Um, I do believe yes, for officer safety, they do have the right. >> Doesn't there have to be reasonable suspicion that the person committed a [music] criminal offense or violated a law? >> As I'm going to I I don't know the law exactly. >> What lawful basis was there for you to ask for her ID? [laughter] >> I don't know. In order to detain [music] somebody, what do you have to have legally? Do you know? >> I do not know the law legally. >> Okay. In a quiet corner of Cook County, a seemingly routine incident spiraled into a shocking display of ignorance within the ranks of law enforcement. This is the story of Samantha, known as Pink Camera Magic on YouTube, and her encounter with two cops who don't know the law. It all began when Samantha stood outside the Cook County Courthouse, her camera in hand, recording the imposing structure before her. Lieutenant Malatza, a 20-year police veteran, confronted Samantha, asserting that recording the courthouse was prohibited by a judicial order. Samantha's request to see the order triggered a sequence of events that would later be deemed unlawful. >> Hey, ma'am, you know this is a public building. >> Exactly. That's why I'm recording it. >> It's also a court facility. >> Yep. >> Which there is a judicial law [music] or judicial order that says that you cannot take this building. >> Can I see that order? >> Yes. Come on in. We're going to check your IDs, too. >> Oh, no. I'm not going in. >> Oh, yeah. No, no, no. We're going to run you, too. >> No, that's all right. >> Get your name. We're going to do a report and everything. So, come on in. Um, no. >> No. Yeah, you're going to come in now. >> Am I being detained? >> Yes. >> For what? >> Because right now we you are doing something suspicious. >> That's not a reason to detain anybody. >> Well, it is for dinner. Come on. >> It's really not. I'm just going to stay here >> and continue recording. >> Okay. You're going to come in and we're going to find out who you are and what you're doing here. >> No, you're not. >> Okay. All right. Who's got cuffs? She does not want to go agree with me. >> Samantha's refusal to provide her ID raised a critical question. What lawful basis did the officers have for this demand? Before a police officer can properly stop a person and ask for identification, the officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred. In the beginning, Lieutenant Malattozo said this. >> Hey ma'am, you know this is a public building. >> Exactly. That's why I'm recording. >> It is stated clearly that taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is [music] a constitutional right. and that includes transportation facilities, the outside of federal buildings, and [music] police and other government officials carrying out their duties. Recording in public is not a crime nor a reasonable suspicion to detain someone. >> Okay. >> I'm being detained for just taking pictures of the building. >> Yes, ma'am. You're doing something suspicious and we need to know who you are and why you're doing it. >> Okay. >> Are you familiar with First Amendment? >> Yes. >> I really Come on. >> Wow. Now, I tried to do this nicely. >> To demand someone's ID, there must be reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense. Samantha's recording of a public building didn't meet this criterion. The officer's actions escalated as they detained Samantha, citing vague suspicions as their justification. Officers should have known that mere suspicion doesn't warrant detention. It must be based on specific, articulable facts. In a disturbing turn of events, the officers mocked Samantha after she invoked her right to remain silent. >> I'm a lawyer. >> Okay, call your lawyer. That includes my camera as far as um >> it's already on. >> It's really fourth amendment. >> Oh, correct. Why do we always get the craz >> I don't know. Did you delete my footage? >> Do you want to cooperate or not? >> I'm remotely. >> This is your choice. You can either give us an ID so that we can do a report on this and find out who you are or we're going to take you in front of the presiding judge. He's going to hold you in contempt >> so he can hold you for as long as he wants. >> Remaining silent. Okay, that's good. Okay. Um, we're going to probably take you in front of the judge. >> He's going to hold her in contempt >> for I think right now he's doing 90 days. >> Okay. >> So, is that okay with you? >> Silence. >> Okay. You realize you're going to go to Cook County Jail for 90 days. >> Silent. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Now, you have an option. All you have to do is show us an ID so that we could do a report and we'll let you go on your way. >> I have an option. >> Okay. We told you that before. >> Right now, you're just obstructing. >> You're obstructing one. >> You're obstruing us from doing our job. >> Remaining silent. >> All right. Cuffer. Let's get her first stuff. >> I don't consent to searches. >> Well, we don't care anymore. >> Mocking a person's legal rights is unacceptable and unprofessional conduct for law enforcement officers. Samantha's camera was confiscated and the situation intensified as Lieutenant Malattozo insisted on her providing an ID. Samantha's decision to remain silent [music] led to an ultimatum from the officers. Provide an ID or face detainment in front of a judge. Samantha was handcuffed and [music] arrested, sparking a legal battle that would expose the officer's egregious actions. Arresting someone without a valid reason is a clear violation of their constitutional [music] rights. During the deposition, Lieutenant Malattozo's lack of legal knowledge became painfully evident. >> What would you do if one of those people said to you, "What's the difference between arrest and detain?" What would your answer be? >> Call legal. Mr. Gordon, seated to your left. >> No. Sheriff has their own legal. >> Oh, okay. Their own legal who helps them understand things like the difference between arrest and detain. >> Yes. >> Gotcha. >> Was there a lawful basis to handcuff her? >> Yes. >> Okay. And what was that lawful basis? >> Officer safety. >> You familiar with the Fourth Amendment, by the way? >> Vaguely. >> What does it say in your own vague terms? >> Uh, no illegal search and seizure. Unless there's >> probable cause >> or that's about all I know. >> Okay. All right. Good enough. You said that's about all I know. >> Lieutenant Melattozo's inability to comprehend basic legal concepts left a trail of unanswered questions. >> All right. Um, now there was somebody else who asked you the same question that I just asked you about your familiarity with the Fourth Amendment. Uh, who's in this room right now? Do you know who that person was? >> My client was just asked you that, didn't she? >> I don't recall. She asked you, "Are you familiar with the Fourth Amendment?" You don't remember that? >> No, it's already familiar with the Fourth Amendment. >> Oh, great. Why do we always get the crazies? >> I don't know. >> If I tell you that your answer was, "Oh, great. Why do we always get the crazies?" Would you dispute that? >> No. >> Does that sound like something you would say to somebody? >> That's something I did say that day. Yes. >> So, you remember saying that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you remember saying that in response to the question? Are you familiar with the Fourth Amendment? No, I just remember saying it. >> Why is it that you felt she was one of the crazies? >> When people act in a way that is not in their best interest, how is she acting that was not in her best interest? >> Well, at any time all she had to do is identify herself. We could have done our report and everything could have gone the own. There a law that requires people to identify themselves when requested by law enforcement. >> I don't know. >> Have you ever read anybody the Miranda writes? >> No. >> You've never read anybody their Miranda rights? No. >> Even the fundamental Miranda writes seemed foreign to Lieutenant Molattozo. This shocking revelation cast doubt on his qualifications as a law enforcement officer. Both officers struggled to provide coherent responses, leaving their actions further exposed as unlawful. Officer Larson's deposition revealed similar shortcomings in her understanding of the law. >> Is it against the law to take pictures of a courthouse from outside? >> No. Not that I know. >> Okay. Is it lawful to arrest somebody for taking pictures outside of a courthouse? Of the courthouse? >> No, not that I know. >> Okay. Are you familiar with this case at all? >> Which case? The >> case that brings us here today that you're testifying in. >> Yes. >> Okay. And and in a nutshell, what's the case about? I would say that Amanda is I guess I called you to say that she was uh outside videoing when she shouldn't have been. So she's saying we violated her amendment rights. >> You're correct. Um when you say when she shouldn't have been, what does that mean? Was she doing something wrong? >> Just something unusual. What us as officers would consider unusual. >> Um, in order to detain somebody, what do you have to have legally? Do you know? >> I do not know the law legally. >> Officer goes over to somebody on the street. Let's call the person Mr. Plaintiff. >> Okay. >> Police officer goes to Mr. Plaintiff and says, "Hey, let me see your ID." And Mr. Plaintiff says, "Uh, no." Is the officer now allowed to put Mr. plaintiff in handcuffs and detain him. >> Um, >> I do believe yes. For officer safety, they do have the right. >> Doesn't there have to be reasonable suspicion that the person committed a criminal offense or violated a law? >> As I'm going to I I don't know the law exactly. >> Lazo's inability to grasp [music] crucial legal concepts, raised serious concerns about his competence. As the depositions continued, the officer's lack of legal knowledge painted a disturbing picture. >> You just said that he asked you for the memory card because he wanted to delete the pictures. Is that your testimony? Yes. >> Okay. And if he were to testify at some point in time that he absolutely categorically did not delete those pictures, then would you want to change your answer as to whether you or one of your people did? I'm going to object for speculation. No one had custody of the camera but me. >> Would it have been lawful for you to delete her pictures? I don't know. >> What do you think? >> Are you allowed to go over to people's pictures and delete them? >> No. >> Without a court order? >> No. >> That would be a violation of which amendment? Do you know? >> What do you do if somebody says they want to talk to a lawyer and you have them in handcuffs? >> We allow them to call a lawyer. >> You keep asking questions? >> That depends on the case. >> Oh, I got you. Okay. Tell me the case in which you would continue to ask questions of somebody in custody after they ask for a lawyer. >> If we're doing an investigation, we're going to ask. >> I got you. Okay. Do you know which amendment it is that allows people to demand a lawyer? Do you have any idea? >> No. >> When you arrest somebody, do you have to advise them that they have the right to remain silent? >> Yes. >> Do you have to advise them that they have the right to an attorney? >> Yes. >> Do you have to advise them that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to them? >> Yes. Okay. Um, now what if somebody says, "Yes, I want to talk to an attorney." Do you get to keep asking them questions? Or do you have to call a lawyer for them before you want to ask any more questions? >> I don't know. >> You don't know. You don't know if you're allowed to keep asking questions of somebody in custody after they ask for a lawyer? >> No. >> How long have you been employed under at Cook County Sheriff's? >> 27 years. >> 27 years. So, I imagine you only became a lieutenant recently. >> No. >> How long ago did you become a lieutenant? >> 22 years ago. >> You've been a lieutenant for 22 years, and you don't know the Miranda rights? >> Samantha's legal battle against Cook County remains ongoing, but her case has already exposed a staggering level of ignorance within the ranks of law enforcement. In a world where knowledge of the law is paramount, this [music] case stands as a stark reminder of the importance of upholding citizens rights and holding those responsible for their actions accountable. If you want to watch more police cam stories, subscribe and turn on notifications for more. Enjoy [music] the next video. >> When he approached that front door, he could have said forward police and a Tatiana would still be alive. >> Does the defendant tell you? >> That's my knowledge. >> Someone lost their life. He's supposed to be testifying in his own defense and he's cracking jokes from the witness stand. >> Your gun, that Glock, is that a firearm? >> Yes. >> Is a firearm a deadly weapon? >> Yes. >> Aaron Dean's path to becoming a police officer was questionable from the beginning. When applying for the Fort Worth Police Department, Dean failed his psychological exam, which highlighted his narcissistic personality, impaired decision-making, and interpersonal challenges. >> Be able to kill somebody if you have to. No problem. Despite these red flags, the department still hired him. It became evident that these psychological shortcomings would play a significant role in his career. On October 12th, 2019, Dean and his partner responded to a non-emergency call about a house with the lights on and the front door open. Rather