[music] On the morning of October 9th, 2025, Deputy Menddees of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office in Florida initiated a traffic stop on a driver named Wiggy for a suspected window tint violation. The interaction that followed was captured on officer body camera footage. Look, can you roll down your back window, please? >> Roll down the back window. What? >> I can't see. >> Nobody in the car. >> Roll down the back window. >> Is that a Is that a law? >> Yes, cuz I can't see for my safety. >> Can't see. >> Yes. >> Nobody in the car. >> All right. You know what? Just step out of the vehicle. >> Step out of the vehicle. Face the car. I'm going to pat you down cuz you're not going to follow me. >> I am not consenting to any service. >> Okay, turn around. >> I am not consenting to any me. Turn around. >> I am not consenting to any sort. What's your name and bad number? >> I already told you. Mendes 27513. Turn around. >> Okay. So, you're telling me I have >> I'm giving you an order to turn around. >> That's not lawful. >> It is. I'm giving you an lawful order. >> Why? Why is it? >> Because I'm telling you. >> Why is it lawful? for my safety >> to pat me down first. You can't see in the back window. >> And what does the back window have to do with patting me down? >> Turn around. >> What does the back window have to do with patting me down? >> All right, take a seat inside. >> So now you want me to go back in the car? >> Take a seat. >> Okay, I'm going to follow you. >> Hey, I want this to stay right there. >> Deputy Menddees orders Wiggy out of the vehicle, and Wiggy complies. Deputy Menddees then orders Wiggy to turn around so that he can pat him down, but Wiggy refuses. As we have discussed many times before here on ATA, the Supreme Court held in the 1977 case of Pennsylvania versus Mims that once a vehicle is lawfully stopped, an officer may order the driver to exit the vehicle as a matter of course with no additional suspicion required. However, as the Supreme Court determined in the 1968 case of Terry versus Ohio, an officer may frisk a lawfully detained person only when the officer can point to specific facts suggesting the person is armed and dangerous. Here, Deputy Mendes's stated concern appears to be that Wiggy's dark tinted windows made it difficult to see into the back seat. Now, while that may raise a general officer safety concern, it does not automatically establish reasonable suspicion that the driver himself is armed and dangerous. Accordingly, there is a strong argument that Deputy Mendes lacked lawful authority to pat down Wiggy based on these facts alone. Hey, how far are you? Right there at the intersection just saw west of um you're just keep No, no. It's uh going west. I'm going eastbound. There's going to be a turn lane. When you're going westbound, just stop right there >> cuz this guy's not complying at all. I'm waiting for you to take him out of the car. >> All right. So, take this turn lane that's right next to me in case still face westbound right where this red car is passing me. All right. Bye. All right, step out of the vehicle. Turn around. Turn around. >> I'm giving you a lawful order to turn around. >> Why? >> Because I just told you you're going to be detained. >> Why did you stop me? >> I already explained that to you. Turn around. Why did you stop me? >> Okay, I'm going to give you one last chance. Turn around. >> Put your hand behind your back. for. Okay, I'm going to leave my phone to record this. Turn around like this. >> No, it's not an explanation. >> Yeah, we're going to get all the trust. We're not going to react with no information at all. I don't want to know why I was stopped. >> I just told you for your windows. Walk this way. >> For my windows? Yes. >> Your window. >> The officers place Wiggy in handcuffs, informing him that he is being detained and that he was stopped for his windows. Florida law includes several restrictions on vehicle window tint, limiting where and how dark sunscreening material can be. Section 316.2952 2952 of the Florida statutes generally prohibits tinting on the windshield except for a transparent strip along the top of the windshield that does not encroach upon the driver's direct forward viewing area. Section 316.2953 requires the tint on side windows adjacent to the driver's seat to allow at least 28% of visible light to pass through. And section 316.2954 requires the rear side windows and rear window of an SUV to allow at least 6% of visible light through. Driving a vehicle that violates any of these restrictions is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a non-moving violation. As the United States District Court in the Northern District of Florida explained in the 2016 case of United States versus Longoria, Florida law permits law enforcement officers to stop vehicles that they reasonably suspect violate a window tint statute, even if the tint is later shown to be legal. Accordingly, a court would likely conclude that the traffic stop that Deputy Mendes conducted on Wiggy's vehicle was lawful, particularly given the fact that Wiggy's vehicle had sunscreening material on areas of the windshield where no tinting was permitted whatsoever. However, under section 318.14 of the Florida statutes, most noncriminal traffic violations, including illegal window tint, must be handled by issuing a citation rather than making an arrest. In other words, Florida law generally does not authorize taking a driver into custody solely for a window tint violation. That said, the constitutional analysis is different. In the 2008 case of Virginia versus Moore, the Supreme Court held that an arrest based on probable cause does not violate the Fourth Amendment simply because it violates a state statute limiting arrest authority. Therefore, even if this encounter were treated as a custodial arrest rather than a detention, a court would likely conclude that it would not offend the Fourth Amendment simply because Florida law generally required a citation instead. >> And is your body cam? Where's your body cam? Is it on >> right here? You see it? >> Is it