Okay, you're under arrest. Hands behind your back. DO NOT RESIST. >> [screaming] [screaming] >> GET BACK NOW. >> [screaming] >> GET BACK NOW. GET BACK. OKAY. OKAY. HE'S UNDER ARREST. STOP. STAND UP. STAND UP. PLEASE, BACK UP. YOU GUYS HAVE TO BACK UP. GET BACK. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID TO ME. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID TO ME. How many times did I ask FOR AN ID? >> [screaming] >> OKAY. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING TO YOU GUYS. HE'S UNDER ARREST. That's the end of it. He's under arrest for FAILURE TO ID. >> [screaming] >> YOU'RE >> A COP, YOU CAN TELL ME HOW TO DO MY JOB. >> HE SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE ONE. >> HOLD ON. You >> I'm trying to help. >> You can't help her. You need TO CALL HIS DOCTOR and you need to get on the phone with a lawyer right now. You're going to make this man die. Oh my god. >> This is why I hate police. >> Okay. >> Wait. Wait. Wait, please. Wait. Wait. >> Okay. Do you want us to Do you want us to get an ambulance here? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> YEAH. YOU JUST THREW HIM INTO THE [ __ ] FLOOR AND THERE'S A STEP. >> OKAY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO do all of this. >> They didn't do anything. You did it. >> Could you start T-CAD non-priority, please? >> I'm telling you something right now. Downstairs is getting to know this, too. This is bull. We didn't do anything to these people. >> Okay. So, if you just talk to us. >> And we're trying to. The man tried telling you he didn't have an ID. >> And I tried telling you >> The man is disabled. >> Well, yeah, that's right. >> So, so here's the deal. I don't know right. Okay. >> Well, okay. >> So, I don't know right. >> But he wasn't coming to you. He walked away from you. You grabbed him. >> Yeah, and threw him in the >> All right. OKAY. EVERYBODY STOP FOR A SECOND and I can explain the situation. >> Okay. >> And you grabbed him like that. >> So, do you know how many people have a cane that aren't disabled? >> No. We was telling you he was disabled the whole time. And we was telling you >> So, I'll talk to you and see who seems to be the only one that's receptive of information. Okay. So, when we say, "Hey, we're investigating a peace disturbance." And we get told, "Hey, [ __ ] off. I'm not talking to you at all." And you're a prime suspect in a peace disturbance. I'm not going to let you just walk back into your home. You have to come out and talk to us. You're a suspect. >> Okay, but he didn't do anything. >> Okay. We explained very clearly >> apologize to the man downstairs before anything else went on. >> Okay. We explained very >> going to arrest him? >> Okay. Right now he's under arrest for peace disturbance. >> I think you're full of it, and I will call these lawyers. >> That's perfectly fine. You're more than welcome to do that. >> You will love >> The buddy's right. >> The officer states that Mr. Lopez is under arrest for resisting. According to section 575.150 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, an individual commits the offense of resisting if they know that an officer is attempting to lawfully detain them, and they resist the detention by using or threatening to use physical force or by fleeing. Now, while the statute specifically states that the law enforcement officer does not need to be acting lawfully to sustain a charge for resisting an arrest, it also clarifies that an underlying detention must be lawful for an individual to be convicted of resisting a detention. Accordingly, while Mr. Lopez could not be convicted of resisting if the officers were not attempting to lawfully detain him, it is at least arguable that if a court found that Mr. Lopez was lawfully detained, there was probable cause to arrest him for resisting for "fleeing" into the Airbnb. Likewise, section 58-38 of the Branson Code of Ordinances makes it an offense for a citizen to intentionally refuse to give their name, address, or date of birth to a police officer during a lawful detention. While there's no mention of providing physical identification, a court would likely conclude that Mr. Lopez was required to provide these pieces of information if they were requested. And the officer claims that he did not throw or push Mr. Lopez and only held onto his arm. Now, while the body camera footage is difficult to follow, the officers can be seen grabbing Mr. Lopez's arms, causing him to fall to the ground, and then seemingly throwing him in the direction of the stairs, where he remained either unconscious or disoriented and unresponsive for a period of time. According to a lawsuit Mr. Lopez filed following this encounter, the officers forcibly grabbed Mr. Lopez, twisted his arms behind his back in a so-called chicken wing hold, and slammed him into the staircase railing, causing him to lose consciousness. Regardless of whether the officers intentionally threw Mr. Lopez to the ground or pulled his arms away from his cane causing him to lose balance and fall. The result was that he hit the floor