than announcing his presence, Dean chose to stealthily circle around the house, peering through windows. This decision escalated the situation. Police officers are generally required to announce themselves when entering a home, a principle known as the knock andannounce rule. This is a standard procedure in most jurisdictions and is backed by the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Exceptions can be made if officers believe announcing would lead to destruction of evidence or put someone's safety at risk. However, this cop is not here for anyone's safety. Jefferson, hearing someone outside, grabbed a weapon and opened the blinds. Without hesitation, Dean fired a single fatal shot. He hadn't identified himself as an officer, nor given any warning. The lack of proper procedure resulted in the unnecessary death of an innocent woman in her own home. >> Put your hands up. SHOW ME [screaming] YOUR HANDS UP. >> During the trial, Dean's personnel file revealed troubling patterns that had been overlooked. A supervisor noted that Dean had tunnel vision and would often fail to follow instructions. In 2004, he had been cited for inappropriately touching a woman without her consent and asking her not to report it. Despite this history, Fort Worth police allowed him to serve in a position of authority, highlighting significant lapses in their vetting and accountability processes. During the trial, Aaron Dean took the stand, but it quickly became apparent that his defense was crumbling. >> Have there have you been dispatched to open structure open structure calls in the past in your career where you've identified yourself out loud verbally as police? Every call is different, but yes, there have been some. >> And there have been burglary calls that you've been dispatched to. You verbally announced yourself as forward police. Isn't that correct? >> Again, there are different types of burglary calls, but yes. So all that stuff that's stacked up, the lawn mower, the weed eater, the bicycle that's being stacked up by you think the bad guy that's there in the house, did you ever confirm the license plates of the cars to see if they did belong to the owner? >> No. Wouldn't it have been a good idea to determine if one of the license plates did not belong to the owner of the home? So you can maybe identify if your imagined perpetrator had a getaway car outside. At the time, both of the cars matched the description that said they were supposed to belong to the house. Um I then turned my focus to the house to see what was going on in the house. I'm sure. >> So, you had no reason to think that anyone that shouldn't have been in that house had a car parked in that driveway? >> Not at that point. >> Well, did you just expect the burglar to pick up the lawn mower and the weed eater and the bicycle and carry it under their arms down the street? >> Where's the getaway car? >> There could have been someone coming. >> Could have been someone coming. Did you leave someone in the front yard and watch and see when they showed up? >> No. That would have been a good idea, wouldn't it? Objection. The sidebar sustain. >> Was that good police work to leave no one out in the front yard to see if the getaway driver was coming? Objection. Ask and answer. >> Overruled. >> It could have been better. >> Was that good police work? >> Objection. Asked and answer. >> So, can we go back to playing the body cam footage on her? >> Yes. I don't. >> So there is no way for you to know who was that if Officer Darts was behind you whenever you're up at that window, is there? >> I trusted that she was standing behind me like we were trained to do. >> But you have no way of knowing that night that she was behind you, do you? >> If you're asking if I felt her, no, I did not. >> And you don't have eyes in the back of your head as you already said. So you did not know where she was, did you? Again, I trusted that she was behind me like we were trained, but no, I don't know for an absolute fact. >> The prosecutor's cross-examination was relentless, methodically exposing Dean's poor decisions and lack of professionalism. The lawyer systematically broke down this self- assessment, pointing out the numerous breaches in protocol, failing to secure exits, not calling for backup, neglecting to inform his partner about seeing a gun, and recklessly entering the house. Ladies and gentlemen, the jury, I guess it's inherently dangerous to sit in your own bedroom, in your own home, in the middle of the night, probably while you're babysitting your 8-year-old nephew, cuz she's the one that's dead, not the defendant. And all this talk about training and self-defense, it's not the defendant's point of view. You will not see anywhere in this charge that you were to look at it from the defendant's point of view. You were to look at it from a reasonable person in the same circumstances. Well, you know who was in the same circumstances as the defendant who was looking death in the eye? That was a Tatiana. Did she fire? No, he did. And we're going to talk about it here in a minute. You're going to see that he didn't even see a gun. But let's talk about how we got there on October 12th, 2019. Because let me tell you, the one person that had no input on any choices that night was a Tatiana Jefferson. not one choice as things unfolded because on October 12th, 2019, when the defendant was called to her house, he was the one making choices. When he approached that front door, he could have knocked and Itatiana would still be alive. When he approached that front door, he could have said, "For police and a Tatiana would still be alive." The general orders are here for a reason. They're here to guide these officers so they get home safely and the citizens of Tarant County of Fort Worth are protected and served. [clears throat] At Tatiana Jefferson was not protected or served on October 12th, 2019. The defendant's own words. They want to argue about Dr. Priest or Mr. Priest or Dr. Coons. Dr. raccoons couldn't answer a question. If I would have asked him if the sky was blue, he would have said maybe, perhaps, there are other factors. The man couldn't answer one straight question. What does that say about his credibility? The defense's witness wouldn't even answer one question after he saw the defendant time and time again sitting in that seat look at you on road and say, "That was some bad police work. That was some bad police work. Dr. Coons watched him admit bad police work over and over again, then stood up here and told you he did everything great. The defendant knew he didn't do everything the right way. And when you look at the general orders for silent alarms, cuz that's what you can look at. It's in it's in the exhibits. It says if you see signs of damaged entry. You shall call for backup. What did the defendant tell you on Monday? I thought the window had been the screen door. There was damage. Someone had broken in. There was a screwdriver right next to the door. That's signs of forced entry. Signs of forced entry. His general orders say it. signs a force injury, you shall call for backup. But he ignored that because you see, you know who the defendant really is as he testified. You know, I mean, he cracked a joke. I guess I just should have stayed home that night. Someone lost their life. He's supposed to be testifying in his own defense. And he's cracking jokes from the witness stand. I guess I should have just stayed home that night. Well, Tatiana was home and she's no longer here because of what he did. THE CHOICES HE MADE, THE CHOICES THAT she had no input into. She the defendant did not call for backup when he saw that second screen door, even though it was in his general orders to do it. Shall do it. >> The lawyer pointed out that Aaron Dean didn't even tell his partner there was a gun inside the house after shooting. He allowed officer Dar to enter the home without warning her of any potential danger. The lawyer emphasized that Dean only said, "Looks like we have a weapon here." Showing he wasn't sure of what he saw when he pulled the trigger. >> So he kept going because that's who he is. Gung-ho hard charger, ignoring his own safety, ignoring Officer Dar's safety. He leads her into that backyard. And I guess Dr. [ __ ] says if you don't want the police in your backyard, you better lock your gate. all of Fort Worth better go lock your gates right now or I guess the police can just go in your backyard whenever they want to or was that was that as ridiculous to y'all as it was to me. We have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes just like Ashley talked about. Just like you know home is where you feel safest. Home is where you know you can protect your family. Home is where you know you can care for your nephew while your mother's in the hospital. But the defendant didn't care about any of that. He was going to get in that backyard regardless of that front entryway being completely open. Anyone that was in that house could have taken off running. Anyone in that house could have come back around and shot him in the back. He wouldn't have known it because he didn't care. He didn't care about the general orders. He doesn't care about who's in that house. He's a hard charger. He is gung-ho. He was going to get in that backyard. And it Tatiana is sitting there playing video games, watching Zion, knowing that this defendant is making lifeending decisions and she can't do anything about it because she has no idea. So now they get to the gate and he opens the gate and they get inside and they get to that back window. He'd been shining his flashlights all over the cars. shining his flashlight in the back window. Now, again, it's a reasonable person, but I want each of you to think, what would you do in the middle of the night if you heard a noise in your backyard [clears throat] and your children, your grandchildren, nieces, or nephews, whoever it may be, are there with you and you know that you are the only line of defense for their protection. and you hear that noise and you see a flashlight in your backyard and you know that you have a gate and a fence that's protecting your backyard. What would you do? You would do the same thing that a Tatiana did. She's in her own home. She sees somebody she doesn't know in that backyard. Zion's on that bed and she knows that she's the only person that can protect Zion from what's happening in that backyard because don't forget she had no idea what decisions the defendant had made up to that point. So yes, she gets her gun and she goes to that back window and looks and they want to make a big deal about Mr. the priest. That case, that man was given commands and that man had the opportunity to observe those commands and that man did not. I want you to remember how long their video expert said was from the beginning of the command to the shot was fired. Half a second. How was she supposed to comply? What was she supposed to do? And pointing a gun at a Fort Worth officer is illegal. Yes, it is. If you're committing a if you're violating the law, she didn't know who was out there. She didn't call the police and she had no input on any decision he had made up to that point. She was there to protect Zion. And that is all. Her only crime was love and protection of her nephew, not pointing a firearm at the Fort Worth Police Department. So, he's at the window and you watch it. Watch. Take the body cam back. Watch it over and over again. Look at the audio. Half a second from the first command to where and it's put up your hand. Show me. Bam. Half a second. No one can comply with that. No one. She never had a chance. So now we're at the window and they brought this videographer guy in here and all this other stuff. But let me tell you, there's a lot of evidence that shows this. This man never saw that GUN. HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE SAW. HE JUST SHOT. He didn't shot shoot two or three times to make sure that the threat was over with. He shot one time. And their expert one trial he's saying it takes a second, a third, a second and a half for the brain to make a decision and for your hand to react. But no, this this one's different. This one's different because it's a different case. Or is it because it's a different legal theory? When the defense attorney gave his argument just a minute ago, he held his hands up like this. If her hands were in front of her face, they would have been hit with glass. They would have been hit with glass and you would have saw the same injuries on her hands and forearms as you would have saw on her face. They're not there. You know why? Because the gun was down. Because she didn't know what she was looking at. He the defendant testified she was bent over almost perpendicular to the ground. And then the videographer said she's up straight. Well, she couldn't have been up straight. If the bullet enters here, like the defense just said, and it's found down lower, just past her right kidney in the back. She was bent over. And Zion testified the gun was in her right hand. Use your common sense. You didn't lose it whenever you walked to those metal detectors. How much she had been standing? She's standing like this. If she would had the gun up like this, she would add glass. If she had the gun in her hand, it was down. He didn't know what he saw. And where is the green laser you were promised last week in opening statements from defense attorneys? I want you to remember the defense attorney stood up, looked you in the eye, and said, "You