[Music] Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. This episode is part three of our highly requested update series and will be a different format than our typical video. If you haven't seen the other installments of this series, then you can find them linked down below. But just in case you haven't seen them, instead of reviewing a police interaction, today we will be taking a look at past episodes that didn't necessarily have a resolution at the time of our coverage and seeing where they are now. As mentioned in previous update episodes, it can take years for these cases to reach any meaningful resolution. So, there's no scheduled timeline for when these update episodes come out, but we will try to release one as often as we can. Be sure to let us know if you enjoy this format in the comments and also let us know if there are any particular episodes that you would like to see included here. Before we dive into the updates, I want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode, Incogn. If you've ever Googled yourself, you've probably seen your home address, phone number, or even family details, plastered across people, search sites, and shady databases. That information isn't just sitting there. It's being sold and resold by data brokers, putting you at risk for scams, harassment, and identity theft. Incogn takes that burden off your shoulders and with just a few clicks, their system gets to work contacting hundreds of data broker sites and demanding your information be taken down. Their team targets data broker sites, people search engines, and other databases that profit off of your personal data. The Incognabilities with a new feature in their unlimited plan called custom removals. This allows you to submit an unlimited number of links to websites where your personal information appears, even if those sites aren't part of Incogn's automated removal network. You paste the link into your dashboard. Incogn reviews it, and if eligible, their privacy experts work on getting it taken down. Incogn also automatically works through hundreds of major data broker databases on your behalf, sends follow-up requests to ensure removals stick, and continuously monitors for new exposures so your information doesn't resurface. What truly sets Incogn is their dedication to accountability. They don't just claim to remove your information. They've been independently verified by Deote, one of the most wellrespected professional services firms in the world, to confirm that the removals actually happen. Right now, Incogn is offering members of the ATA community a 60% discount on an annual plan when you use code the audit at the link below. Data doesn't just disappear on its own. If you don't take it back, someone else will. Thanks again to Incogn for sponsoring today's episode. All right, without any further ado, let's dive right in. The first interaction occurred on June 10th of 2019 when mechanic Roland Edger traveled to the Progressive Union Missionary Baptist Church in Huntsville, Alabama to repair the car of a long-term client whose vehicle had broken down in the parking lot while she was working as a teacher at the church. That evening, he returned to the church with his stepson to continue working on the vehicle. A security guard for the church noticed them in the parking lot and called 911 and told dispatch that two men were quote messing with an employese's car that was left on the lot. About 30 minutes later, Officer Christa McCabe of the Huntsville Police Department arrived on the scene. >> How you doing? >> Good. >> How are y'all doing? >> How you doing? >> How you doing? >> What are y'all doing? >> Second description. >> Huh? >> What are y'all doing? >> Get in the car. 367. >> Is this your car? >> Used to be a drive off day. >> 1867. >> One of your customers. >> Don't tell. Yeah. >> I was over here earlier. >> Whose car is that? >> That's mine. >> The black one. >> Yeah. You ain't going to hold it. >> All right, take a break from me real fast. And y'all have driver's license or IDs on you? >> I ain't going to submit to no ID. Listen, you call this lady right now. Listen, I ain't got time for this. Don't worry. I don't mean to be me rude or nothing. >> Okay. No, you you do need to give me your ID or driver's license. >> Listen, I don't want you to run run me in and uh for for nothing. >> Are you refusing me to give Are you refusing to give me your ID? >> You can call this lady on on this phone. >> Step over that one. Come on, man. See y'all here as y'all playing. >> You're playing right now. We We don't got time for this. We really don't got time for this. >> When we covered the interaction, we mentioned that Alabama's stop and identify law gives officers a limited power that is often misunderstood. The statute only authorizes them to demand a person's name, address, and an explanation of their actions if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It does not require a citizen to produce a driver's license or any other physical identification card unless they are operating a motor vehicle. Well, despite this, the Huntsville officers repeatedly demanded that Mr. Edger hand over his license while he was simply repairing a car in a parking lot. By doing so, they extended the statute beyond what the law actually allows. We