Sir, do not make me break this window. You better You better leave my car. Sir, leave my car. Hey, open this car right now. I will bust this window. Get out. Get that door open. The traffic stop began with a simple warning for an alleged illegal pass, but quickly escalated when the officer demanded identification without clear justification. According to Terry v. Ohio 392 US1968, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to demand identification during a stop. The driver's refusal to provide ID based on his belief in sovereign citizen principles was met with threats and force despite the minor nature of the alleged offense. This rapid escalation suggests an abuse of power, prioritizing control over deescalation. The officer's insistence on compliance rather than explaining the legal basis for the demand set the stage for a confrontation that violated the driver's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Hello background police department. reason for the traffic stop is when you're on South Main here, turning on West First is a no pass zone. That's not a That's not a turn lane zone. You can't go beside another car and pass. Okay. No, there's not separated. That's a single lane. Okay, that's fine. That's understandable. You got a driver license with the insurance? cuz we're in the middle of a [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. Sir, do not make me break this window. You better You better leave my car. Sir, leave my car. Hey, open this car right now. I will bust this window open. Get out of this car right now. This is private property, sir. Get out of this car or I will break it, sir. Right. Give me another unit now. Do you call police? Sir, do you get out of this car or I will break your window. Police. I want you. Well, guess what? I'm a corporal. I'm the supervisor. Get out of this car right now. Don't make me break this window. Do not make me break this window, sir. Sir. All right, I'm gonna break the window here. Get out of the car. Don't break my window. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. I've asked you multiple times to get out of the car. I asked you multiple times to do my car. Get out of the car now. That is a lawful order. Get out of the car. There's no law. Lawful order. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Okay. Get out of the car. That's the last time. Get out of the vehicle now. Get out of the vehicle now. Get out of the vehicle now. Sir, get out of the Hey, do not take off. Okay. Get out of the vehicle now. I do not comply. Get out of the vehicle now. I'm telling you, I don't get to this side. Sir, if you do not get out of this vehicle, we are going to break a window. The officer's threat to break the driver's car window and the subsequent use of a taser represent a disproportionate response to non-compliance. The fourth amendment protects individuals from excessive force as clarified in Graham var's Connor 490US 386 1989 which states that force must be objectively reasonable based on the circumstances. The driver was not posing an immediate threat. Yet officers resorted to breaking windows and deploying a taser. Actions that seem punitive rather than necessary. This use of force reflects a disregard for the driver's physical safety and constitutional protections. Such tactics intimidate rather than serve undermining public trust in law enforcement. The officer's decision to break the driver's car windows and call for a tow truck infringed on his property rights. Under United States versus Jones 565US400 2012, government actions that physically intrude on private property without a warrant or exigent circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment. The driver's car described as legally parked was damaged and seized without clear legal justification. This destruction of property coupled with the threat of towing appears to be a coercive tactic to punish non-compliance rather than a lawful response. Such actions highlight how officers can overstep boundaries, treating personal property as collateral in a power struggle. Break that window. Get him out. Get out. All right. You got something to hit that window with. I want to You want to do this one? I got a window breaker on that one. Get out of the car. We are supervised. We are. Get out of the car now. Cover your eyes. Look, look at Get out. Look at Get out. Taser. Taser. Taser. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Look how Look how yall are acting. Yeah, we're looking at you. You are a thug. Y it's harass get out now. Got the ass over this one. That door open at me. Get out. Get out. Look how you are. Get out now. We don't want to act this way. Get out. Where's the Get him out. Get out now. Get him back. Roll over. Roll over right now. Behind your back, sir. Sir, put your hand behind your back. Sir, put your hand behind your back. I can't put my hand on my back cuz it's under my body and you were checking on my body. I got this one. I got this one. Roll this way. Pull this hand out. Okay, sir. Roll over to your other side. There's a mobile one. No. No. Doesn't matter. Which other side, sir? Okay, sir. Sit up on your butt. Okay. All right. All right. Hold your knee. Stand you up. Okay. All right. Out of this glass. All right. Car here. Is that all? No, it's not. But we'll be thinking truck, right? Yeah. Because of all of this out of what? All of this. No. Out of what? You ain't have no right to go in my my right now. You're under arrest. Stop arrest. I