argument on the phone with anybody. infinitely less significant. >> Hold on. Let me just >> still got your foot there, dude. >> I've been seeing hundreds of videos with cops violating civilians rights. It's just it's it's unheard of. >> If you understood your rights, it would it would be a little bit >> Oh, I understand my rights. Yeah, I've already identified myself to you and I don't even have to identify myself to you. >> Truthful name. >> Yeah. I don't even have to identify myself to you. No, I don't. You don't know the law. >> You obviously don't know the law, then. >> You obviously don't. And you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, too. >> This is private property. >> This is private property. And we didn't even have to answer the door. Okay. So, so you can just say whatever you want all day. All right. >> So, when we respond to a domestic disturbance, >> Yeah. you know what the domestic >> party involved is is required by law to provide their truthful name. Okay. The officer's statement reflects a truly ignorant and fundamental misunderstanding of both Arizona statutory law and core constitutional protections. Arizona is a stop and identify state. But that label is widely misinterpreted. All it really means is that the state has a statute specific to stopping a person and identifying them. But every stop and identify statute still requires that an officer first have reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. Absent that threshold, [music] no identification requirement is triggered. The neighbors mistaken report of a heated phone call is not a crime. And once the officers have confirmed that no domestic violence occurred and no victim exists, the legal justification for further detention evaporates. [music] They cannot continue to detain you simply to document who was present based on your neighbor's speculation. Moreover, Arizona Revised Statute Section 13-2412 is explicit, even if this was a lawful detention. A person is required only to state their true full name when requested by a peace officer. The statute does not compel disclosure of a date of birth or any additional identifying information, and the text of the statute could not be more clear about that. here. Scott's mother had already provided his first and last name. >> You know who I am. You just stated who I was. >> Scott, I don't know who you are. >> Of course you do. I'm her son. >> I don't know who you are. I've never >> Mama, who am I? >> Scott. >> And Scott confirmed its accuracy. >> There you go. I'm her son. Now what? >> Okay. >> Why is your foot there? >> Can I have your date of birth? That raises a legitimate concern as to whether the continued demand for identification and the decision to cross the threshold of the home served any lawful investigative purpose or whether it constituted an unlawful escalation of an encounter that should have ended once officers confirmed no crime had occurred. >> Yeah, you already have that information. >> I don't. And I didn't I didn't hear the I didn't catch the last name. So, if you'd like to give me your last name and date of birth, that's all I'm asking for at this point. But >> at this point, you're refusing to >> Yeah, I don't answer questions. >> G S T. >> Sounds like she's answering questions. >> Yeah, she's being a little bit more cooperative. >> Well, cuz No offense, dude, but I mean, you already knew it was an argument on the phone, so you should have just left. Okay. >> I didn't know that. >> We told you right when you at the door that happened, Scott, no. I got called for a domestic. >> Mom, stop. Just stop. You need to go ahead and do the whole fifth amendment and stop talking. Mom, I don't understand what your problem is. You You're acting like this little sheep. It's weird. >> I am a sheep. >> Mom, just stop talking. Tell them to leave and that's it. You're upsetting my mom. I hope she doesn't have to go to the hospital because of what you guys are doing. >> Well, you're the one that made this a much bigger issue than it needed to be. Scott, >> as soon as we told you it was argument on the phone, you should have left. >> No, we have a duty to investigate to make sure there's not anything further underlying that we can't No. >> Well, now you know. Why are you still here? >> It's >> kind of cold, man. You going to leave your foot there? I'd like to close the door. >> My son is at work. >> It's like 20° outside. >> It's not very uh protect and serve of you. >> That's okay. >> Been trying to talk to my mom about not cooperating with fascist, but she she doesn't listen. I don't know. It's weird. >> She They don't get along. She just made a comment. >> It's like 2,000 police brutality and >> rights violation videos I've been watching. Well, we got good stuff. >> Just in Arizona. >> Learn a lot on those YouTube videos. >> It was just 75% off. >> I don't know why you guys do it. >> Why become a cop if you're going to abuse innocents? >> I'm to completely against that. >> We're not abusing anyone. Scott, >> you're abusing my rights right now. >> Investigate. >> No, you lied and said I have to provide my ID to you, which is a lie. >> You block the door from being closed by putting your foot in the door. After we leave here, look that law up. I promise you it's a real law. >> I don't care what you say. >> I'm not violating any rights. >> You are right now. I want to close the door and your foot's in the door. And you already know that it was just an argument on the phone and you know my identity. >> Soon as Officer Harris is done speaking with your mom, we'll