Before we dive into the interaction, I want to invite you all to check out our new Audit the Court YouTube channel, where we examine the laws, rulings, and controversies behind real trials and hearings. As many of you know, a police interaction is merely the beginning of the law enforcement process. And contending with the judicial system can be just as confusing and risky as dealing with the police. If you're interested in learning about what happens after the police encounter and understanding the inner workings of the courtroom, then you'll definitely enjoy the content on our new channel. It would mean a lot if you could take a moment to support Audit the Court and help us expand our educational reach and contribute to a more informed society. You can find a link to the Audit the Court channel in the pinned comment and the description below. And we already have content uploaded there for you to enjoy. Thank you for all your support. Now, let's dive into the interaction. On December 2nd, 2024, officers with the Lynwood Police Department responded to a call regarding a road rage incident after a male driver told police that a woman in a silver Subaru pointed a firearm at him in traffic in Lynwood, Washington. >> 911, what is the address of your emergency? >> Hello. Uh, currently driving right now. Uh, I'm going southwest on 196 Street uh here in Lynwood. Um, I just got off the highway heading to work right now and uh this lady almost like pushed me off the road and I kind of just pulled up next at the light, didn't do nothing and she plaster plush a pistol out at me. >> Okay. And which direction are you guys heading on 196? >> Uh, we're heading southwest. Uh, southwest. >> Officers pulled over offduty Edmonds police officer Melinda Lean, who was driving a vehicle matching the description given by the caller. The interaction that followed was captured on officer body camera. >> I got no With your left hand, open up the door. I can see through. Do it now. >> Keep your hands up and step out of the vehicle. Do it now. >> Perfect. Go ahead. Turn around and face away from me. With your left hand, pick up the back of your shirt. Go ahead and spin around 360 for me. Take With your hands up slowly, walkers, walk backwards towards the sound of my voice. Yep. Keep coming. Keep coming. Keep coming. Keep coming. Keep coming. Keep coming. Keep coming. You're doing good. Keep coming. >> Okay, stop right there. >> Get down on your knees. Do not move. Do you understand? [Applause] All right, I'm going to push you down real quick. >> All right, I'm going tohead and sit you up. I'm going to bring you back up here. Put your feet back here, please. All right. Is this your vehicle, ma'am? >> Okay. I'm just going to read you something real quick and then I'm going to chat. Okay. Understood. >> All right. So, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. Um, you have the right at this time to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while being questioned. If you can afford to hire a lawyer, one would be appointed to represent you before questioning if you wish. You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and answer any question, make any statements. Do you understand your rights, Sam? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Um, what's going on today? Sounds like there was some issues back there at the traffic light. >> Yep. >> Okay. What's going on? >> So, driving southbound on I5. >> Okay. >> Um, I went to go merge to get off of 196. um had my turn sign on for ever. Um that dude kept trying to get closer and closer. It didn't want to let me in. Um I was about to miss the exit on 196. Um I squeezed in between him and the other vehicle, put up my hand, continued driving off of the exit. He started roads raging at me, got up on my bumper, flashed his lights at me the entire time. We were coming off of the exit at 196. um got up to uh the next as we were coming up to the next stoplight. He swerved over into the left lane really quickly um off of my driver's side. Um got up next to me and then when he got towards the front of my car, he jerked his wheel trying to act like he was like jukeked me like he was going to come get into my lane. >> Um I slammed on my brakes. He did it again and then when we ended up next to each other at the stoplight, he put up his hands in a like a finger gun motion at me. >> Um, I picked up mine, my pistol. It's in the glove compartment now. Um, picked up my pistol and showed it to him as well. >> Okay. >> And then put it back down. He waved at me. >> And then that was it. >> Is it So, where is it now? >> It's in the glove compartment. Okay. Okay. All right. Go. So, there's a pistol in a few other familiar. >> Hi, here. >> Hey. >> Would you like my ID? >> Oh, okay. Gotcha. [Applause] Melinda. Okay, gotcha. >> After officer Lean explains that her gun is in the glove compartment of her vehicle, she is released from handcuffs. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Washington State, explained in the 1996 case of Washington versus Lambert, officers have the authority to employ so-called especially intrusive means of affecting a vehicle stop, including the use of handcuffs and drawing weapons in so-called special circumstances, such as when the police have information that the suspect is currently armed or when the stop closely follows a violent crime. here. The other driver had alleged that Officer Lean was armed and that she had potentially committed a violent crime by pointing her firearm at him. However, once the officers determined that Officer Lean was not currently armed and that her weapon was too far away for her to be able to grab it if she was unhanded, a court could conclude that the justification for keeping her in handcuffs had dissipated as the perceived threat posed by Officer Lean had significantly diminished, particularly in light of her cooperation. Accordingly, the officers ensured compliance with the fourth amendment by releasing officer lean from handcuffs at this point in the encounter. >> Yeah. >> Reserve >> uh National Guard now. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> What unit? >> Uh I am with a unit down at JBL. I'm in an intel unit. >> Okay. I just had >> Oh, nice. Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> It's very strange Monday. >> Happy Monday. >> It's a really weird Monday. >> Uh is is Edward 41 coming here? >> Yes. >> Okay. figure it out. >> How long you been with Glenwood? >> Uh, I think two and a half year. It'll be 3 years in March. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You liking it so far? >> Yeah, I do. Good. >> Did you turn your optic off? >> Turn your off yet? >> That's not why we need you to come back. We're trying to figure out what we have PC for. So what did he say? >> Yeah. Okay. So uh body cam going. [Music] >> It doesn't matter. >> Okay. So he they're driving southbound on um I5. He's on the right side getting off to go west. >> Tell me the south on I5. That was going to change things. >> So then she's in the eastbound. You go like the other exit, the eastbound exit. >> She swerves over. Then they somehow get to the light at the back of the box at 196. He looks over and goes like this. She looks over and goes like this and he sees her reach down points gets a gun and then points it out. Good news is he said it looked like a really little gun. So probably not the gun. Bad news is he explicitly said she pointed it at him. Okay. So, >> PC is assault, too. >> All right. All right. That's the ice crack. You're booked to count. >> All right. Do what we got to do >> already. Uh, you guys see that? [Applause] >> All right. So, Melinda, um, we've done our thing. Uh, we've looked at the the whole totality of the circumstances, the whole bit. Um, at this point, the PC's assault, too. >> For for what? >> For pointing the firearm at >> I didn't point it at him. >> He's saying, >> I did not >> I did not point it at him. >> Kind of the the line that we have here is, well, you know as well as I do. Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm. Brandishing >> sold too. The officer states that there is probable cause to arrest officer Lean for assault in the second degree because the other driver claimed she pointed the gun at him. Under section 9A36.021 of the Revised Code of Washington, an individual is guilty of assault in the second degree, which is a felony offense if he or she quote unquote assaults another with a deadly weapon. As the Supreme Court of Washington explained in the 2024 case of matter of arson, Washington law recognizes two different types of assault. an attempt to cause bodily injury through unlawful force and an attempt to cause fear and apprehension of bodily injury. Under the second definition, an individual can be convicted of assault if they act with an intention to cause another individual to fear that they will be injured. As a firearm is a deadly weapon and Washington courts have often recognized that pointing a gun is sufficient to show this intent to cause fear. It is likely that a court would agree that the other drivers allegations were sufficient to provide the Lynwood officers with probable cause to arrest Officer Lean. Now, it is important to note that even though Officer Lean told a different version of events than the other driver, the Supreme Court held in the 2018 case of District of Columbia versus Westby that officers are not required to believe a suspect's innocent explanation when determining whether probable cause exists, as probable cause does not demand certainty, and officers may reasonably rely on common sense and context even when suspects offer potentially exculpatory accounts. >> Sergeant Bear, I I'm in the lane. He comes up. He swoops his car towards me. >> He swoops his car towards me again. >> We all know that vehicles can be used as deadly weapons. >> Okay. He gets up beside me. I finally look over at him. He points finger guns at me. >> He points at me. >> I picked mine up with my left hand. I'm right-handed. Picked it up. It's in its holster. I just held it up in its holster. Not even in any sort of configuration. I did not point it at him. Just And then put it back down. And then he continued like making hand motions at me. >> Mhm. >> The light turned green. Traffic started going. He's still. So, I pulled into the other lane and I turned north to get away from him. I never pointed it at him. I never held it in a configuration that it could be pointed at him in any way whatsoever. >> Okay. >> He he road raged me the whole way off. Like, as soon as we we hit the exit, I'm backing away from the car in front of me to give them more space. He's on my bumper flashing his lights at me, road raging me the whole time. Coming up on my bumper. I I'm using my turn signals. I get over into this center left lane. He swerves around onto the left side of me. He road rages me all the way up the road. He swoops his car in towards me multiple times. I don't react to any of that other than to make sure that I hit my brakes so that he he's not behind me anymore. warm up brake checking him, but I hit my brakes to make sure that he didn't hit the front end of my car. And then like I was on the phone with my mom like I was I was talking to my mom. He gets up next to me. He points at me like he's like he's going to shoot me. >> I just held it up. I didn't I didn't point at him. I didn't threaten him with it. Again, it's it's in its holster in the exact configuration that it's in right now. Like I didn't I never I never pointed it at him. I didn't I didn't act aggressively with it in any way. Like he just he made the threatening motion towards me. I did not make the threatening motion towards him. >> It was it was all a reaction to his road rage towards my vehicle. Like I wouldn't do that. >> Officer Lean claims that she displayed her pistol and did not point it at the other driver. She also alleges that she did this in response to aggressive tailgating and that the other driver allegedly made a so-called finger gun hand gesture at her when they were stopped beside each other in traffic. However, the other driver alleged that he only looked at Officer Lean in confusion and raised his hands in a shrugging motion and that officer Lean responded by mirroring his gesture, grabbing a firearm and pointing it at him. The Arnson case that we discussed earlier in this episode clarified that it is not necessary that a suspect point a gun in order to be convicted of assault as the intent to cause fear in the other person can be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including a menacing display of a firearm. However, if Officer Lean merely displayed the firearm and did not point it, it is more likely that her actions would align with the misdemeanor offense of unlawful display of a firearm as defined in section 9.41. 