[music] On October 10th, 2024, patrol officer Lachlan Hicks of the LOL Police Department stopped driver Cynthia Sanchez Rosas in LOL, Arkansas for allegedly driving 40 mph in a 25 mph zone. The encounter was captured on both Officer Hicks body camera and dash cam. 13 Trevor >> be on the west side of JB Hook corporate 911 Zebra Sam Mary. It's a blue Honda. >> Damn. >> Hello. >> Hello. from Officer Hicks Low PD stopping you for doing 40 and a 25. >> 40 on a 25? >> Yes, ma'am. >> That's not true. >> It is true. >> That's not true. >> Okay. Do you have your license and insurance? >> Do you have the um >> Do you have your license and insurance? >> I do have my license. >> Please produce it. >> Do you have the evidence where I was running 40? >> Please produce your license and insurance. >> Next time I have to ask, I'm going to arrest you for obstructing governmental operations. >> You can't arrest me for >> Yes, I can. If you don't if you don't identify, >> you have the I will >> step out. Nope. You wanted to play games. >> Hold on. >> Nope. You wanted to play games. Yes, I can. You wanted to play games. Get out. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. >> I'm giving you my ID. >> 1394. Get out of the car. >> I'm giving you my >> Get out of the car. >> I asked for proof. I'm giving you >> Get out of the car or you're going to get tased. >> Get out of the car. >> Hold on. You don't need a >> 13. I got one trying to block me from the seat belt. >> I'm not trying to block you from the seat. >> She wouldn't let me get her out. She's just not listening to instructions. She's probably about to get tased. >> No, no, no, no. Get out. >> You don't need to tase me, dude. >> Get out. >> Hold on. >> Get out now. >> Hold on. You don't need to tase me, though. >> Get out. >> And I'm coming back to work, man. >> Get out. >> You don't need to tase me. Hold on. >> Get out. >> Walk back this way. >> Up the phone, though. >> I think she's out. >> Hold on. >> Yes. Put your phone down. You're not Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. I'm done with you talking over me. >> Walk that way. >> For what? >> Now. >> What? For Hold on. Hold on. No, no, no, no. You don't need to forcefully. No. Hold on. >> You're going to get taken to the ground. >> Hold on. Hold on. Don't do that. Don't do that. Hold on. >> Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Man, >> hold on. >> Hold on. Hold on. >> No, I'm not doing dude. Dude, dude, dude, dude, dude. Dude, >> you can't resist. >> I KNOW, BUT DUDE, I gave him my ID. I gave him my I gave him my resist. >> You can't resist. >> I know, dude. But I gave him my ID. I know. Like I gave him my ID. Hold on. >> I knew. Stop. >> Hey, can you go tell Amber that I'm being taken, please? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And my ID is right there. I need my phone. >> Just calm down. >> Yeah, but like >> it's right. >> I know, but like I gave him my ID. I asked him for proof that I was going 45 on a 30, which I wasn't. >> You made that way bigger than it needed to be. Yeah, but I was not going 45 on a on a >> This is not necessary, man. >> 113 log one resisted. >> I was not resisting, dude. I gave you my ID. I was not going 45 on a 30. Dude, I'm getting back to work. >> Not anymore. You're not. You're going to Benton County. >> Oh my god. >> You were here. >> Yeah. I was not going 45 on a 30. >> You're doing 40 and a 25. Oh, I you first said 45. >> No, I didn't. >> Yes, you did. >> You can fi the body camera. >> Okay. And I asked you for proof. >> You're under arrest. Okay. >> You're under arrest for obstructing governmental operations. >> I was not resisting arrest. I was grabbing my wallet speeding. >> I was not speeding. >> Sit down. >> Your car is also getting impounded. Officer Hicks informs Miss Sanchez Rosas that she's under arrest for obstructing governmental operations, resisting arrest, and speeding. Miss Sanchez Rosas disputed the alleged speed throughout the encounter, but unfortunately the lawfulness of the underlying stop and the speeding charge cannot be assessed on the available footage. Accordingly, we will assume for the sake of argument that the stop was supported by at least reasonable suspicion. Under section 27-16-601 of the Arkansas Code, a driver is required to produce their license upon demand by a law enforcement officer during a lawful traffic stop. And that obligation is not conditioned on the officer first demonstrating the validity of the stop to the driver's satisfaction. Additionally, the Supreme Court held in the 1977 case of Pennsylvania v. Mims that an officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit the car and that authority requires no individualized suspicion beyond the lawful stop itself. Therefore, a court would likely conclude that Miss Sanchez Rosas was legally obligated to both provide her driver's license and step out of the vehicle, presuming that the underlying traffic stop was supported by at least reasonable suspicion. However, this does not necessarily mean that her delay in complying with these orders constituted obstructing governmental operations. According to section 5-54-102 of the Arkansas Code, a person commits obstructing governmental operations when they intentionally obstruct, impair, or hinder the performance of a governmental function by a public servant acting under color of law. As the Arkansas Court of Appeals explained in the 2026 case of Katon v. state the statute requires actual interference with law enforcement operations, meaning that passive or minimal non-compliance may not be sufficient to sustain a conviction. Now, here a court would analyze whether Miss Sanchez Ross' delay in providing her license and stepping out of the vehicle obstructed, impaired, and hindered officer Hicks's ability to perform his governmental function as a law enforcement officer investigating a potential speeding