also looked at the obstruction charge that officers use to justify the arrest. Under Alabama law, obstructing governmental operations requires intimidation, physical force, interference, or another independently unlawful act. Declining to comply with an unlawful demand does not meet any of those elements. In this case, Mr. Edger gave a verbal explanation of why he was in the lot, which is precisely what the statute requires. His refusal to produce a driver's license did not constitute obstruction, but the officers arrested him anyway. After his arrest, Mr. Edger was charged with obstruction. When we left off on our coverage, the charge against Edgerure was dismissed, and he later filed a lawsuit against the officers and the city of Huntsville. At first, the district court granted the officers qualified immunity, shielding them from liability, even though it admitted that they lacked probable cause, but upon appeal, the 11th Circuit denied qualified immunity, holding that no reasonable officer could have believed that Mr. Edger's refusal to produce a physical ID was a crime. The court's opinion emphasized that both the statute and the existing precedent were clear long before Mr. Edger's arrest and that the officer's conduct violated clearly established law. In our original coverage, we issued the Huntsville officers an F and Mr. Edger an A. Since then, the case finally went before a jury in October of 2024. After hearing the evidence, the jury awarded Edger a total of $77,000 in damages. That figure included $75,000 for pain and suffering along with $1,000 in punitive damages against each officer involved. The verdict confirmed what we had discussed in the original episode, that the arrest was unlawful from the beginning and that the officers exceeded their authority under Alabama law. Although the award was not particularly large compared to other civil rights verdicts, the symbolic value is relatively significant. It represents a federal jury affirming that Mr. edger's rights were violated and it reinforces the 11th Circuit's conclusion that citizens cannot be arrested simply for refusing to show physical identification when the law does not require it. In the end, Mr. Edger walked away with both a financial recovery and a legal precedent that underscores the limits of police power in Alabama. The next interaction is an interesting one because it was removed from the channel at some point for unknown reasons. The original video of this interaction still exists on Reno Misconduct's channel if you're interested in watching the full interaction and it will be linked in the description, but I'm going to give you a brief recap just in case you didn't get a chance to see our original coverage. On November 29th, 2022, officers Donald Genev and Devin Taylor of the Ogden City Police Department in Ogden, Utah, responded to an anonymous caller who claimed that squatters were living in a home that had allegedly been foreclosed. When they arrived at the property, they encountered 78-year-old Ran Bream and his 75-year-old wife, Vera Bream, who were the rightful owners of the property. >> What can I do for you, sir? >> So, are you guys supposed to be here? >> Supposed to be where? >> This house. >> Our kid just came from the garage. >> Your kid came from the garage? >> I just came from the garage. >> Yeah. Is this your residence? >> Yeah, that's my house. That's my garage. Okay. You >> what? What? What are you doing? >> We got a complaint that his house was foreclosed on. >> No, the house isn't foreclosed on. What do you mean? I should >> So, there's a closed to occupancy. >> I was back in the back. >> Well, for this property. >> No, it doesn't. >> Closed. Yes, it does. It's on the front door. Partner just told me that. Hey, >> shut your car off. >> No, >> we need to get this set up. Oh, >> sir. Trespassing. >> No. Get out of the car. Come on. >> Now, what's with you? >> We're getting what? Down to what's going on here. All right. We got a complaint from the neighbor said this house has been foreclosed on. No one should be here. >> It has. >> You guys are here and there is a no occupancy sign on the door as per my partner there. >> There is a sign on the door. So, >> and what makes you think I've been in there? >> That's the property. No trespassing. >> Yes, that's my sign I put up. >> So, you're the owner of this property? >> I am. >> What is your name? You got a driver's license on you? >> I do. >> Can I get that from you? >> I'm not driving. >> Please. >> You are just driving. >> I not on. >> I need to, >> sir. Ma'am, I need you to stand over there. >> Okay. You have to identify yourself by law. It doesn't matter if you >> I don't have to identify myself. I I don't have to say one thing. That's fine. >> Yes, you do. >> No, I don't. I have the right to remain silent. >> Cuz guess what? Maybe you're not the owner and we don't know that. If this was your house, you would want us to investigate, right? If people are hanging around your house, maybe you're some random person. I don't know that. >> Maybe I am. >> Okay. So, we're going to figure that out. >> I will show you my driver's license. >> Perfect. >> I will not give it to you. >> Okay. You need that in there. your name, your date of birth, and your address. >> You sir, >> hey, >> I told you I'm