on, sir? >> Let's go. >> Are you walking me out inside of the room? >> You want to stop right here? Yes, sir. >> Okay. Grab this thing. Put in the front. Take a seat. >> Yes, sir. >> India alpha 64 golf bravo silver vision loaded on. >> What's your name? >> Okay. Are you refusing to identify yourself? >> You're refusing. So, I'm going to let you know if you refuse to identify yourself, I am going to arrest you. >> Are you going to refuse to identify yourself? >> Why are you >> Okay, I'm going to ask you one last time. You refuse >> date of birth. After handcuffing Wiggy, the officers place him in the backseat of the cruiser. As we discussed earlier in this episode, it would typically be a violation of Florida law to subject Wiggy to a full custodial arrest for a mere window tint violation. However, temporarily handcuffing an individual and placing them in the backseat of a police cruiser, does not automatically convert a traffic stop into an arrest. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Florida, has long held that it is reasonable for officers to use handcuffs to protect themselves during an investigative detention. As the court explained in the 2004 case of US versus Aosta, officers may take reasonable steps to ensure their safety so long as they possess an articulable and objectively reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous. And an investigatory stop does not necessarily convert into an arrest because an officer draws his weapon, handcuffs a suspect, orders a suspect to lie face down on the ground, or secures a suspect in the back of a patrol car. Here, the argument that Wiggy posed a safety threat was questionable, as the only stated basis to suspect danger appears to be that he refused to roll down his window or submit to a frisk. Accordingly, a court could view the level of restraint as excessive for a routine noncriminal traffic infraction, transforming the detention into a so-called de facto arrest. Nonetheless, even if a court determined that Wiggy's detention amounted to an arrest, it would likely not be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment as long as the officers had probable cause to support the window tint violation. >> Anybody here to arrest me, right? >> Yes, sir. You're absolutely right. >> All right. Yeah. I'm going to I'm going >> step out. Yes, sir. Walk this way. Okay. Just hang out here in front of my car. >> Okay, Mr. >> Let me write your tickets and then you can go on your way. >> While Deputy Menddees prepares the citation, Deputy Wignull speaks to Wiggy outside the cruiser. >> You understand why you wear handcuffs? >> Nope. Okay. >> Driving is not a right. Driving is a privilege, right? You have to identify yourself or you get stopped. Yeah. Yeah. You have to identify yourself or you get stopped. You understand that, right? >> No. >> I'm not a lawyer, but I'm very very versed in my rights. I literally read the book of how to deal with cops, >> which is why I gave him my name. I was under pressure to either be arrested, which is why I gave my name to you guys. I was literally stopped and told to wind my back windows down cuz he couldn't see. I said, "Come take a look. There's nobody in there." >> He told me to get out the car. I got out the car. He goes, "Turn around." I said, "For what?" He's going to frisk me. I said, "For what? What does that have to do with my windows?" Told me to sit back in the car, which I did. I I I'm doing everything he did. Everybody asked. He then calls you. You come up and you guys pull me out the car and put me in cuffs for zero reason. That is a That is a move. That's not even a moving violation. That's a freaking window. I am in no way a threat to any of you guys. >> Did you Did you refuse to identify yourself? >> That is also under the constitution that you can if you feel like you are not being stopped for a reasonable reason, which he never even told me, you can refuse. If he legit said, "Hey, you were speeding," then he he has all right to get it. But he literally didn't even say no. He just poop he he stood behind me for about maybe when I got over that hill. And as soon as I got over that hill, he turned his lights on. I put my turn signal on because obviously I couldn't stop there. And he literally came out blasting was ready. And I'm like, "What is that for?" So I will definitely be getting his information. >> Wiggy argues that citizens can refuse to identify themselves if they feel like they're not being stopped for a legitimate reason. The Supreme Court held in the 1979 case of Delaware versus Prow that officers generally cannot stop a vehicle simply to conduct a license check unless they have at least quote unquote reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or criminal offense. However, that rule does not give individuals the right to refuse identification whenever they disagree with a stop or believe that it is quote unquote unreasonable. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard under the Fourth Amendment that is determined by a judge using objective facts, not by the citizen's personal belief in the moment. And the Supreme Court has made clear that a traffic stop is constitutionally reasonable when officers have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. Additionally, during a lawful traffic stop, section 322.15 of the Florida statutes requires a driver to have their license in their immediate possession and presented upon demand to a police officer. As we discussed earlier in this episode, it is highly probable that a court would conclude that Deputy Mendes had at least reasonable suspicion to stop Wiggy for the window tint violation and therefore that Wiggy was legally obligated to provide his driver's license regardless of his personal beliefs regarding the legitimacy of the stop. >> All right, so you are going to be getting a citation for your windshield on your rear windows too dark. Okay, you got 30 days to take care of it. All right, there's options on here. My name and ID numbers here. All right. For your complaint, you're good to go. >> And we're And you were at County Sheriff's