violation. Additionally, the physical struggle after Miss Sanchez Rosas exited the vehicle potentially implicates two distinct so-called resisting offenses under section 5-54-103 of the Arkansas Code. Under subsection A, a person commits so-called resisting arrest when they knowingly resist a law enforcement officer affecting an arrest by using or threatening physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury. And under subsection B, a person commits so-called refusal to submit to arrest when they knowingly refuse to submit to arrest, whether by active or passive refusal. Accordingly, a court could conclude that the physical struggle between Miss Sanchez Rosas and Officer Hicks constituted a violation of one or both provisions of section 5-54-103. [snorts] The warning symbol that worked on the taser, she got out and then I said, "Hey, walk over this way." She's like, "Why?" And she she's like, "I'm not, you know, just argue with me, right? >> Keep telling her." She wouldn't listen. And so, um, let's go hands on. She pushed back, tensed up. >> So, still tried to >> Who was the guy? >> I thought security. I tried to tried to arm bar. It wouldn't work. She was tensing up cuz she's a lady. >> Still trying to go as easy as I can. And um, she wouldn't. So, I leg hooked her, slammed her on the ground. >> I saw that part. Yep. So >> what were you saying at first on the radio seat belt or >> Yeah, she I went to go I was like so you'll see. So I went to go like tell her like hey you need or I told her the reason for the stop she was arguing I wasn't doing 40 and 25 wasn't doing that yes you were like and then she she's like I want to see it. I like no do you have your license? We went back and forth for a little bit. She kept trying to argue about it. I was like all right get out right and so she wouldn't. So I opened her door went to go get the seat belt. Well, she blocked me from getting it and so >> yeah, so that was so I was pulling the taser out. I hit the warning. She's like, "All right, don't you don't have to tase me, dude. You don't tase me, dude." But then in reality, I could have tasered with that one, but it just wasn't. >> Hey, the warning worked. Look at that. >> Yeah. Well, until we started having to wrestle on the ground. >> Officer Hicks tells the other officers that he would have been within his authority to deploy his taser against Miss Sanchez Rosas for refusing to comply with the exit order. Now, when evaluating whether an officer's use of force constitutes excessive force, courts apply the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonleness standard established in the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor, which directs courts to consider the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. The 8th Circuit applied those factors in the 2009 case of Brown v. city of Golden Valley where an officer tased a passenger during a traffic stop solely because she refused to comply with commands to end a 911 call. The court concluded that it could not say that the use of force was reasonable as a matter of law, and that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the tasing constituted excessive force, noting that the suspect had committed at most a minor misdemeanor, had posed a minimal safety threat, and was not actively resisting or attempting to flee. Critically, the court drew a distinction between a genuine threat to officer safety, which can justify force even in minor offense cases, and a mere affront to command authority. Here, Officer Hicks's own statements to his colleagues suggest that his motivation for drawing the taser was to compel compliance with the exit order rather than to address any safety concern. And Miss Sanchez Ross was suspected of a minor traffic violation, made no threatening movements toward Officer Hicks, and was not physically resisting. Accordingly, Miss Sanchez Rosas would have a compelling argument that deploying the taser under these circumstances for the purpose of forcing compliance rather than addressing an immediate safety threat would constitute excessive force in violation of the fourth amendment. >> No, I didn't check. >> Okay. >> So, you already get a 11. >> Uh, no. >> Good job. >> Thanks. >> You're good. You good? Uh, I don't know where her >> Thanks, bud. Her glasses got bent up. >> Yeah, I don't suspect it. She's just speeding. Made it way bigger than it needed to be. >> Definitely. That'll be the subject I'm 15 with. So, >> okay. >> I think it's all taken care of. Um, >> you got speeding obstruction resistant. >> Yeah. So, um, >> question. >> Yeah. And this is as I understand the policy, I would have been green light to taser. But want to understand in this specific scenario. So she finally gets out after the warning. I host her with the taser. >> Mhm. >> We're talking, she's arguing. I tell her to walk back this way. She refuses to do it. I go to grab her. She pulls away. >> Mhm. >> And she start and like I go to grab her again to arm bar. She's strong arming it and won't, you know, won't comply at all. >> Yeah. >> But this one, I think I made the right choice. >> Yeah. That's active resistance, which in in a situation you could, but like Garcia said, we shouldn't. I mean, >> you the female, we shouldn't rely on the taser. You can fight her. >> Yeah. >> You know. >> Yeah. >> I just want to make sure. >> But yes, that's active resistance. >> Okay. >> That would fit the policy if somebody was to ask. Okay. >> Oh, yeah. Cool. The warning that actually got her. That's kind of cool. >> Yeah. >> She's like, "Yeah, yeah, you'll see it on the body cam." Officer Hicks asks another officer whether departmental policy would have authorized taser deployment during the physical struggle, and the officer states that it would, characterizing Miss Sanchez Roses's conduct as quote unquote active resistance. Now, while the department's taser policy is not publicly