not from I told you. Well, okay. >> This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous. This interaction largely focused on the fact that the officers approached Rand and Vera Bream based on an anonymous tip that squatters were living in a foreclosed property. The problem was that the Breams owned the home and the no occupancy notice on the door only applied to the basement because of chemical contamination. Even if foreclosure had occurred, Utah law still allowed the breams to remain until a proper sale and eviction process took place. Because the anonymous caller did not claim ownership or provide a reliable basis for their claim and because the notice itself did not indicate foreclosure, it was highly unlikely that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain the breams for trespassing. We also looked at the use of force. After officer Genev grabbed Mr. Bream's license without his consent, the 78-year-old reached to take it back and then the officers immediately forced him against the wall and threw him to the ground. As mentioned in the episode, under the Supreme Court's Graham versus Connor factors and 10th Circuit Precedent, the officers had no justification for this level of force. The officers muted their cameras multiple times under the explanation of quote unquote conferring. The Ogden Police Department's policy, which is modeled after Utah statutes, allows muting or even deactivation to consult with another officer or supervisor. So, their actions may have complied with the letter of the policy. However, repeated muting during an encounter of this nature created the impression of secrecy and undermined the transparency that body cameras are intended to ensure. When we left off on our coverage, Mr. Bream had been cited for interference with an officer, and that charge was still pending in court. On the same day, in November of 2023, the Breams filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Ogden and both responding officers, alleging excessive force along with several state law claims. Mr. Bream reported suffering a torn rotator cuff and lasting physical and emotional damages. While Mrs. Bream described both physical harm and PTSD from the encounter, the Ogden Police Department responded publicly, stating that department leaders had reviewed the incident soon after it had occurred and determined that the officer's actions were justified. In the episode, the Ogden officers received an F and the Breams were not graded. After our original coverage, the Bream's lawsuit moved forward in federal court. On September 6th, 2024, Rand and Vera Bream entered into a settlement agreement with Ogden City, the Ogden Police Department, and the two responding officers, Donald Genevas, and Devon Taylor. The agreement provided the Breams with a payment of $110,000 in exchange for a release of all claims connected to the November 2022 incident. The release covered every possible claim arising from the encounter, including personal injury, emotional distress, civil rights violations, and even future or unknown damages. The agreement made clear that the payment was not an admission of liability, but rather a compromise of a disputed claim. It also included confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions, preventing the breams from publicly criticizing the city or the officers about the incident. A special thanks to Reno Misconduct who supplied the information for this update through a foyer request. He made a video covering this incident that goes into more detail about the settlement and the context surrounding this encounter. And you can find a link to that video in the description down below. The next interaction took place on May 9th, 2023 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, where local resident Ryan Gould was swimming laps at his apartment complex pool. Another resident, Anna Ivanova, asked him to swim in the opposite direction. And when Gold refused, the two collided in the water, and a verbal dispute followed. Ivanova called her husband, Benedetto Salvia, who joined the argument and went so far as to lift his shirt in order to show a firearm that was tucked in his waistband. Gold then called 911 and waited in the parking lot for the officers to arrive. Officer Bethany Gerierro of the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department was the first to make contact with him along with another responding officer. >> Come in. How you doing? You can touch pockets for me. >> I'm not the one. >> Sir, I don't keep your hands out of your pockets. >> I haven't done a crime. Don't talk to me like that. >> Listen to me. I don't know you. >> I don't know you. You're the one with the gun. Why? >> Get down on the ground now. Get down on the ground. Get down on the ground. What the? I told you not to race for anything. >> I haven't committed a crime. You don't have any hand that to your side. >> I don't committed a crime. >> Now you put your hands behind your back. >> You can't detain me for what? >> Yes, I can. >> For what? >> I don't know you. >> I don't know you. You're the ones with guns. >> Yeah. You're arresting me for nothing. >> I'm detaining you right now. >> That's fine. You're detaining me for what crime? >> Because you don't want to listen. >> That's not a crime. You're