Office. All right. >> I'm I'm about to work. I'm going to go get right now. >> I'm going to need your your body camera. >> You have to request that. >> Appreciate it. >> Oh, I will call this request. >> I will, my friend. Trust me, because that was uncalled for. And like I said, I've had this thing forever. I literally bought my car and put it on there. Never been stopped. I've literally have a bunch of cop friends that I hang out with all the time. Nobody said to me about my window. Nobody. You just >> I mean, now you know you can't have it. Run or too dark. >> Like I said, drive around until actually somebody that didn't want to just pull me out of my car, you know. >> But you know what? I'll take it off to please Mr. Men. You have to take the front off and get him legal. >> This is legal. I literally asked them if this is legal. >> Yeah, I guess he's color blind maybe. I don't know. >> The whole So now you're assuming I'm coming. >> I don't know. Well, you say there's no tint on there. Oh, you didn't have a camera looking through the tent. >> Oh, yes, I do. >> Perfect. You have evidence. Look at this. You can have the front windshield. The only way you can cover your complete windshield is you have to have a doctor's note saying you have some kind of medical condition. You send that to Tallahassee. The state uses them when you get and and you might be right off the >> No, 100%. So before I had this in because it was the back and this I said to him, hey um Florida, can you hit this? I told him I wanted the darkest you cannot put it on there because you're going to get stopped. He's like a legal living. He showed me that this look like sh like when he held it up I see clear I'm like that's not even like that's what we can put on there any anything it could be clear it could be there can be no covering which is lower than the one line as long as we have >> after issuing a citation for the window tint the officers allowed Wiggy to leave without further incident. Wiggy has indicated that he is currently seeking legal representation. Deputy Menddees and Deputy Wignel get a C plus because although it is unclear whether they crossed any legal boundaries, they escalated a routine window tin investigation into a handcuffed detention. They exercised poor discretionary decision-making and they performed a highly questionable Terry Frisk. As discussed earlier, Deputy Mendes was likely on solid legal ground in stopping Wiggy for suspected window tin violations and then directing him to step out of the vehicle. The encounter became harder to justify from a common sense perspective once Deputy Mendes quickly pivoted to a patown based primarily on the fact that the tint made it difficult to see into the back seat. Limited visibility can reasonably heighten caution, but it does not automatically mean that the driver is armed or dangerous. And the footage does not reflect the kind of specific indicators that typically make a frisk necessary. Even if the frisk attempt could be defended legally, it reads as an escalation that was not clearly tied to a concrete threat. The same proportionality issue carries into the decision to handcuff Wiggy and place him in the back of the cruiser while the deputies checked the tint and prepared a citation. Handcuffs and cruiser detention can be lawful tools during a detention, but they are also among the most restrictive options available, and they should ordinarily be reserved for situations where officers can clearly explain why lesser measures are not sufficient. Here, the stated rationale largely tracks non-compliance rather than danger. Wiggy's refusal to roll down a window and refusal to submit to a frisk may have been frustrating and counterproductive, but those refusals alone do not necessarily justify treating a noncriminal tint stop like a custody situation. The overall effect is that the detention appears less like a measured safety response and more like a punitive response to disagreement. Wiggy also gets a C++ because although he attempted to assert his rights in good faith, he demonstrated an incomplete understanding of the applicable law and acted in a manner that unnecessarily increased the likelihood of escalation during the traffic stop. As discussed earlier, Wiggy's main misstep was treating his personal belief that the stop was quote unquote unreasonable as a reason to withhold routine cooperation during a traffic stop. In addition to refusing to roll down his window, Wiggy argued that his window tint was legal when the state law said otherwise. He also seemed to believe that if he thought the stop lacked a reasonable basis, he could decline to identify himself. That belief was not only incorrect, but it contributed to the escalation of the traffic stop. As officers are generally entitled to request identification, and disputes about the stop's legality are meant to be resolved later by a judge. In practical terms, asserting that position at the roadside creates unnecessary exposure because it turns a minor infraction stop into a standoff over compliance. For an everyday driver, the most effective approach is usually to comply with the basic low-risk steps needed to complete the stop, preserve the disagreement, and address it afterward through the courts or the complaint process. Wiggy's overall instincts about preserving his rights were commendable, but the strategy would have been stronger if he kept the encounter focused on ending the stop safely and then challenge the legality afterward in the proper forum. This interaction highlights how a stop can be technically lawful and still feel unnecessarily punitive when officers escalate quickly, articulate their safety rationale in conclusory terms, and choose highly restrictive control measures for a low-level infraction. and how citizens can contribute to this escalation when misunderstandings about their rights lead them to refuse compliance in situations where it is legally required. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to check out Audit the Court if you're interested in exploring the legal nuance beyond the body cam. [music] We