available, the legal distinction between active and passive resistance is wellestablished. As the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals explained in the 2020 case of Cohor v. Smith, the failure to follow police instructions may constitute passive resistance. And when a suspect is passively resistant, some lower level of force may be reasonable. Likewise, in the 2017 case of Tatum v. Robinson, the 8th Circuit made clear that non-compliance, and arguing alone do not amount to active resistance, and that physically struggling, threatening an officer or attempting to flee are the kinds of conduct that distinguish active resistance from passive non-compliance, with active resistance generally permitting a greater degree of force and response. To the extent Ms. Sanchez Rosus physically opposed Officer Hicks during the struggle. A court could potentially find that her conduct crossed the line from passive non-compliance into active resistance under that framework, which could potentially justify a higher level of force and response. >> Cool. I'm going to go ahead and transfer it to B County. >> Okay. All right. I'll do your uh your inventory. I'll email you and then uh Yeah. Uh it's all keys are in. It's not a push to start. >> Yeah. 104. If you would assign me a CR for obstructing governmental operations. Do you have the car key? >> I've got it. Yeah. >> Okay, cool. >> Dude, I really thought the best. >> Real quick, there's no arguing it. You You are going to Benton County, so don't start with that. But do you need medical assistance for anything? >> No. >> Okay. >> Did you pick up my glasses? >> Yes, I got your glasses, your phone. Your car key is going to go with the tow truck, but we got the keys off the car key itself. >> Does it need to be towed since I'm not working? >> Yes, it's going to be towed. What's up? All right. All right. I'll take care of your uh your record and >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> After her arrest, Miss Sanchez Rosas was charged with obstructing governmental operations, speeding, and refusal to submit to arrest. There is little additional information available about this encounter, and the outcome of these charges is unknown. Overall, Officer Hicks gets a C minus for threatening to deploy his taser on questionable legal grounds, escalating to physical force without affording Miss Sanchez Ross a meaningful opportunity to comply or attempting to diffuse the situation, and failing to exercise the kind of professional discretion that the circumstances warranted. The taser threat is the most legally significant aspect of this encounter. As established earlier, the objective reasonleness standard draws a meaningful constitutional line between a suspect who poses a genuine safety threat and one who is simply defying a command. And officer Hicks's own statements to his colleagues confirm that his motivation was compliance, not safety. Whether that threat would survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny is at minimum an open question. Additionally, Officer Hicks failed to exercise sound discretion, moving to physical force swiftly and without any attempts to deescalate the encounter. Miss Sanchez Rosus delayed in producing her license and questioned the basis for the stop, but the footage does not show a stated refusal to comply. Officer Hicks moved to initiate a physical removal without pausing to allow her a substantial opportunity to respond, and the encounter deteriorated to a physical struggle and a takeown within seconds, even setting aside the constitutional questions entirely. An officer retains discretion in how they manage a non-compliant traffic stop. And nothing in this encounter suggests that officer Hicks made any effort to deescalate the situation down before resorting to force. A brief measured attempt to give Miss Sanchez Ross time to comply may well have resolved the encounter without physical contact altogether. This interaction highlights that lawful authority and sound professional judgment are not the same thing and that an officer's failure to exercise the latter can turn a routine traffic stop into a far more serious encounter than the situation required. The Miss Sanchez Rosessas gets a C for failing to comply with lawful orders during a traffic stop, prolonging a routine encounter through non-compliance, and physically resisting Officer Hicks after she exited the vehicle. And while Officer Hicks's conduct raises legitimate constitutional concerns, Miss Sanchez Rosess's actions also contributed to the deterioration of the encounter. As established earlier, a driver is legally obligated to produce their license upon demand in a lawful traffic stop and to exit the vehicle upon command. And neither of those obligations is conditioned on the officer first justifying the stop to the driver's satisfaction. Miss Sanchez Ross disputed the alleged speed throughout the encounter and repeatedly demanded proof of the violation before she would comply. But the side of the road is not the appropriate venue for a challenge to the validity of a traffic stop. The legal system provides mechanisms, including contesting a charge in court, and a driver who disagrees with the reason for a stop is generally better served by complying in the moment and litigating later. And finally, the physical struggle presents the most serious concern, regardless of whether Officer Hicks escalated prematurely. Miss Sanchez Ross's physical opposition potentially exposed her to criminal liability. However frustrating a police encounter may feel in the moment, it is essential to understand that physical resistance carries legal consequences that a courtroom challenge does not, and that the decision to contest a stop on the side of the road rather than in front of a judge very rarely works in the driver's favor. 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] [music]