will hear testimony that that green laser hit his chest." Not one person from the witness stand, including the defendant, was able to tell you under oath that that green light hit his chest. You know why? Cuz he didn't see it. So now, let's take a look at what happened after he pulled that trigger. Because I tell you what, what he did after he pulled that trigger shows you beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed murder and that he didn't see that gun. He didn't know what he saw. He saw a silhouette. argument because the jury's job is to view this case from the standpoint according to the charge of a reasonable and prudent person at the time, not in hindsight. >> The jury has been instructed, your objections overruled. >> He's He didn't know what he saw and you're going to hear it here just in a minute as I explain it cuz you probably already know. You know because you heard the testimony when he saw this silhouette. And you can take into account what he did afterwards as evidence of what he knew. >> You may you can take into account what he did afterwards as to what his intention was at the minute the second he pulled that trigger. That half second. >> During his time on the stand, Aaron Dean did not appear to show any remorse for his actions. Despite having fatally shot a Tatiana Jefferson in her own home, Dean ultimately pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, his demeanor remained detached, raising questions about his understanding of the gravity of the situation. In a critical moment of the trial, Dean's partner, Officer Carol Dar, testified against him. She revealed that at no point before or after the shooting did Dean mentioned seeing a firearm or say the word gun, undermining any justification for the lethal force used. This testimony further exposed inconsistencies in Dean's defense, painting a clearer picture of the unnecessary escalation that led to Jefferson's tragic death. >> All right. Um, so y'all go around and go into the front and then you go inside and I hear your voice before his making some announcements of some sort. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Do you remember what you said? >> Um, from the video I said hands up. Okay. And why are you saying hands up? >> I can't tell you exactly why I said hands up. Um I don't know if I was in a heightened state of adrenaline and that's the last thing I heard so I said it too. Um but I wanted to announce that we were coming in the house. >> Get back in the bed back bedroom. What is your priority when you get back there? What do you do? >> As soon as I came through the door, um I heard the baby. Um, and that that became my sole purpose. >> What did you do with your child? >> I got him to come to me. Um, we went down the hallway. I remembered that it was cold outside because I had my jacket on and there was a blanket on the back of the couch. So I wrapped him up and I went and stood on the curb with him so that he didn't have to see what was going on in it. >> So whatever happened inside the room after you took him outside, you don't know? >> No, ma'am. >> Did you ever see a Tatiana's gun? >> No, ma'am. My I I saw her face. >> That burned in your memory? >> Yes, ma'am. Did you ever hear the defendant say gun? >> Nothing. >> Forward Police Department, lots of folks show up, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Chief of police was out there. Is that right? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. At any point from the time that you're in the backyard and you go to the side all the way to the front, does the defendant tell you gun? >> That's my >> she had a gun. What about as you guys run inside that house, does he ever warn you that she has a gun? >> Not that I can remember, though. When asked to rate his actions leading up to the shooting, Dean astonishingly rated himself a B, a passing grade. Dean's own testimony revealed a pattern of dangerous police work, ultimately leading the prosecutor to expose his lack of regard for his partner's safety and the life of Jefferson. >> And so right now, you've just shot the Tatiana Jefferson. Is a is a is your gun that Glock is that a firearm? >> Yes. >> Is a firearm a deadly weapon? >> Yes. When you pointed that when you pointed your gun they caught Jefferson and pulled the trigger. Did you intend for the person on the other end of that bullet to die? >> I intended to stop the threat. >> And stopping the threat means stopping the threat that they could die, right? >> It's a possibility. Yes. >> And because pointing a gun and pulling the trigger, that's an actively dangerous to human life. >> Yes. If >> you do it to somebody else. >> Yes. So, >> are you still standing in front of the window at this point? >> No. >> If somebody was looking outside that window that we see and we've got this paused on a minute 28 seconds, I believe someone from inside that window couldn't see out to you. >> My apologies. I'm sorry. I thought you meant directly up against it. No, but anyone inside that anyone inside that window, inside that house, can see you from that window, can't they? >> Yes. >> And if there were 10 bad guys, they could have 10 guns trained on you right now. Correct. >> Yes. >> And you're not doing anything tactical to protect yourself at this point, are you? You're just standing there. Isn't that correct? >> Yes, I believe so. So all the bad guys, if you think they're in that house, they can take a free shot at you right then and there's nothing you can do about it. Your gun's in your holster, isn't it? >> No, it's in my hand. >> Oh, it's in your hand. You stuck your gun out. >> I think so. >> How come it's not trained on the window there? >> Uh, it's a it's a quickly evolving scene. We're moving around. >> But the bad guys are all in that house. Free to take any shots of you they want to in this position. Correct. >> If there were, it's possible. >> Well, that's what you thought. That's what you told this jury earlier that this was you had determined this was a burglary in progress and the bad and there could have been lots of bad guys in the house. >> I didn't have any way of knowing how many people were in there. >> Okay, so we paused it at 1 minute and 37 seconds. Where are you heading at this point? >> Back around to the front to go inside. So, what in your head as an officer, what do you know that you just left in that backyard on the other side of that window? >> The person that I shot >> with what? >> With my gun. >> Could the person Do you know for for a fact that you hit the person that you shot at? >> Yes. >> Do you know if they're mortally wounded? >> No. Did Did you know if they weren't capable of getting up and climbing out that window? >> No, I didn't. >> So, who's covering your six when you and officer guards are running to the front of this house? We've had a threat. I've shot the threat. The threat's down. Now we're trying to move into the house to render aid. >> You just said you didn't know if this that the wound was mortal. >> The person was laying on the floor and not getting up. >> Could they have been playing possum? >> I suppose. >> Did you know if there were other people, other bad guys in there with guns? >> Not at that time. >> So who is covering your six? Your six officer Dart is six when you all turn tail and run to the front of that home. [clears throat] >> No one. Is that good police work? >> It's the only way to do that. We had to run inside and clear the house and render emergency aid to this person. There was no one else out there. >> But see, you keep going back and forth. Is it Were you going to the house to uh render emergency aid or were you going to the house because there could have been more bad guys there? >> Both. >> Both. Okay. So, if there could have been more bad guys there, was it a good idea to leave the back of the house without surveillance and expose you and officer Dar is six as y'all ran to the front of the home. As I've already stated, there are risks in police work and I had to make a choice. >> It wasn't a good idea, was it? >> It was the only idea. It was the only way to do that. >> Just like the only choice is that that just like you're telling the story, the only choice you had was to shoot and kill a Tatiana Jefferson. >> Yes. >> Did you have a choice whenever you whenever you didn't knock on that front door? >> Yes. >> Did you have a choice when you didn't announce Fort Worth police? >> I could have, but I would have exposed myself to a potential burglar inside. Did you have a choice when you knock when you did not knock on the side door? >> Yes. >> Did you have a choice when you did not announce yourself as fourth police on the side door? >> That's not what we're supposed to do. >> Did you have a choice? >> There's always a choice. >> Did you have a choice to enter that home and open the door to see what was going on inside? >> Not a safe one. Did you have a choice whenever you did you have a choice whenever you could have step back, establish a perimeter, and call for backup? >> Yes. >> Did you have a choice whenever you uh saw those cars parked in the driveway to establish that they were in fact the owners? >> That would have been part of the procedure later. Yes. Did you have a choice whenever you did not call dispatch to contact the person that called police in the first place to get more information? >> We weren't at that step yet. >> But you had a choice. You could have done that, couldn't you? >> Not without violating the general orders. We weren't at that violating >> that would have been uh we hadn't finished inspecting the structure yet. >> I thought this situation was fluid, >> was it not? We were still investigating the the uh we were still inspecting the structure and you had a choice whenever you walked off you and officer Darts walked in that backyard with with exposure to unknown buildings that were looking over the backyard. You had a choice there. Correct. >> I suppose we could have just stayed home, but no. Oh, you could have just stayed home. And what why do you joke about just staying home? Is that because home is supposed to be a safe place? >> It's not a joke. My point is simply that >> it sounded like a joke to me. Is home supposed to be a safe place? >> We object to the badger and allow the witness to finish the question and answer it. >> Sustain the witness answer the question. >> Well, rever your question, Mr. Smith. Is >> your Is a person's home supposed to be a safe place? >> It is. You should you should feel if you don't feel safe in your home, there's nowhere else you're going to feel safe. Is that correct? >> I agree. >> In this Texas, there's nothing wrong with a person owning a firearm, is there? >> No. >> Matter of fact, if if one of your loved ones was at home alone with a child and heard something in the middle of the night, you would hope that your loved one maybe would go to their backyard window with a with a gun, would you? >> Maybe. >> To protect themselves and the child. Isn't that correct? >> Yes. Especially if they saw flashlights in their backyard. Isn't that correct? >> Possibly. >> Flashlights of a person announcing their presence in their backyard where they're not supposed to be. >> Possibly. >> So, you had a lot of choices that night, didn't you? >> Yes. >> The jury, unimpressed by Dean's weak defense and the overwhelming evidence against him, convicted him of manslaughter. The prosecutor had successfully destroyed any notion that Dean's actions were reasonable or justified. Dean showed no emotion when the verdict was read, sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison. However, Jefferson's family did not feel that justice had fully been served and continued to pursue federal charges and civil lawsuits against Dean. This case stands as a stark reminder of the dangers posed by unfit officers whose lack of judgment and professionalism can have devastating irreversible consequences. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now. >> That sucks. Then write a better report. Too bad so that >> statement. I smell marijuana. You look intoxicated because it looks like they w he walked away and the cops didn't want him to walk away and so now they need a reason to arrest him. Me perhaps, but he's in custody. He's in jail just sitting there. You know, I'm with you. Okay. Be careful when you're out there. It's hard enough as it is. Don't give anyone else the power to even bring more, you know, trouble on your life. All right. >> Yes, sir. [music] All right, man. Good luck. >> Here are unforgettable moments when judge saved people from evil cops. Michael Jones was standing outside a residence when officers arrived in response to a disturbance call. But as soon as they got there, he began walking away. Under Texas Penal Code Section 42.01, speech alone, even if loud or aggressive, does not constitute disorderly conduct unless it provokes an immediate breach of peace. The officers, however, commanded Jones to stop and put his hands behind his back without giving a lawful reason. When he hesitated, they accused him of resisting and used force to detain him. This was a clear violation of his rights, as walking away is not a crime. The officers were attempting to manufacture probable cause after failing to find a legitimate reason to detain him. >> Good morning. >> Hey, how are you? >> Hey, buddy. >> If you're banging on the door, you got to be careful because you break something, they're going to you're going to catch another charge. So be careful being on those windows cuz they break very easily. All right. [music] Um, so you were Michael Jones. Mr. Jones, we're talking about you. So that's why I wanted to bring you out. It's only fair that you get to hear what's going on with your case. Your lawyer wants to challenge probable cause in this case. You're charged with interference the duties of a public servant. You are facing up to 6 months in jail and or a $2,000 fine. That's what you're charged with. I don't know. So, I'm going to have them [music] read and we're going to do probable cause to see whether we're going to go forward or not. Okay. >> Stop with me right back here. She's going to read your vehicle. Okay. >> Okay. What happened on January 10th, 2025? The officers in official uniforms and riding in a marked patrol vehicle were dispatched through disturbance at a resident in Harris County, Texas. The officer observed the defendant standing outside the location being told to leave by the resident to which the defendant refused by verbally yelling at the resident in a loud aggressive tone of voice. The officer announced themselves and observed the defendant begin to walk away. The officer gave the defendant a verbal command to put his hands behind his back and the defendant pulled his hand away. The defendant refused to comply with verbal commands and the defendant held his arms to his chest as the officer attempted to detain him. The defendant continued to refuse additional commands to stop resisting and put hands behind his back. He yelled at the officer in aggressive tone and shouted out loud, "Don't let them take me." The officer performed a leg sweep and continued to struggle half in the defendant due to him pulling away. The officer began to roll around the wall on the ground and reach the officer's hands to prevent him from being placed in handcuffs. The officer continued to give commands and the defendant. >> I get it. But what's he doing? I mean, he's walking away. That's what they wanted, >> right? [music] >> Just losing. So your honor in this case to the pulled in it was the disturbance caught and they said they observed him standing outside the above location being told to leave and they observed [music] him verbally refused and then but then cops get up there and then they observed him began to walk away and it says they approached Jones and observed he wasn't in a public place based on his slur speech pupil size and say that >> that was in a complete dams your honor >> and then that [clears throat] behavior >> but I have my argument prepared judge my argument is exactly what you started to today. [music] There's some sort of disturbance. Somebody's asking him to leave. They're yelling and screaming each other. Police coming up and saying, "Hey, I'm the police." You can walk away from that all day long. My client did walk away from that. My client's loud and emotional. As you can tell here today, you're allowed to walk away emotional, yelling, screaming, even using profanity in this state if you want to. Then the cops come up to him and suddenly there's an some kind of unfounded allegation of intoxication. There's absolutely no facts other than that statement. I smell marijuana. You look intoxicated because it looks like they w he walked away and the cops didn't want him to walk away. And so now they need a reason to arrest him. My argument is based on if if he's charged with interference with a public servant. That doesn't come until later. He has to be lawfully arrested and law or lawfully detained or lawfully with the police before that even occurs. Walking away when a resident tells you to leave and all you've got in your sworn statement is we identified ourselves as police. So what? Everything that happens after that is fruit of the poisonous tree. During the hearing, the defense attorney pointed out that Jones had no legal obligation to comply when he was not being lawfully detained. According to Terry Versus, Ohio 392 US1 1968, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring to justify a detention. The officers had no basis to stop Jones beyond an assumption of intoxication, which was unsupported by concrete evidence. The judge recognized that the situation escalated only because the officers refused to let Jones leave. If they had no valid reason to investigate him further, any subsequent resistance was irrelevant. This made the entire arrest unlawful and the judge knew it. >> So they go up and they see that he possibly could [music] be intoxicated. So does it go into a potential public intox investigation? If it does, they need to announce that. You can't just walk up to me and say, "I'm the police. Stop." We don't live in that kind of society. I'm the police. I need to investigate you, so therefore stop all day long. I'm the police. We're investigating. I need you to step aside, sir, so I can investigate this matter all day long. But hey, I'm the popo. >> So the so the reasonable suspicion we have is they begin to investigate what? [music] >> So a criminal trespass. They're called as a disturbance and they saw him yelling, being aggressive, and then as he walked away, that's when they saw >> So the the trespass investigation ceases because he's leaving. >> Yes or no? >> It's not specified to be a trespass, your honor. It's specified just to be a disturbance. >> That's what it is. >> Okay. But it's a trespass that they're investigating a trespass, right? I mean, for all intents and purposes, isn't that what it is? >> The investigation begins as a trespass investigation because he's there. Homeowners asked him to leave. He's refused to leave. So cops come and he begins to leave. So [music] at that point all should have ceased. But the cops go up to try to >> Yes. >> Well, in this case, your honor, it would be that yes, he attempted to leave, but once the officers arrived, so they would still need to investigate to determine if a trespass even occurred to determine, [music] you know, >> he's leaving. >> He's leaving, right? It it's like here let me come and mess with you more. >> But that would >> Right. So it's like adding fuel to a fire. >> But they still have grounds to investigate and furthermore with the further signs of possible public intoxication. It would give them further grounds to investigate. >> That's because they're going up to me. >> Well, they're going up to investigate where they saw him refusing to leave and he leaves. >> He only left once they arrived. So with any potential fear of apprehension, that's when you decide to leave, which it wouldn't be it wouldn't undercut their ability to investigate what had been observed happening in front of them result regarding that public or that disturbance that they were called about. They still need to figure out what happened there and if there was a trespass to begin with. >> Judge, you can't flee a trespass. The way you comply is by fleeing. [music] >> Well, we don't know it was a trespass. It was disturb. We don't always testify the disturbance. So, >> I'm going to find no probable cause. >> Mr. Jones, be careful, man. We have enough drama in this life, don't we? >> Yeah. [music] >> You don't like to wear orange, do you? >> Be careful where you go. Be careful what you do. >> Everyone's always out to get you, man. Don't let that. >> All right, man. Good luck. >> Unless you hear what happened. [laughter] After hearing both sides, the judge ruled that there was no probable cause and ordered Jones to be released. Under the exclusionary rule established in MAP versus Ohio 367, US 643 1961, evidence obtained through unlawful means must be suppressed. The officers had no legal standing to arrest Jones for interference when they lacked lawful authority to detain him in the first place. The judge even warned Jones to be careful in the future, acknowledging that bad policing can make innocent people targets. This decision protected Jones from wrongful imprisonment and sent a message against abusive police tactics just like this incident. Here's a moment when a judge saved a man from corrupt policing. >> I don't we need to have like a workshop on how to write OS, man. For real. You know, everything in this office report is conclusory suspicious alawishas. You know, >> a Texas man, Keon Shaw, found himself in court facing charges of fleeing a police officer carrying a potential six-month jail sentence and a $2,000 fine. The arrest stemmed from an officer's claim that Shaw was driving at an unsafe speed above a 35 mph limit. However, under Texas Transportation Code Section 545.351, an unsafe speed must be determined based on specific conditions like weather, traffic, and visibility, [music] not just a vague assertion by an officer. The police report failed to specify Shaw's actual speed, making the claim conclusory and legally weak. >> Shaw, Shaw, you're charged with fleeing a police officer. You're facing up to 6 months in jail and a $2,000 fine. We're going to do probable cause. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can or will be used against you. You have the right to have an attorney present. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you, sir. >> Yes, judge. On October 27th, 2024, officer was conducting a routine patrol on Eldridge Parkway when he noticed the defendants's motor vehicle traveling at an unsafe speed, exceeding the posted 35 mph zone. The vehicle then began driving in a suspicious manner by making a sudden left turn on the street and immediately parking on the left side of the road. When the vehicle noticed the officer's fully marked patrol vehicle passing, it immediately conducted a U-turn and got back on the main road. When officer continued to follow the defendant's vehicle, the vehicle again conducted a left turn and pulled into an alleyway. When the officer initiated his emergency equipment in an attempt to conduct a traffic stop, the defendant's motor vehicle passed multiple safe stopping points before finally coming to a stop after traveling.5 miles through a dark and empty parking [music] lot. >> What was he doing wrong? The the officer, he was originally traveling at an [music] unsafe speed, exceeding the speed limit, 35 mi. He was exceeding that speed limit. By how much? Let me see the gems if he specified. Your honor, he did not specify. It was just an unsafe speed exceeding the limit and then nothing's unsafe to me. And then he uh began driving according to the officer in a suspicious manner, making sudden turns and then stopping on the side of the road and then getting back on the road once the officer passed. >> So, anything illegal with that? During the hearing, the judge quickly recognized the report's flaws. The officer's account lacked crucial details like how much Shaw exceeded the speed limit. Under Texas Transportation Code Section 543.006, 006. A traffic citation must specify the offense clearly, ensuring a driver understands what they are accused of. Yet, the officer's report merely labeled Shaw's actions as suspicious without legal backing. This raised concerns about racial profiling rather than legitimate law enforcement. The judge saw through the weak probable cause and refused to allow vague accusations to justify the arrest. >> So, anything illegal with that? You know, >> I believe it would just be the speed limit would be the point at which the officer >> it's a conclusory statement. >> I don't we need to have like a workshop on how to write OS man for real. You know, everything in this office report is conclusory suspicious alawishas. You know, he drop them all black. Would you allow us just a few minutes to call the officer just to see? We don't have an O. We're just going off of the >> Sure. Let's do this. I'm going to have them cuz I want to make sure if we find probable cause that it's [music] really there. All right. So, just hang tight for me. We're going to have to do a little deeper dive if you just mind taking a seat for me momentarily. Okay. Okay. >> A few moments later. >> Okay. Coming up, Mr. Shaw. So, I'm we're going to do Shawn now since he's Yeah. All right. Okay. So, Mr. Shaw, we're back on you. Um, so just because I don't we do so much, I tend to forget everything, you know. Um, you're charged with fleeing a police officer. You're facing up to 6 months of jail and a $2,000 fine. We left off because we were doing probable cause and I had an issue because it seemed like the the cause was kind of conclusory at the time and do you have anything new >> judge and I agree with the court? >> So, okay, I'm going to find no problem causing discussing the case. >> Find no probable cause. >> Be careful when you're out there. It's hard enough as it is. Don't give anyone else the power to even bring more, you know, trouble on your life. All right. >> Yes, sir. [music] >> All right, man. Good luck. The prosecution had no additional evidence to justify the charge. Seeing this, the judge ruled there was no probable cause and dismiss the case. The judge warned Shaw to stay careful on the roads, but more importantly, he refused to let an officer's vague and conclusory claims dictate the fate of an innocent man. If the judge had not intervened, Shaw could have faced unjust prosecution based on an officer's assumptions rather than clear legal violations. >> I'm not working on punches here, man. [music] and and and and I understand your honor, the officer initially said he responded to a crash call for service which occurred on uh US 50, but then later said the accident occurred on [music] 59. So, let me see if I get it. I'll check the >> A man was charged with driving while intoxicated after an officer claimed he caused a crash. Under Texas Transportation Code section 550.021, a driver involved in an accident resulting in injury or damage must stop and provide information. However, the officer's report initially stated the accident occurred on US50, but later changed it to US59, raising serious credibility issues. The judge quickly caught this inconsistency, questioning whether the arrest was even valid since US50 is not in Harris County. The officer's shifting statements suggested possible misconduct. This error cast doubt on the entire case, putting the officer's integrity in a question. Mr. >> Lozano, come on up. I'll come to you. [music] 59 going to take advantage. He doesn't get prior any prior DWIS. >> I don't believe he's got any prior of any kind. I can't >> Good morning, Mr. Lozano. Sir, you're charged with driving while intoxicated. You're facing up to 6 months in jail and or a $2,000 fine. [music] We are going to do probable cause. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you, sir. >> Yes. On February 7th, 2025, at approximately 10:08 p.m., the officer was dispatched to a major crash on the 200 block of South US50 freeway in Harris County, Texas. The the officer met with other officers at the nearby gas station where they had moved the scene. The real witness stated she was rearended by the defendant and was able to put the defendant behind the wheel of the vehicle. The officer observed front end damage to the defendant's vehicle and the officer made contact with the defendant, the driver, and occupant of the vehicle. The author observed slowed speech, staggering and disorientation and confusion. The standard filter of writings were conducted. HGN four out of six, walking turn four out of eight, one leg stand three out of four. The defendant stated he did not drink any alcohol that day and the defendant was read the DIC and refused to provide a breath specimen. A blood warrant was signed and executed. >> Williams, >> the judge sounds like there's no probable cause because US50 is not in Harris County, Texas. This is [music] what the road they said it happened though. >> Where is it? Said US50. That's not >> the damage does say 200 block of south US. >> Are you serious? >> Do I need to look it up? >> I I don't know. Your honor, the dims further says >> during the scene of the accident which occurred on 200 block of south US 59 freeway, Harris County, Texas, but council was correct that before they said he responded to a major crash call for service on the 200 block of South US50 freeway. So they put 50, but then later in the DMs they just put 59. [music] >> So they're just two addresses. So don't know why that's there but they did say accident occurred on US 59. Well, that would be a different story. >> Do you have any other evidence that is pointing [music] to that it's at 59 or is that 50? >> So, your honor, the only thing we have is that statement from the officer which states that the accident occurred on 200 block of US 59 in Houston, Texas 77004. >> Is that where it really happened or was it on 50? There you go. >> So, that's what I can explain is the officer put >> I'm not working on hunches here, man. >> And and I understand your honor. The officer initially said he responded to a crash call for service which occurred on uh US50, but then later said the accident occurred on 59. So, let me see if I can. So, I'll check the O and see if they clarify in the complete O. >> Yes, please. And in the R as well, the officer says, which occurred on 200 block of US 50, uh, [music] Houston, Texas 77004. So is 50. It's not It's not in Harris County. >> 50 and 59 in the offensive report chief that we understand. >> All right, Joe. >> Thank you, Joe. >> All right, Mr. Lozano, be careful out there. You know what I mean? really [music] just listen to he's he's great. >> The officer claimed the driver showed signs of intoxication, listing slow speech and disorientation as evidence. Under Texas Penal Code section 49.04, a person commits DWI if they operated the vehicle while intoxicated in a public place. The officer also conducted field sobriety tests, alleging the driver failed multiple tasks, but the driver denied drinking that day. The officer then sought a blood warrant after the driver refused a breath test, but the contradictory accident location weakened probable cause. The judge, seeing the flawed report, focused on whether the case had legal grounds to proceed. Without reliable evidence, the case appeared built on questionable claims rather than lawful procedure. >> Listen to he's he's great. He'll help you out whenever you need him, you know. >> All right, man. Good luck, judge. All right, I'll meet you my way. Okay. >> The judge dismissed the case. And in this next case, a man was pulled over for speeding and officers claimed they saw him trying to hide something near the center console. Based on this, they ordered him and his passenger out of the vehicle. As the passenger stepped out, the officer then claimed to have seen a plastic bag with a green leafy substance that smelled like marijuana. However, there was no clear indication in the report that the bag was directly tied to the driver. Under Florida statutes section 893.13, mere proximity to a controlled substance is not enough to establish possession. There must be evidence that the accused knew of its presence and had control over it. The defense attorney pointed out that the passenger was the one who ran away, which made it more likely that the marijuana belonged to him rather than the driver. The report failed to specify where exactly the drugs were found or whether they were in the driver's immediate control. Uh, judge, I'm here on docket for Mr. Nathan Ria. Judge, I'm seeing if you'll revisit probable cause in this case. >> You said RIA. >> Yes, sir. Uh, RH EA judge. >> Okay. >> On docket today. >> Uh, yes, judge. It's my understanding. [clears throat] >> Jail. Maybe jail. >> Uh, I see. Yeah, it's jail. Yes, sir. All right. You ready? Sure. Go for it. >> So on December 29th, 2024, the officer observed an offended vehicle traveling 91 m hour in the 50 mph zone. A traffic stop was initiated and the officer observed the driver leaning over the console trying to conceal something next to the console in the front passenger seat. The driver and the passenger did not see the officer as he was standing near the driver window where the officer observed the driver have his hand between the front seat and the center console. The officer ordered the occupants out of the vehicle and observed a plastic bag containing a green leafy substance with an odor of marijuana. As the front passenger uh exited and the front passenger immediately took off running and the defendant, the driver of the vehicle stated he only knew the passenger to be named junior. The weight of the marijuana was 3915 o. Judge, looking at the totality of the circumstances, um the state has not been able to allege enough probable cause that my client knew or intended that there was marijuana in his possession. [music] Uh I understand that the allegation stated that there was some type of fertive movement, but my client yielded to law enforcement show of authority um and then gave the gave law enforcement his his identification. The passenger ends up leaving law enforcement. He stays there. Um, and again, there's not enough to establish that he knew or intended that there was weed in his car. The allegations also don't, you know, pinpoint where the marijuana actually was. Um, so this was in this was unbeknouncsted to my client judge. >> So, he comes up, officer comes up to the car and he sees him trying to conceal. Yes. >> Right. I don't think that I I I believe the allegations say that that's what the officer maybe seems to believe, but after further review, there's nothing that says that that that's definitive or or that that's even probable cause. For all we know, [music] he was rumaging around to give him his ID, which he did. That's why he got picked up. >> No, but he says he's got a plastic bag and he's trying to put a plastic bag behind the console. >> Your honor, they found his hand between the front seat and the center console. They observed his hand in between the console as a plastic bag too. >> It says that >> they observed a plastic bag containing the green leafy substance. [music] Yes, your honor. And that was after the passenger exited. So when they walked up, they saw him with his hand in between the console and the front seat where they observed him trying to conceal something. So judge, in the dims, it says, quote, "As the front seat passenger exited the vehicle with his hands up, I saw a plastic bag containing a green leafy substance." The way I'm reading that, judge, is that's more attributable to the passenger and the and the alleged marijuana that was near his person than it was my client. Again, the rumaging around judge, I I don't think there's enough of a nexus to establish that. My client yielded to law enforcement show of authority. He gave law enforcement his ID. While he's standing there submitting to law enforcement show of authority, the guy with his hands up with the marijuana that's around him leaves. So, if anything, this should be attributable to the passenger. >> Saying that the weed is the passenger's client, not your client. >> That's what you're saying. >> Yes. And based on the allegations, judge, there's not enough probable cause that attributes my client knew or intended that marijuana was in his possession when everything just as much points to the to someone who ran away from the cops. >> The gyms again. And then, who is the one who is allegedly hiding things? Is it the driver, honor, which is the defendant? The officer said the officer observed the driver have his hand between the front seat and the center console and previously >> okay wait between the front seat >> and the center console and the officer said I observed the driver leaning over the console trying to conceal something next to the console and front seat passenger and that's where he observed his hand in the front seat between the front seat passenger and the console. So the officer observer trying to conceal something and all the dim says in regard to the passenger and the marijuana is that as the front seat passenger exited the vehicle with his hands up I saw a plastic bag containing a green leafy substance smelling a marijuana. It doesn't say anything in regard to it being in the solely in the passenger area because it said previously he was trying to conceal something against [music] >> my my apologies. [clears throat] >> Judge if I may. [snorts] He's actively trying to conceal a plastic bag. >> Your honor, so with this situation when we were briefly speaking, [snorts] allegedly this driver and passenger don't know each other, but then in this situation, should this person, the defendant be pulled over for speeding, one would think he'd keep his hands tend to not be trying to conceal something. So that's where we're at. And if you didn't know that the didn't know the passenger, didn't know that they had the marijuana, didn't know anything about the marijuana, why are you concealing? Martin kicking her hands at 10:2. >> The officer's claim that the driver was concealing something was used as justification for further investigation, but the judge wasn't convinced. Under Florida case law, Ferdiff movements alone are not enough to establish probable cause unless they are combined with other clear evidence of a crime. The officer's report was vague and didn't explain exactly where the marijuana was found in relation to the driver's supposed movements. If the driver had truly been trying to hide a plastic bag, the report should have specified that officers found drugs in the same spot he was allegedly reaching for. Instead, all the report said was that they saw marijuana as the passenger exited. The judge called this out, saying, "It's not that hard to write in the report, I saw weed where I found his fertive movements." Without a clear link between the driver and the drugs, the state's case was weak. Judge, anytime somebody's driving, again, I think there's a reasonable inference that goes just as much to my client was trying to go through his belongings, give law enforcement the correct identification so that he could submit to law enforcement show of authority. Again, it just because it says concealed doesn't mean that there's enough allegations to actually substantiate that anything was concealed. If anything, >> no, but is that enough for him to continue and to investigate further? >> Right. His allegation is I come up to the car and I actively see someone trying to conceal something. So at that point I'm going to investigate further. My issue is not law enforcement had had the right to further investigate the case. We understand that my client was speeding judge. My issue though is that they're saying that um the front seat passenger is getting out of the vehicle and then he sees weed as the front seat passenger gets out. [music] My client is already >> where is so who do they both have weep >> is that what is that what happened here? Do they both end up with >> my understanding judge is that there's enough probable cause that actually goes toward the passenger being in possession of >> did they find weed where he was trying to conceal whatever he was trying to allegedly conceal. The allegations are not clear about that, judge, which is why >> admittedly they are not