am handcuffed. How come? How come you doing all this? It's still called passive resist moving away. You know, I don't want you all in my pocket. I didn't give you consent to go in my pocket. Okay. Anything else on it? No. All this was was a simple warning for freaking illegal packs. All it was the driver was arrested and searched without clear communication of the charges or his rights. The fifth amendment reinforced by Miranda versus Arizona 384 US436 1966 requires that individuals be informed of their rights upon arrest to ensure due process. The officer's focus on compliance over explanation left the driver uninformed, creating a sense of harassment. By dismissing his concerns and proceeding with a search without consent, the officers bypassed procedural safeguards. This lack of transparency fuels perceptions of corruption as it strips individuals of their right to understand the legal process being imposed upon them. Well, I'm sitting here running right while running traffic. You know, cars turn on left. So, he comes up here, passes on the right. All it was simple warning, illegal pass on the right, and he doesn't want to provide ID. Pass on right in the morning. He failed to give any identification. Refused to get out of the vehicle. Window was broke. pain and now he's in control. Yeah. Both windows. He he refused to get out of the car even after [Applause] he's been traveling sub. I'm not driving. So he didn't have to provide ID. He didn't have to do. [Music] Yeah. I won't ride for Felto Bay are in my car. So I got Will you guys transport for me? I've got Do you want EMS to look at him back here or get off there? I'll just do as far as I know. We still got one EMS station over here. Well, we got a patient. Yeah, we got a patient. Can we have EMS unit? So I just Well, I told him to call. Sorry. Oh, you're fine. We just freaking warn him. That's all. I tried to stay back when the taper come back, boys. I'm not getting him, but I ain't getting I couldn't work. Like I kept hitting him with it. Yeah, it didn't bother. He has a pretty thick coat on, too. I've got band-aids. Yeah, you got some, man. glass. Yeah, I was just in the moment. I didn't have time and just kept resisting. I was like, screw the gloves right now. You got to go. Well, we have our gloves on. Literally car turning left. He comes up here, passes on the right. Simple warning. That's all. And I told him, dude, hey, just give me this is a warning. Don't make it worse than what it's going to be. He kept saying no. That's when I called you guys. Come on. You want felony resist and all that? Well, I believe you don't want it. Are you taking them for me? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I'm going to start looking at uh that computer. If if it's better at the PD, we'll take them to the control that Sorry, boss. You got one. Thank you. Simple damn warning, dude. Hey, I'm put on mute already. All right, sir. Have a seat for me. Have a seat, sir. Go ahead and turn your legs around for me. Sorry. on. I got your shoes right here. Okay. Put them down right here. Put my seat. All right. Go ahead and hop out for me, sir. Why you should put my seat belt on? Go ahead and put your foot in here, sir. Why you ignoring me, sir? After what you done to us, we're not going to play this game. I didn't do nothing. I didn't do nothing to you all. I didn't do a thing. Y'all did it all to me. Right up those steps. Heat. Heat. All right, we're going right over here. Where are we going? Right here. Right over there, sir. Let's go. Come on. Come on. Taking you to jail. Okay. Let's just go ahead and do what we got to do. Get him booked in and we'll get him in a sale. Whatever you want, sir. Okay. What's your last name? What's your name? Let's uh if he's going to be that way, let's just put him in. You got it. He's ready down here. Yep. Let's put him down there with nothing. Let's go. Is he You got nothing on him? As far as I know, he does not. I patted him down, but we'll be more than happy to pat him down once more. Yeah, let's check. Yeah, let's let's go a little bit right in here. All right, the wall shoes off. Keep your shoes off. After tasering the driver, the officers offered EMS evaluation but quickly dismissed his refusal without ensuring he fully understood his rights. The Cruzen versus director Missouri Department of Health 497 US261 1990 case affirms an individual's right to refuse medical treatment. The officer's cursory handling of the driver's refusal without documenting it properly or ensuring informed consent suggests a lack of respect for his autonomy. This indifference to medical rights, especially after the use of force, further illustrates how officers prioritized procedure over the driver's well-being, reinforcing perceptions of systemic misconduct. The entire incident from the aggressive demands to the use of force and property damage exemplifies how corrupt policing practices erode public trust. The Supreme Court in City of Los Angeles versus Lions 461US951 1983 recognizes that systemic police misconduct can deter individuals from exercising their rights due to fear of retaliation. The drivers repeated accusations of thuggery and harassment reflect a belief that the officers were not serving but oppressing. When law enforcement prioritizes dominance over dialogue, it alienates the community, perpetuating a cycle of distrust and resistance that harms both citizens and officers. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now.