get out of your hair. Okay. >> Fantastic. >> But we're not abusing any We're not abusing anyone. We're not violating any rights. >> Well, we'll let the video for a living every day. We'll let the viewers decide. >> Okay. Well, go ahead. They're not going to find anything wrong with it. We responded here for a domestic disturbance. >> Yeah. And I'm cold. I'd like to close the door. >> To investigate. And when we investigate that and determine either a a crime was committed or b a crime was committed, but that's our job. That's what we do for a living is investigate those. And as soon as we determine a crime hasn't been committed, >> then we get out of your hair. And no harm, no foul. >> Seriously. No. No. like not um trying to start. Do you guys ever end up arresting people who make false calls? Like I see so many cops violating rights over false calls where neighbors say, "Oh my god, this guy's being violent. This guy," and then they get there and there was no crime at all and the person who called was lying. Place your answers in the comments now. Will the officer A answer the question correctly, B answer incorrectly, or C sidestep the question and make up an unrelated hypothetical in an attempt to justify his unconstitutional behavior? >> Okay, so Scott, I'm going to I'm going to take that that question you just asked me. What if we responded to a call and somebody answers at the door and says, "Oh, nothing. Everything's fine. Nothing's going on here." But in reality, there was a domestic situation where there was an assault or a kidnapping or somebody was being held captive and we just took your word for it and left. >> No, I'm not talking about me. >> I'm just saying what if we went to a call and somebody said everything was okay, but it really wasn't and then we just left. Wouldn't we? >> No. >> Are we kind of on the hook? >> If you answered C, congratulations. You've won. And just for you, subscribing to the channel is now free with notifications turned on. And to answer the officer's question, whether they are on the hook for this madeup scenario to not answer Scott's question, no. Supreme Court rulings such as Warren VDC and Castle Rock v. Gonzalez have made it very clear to US citizens that police officers have no specific obligation to protect. And when they fail, victims shall have no recourse. >> Believe it or not, I hate bad cops. I don't hate good cops. Back the blue until it happens to you. >> Scott, I promise you, we're not bad cops. >> Well, you're acting like bad cops. I'm I'm not I'm just >> because we both corroborated the story that we were um okay argument on the phone >> and then you put your foot in the door >> and then you wouldn't leave >> after you knew that it was just an argument on the phone. >> Okay. But removing someone from the house >> to where >> there they can give an independent statement. Doesn't that make a little bit more sense? >> I'm bored, man. >> If you had a gun >> Oh my god. telling her, "Hey, tell >> I hate to tell you this, but it's completely lawful to own firearms on it >> in [laughter] your home." >> It is 100%. >> I didn't say it wasn't >> still America. >> I agree with you. I think more people should carry firearms. >> But it's our job to make sure everything's okay. All right. >> We're not bad people. We're not bad cops. We're not violent. >> So, as soon as Officer Harris >> Yeah. Email. I'd like to send you about 2,000 videos. >> Nope. I don't want any of your videos, man. I appreciate it, though. >> No, not my videos. the public being completely by fascists >> and I and I get it, man. There's bad cops out there. >> I take no offense to your state. >> You don't put foots in people's doors, man. >> When you try to close the door Yeah. >> tries to close the door on where I live on people when you you have no right to put your foot there and block and block the door from being closed. >> Well, post your video, Scott. I I don't mind. I'm sending it to Lackluster and you know send it to other places direct and all them. >> Hello. >> It's what I do. >> No, you're more than welcome to go inside. We're all good. Good Harris. >> Yep. Really? >> Yep. Scott, you have a good day, man. >> Hey, man. You too. >> Glad it wasn't anything. I >> You give him all the information you could, Mom. >> The previous publication of this incident left off with the two poopy cops crying to the poopy prosecutor, resulting in the state filing charges for disorderly conduct and failure to identify. We rallied support through a now closed GoFundMe. Scott retained counsel and ultimately all charges were dismissed in December of 2023. The process was the punishment for disrespecting the tax leeches that almost always claim to love the Constitution as they blatantly ignore its core tenants. >> I agree with you. I think more people should carry firearms, >> but it's our job to make sure everything's okay. To make matters worse, those positioned above the enforcement arm of the state have deliberately constructed layers of legal insulation to shield themselves from civil accountability. The result is a system so costly, so procedurally hostile, and so structurally fortified that even the most clear-cut allegations of civil rights violations or malicious prosecution are extraordinarily difficult to pursue. representation becomes unattainable, not because the claims lack merit, but because the barriers are designed to exhaust anyone who tries. So, as always, let me know what you think about this encounter in the comments below. And remember, if they can enter your home, they will. Let them knock.