41.270 of the Washington Revised Code, which comprises exhibiting or displaying a firearm with an intent to intimidate another or in a way that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons. Even still, if Officer Lean's side of the story was true, she could potentially have a defense to any criminal charges under section 9A.16.020 020 of the Washington Revised Code, which makes it lawful for a citizen threatened to use force in order to prevent an injury to themselves or stop a malicious interference with property. Well, given Officer Lean's allegations regarding the other driver's aggressive driving towards her vehicle and the implied threat via the finger gun motion, it is possible that a judge or jury that believed Officer Lean's version of events could determine that displaying or potentially even pointing the firearm was a proportionate response. Although there would be a strong argument that the threat of force was not justified, particularly if the court determined that she did in fact point the weapon rather than simply display it. >> All right. Well, let me with that information, let me talk to my commander, >> please. >> I'll I'll have a chat with him. >> I I I I understand. I I I know I know, Brandene. Yep. Absolutely. I I [ __ ] up. I should have just kept it right in the door, not even messed with it. But he indicated at me in a threatening motion with the finger guns. That's the only reason I did it. It wasn't unprovoked. It wasn't I didn't I didn't just grab it and point it at him. I didn't flash a gun at him just for the sake of flashing a gun at him. He pointed finger guns at me after he made multiple attempts towards my car like juking towards my car trying to run my make me swerve. I I was not road raging at all. Like I I wouldn't do that. I sure as hell wouldn't point a gun at somebody. Like we all know better. >> Yeah. >> Like I would I would absolutely never do that. >> All right. I've heard everything you you have had to say. My hands are tied. All right. Sorry. I got to do this. Okay. You throw them back for me? >> Yeah. Um >> please. >> Yes. Yeah. Thank you. We won't forget those. Any shoulder issues or any reason why you might need two cuffs and two finger? Officer Lean was booked into the Snowamish County Jail at around 3 p.m. and after a judge found probable cause for the seconddegree assault allegation, she was released with conditions the following evening after spending roughly 26 hours in custody. Edmonds Police Chief Michelle Bennett issued a statement regarding the arrest indicating that officer Lean had been placed on administrative leave while an internal affairs investigation was conducted. On January 8th, 2025, the Snowomish County Prosecutor's Office announced that it would not be filing felony charges against Officer Lean. And on April 1st, 2025, the Lynwood Municipal Prosecuting Attorney also advised that misdemeanor charges would not be pursued. As the city concluded after meeting with both parties that it could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Lean was not acting in self-defense. As of the date of writing this episode, Edmonds PD has not publicly announced the final disposition of the internal affairs investigation into the situation. Overall, the Lynwood officers get an A+ for conducting a thorough and impartial investigation, demonstrating a clear understanding of the probable cause standard and for remaining within the bounds of their authority throughout the interaction. The Lynwood officers deserve recognition for handling a politically sensitive and potentially volatile situation with composure, objectivity, and a clear adherence to constitutional standards. At no point did the officers allow the fact that the suspect was a fellow member of law enforcement to diminish the rigor of the investigation or influence the decision-making process. The probable cause determination was grounded in the applicable legal standards and supported by the available evidence and was handled with an awareness of the heightened scrutiny such an arrest would inevitably receive. Once the initial safety concerns had been addressed and it was determined that officer Lean no longer posed an immediate threat, the decision to remove the handcuffs demonstrated both an understanding of Fourth Amendment limitations and a willingness to adjust the level of restraint to match the circumstances. Now, while some may argue that the Lynwood officers showed favoritism in their restraint and their discretionary decision-making, there is no objective evidence for that perspective, and not every police interaction warrants scrutiny through the lens of broader societal discourse. The Lynwood officer's conduct demonstrated a fair and just approach to law enforcement and remained within constitutional and authoritative boundaries, which is exactly how all police interaction should unfold. This interaction highlights the value of measured decision-making in preserving the legitimacy of an investigation and maintaining public confidence, even in cases that involve complex professional relationships. As for Officer Lean, we cannot rightfully assign a grade to her conduct because many of the facts that would dictate the legality of her actions remain unknown. If Officer Lean's version of events is true and she was being threatened and ran off the road, then displaying her firearm may have been a somewhat reasonable, albeit unwise, response to the situation. However, if the reporting party's story is true, then Officer Lean's conduct may have constituted criminal behavior. It is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions on the merit of either perspective based on the information available at the time of writing this episode. With that said, Officer Lean's conduct during her interaction with the Lynwood officers was relatively decent. Despite not invoking her right to remain silent, she maintained a calm and collected demeanor throughout the encounter, complied with the lawful commands of the Lynwood officers, and did her best to dispel their suspicion. While I commend Officer Lean for attempting to be forthcoming with the officers, I would caution anyone in a similar situation to refrain from waving their fifth amendment rights and making material statements to members of law enforcement without an attorney present. 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 my second channel for even more police interaction content. [Music]