and injured himself. As we have discussed before here on ATA, even in the context of a lawful arrest, an officer can violate the Fourth Amendment by using an unreasonable amount of force under the circumstances. Here, there would be a strong argument that the officer's use of force was excessive, particularly in consideration of Mr. Lopez's physical condition. Because, although he could potentially be considered to be resisting arrest by flight, he did not pose a safety threat and was being investigated for a minor offense. >> Sorry, man. All good. >> I told you they'd try to blame me. >> It ain't no fault of your own. Absolutely insufferable. >> So, yeah. >> Um >> That's what I was afraid of. >> So, they're not playing anytime soon. Quit spitting over your railing. >> Yeah. >> they seem to think that it's their right to spit, even if some mist gets on your porch, which I disagree with. It's your place. You shouldn't have to deal with their spit on your porch. >> Mhm. >> So, that's my opinion, but um whatever you want to do, we can send charges for peace disturbance, a simply municipal ticket, or they're just going to keep doing what they're doing. And that's up to you. >> Yeah, we've already called the the owners of the place to see if we can get moved, you know, or something. I don't want to deal with it, you know what I mean? Cuz I don't feel safe here now. >> Okay. >> Um I really don't. That was >> Okay. >> Not with my wife and my animals here and >> So, I I understand you want to move. Uh my question is, are you wanting me to scratch out a ticket for the threats, the peace disturbance, the whole nine yards? >> That ain't going to do any good, is it? >> I mean, it'll fix the behavior, or at least give some sort of an encouragement to fix the behavior. >> do it again. >> Otherwise, the next person even moving is just going to deal with the same thing. >> We're already doing >> I'm not I'm not trying to like convince you or sway you one way, but that's that's the fact of the matter. >> Yeah, I guess so. Yeah. >> Okay. Do you have Do you have an ID on you? I just need get it out of the car. If If I do my job right, you should never have to do any like court appearance Oh, sorry. I didn't ask if I could come in. >> come in. >> He decided to tell us to screw off when I asked for his ID. >> I heard you. >> Yeah. As soon as I I grabbed his arm cuz he tried walking back in, he just dropped to the floor, buried his face in the stairs, and started screaming at me for throwing him on the ground and >> All they had to do is just be polite be polite, right? >> That was it. >> That's the only reason I couldn't >> So, when you talked to me first, my plan was just go up there, reason with them, and come down and say, "Hey, they've agreed to stop." Like, is this a peaceful enough resolution? Like, that's what I wanted. But, he just >> I know. I heard it escalate. Sorry. I'm sorry. >> All good. It So, it absolutely no fault of your own. And And you as an American citizen as a private residence owner, like, you know, you shouldn't have to deal with that. So, >> You have your visit for a couple days, you know. >> Yeah. Well, you have rights just as much as anybody else. So, um I'll get this taken care of. >> Thank you. >> I'll be right back. >> [clears throat] >> The officer speaks with the neighbor below and convinces him to pursue a so-called peace disturbance charge against Mr. Lopez. Section 58-62 of the Branton Code of Ordinances defines the offense of peace disturbance as unreasonably and knowingly disturbing or alarming another person through loud noise, so-called fighting words or threats, fighting, or a noxious and offensive odor. Therefore, a court would likely conclude that spitting onto somebody's balcony, accidentally or intentionally, did not rise to the level of a so-called peace disturbance under this definition. However, as mentioned earlier in this episode, there appears to be some discrepancy regarding the nature of Mr. Lopez's response to his neighbor's confrontation regarding the spitting. According to a lawsuit filed by Mr. Lopez following this encounter, when the lower-level guests expressed concern regarding the spit mist reaching them, Mr. Lopez, quote, "immediately apologized and ceased the conduct." On the other hand, although the specific allegations are not entirely clear, the neighbor claimed that Mr. Lopez and his family had threatened him, and the officer indicated that he refused to stop spitting. Well, depending on what actually took place, it is possible that a court could conclude that the officers had probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Lopez had committed the offense of peace disturbance. >> So, >> I'm not arguing. >> Basically, walked up said, "Hey, he's going to be He's going to be charged with peace and we have peace disturbance at the at the minimum. I need a driver's license." He said, "I don't have a [ __ ] driver's license. [ __ ] you." Turned around and started walking back in. So, we reached in, grabbed a hold of him. As soon as he reached in and grabbed grabbed a hold