Are your body cams on? >> Yes, they sure are. >> Good. >> I called you guys for help cuz this guy's brandishing a gun at me. Now, when we covered this interaction, we mentioned that officer Gary Arrow's confrontation with Mr. Gold raised serious constitutional concerns about detentions at gunpoint. Mr. Gold had called the police after being threatened with a firearm, and yet he was treated as a suspect from the moment that the officers arrived. Although a court might recognize the encounter as a mistaken Terry stop, the use of a drawn firearm and handcuffs went far beyond what the law permits in the absence of probable cause. And Mr. Gold had a strong argument that he was subjected to an unlawful de facto arrest. We also discussed the charge of resisting since the officers informed Mr. Gold that he would be arrested on that basis. Florida law makes resisting a standalone offense, but the statute requires proof that an individual knowingly obstructed an officer in the execution of their legal duties. Mr. Gold briefly reached into his pocket to retrieve his phone after clarifying that he was not armed and then complied once the officer made it clear that she wanted his hands visible. His conduct fell well short of obstruction and case law strongly suggests that there was no probable cause to support a resisting charge. When we left off on our coverage, Mr. Gold had been released from jail without any charges after a supervising sergeant reviewed the surveillance footage from the apartment complex and determined that there was no basis to hold him. Mr. Salvia had been charged with improper exhibition of a firearm, but he avoided prosecution through a pre-trial diversion program that required him to complete classes and pay costs. The Palm Beach Gardens Police Department had also concluded its internal affairs investigation, which resulted in the termination of Officer Geriero for policy violations related to the incident. She had been with the department for nearly two decades and announced her intention to appeal the decision through arbitration. Mr. Gold told reporters that he planned to move back to Chicago following the incident and made it clear that he was considering filing a lawsuit, although at the time he was limited in what he could disclose publicly. In the episode, Officer Gerro got an F and Mr. Gold got an A. In July of 2024, a federal judge rejected then former officer Gerro's attempt to have Mr. Gold's lawsuit dismissed, allowing the case to move forward. But just one month later, the arbitrator ruled in former officer Gerero's favor on her employment grievance, ordering that she be reinstated to the department despite the findings of the internal affairs investigation. That decision returned her badge and salary after more than a year away from the force. Meanwhile, Mr. Gold's civil case continued. In May of 2025, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Officer Gerro's appeal. The court acknowledged that she may have overreacted by drawing her firearm on Mr. Gold, but ultimately concluded that she was entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances. The panel reasoned that Mr. Gold had disobeyed multiple commands and that officer Gerro was responding to a report of a firearm at the scene, leaving room for what the court called a reasonable factual mistake. The ruling also affirmed the dismissal of Mr. G's false arrest and false imprisonment claims, closing the door on his civil rights lawsuit unless the Supreme Court decides to take the case. Ultimately, Mr. Salvia avoided conviction through a diversion program. Officer Gerro was reinstated to her department and shielded from liability by qualified immunity, and Mr. Gold's attempt to hold her accountable through civil litigation was shut down by the federal courts. This next encounter occurred on June 28th, 2019 when Officer Casey Barnum of the Gley Police Department visited the Gley, Colorado apartment of mother of three Rose Perez to follow up on a call that Ms. Perez's 16-year-old son, Trey, had made to the Weld County dispatch from the apartment complex's main office. In the call, Trey reported that he had missed an Adams County court date that morning because Miss Perez had allegedly kicked him out and had refused to take him to the hearing. Officer Barnum walked up the stairs to the apartment and knocked on the door. >> Hello. >> Hi. >> So, we're getting a call from your son saying you guys are kicking him out. >> Um, I'm actually just got home. He has a warn out for his arrest. >> Right. For possibly for not doing court or something. >> Yep. That's right. >> Yep. That is right. >> And he's calling us saying you're kicking him out of the house. >> I just got home from court. Like literally just walked into the house. It's been my sister and he actually hasn't been allowed in my house because he did this the last time and I had to do a well check because I was at work. So, I did tell her not to open the door if he came back if I'm not here. >> You can't do that. >> Okay, I'm going to tell you something. He may not kick my door. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> If you lock him out, he can. >> Okay. I didn't lock him out. My sister did. If he is being a havoc while my sister is here babysitting my children, >> he is not welcome here. >> She needs to call us. You can't kick him. We did call you. We did call. We did a well check. They came. The officer came and you can check that. >> The officer came and did that. He hasn't been home since until today. >> Today he was locked out again. And the reason that he was locked out was because I wasn't home. >> When I'm home, then he can come. >> That's not how this works. >> Too bad. So sad. Goodbye. >> No, that's not how ma'am. Listen, that is not >> Now, when we covered the interaction, we mentioned that Colorado's family and child protection statutes do not give a 16-year-old an unconditional right to enter a parent's home, and they do not convert a parent's decision to keep a volatile teen out of the residence while staying in contact and arranging other supervision into quote unquote abandonment. The child abuse provision for abandonment applies only to children under 16, so it did not fit Trey. There was no statutory basis for the officer's claim that Ms. Perez had to let him into the apartment whenever he wished. We also explained that letting a fugitive back inside could expose a parent to accessory or contributing to delinquency liability if done with the intent to hinder apprehension, which is why M. Perez's stance was legally rational. Now, by contrast, the officer's suggestion that Trey could kick in the door was absurd on its face because intentionally damaging the door would be criminal mischief under Colorado law. Without probable cause plus exes and circumstances, an officer cannot lawfully force entry. Colorado recognizes a narrow privilege to use reasonable force to prevent an unlawful trespass. And state case law applies that privilege even when the trespasser is a police officer acting outside the law. The prudent course is to litigate an unlawful entry afterward, but the governing rules made the attempted pushth through at Ms. Perez's doorway unconstitutional. Now, when we left off on our coverage, Ms. Perez had been arrested after refusing to let officers push into her home, but a supervisor later ordered her release without charges. The police department acknowledged that the officer's conduct was inconsistent with policy, and he ultimately left the agency. Perez later filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging unlawful entry, false arrest, and injuries to her hand and wrist from the struggle at her doorway. In the episode, Officer Barnum got an F and Ms. Perez got an A. In September of 2024, the Gley City Council unanimously approved a $200,000 settlement to resolve Ms. Perez's federal lawsuit against Officer Barnum, Sergeant Wade Corass, and the city of Gley. The settlement released all parties from further liability and was paid out of the city's liability fund after review by the municipal claims board. This approval brought Ms. Perez's case to a close 5 years after the initial incident. The last encounter we will be discussing today occurred on February 8th, 2023 when officers and fire officials from the Normal Police Department in Normal, Illinois responded to a call about a fire that had erupted in the quadplex apartment of college student Taylor Brown. It was unclear how the fire started, so the officers requested that Ms. Brown be taken to the police station for questioning, and she consented. However, after waiting more than 40 minutes at the police station without being interviewed, Ms. Brown requested that she be taken home. The officer responded to this request by attempting to seize Ms. Brown's phone without a warrant. >> All right. Are you holding your phone with? >> So, we're going to have to seize your phone. So, go ahead and hang up. >> Seize my phone for what? >> Go ahead. Go ahead and hang up. >> Why? >> Go ahead and hang up. They want to seize my phone, but I'm not under arrest for it. >> You're not under arrest, but your phone's going to be seized. >> No, >> we're going to You're going to hang up the phone. >> Seize my phone, but I'm not in custody. So, listen. >> Three of them all around me for a second. >> You You listen for a second. So, the fire is going to be under investigation. >> That's fine. >> Okay. And we're going to seize your phone. >> Why? >> Because we are. Cuz the fire is under investigation. >> I need to know what my phone >> So, you can hand me the phone or I can take the phone. >> But I need to know what my phone's been. They're not telling me a reason why my phone >> I just I just did. >> But you said it's under investigation, which I >> So So listen to me. The fire >> That's her phone. >> So the fire is going to be under investigation and your phone's going to be seized. >> Oh, no. Because you you never told me that my phone would be seized when I got here. She didn't tell me. >> Okay. And when I And when I got here, the detective wasn't here. >> You told me that you were about to take me home. >> Okay. So I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. So you can hang up. You can hang up your the phone with >> and I can take you home. Yep. >> So your phone. >> No, they're not taking my phone and letting me leave. I don't know what I'm going to It's 3:00 a.m. It's 3:00 a.m. I can't go without my phone. Well, if I do the interview, >> you can go do the You can go do the interview, but your phone's going to currently be seized. >> Can I talk to him first? Can he come down here? Cuz >> Nope, we're not going to do that. So, you can hang up the phone or I'm going to take the phone. That's how this is going to work. >> Oh, absolutely not. >> So, >> she said hang up the phone and they're going to take the phone cuz at this point I'm being threatened. >> It's not a threat. I've asked you several times and you're just going to go back and forth with me. a reason as to why my is being taken. >> So the fire is going to be under investigation by the fire department. So stop stop don't interrupt me to do my advice. >> So don't interrupt me. The fire is going to be under investigation. >> Don't ever tell me not to interrupt you and bring his gone. >> So the phone's going to be seized. So in a second I want to take >> I'm asking you I'm a reason. I'm not being rebuttal. I'm asking you a reason. >> So if you would like to talk to the detective, you can. Do you wish to talk to him? >> Yeah. But >> do you want to give an interview? >> No, you're not. >> No. I wanted to ask him why my phone's being seized cuz she said she could take me home but without my phone. That doesn't make sense. No, I need I need everyone to come and tell me why my phone's being seized cuz no one told me this until right now. Cuz it seems like >> the question So the question >> it seems like he's being petty cuz he woke up and I won't do the interview. >> So this wasn't >> So the question So the question is are you going to talk to the detective? >> As a matter of fact, are you recording this? >> Are you going to talk to the detective and provide an interview? Yes or no? >> Is that with or without the phone? >> Without the phone. The phone's being seized. Are you talking to the detective or no? uh phone be >> I don't know >> that my that's not my question. >> I need an answer to that before I get >> So the question is are you going to provide an interview? >> No. >> No. Go ahead and hand me the phone. >> I have to know if my phone is Go ahead. Hand me the phone. >> Do not kick. >> Okay. Push your legs up. >> Stop. Relax. Relax. >> Mom, I'm not letting go. I promise. Relax. >> Mom, not let your phone. That's >> We just want your phone. Why you trying to give me no protection? >> Ms. Brown was taken to Mlan County Jail after her arrest and was released the following day. But curiously, she was not actually charged with any crimes. The officers returned her phone to her several hours after her arrest. And it wasn't long before Ms. Brown decided to take action against the officers involved in this encounter. On February 23rd, 2023, Ms. Brown filed a federal lawsuit against the officers alleging counts of false arrest, excessive force, failure to intervene, and battery. When we left off our coverage of the encounter, the lawsuit was still pending. In this episode, the officers received an F and Ms. Brown received a B. On January 17th, 2024, nearly one year after Ms. Brown filed her lawsuit, the Normal Police Department charged Ms. Brown with two counts of aggravated battery of a police officer, alleging that she struck officers in the lobby of the department. Because of the potential conflict of interest, the local prosecutor's office recused itself and a state appellet prosecutor was brought in to handle the case. In April of that year, Ms. Brown was arrested and extradited back to normal Illinois to face the charges. Meanwhile, her civil case continued in federal court. In 2024, the officers named in the lawsuit attempted to have the case dismissed, but a federal judge denied their motion, allowing Miss Brown's claims to move forward. In a strange turn of events, both Abby Beos and Ronach Msorya, who were the attorneys representing Ms. Brown in her federal claims, filed motions to withdraw from her case against the officers. It was reported by some independent journalists that the attorneys withdrew because, quote, "information came to light during the discovery process that was previously unknown to council sometime after September 15th." It was also reported that a roommate of Ms. Brown alleged that Ms. Brown was the individual who started the fire at the apartment complex, but this information is largely unverified. Court records show that the lawsuit is still active and being litigated against the defendants, but with a new attorney representing Ms. Brown. Despite the allegations of arson from Ms. Brown's roommate, no such charges have been filed against her. As for the most recent updates, Ms. Brown's criminal case has gone through multiple pre-trial hearings and remains ongoing, while her federal lawsuit proceeds in parallel. What began as a questionable arrest over a seized phone has now evolved into a complex legal battle on two fronts with Ms. Brown fighting felony charges in state court while simultaneously pressing her civil rights claims in federal court. That's all the updates that we have for you in this episode, but as mentioned before, there will be more update episodes to come in the future. Remember to let us know if you enjoyed this type of episode in the comments down below and suggest some episodes that you would like to see updates on. If you could take a moment to like and subscribe, it would be sincerely appreciated. Thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content. [Music]