of him, he kind of fish like slung himself down on the ground. Uh started acting like he was seeing what not. Brother and I don't know who the younger girl is and wife came over and they all started kind of getting in our face. Uh so, right now, the is on the couch with a cane. He's under arrest. Um >> Okay. >> He's not in He's not going to be >> My plan for now is to stretch him. Hello, I want to speak to the police. >> What's your badge number? >> 255. >> All right. >> I'm the supervisor on duty, so >> Okay. >> I need to get to my guy that we're with, so excuse me. Don't mess with He's He's got a problem going on. I'm telling you all. >> We have an ambulance coming, so >> Yeah, he needs it. Your officer messed up, dude. He threw my brother into the ground. >> Okay, then I need you to step back or we're going to arrest you for interference. Please step back. >> I'm not doing anything. What do you mean? I'm not I'm not doing anything at all. >> Go ahead. So, right now, he's under arrest, so I don't want you near him. >> That's my uncle. That's my brother. I have >> Okay, and your brother and uncle is under arrest. >> He's disabled. >> Okay, well, I'm sorry. We have an ambulance en route. So, let's not do anything to make the situation worse and let's just all relax. >> Ain't nobody getting excited but you. You're the only one throwing threats. >> I'm not throwing threats. >> You just did. YOU JUST DID. I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. >> NO, you're talking about the situation regardless of the word that comes OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. YOU MADE A THREAT. >> YES, SIR. >> Regardless how you want to say it. Okay. Keep feeding the arson. >> Do you like my business card? My ambulance card? >> I don't know. We got your badge number and your picture. >> Okay, that's all we need. >> We got you, son. >> Okay. Yeah, okay. Thank you. >> I'll leave this right here for you guys. >> We don't need it. Don't leave that. We don't want that. >> I don't care what you leave. >> 55 Branson. You want to advise he fails. Well, what is your chief complaint, sir? >> Whatever you want to say. >> No, I want to know what you need an ambulance for. >> I'm in pain. You just knocked me out. I got my tremors acting up. >> Okay, male subject saying he has tremors acting up. This is the guy that is intoxicated. >> Your officer threw I got it on tape. Your officer threw me down. >> I believe it's tremors. Okay. >> He hurt me, officer. >> I I like that. >> [clears throat] >> Uh you're slick with your cameras. >> Not slick enough. You don't start them after you come to the door in 10 minutes later. >> a 2-minute pre-record. >> Oh, whatever. Yeah, okay. I'm sure. >> Sometimes dumb things happen. That's what happened today. >> [clears throat] >> Yeah, your officers come in here charging around knocked my husband down and caused him to be like this. >> While officers have been inside the entryway of the Airbnb since initiating the arrest, two of them walk into the living room and stand over Mr. Lopez while they wait for the ambulance. Although the general rule under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is that law enforcement officers may not enter a person's home to affect an arrest without first obtaining a warrant. Courts recognize limited exceptions to the warrant requirement, most notably when exigent circumstances are present. One such exception is the so-called hot pursuit doctrine, which permits officers to enter a dwelling without a warrant when they are in immediate and continuous pursuit of a suspect who has fled from a lawful detention or arrest initiated in a public place. However, in the 2021 case of Lange versus California, the Supreme Court clarified that in the context of a misdemeanor offense, such as resisting, flight alone does not automatically justify warrantless entry to make an arrest. Rather, the totality of the circumstances must demonstrate a genuine emergency, such as immediate danger or destruction of evidence. It is questionable as to whether a court would conclude that the so-called hot pursuit exception even applied here, as the officers presumably knocked on Mr. Lopez's door to initiate the encounter, meaning that it did not begin in a public place. And even if a court concluded the so-called hot pursuit exception was applicable, Mr. Lopez would have a strong argument that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by entering his home to arrest him, as there did not appear to be any evidence indicating that a bona fide exigency required an arrest to be completed immediately. >> So, we can do this two ways. We can just sit here and not argue about the situation >> We're not >> or we can take him out to the car cuz he is in custody. We can do all this out there. We're >> We're not arguing >> So, let me let just hear me out. We're trying to be nice, let him to be comfortable on the couch. >> What are you being nice? That's what you got to do. Don't don't act like you're doing something. Please. >> What We ain't doing nothing, dude. >> YOU DON'T KNOW WHO I AM. >> YOU'RE THE ONE THAT'S BEING HERE RIGHT NOW. >> YOU HAVE THE ATTITUDE. You're the one THROWING THE THREATS. >> I'M NOT >> NOBODY'S DOING NOTHING. >> OKAY. [clears throat] >> SO, I'm trying to be Okay. >> Enjoy yourself. >> Hello. >> How's it going, guys? >> How's it going? >> Here to see you, sir. What's going on? >> The officer threw him down on the ground and knocked him out as you can see on the tape. >> He won't let me get close to him. >> You can see on the side of his face where he got the big knot. I got it all on tape if y'all need to see it. >> After EMS responded, Mr. Lopez was transported by ambulance to Cox Hospital for evaluation and treatment for injuries to his arm and shoulder, among other complaints. On July 22nd, 2025, Mr. Lopez filed a civil rights lawsuit alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment and state law claims. As of the date of writing this episode, the case is still pending. Overall, the Branson police officers get an F for likely unlawfully entering Mr. Lopez's Airbnb, using unnecessary force against a physically vulnerable individual, and prioritizing arbitrary demands for identification over basic human decency. Despite having an opportunity to de-escalate a low-stakes encounter involving a man with visible medical issues and no criminal history, the officers chose instead to assert control through force, intimidation, and a questionable interpretation of their authority. Even if we were to generously assume the initial detention was lawful, their subsequent entry into Mr. Lopez's Airbnb lacked any clear exigent justification, which blatantly undermines the Fourth Amendment and calls into question the legal basis for the arrest. Once inside, the officers escalated the situation further. Mr. Lopez was forcibly grabbed and thrown into a railing, despite showing no immediate threat and clearly suffering from physical and medical disabilities that essentially rendered him harmless. Missouri law, specifically Branson's municipal code, permits officers to request name, address, and date of birth during a lawful detention, but does not require an individual to produce physical identification unless they are operating a vehicle or involved in specific licensing scenarios. Mr. Lopez explained that he had no driver's license or other form of ID due to his medical condition and the officers immediately dismissed his statements. Their rigid insistence on seeing a physical ID despite the statute's clear text demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of the law or a deliberate attempt to justify an increasingly forceful approach to a man who had by all accounts already cooperated. This interaction highlights how a lack of legal clarity compounded by unchecked authority and a refusal to de-escalate can transform a petty ordinance complaint into a hostile and constitutionally questionable encounter. Now, as for Mr. Lopez, we will not be issuing a grade for his conduct in this encounter largely because we lack sufficient facts regarding the incident that sparked this interaction. However, there are aspects of his conduct that are worth mentioning. The primary challenge in assessing Mr. Lopez's conduct lies in separating what actually happened from what was later alleged. His civil complaint paints a sympathetic picture of an elderly man with COPD who was quietly enjoying his balcony until a minor misunderstanding with his neighbor spiraled out of control. And while there's likely truth in that version of events, the body cam footage tells a more complicated story. For instance, in the lawsuit, Mr. Lopez claims to have immediately apologized and ceased the spitting after his neighbor's complaint. Yet, the body cam footage include the neighbor stating that Mr. Lopez was argumentative and refused to stop. And he even went on to pursue a charge against Mr. Lopez. Now, although the events leading up to this encounter remain unclear, those details have no bearing on the fact that Branson officers barged into Mr. Lopez's home without a warrant and used force that ultimately injured Mr. Lopez despite him suffering from obvious disabilities. Mr. Lopez never posed a physical threat, never attempted to strike the officers, and did not resist in a way that warranted the force used. Regardless of whether the retreat into the unit constituted flight, the officers had no valid legal basis to follow him inside without a warrant or exigent circumstance. There was no imminent threat, no destruction of evidence, and no felony involved. And the officers were dealing with an individual that posed no threat to them. Even if Mr. Lopez was technically resisting at some point, his physical condition, age, and lack of threat should have been obvious to any reasonable officer. This interaction highlights how a vulnerable citizen's minor mistakes can be amplified into a full-blown crisis when met with force instead of discretion, and how the law's margins are too often exploited to justify violence against those least able to withstand it. 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]