clear about that cuz all it says is that as the front seat uh front seat passenger exited, they observed the plastic bags. But for previously, they didn't say where >> it does not say, your honor, >> that sucks. Then write a better report. >> It does. What they did is stealing something. >> I need to know where is is the weed in the front seat passenger. >> All right. There are enough affirmative links still because he's the operator of the vehicle and is within his wingspan and they saw the previous court of movements being made to draw the inference of the dollar. So there enough affirmative links between him and the contraband forable cause. >> I don't work on hunches. It's not it's not a hunches here. I mean it's not that hard to write in the report. Well, I saw weed where I found his bird of movements, >> you know. >> Yes, your honor. They didn't clarify that, but they did. >> Too bad. So sad. >> Sorry. I will say this did just happen two days ago. If we could wait to get the offense report, maybe he articulated it. >> No, I mean I I you know, he's in custody. I don't want to wait 2 days cuz he's in custody. If he was on bond, me perhaps, but he's in custody. He's in jail just sitting there, you know. I'm with you. Okay. Thank you, >> Since the driver was still in custody, the judge wasn't willing to wait for a better report. Under Florida rules of criminal procedure, a person in custody must have a determination of probable cause within 48 hours or they must be released. The judge acknowledged that if the driver were out on bond, there might be time to clarify the report. But in this case, he wasn't going to let someone sit in jail based on weak allegations. He ultimately sided with the defense, making it clear that law enforcement needed to do better if they wanted to justify keeping someone locked up. When [music] you think you've seen it all, here's a crazy incident where cops wants to destroy someone. >> Listen, you don't need to say a word. >> Morning, Mr. Bio. You speak English, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Shh. All right. Mr. Bio, you're charged. Initially, [music] as of it looks like November 7th, you picked up an assault of a family member. I see now that you've picked up a new case. As of November 30th, you've picked up a violation of a bond condition or protective order. I don't know which it is. All I know is that you picked up a violation case. You're facing now another year in jail and or a $4,000 fine. I haven't done probable cause, so we're going to do that. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can or will be used against you. You have the right to have an attorney present if you cannot afford one. >> The prosecution alleged that Mr. Bio violated a protective order by going to the residence of a protected individual, Mr. McWills. Under Texas Penal Code section 25.07, 07. A person commits an offense if they knowingly or intentionally violate a court-issued [music] protective order. However, the defense quickly pointed out a major flaw. The so-called protected residence was not McWilliams home. Both McWills and his ex-wife Shannon confirmed that he had moved out before the alleged violation. Without this key element, the charge had no legal ground. >> Officers were dispatched to a residence in Harris County, Texas in response to a disturbance. The complainant stated that he was locked out of his residence by his ex-wife's new boyfriend. Complainant went to the residence because his ex-wife had called him and stated that she was going to work. When the complainant asked who would be watching their children, the ex-wife said a friend. Complainant then heard defendant's voice in the background and went over to the apartment. Complaining witness is the same complainant. >> You said he heard whose voice? >> The complainant heard the defendant's voice in the background. I think that the complainant believed that the defendant would be watching his and his ex-wife's children and that's why he went over to the apartment. >> Um, complainant is the same complainant from a pending AFM and the apartment address where the defendant was staying is listed on a signed order of protection. >> How bad of an assault were we talking in the original case? What happened? >> I think it was a it was in the face with a [music] closed fist. >> Once, twice, thrice, >> two to three times it looks like. >> Okay. I can give some excellent background that that I think they're also still working through. >> On the assault case, we issued a protective order, I would imagine. >> Yes. And I've got a copy of that, judge. If you ordered him, did we order him not to have contact with this [music] person? >> Yes. And but that's not the basis of the new charge. And so if we delve into the state's filed information, which is also the basis of the allegation he violated um [music] well I imagine you're hearing both kind of in conjunction the new charge PC but also considering the questions of bail with respect to the first charge as well. >> Um the what's been alleged in the new information is that Mr. bio went to [music] the residence of the CW, uh, Mr. Mc Williams. Um, as of the date when we first appeared in court, the representation was made by both Mr. Mc Williams and then today, the representation was made by the ex-wife of Mr. Mc Williams, who [music] is the dating partner of Mr. Bio. So, um, so he is dating this gentleman's exwife. [music] Um, but she has confirmed to both of us that Mick Williams has moved out of that residence as of the date of the first alleged assault. The uh, and Mick Williams has told them that um, they have been unable to reach Mick Williams as of recently. Um, [music] but in the writings confirms, I moved out that day and do not live at the address that's at issue in this [music] VO case. The in if you look at the [snorts] filed information in that VO case, it's a necessary ingredient of that allegation that Mick Williams lived at that address. It specifically says it in the last lie. Are you talking you're saying in the protective order? >> Yes. Oh, no. Not the protective order. In the violation of protective order case, if you look at the states filed information in [music] that case, you will see the last line is to wit he was at the uh complainant's residence, but Mr. Mc Williams doesn't actually live there. He moved out. [music] Actually was not on the lease. >> He's still not supposed to have contact with this person. >> Well, he's not. He he didn't have contact with. What happens is he's at a place that is not Mick Williams [music] address. And then Mick Williams angry that he's there still wanting to control his ex-wife comes over there and bust the windows. And so that is the window of >> of his ex-wife's house where Mr. >> What's the ex-wife's name? >> Shannon. [music] >> Shannon. >> Shannon. Okay. So we both spoke to Shannon a few mentions. >> And Shannon has how many kids with Mr. to buy it or do they have kids or no? >> So, whose kids are they? Mc Williams. >> Mc Williams and Shannon's children. >> Okay. >> I think there's two. >> And so, what's alleged in the newly filed charging document is that Mr. Bio went to the residence of Mick Williams, which there's no PC to believe in. He did not go to the residence of Mc [music] Williams. He went to Shannon's residence. Mc Williams does not live there, stopped living there, [music] and and [clears throat] the state can't meet the information. And so there's no PC on [music] my argument, judge, is that there's no PC that the state or the officer. So, in in our case, in the assault case, the protective order says that he's not supposed to go to this Spring Cypress, [music] the apartment in Spring Cypress. Right. >> Well, contemplating that that's Mc Williams's address. [clears throat] >> Is that his address? Yes or no? >> That is no longer his address. Judge, when that was filed, um I imagine that was the original apartment. But on this, >> a lot of times they never update it. They just put the original apartment where it happened at and they always assume that [music] it's this you know just >> so that's no longer the address. Mr. Mc Williams moved out of that address on the day of the incident and he told me he moved out. I believe that Shannon is the only name on the >> for viol for the violation case. Where is he alleged to have gone too? >> He went to the address that's listed in the original Moab. So he went to the spring >> the spring cypress. >> Right. >> Okay. >> And but what he's saying is that this person no longer lives there. Despite the accusations, it became clear that Mr. Bio had not even interacted with McWills. Texas law requires that probable cause exist for each element of a crime to proceed with charges. In this case, the prosecution's claim hinged on McWills still living at the apartment, which he didn't. Shannon also confirmed to both the state and defense that McWills had moved out, making it impossible for Bio to have violated the protective order. [music] The judge recognizing the lack of evidence immediately questioned the legitimacy of the charge. >> Well, that's what that's what Mick Williams told the state and that's what Shannon has told both the state and myself and um and that is what our full understanding is. Now, I know that address is listed in the protective [music] order, but what's contemplated by the protective order is don't go to a place where Mick Williams lives. And [clears throat] Williams is not living at this time. >> The problem is is that we also have this address there because he could always go back. >> Well, may he may not live there. Maybe he could live there partially. Maybe he comes and goes, >> but what else would he also as a preventative measure so that we don't want you to actually or accidentally bump into this person. And that's why we have this there is that he did live there at one time. Perhaps he may go back. He left an article of clothing. he [music] left a pizza there or whatever it may be. >> Well, what's really happening is he wants to go back and continue harassing his ex-wife. And that is what Shannon has represented, I think, to both of I wasn't privy to their phone call. Certainly what was represented to me. And what do you want? >> Well, I want no PC to be found on the violation of protective order charge because an element of that offense that's been alleged is that Mr. bio went to the [music] residence of Mc Williams. Mc Williams does not live there. It's not his residence. So, there's no PC to believe that that element [music] is met. >> What do you think? >> Um, judge, I don't know on this matter. Well, I think in the order in the order that address PC, but the actual >> I will say judge in the charging instrument um the defendant is it does say you know he's not allowed to intentionally or knowingly go to a place specifically described in the order. The address in the order that's where he was staying. Um but in terms of >> you the address in the order who was staying >> the defendant was staying at the address in the order >> in this >> the original mo spring cypress. >> Okay. >> The defendant was staying there. Um so [music] but I personally I will say in terms of PC I'm going to defer to the court on this matter. >> May I just read that little blurb of the information that I think is important for the court to hear. May I take a chief and steal your computer? Go ahead. So, >> do we still have a problem with him trying to communicate though? >> No, he didn't want to have any communication. [music] This gentleman comes over to the place and starts busting the windows. >> I will say the complainant came to the place where the defendant was staying like he initiated the contact in the [music] situation. >> And what's alleged is and it's the last clause maybe two clauses. It says a place specifically described in order to wit the residence of a protected individual namely Mark [music] and it should say Mick Williams but it says Mark Williams. So it's in order to meet this charging document it would have to be that gentleman's residence [music] and he does not reside there as by his own representation to the state. And so [music] I'd ask that and I know it's a very unique situation. How do we go forward though? If I find an OPC, how do we go forward? >> Well, he's goes back out on bond while we prepare our defense to the initial charge of assault, which I think they've seen quite a bit by way of background about Mr. MC. >> How do we know that this isn't going to happen again? >> Well, I will say I'm not sure where Mr. buyer will be staying up if he were to get out on bond. But the um witness Shannon, she is no longer living in her apartment as of tomorrow. So that address will no longer it won't even belong to any of them as of tomorrow. >> Judge Fleer wasn't fooled by the prosecution's weak arguments. Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, section 17.15, bail decisions must consider the safety of the community and the likelihood of reaffending. The judge [music] noted that McWills himself had been the aggressor, breaking windows and escalating the situation. [music] Instead of blindly siding with the state, the judge saw through the inconsistencies and ruled that there was no probable cause for the violation charge, preventing an unjust prosecution. >> Do we do a no contact with both? >> Um, I don't see I don't we would do no contact with the witness with Shannon, but I would ask no contact with Mr. Mc Williams. You were now you are now in a relationship with Shannon, >> right? >> That's right, judge. >> Just But yes, I So >> I've instructed you. Just let me answer for him, judge. But he is in a relationship with Shannon. That's right. And he moved here from Hawaii to be with Shannon. And the ex-husband takes issue with it. And the ex-husband has a very violent history with Shannon. And so long term, we think there'll be issues with case one even, but I understand that that's not really done. We're not there yet. I think the [music] question is what to do if he is out. The I do think obviously no contact whatsoever in any form, shape at all with Mr. McWills is appropriate and that is what existed. Unfortunately, the state can't even reach Mc [music] Williams because he doesn't have a phone number that is even good. >> Have you run an NCIC check on this Mc Williams guy? >> We can see his county criminal history, but I can run a new check on it. >> Do you see? I mean, >> I don't want to be incorrect, but I think you've got violent history with Shannon, but maybe [clears throat] I'm good. When you get to be my age, it's hard to remember all the details, but I I think I recall that. But maybe I'm mistaken. I don't want to represent some inaccurate. You've have inherited a dangerous situation. Mr. Bio, you need to be very careful. You know, [music] if you're in a relationship with someone and they have a another person that's in their life that's [clears throat] like this, you could be the bearer of bad times. So, you need to be very careful. You're in a very volatile situation. So, um you [music] need to be careful going forward because it really could just um could go out of control. You may need to get a protective order yourself. You know, it's very possible that you may need to get a protective order. So, just be careful. You're in good hands. You ever have any issues, just reach out to Brian. We can always help you out as well. I'll find no PC on the violation of a protective order. But just be careful because there are a lot of vindictive people in this life [music] that will try to make they'll try to make your life a living hell. And you being on bond in this case, they can do that. They can say, "Hey man, he's doing this to me. He's threatening me. He's doing that." And if an officer doesn't know any better and they ca they come up and they see that you're have this open assault, they may [music] never take your word. They may never even speak to you. They'll just put you in county. So you got to be careful. [snorts] You know, you're in good hands. We'll help you out for as much as we can. Okay. Um Okay. So, I'll find OPC on the um >> I think >> on the violation case. Um I will not I'm not going to revoke your bond on the original assault case, Mr. Bio, but you got to be careful, man. [music] You know, >> and judge, I think you should also have him give his updated address to pre-trial would be appropriate as well. >> Okay. Um, and I think there's probably somehow make a notation in and everywhere so that we know where Shannon lives. I you don't have an address for MC, you know, Mc Williams. So, I I don't know how we're going to handle that. >> I think the protective order [music] does say any address where Mc Williams does reside. So whether or not I guess that' be a notice question, but we know not to go anywhere where people >> I think the issue is whether this other person is going to now be, you know. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. You understand? >> Do you have any questions? Just be careful. Life's too short to live either in a 6x9 box or be 60 ft under [music] because you got other people that have just, you know, just be careful. All right. Good luck. Good luck, Mr. Bio. >> Before closing the case, the judge issued a serious warning to Mr. Bio. Texas law recognizes that false accusations can lead to wrongful arrests, which is why courts must scrutinize evidence before issuing rulings. The judge reminded Bio that being in a relationship with Shannon put him at risk of further false claims, advising him to be cautious and even consider getting his own [music] protective order. by refusing to let the prosecution railroad an innocent man. Judge Fleer proved that smart judges can stop corrupt tactics before they ruin lives. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now. >> Am I being detained? >> Yes, you are being detained. I know what the law is. >> I know the law. I'm an attorney, so I would hope I know the law. >> There's audio on mine and I'm a lawyer and I know what the law is. >> All right. Thank you. Your tag didn't come back. Never seen that before. >> I can keep recording you. Turn off, man. >> We're recording you. I'm sitting in my car holding my phone to record. >> Here are satisfying moments when Smart Lawyers destroys corrupt cops. These cops tried to intimidate this driver, but unbeknownst to them, [music] he's actually a lawyer. >> Hey, turn that off. Okay. >> No, I'll keep recording. Thank you. >> That's my right. >> Don't record me. You got me. >> I I will look. You're a police officer on duty. I can record you. >> And if you come to the side of the vehicle, I can keep recording you. >> Turn it off. I can keep recording you. Turn off, man. >> While driving for Uber, his passenger got detained and the officers tried to violate his rights. >> For recording you, I'm sitting in my car holding my gun. >> What? What is the law? >> What are you You're What are you arresting me for? I'm sitting here in my car. I'm just recording in case anything happens. >> I'm surrounded by five police officers. >> You're being a jerk. >> I'm scared right now. I'm not being a jerk. I want to I'm recording it in case anything happens. Under the First Amendment, citizens are granted the right to [music] record public officials, including police officers, in the course of their public duties. This right has been affirmed by various court rulings, recognizing that recording police activities [music] is a vital form of public oversight and accountability. Any attempt to prevent this recording is a violation of constitutional rights and undermines transparency in law enforcement. >> Got to hope they don't find something in your car. Okay. >> They're not searching my car cuz I'm going to search your car. >> You're not searching my car. >> Okay. real canine is this way, please. >> Bring the canines. I don't care, man. Like, >> I know my rights. >> There you go. I hope so. I know. I know what the law is. >> I know the law. I'm an attorney, so I would hope I know the law. >> And an Uber driver. >> And here, man, >> you want my bar card? As an attorney, he knew the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring any search to be based on probable cause, and in many cases, supported [music] by a warrant. When the officers demanded to search his car without proper legal justification, he asserted his rights. >> Guess they're bringing the K9's. >> The threat to use a K9 unit without probable cause was an attempt to intimidate, showcasing a clear overreach of police authority. >> Sir, can you tell me what this new law is that I'm not allowed to record? >> I'm sorry. >> He He said that there's a law I'm not allowed to record the police. I just wanted to know what that new law is. >> So, you said you were attorney, correct? >> I am. I've never heard of this law that you're not allowed to record the police anymore. All right. It must be brand new. >> Okay. They just recently passed it. So re like super recently. Seems like a strange law. >> Doesn't work. But >> I man I I showed him my way though. I really am just driving Uber for some extra money. I don't know where these people are going to and from. >> Really? About >> Are these his from area? >> Probably. They're not mine. >> I have nothing in my car. There's no drugs. There's no alcohol. >> I didn't say you did. Well, the other officer told me he's taking me to jail. Next thing I know, I surrounded by police. >> Are you from the area here? You live here? >> Yeah, I live here. I work at the courthouse. >> Once he proved he was a lawyer, the arrogant cop changed his tone and abandoned his power tripping behavior. >> How long you been an Uber driver, >> Mr. St. Pierre? A year and a half, two years maybe. >> That's Have you been stopped a lot? It's probably why you you've been stopped cuz you're an Uber driver, right? Cuz there's a lot of history on the vehicle. >> On this vehicle, there's history. Yeah. >> Not that I know of. Okay. All right. So, here's your license. We're going to wait for uh K9 because I don't know if he might have dumped something under the seat. You don't want us to look. So, we're just going to have K9 come out and smell if they do an indication. If not, then you'll be on your way. Okay, sir. >> Okay. I mean, if he threw something under the seat, it still has nothing to do with me. Like, >> okay. But it's in your car. I'm not saying it has anything to do with you, sir. >> I I've never said that. Did I? >> No. I feel like something's going to be under the car and you're going to say I'm the driver. It's my vehicle. I'm responsible. >> Negative, sir. I've never said that to you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Can >> Can you understand my frustration? I'm just at work. >> I should. I absolutely do. All right. Your frustration. Just one minute. Okay. >> Thanks, man. >> All right. >> The lawyer, despite [music] being in an Uber, stood his ground against the officer's unlawful demands and misrepresentations. Here's another incident where an attorney humbled a cop. >> So, are you are am I being detained? >> Yes, you are being detained. In March 2016, attorney Robert and his investigator Jess Torres traveled to Ngalas, Arizona to interview Homeland Security officers regarding a large drug case. [music] On their way back to Phoenix, they encountered a permanent border patrol checkpoint. Despite not crossing into Mexico, they [music] were subject to inspection. >> So, are you are am I being detained? >> Yes, you are being detained for an immigration inspection. In 287, the Supreme Court has decided >> Martina's birthday. >> Really? that uh that everybody has to suffer. >> You have you have probable cause to believe I'm not a US citizen. >> Have to. >> US citizens generally have the right to refuse to identify themselves to law enforcement officers unless there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime. However, at the border, this right is more restricted. When attorney Robert, as a passenger, [music] was asked to identify himself, he skillfully asserted his fifth amendment right to refuse to answer questions, effectively humbling the officer by standing firm on his legal rights. gentleman decided that he doesn't me. >> Yes. So, you do understand the purpose of an immigration checkpoint, correct? >> I sure do. >> Okay. Well, do you have reasonable suspicion that I've committed a crime? No, I don't. But what I do have is the right to question you. According to the United States Fernis Martinez, I can't keep you here until I'm satisfied that you're a United States citizen. Do you understand that? Well, no. I haven't committed any crime. You have problems. I'm not I'm not asking you if you committed a crime. I'm not asking you if you're a United States citizen. >> I don't have to answer that. >> Actually, you do, sir. I can't keep you here until I'm satisfied. >> Really? >> Yes. And let me tell you this right now, okay? Since you're the driver of the vehicle, what you are doing is blocking traffic. I'll do whatever you want me to. >> Okay. So, can you pull over there to second half? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Recognizing that the attorney was steadfast in asserting [music] his rights, the officer called his supervisor to review the situation. Hello, assistant. >> I don't have to answer that question. Sir, >> are you using related? >> I'm not going to answer your question. Do you have probable cause that I've committed a crime and done something illegal? >> No, I don't. >> Then I should be allowed to go on my way. has nothing to do with >> Well, do you have reasonable suspicion I committed a crime? >> Any reasonable suspicion of immigration? >> Do you think um you have reasonable suspicion that I'm not a US citizen? >> We don't need reasonable suspicion. >> Okay. Then why am I being detained? >> Because you're conducting immigration. >> Really? You have a right to ask me if I'm a US citizen. I have the right to say I don't want to answer that. >> That's true. >> So you have no other cause to hold me. >> If you're We do have other cause. If we're still if we're still suspicious that how you fact that you're illegal. >> Really? You really think I'm illegal? You think you suspicious? >> I'm trying to determine that. That's why I'm asking you questions. >> How you going to determine that? >> By asking you questions, figuring out, you know, just basic information. >> Mhm. >> Where were you born, sir? >> I'm not going to answer that. >> Okay. So, the only thing you're doing right now is prolonging your stay. >> Well, you know what? The Constitution allows me not to answer questions, sir. Yeah, you're absolutely right. I'm not going to argue with you. >> I'd like to know what lawful authority you have to keep me here right now. I'm being detained. I'm not being allowed to go on my way. >> Right. You are being detained until we determine whether we're whe whether we're satisfied with our immigration. >> Do what you need to do. >> I'm doing it. >> Someone needs you to step out. >> Subsequently, they began to overstep their bounds and detain him, but he retaliated effectively. I'm >> not answering that question, sir. I need to stay in the vehicle. >> My fault. My fault. >> Do you have any weapons or anything? >> I'm not going to answer that. >> So you all right? Am I under arrest? Am I being detained? >> Yes. Being detained and not under arrest. >> Realizing they wanted to detain him without probable cause, he threatened to file a complaint which prompted them to release him. >> Okay. And who is the who is the uh officer in charge here? >> Myself and >> Okay. And how do I f formally file a complaint? >> File a complaint about what? Sir you refuse that you refuse to answer questions related to the immigration process. But this is an immigration check. >> I'm going to be polite, officer. I I am just asking a simple question. >> To whom do I file a complaint? >> I can get you a complaint form that you're more than welcome to fill out and and fill and send in. >> I would like that. Thank you very much. You can uh get back to your vehicle and I'll get Thank you very much. Have a nice day. >> Hold on. They're giving me a complaint for him. Sir, >> thank you very much. You have a good day. You too. >> All right. >> Despite the tension, he vocalized his rights clearly and respectfully. This approach ultimately allowed them to proceed without further incident, demonstrating the power of legal knowledge and respectful assertion of rights. Here's a female attorney who humbled two cops. >> Never seen that before. I'm sorry. >> The officers pulled over the wrong driver after unwarrantedly running her plate number, only to discover she was a state attorney. You >> good? [clears throat] What agency are you with? >> All right. Thank you. Your tag didn't come back. Never seen that before. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> They attempted to justify their actions by claiming they received no result from running her license plate, [music] though it was indeed registered. >> We're good now. We ran a tag. It I've never seen it before. A Florida tag. It's never come back to anything before. So, that's the reason for the stop. I'm sorry. >> What was the tag run for? >> Oh, we run tags all the time, whether it's a traffic lights and and that sort of stuff. That's how we figure out if you know cars were stolen and that sort of thing. When this tactic failed, they further alleged that her car's tinted windows were too dark despite lacking a tint measurer. >> Also, the windows were really dark. I don't have a tint measurer, but that's another reason for the stop. >> Frustrated by their excuses, the attorney demanded their credentials, leading to the traffic stop [music] ending quickly after Miss Ayala informed them of her position. contact. >> Yeah. One second, please. Actually, this isn't my car, but I can write my name down if you'd like. What's your uh employee number? 157. There you are. Have a good day. The video sparked immediate online attention regarding police targeting. The Orlando [music] police maintained that the running of license plates is routine practice. allowed for official business only. The attorney responded to their comments on the Xplatform, highlighting the incident. Here's a satisfying incident where a female cop demolished a corrupt cop. >> Okay. And I'm going to ask you to turn the audio and the cameras off cuz it's illegal. >> It's not illegal. >> I'm sorry. You can. >> In a video documenting a February 20th, 2010 incident, Sergeant Joseph Blickley [music] and another Ben Salem police officer summoned to the Philadelphia Gun Club during an illegal live pigeon shoot [music] repeatedly misrepresent the law to harass and intimidate two women. Unfortunately for Sergeant Blickley, [music] one of his targets is Philadelphia attorney Maryanne Bessie, who along with her friend Valerie Trino stands up to the officers with more resolve than the entire gun club membership combined. We would appreciate it >> if you would leave. You are on the property. >> Thank you. >> Do you have the audio on on those cameras? >> Yes. >> Okay. Would you mind turning the audio? >> Um, no. I don't need to. >> Okay. You know, >> do I have to repeat what I just said? >> Well, this is public access here. >> Well, you're on private property and you're passing. >> I think it's public. Well, I think this is public access. >> It is a safety. >> You understand? You have every right to protest, but you can't be on their property without their consent. >> Okay. You can you can be on public property. You can be on the roadway where it does not impede traffic, but they have the right to ask you to leave the property. >> Okay. >> In the video, the police officers erroneously claim that the women are trespassing on private property when in fact they are within public access areas. According to Pennsylvania law, specifically Title 18, section 3503, trespassing only occurs if a person knowingly enters or remains on private property [music] without permission. The women assert their rights to be in a public space highlighting the officer's misuse of authority [music] to intimidate them into leaving. >> Well, is there is public access along here. So, it goes to, you know, a certain point. So, I think we're within that point. >> Well, you are you are understanding that you're creating a safety hazard. >> No, I don't think we are. >> Well, I am telling you that you are. >> Well, what basis do you have for that? Cuz I'm telling you, we're not >> roadway right now. Creating a safety are people come in. So are the police officers. Why do >> I have to be here in this? >> Well, I think we're standing by the side of the road. We're not We were not in the road. We were always within the public access area. >> You know exactly where your property limits are. We'll ask them to stay. Technically, we are responsible up to the road. >> Okay. Okay. And I'm going to ask you to turn the audio and the cameras off cuz it's illegal. >> It's not illegal. It is. I'm sorry. Ma'am, you can videotape me, but I'm asking you not to audio without my consent. >> You do that. >> Well, I understand what you're saying. I do. >> Sergeant Blickley misinterprets the Pennsylvania wiretap law, title 18, section 5703, claiming that recording audio without consent is illegal. However, the law allows for audio recording in public spaces where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Attorney Maryanne Bessie correctly states that their actions are lawful, demonstrating the officer's lack of knowledge or willful disregard of the actual legal statutes. >> I understand what you're saying. >> Audio, it's just video. >> Okay. There's no audio. >> No, >> there is audio on mine and I'm a lawyer and I know what the law is. >> So, you know, you can take me to court. >> Is that Do you know about the >> Okay. Well, I'm not going to get it out here. Do you have identification, please? >> I don't on me? No. >> You don't have an identification? >> I don't have identification on me? No. >> Okay. You have no idea. >> On me? No. >> Okay. Can I have your name, address, or birthday, please? >> What do you need it for? Am I going to be arrested? >> When we get a call, we need to take the police report that we get. >> Okay, >> that's all. >> I know. Am I What do you need my ID for? Why do you need my name? >> We're here on a police call. We're having contact with you, and we're going to identify you and name you on our police report. That's what we do. >> Okay. Well, I'd rather not give you my name. >> Okay. Why would Why would that be? >> Because I don't think I'm doing anything illegal. I don't think there's I'm under suspicion of any anything. Okay. >> Why do I need my name? You just told me that you're audio taping us and I asked you not to do that under Pennsylvania wire tap laws. >> Okay. >> Okay. She told me she's not audio taping video audio taping. I have no problem with that. I'm asking you to do the same thing. >> Okay. Can we get a supervisor here? Because >> I am one. >> Okay. What about How about you? Above you. >> Uh that's not possible right now. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, you're you're going to take me into custody because of suspicion of violation of the wiretap law. The officers attempt to coers the women into stopping their documentation by falsely asserting that they are violating the wiretap law. Title 18, section 4912 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines intimidation of witnesses or victims, which includes using authority to dissuade individuals from exercising their legal rights. The women's steadfast [music] refusal to be intimidated underscores the abuse of power by the officers who use false legal claims to exert [music] control. >> Did I ever say that? Well, you asked for my ID, so I'm under suspicion for something. And you said the wiretap law. So what? >> Okay. You said the reason that you wanted my name and not hers was because of the wiretap law. >> And Val, please keep videotaping the people who come in. >> Okay. You asked why we need your name information. Did I ever say that I'm going to take you into custody? >> Well, you you said that you needed it for the wiretap law. You said you think I'm in violation of the wiretap law. So, I'm assuming that you're going to do something about that. That's why you need my name. >> But I never said I was taking you into custody. >> Okay. Well, then I don't think I need to give you my name. >> Every police call that we go on, we identify who we talk to, who called the police, who we're talking to, and they go in the police report. >> Unless I'm under suspicion for something, I don't think I'm required to give you my name. I don't think I am. If I If you say I'm under suspicion for violation of the federal wiretap law or the Pennsylvania wiretap law, that's why you need my name. I'll give you my name. >> I kindly asked you to stop audio taping. That's all I did. >> Okay. You did? Yeah. And I said that I understand. I'm a lawyer, wellversed in the law. I'm I've prosecuted cases under the federal and the Pennsylvania state wiretapping law. I know that this is this is legal. So, you know, you're telling me you don't think it is >> and you want my name to fill out in your report because you think I'm violating the wiretapping law. >> That doesn't make sense to me cuz why if you think I'm violation of a crime, wouldn't you want to take me into custody and get all my information? I >> said that. >> Okay. Well, then I'm not in violation of a crime. I asked you to stop audio taping, >> right? >> I said in Pennsylvania, we have wiretapping laws. It's not legal to audio tape someone without their consent. >> You refused. I asked you for your information. I never said anything about taking you into custody. >> Okay. Well, I don't I don't think I'm violating. I This is public property. This is public access. >> Well, I don't know that you're on property right now. >> Well, I know that we are. Looked into it. We've done this before. We've been here many, many weeks. We stand in the public access area. So, >> Okay. Do you know for a fact that right now you are on public property? >> Well, because we stood I mean now I think we're in the driveway because we're talking to you, but where we were standing >> you're not sure either. How could you say that violation? >> I don't know. I do not >> know then somebody needs to find out and it probably would be more of your responsibility being here in >> Okay, here's what we're going to do. >> Okay, >> we cannot have you stand in the driveway here, >> okay? on this side of State Road where this is plowed cuz they've maintained it and they don't want you on the driveway. >> Okay? >> If you want to stand on the other side of these snow banks, you can do that. Okay? We're going to find out through the township exactly where their property line is. But for right now, we're going to ask you not to impede their traffic and not to stand in this driveway. If you want to stand on the other side of state road, I can't tell you to stand on someone's private property. If you want to stand anywhere that's public property, you can do that. Um, we don't know exactly how far their private property goes to State Road or what's considered public access because there is no sidewalk here under the snow, but what they're asking is you don't stand on this plow driveway and you stand on the other side of these snow banks. >> Okay? >> Meaning, let me finish. Um, what will happen if we don't move? >> Um, if this is private property and you don't move, you could be cited for trespassing. >> I'm asking you, what will happen now today if we don't move right now? Not you don't move before you find out what >> Yeah. Like right now you're taking his word for it and maintain and you're your understanding of law is that because they maintain this driveway we have to go you know certain you know distance from it from the snow. I'm asking you what will you do if we don't move? >> I will go to the township. I will find out exactly where their legal property line is and if law enforcement had action has to be taken or citations have to be issued that'll be done. what the question is right now. >> The video highlights the selective enforcement of laws by the Benelum police, who responds swiftly to the gun club's call, but ignore serious allegations against its members. This selective response showcases the officer's bias and failure to uphold the law impartially. Officer, while you're here, we've got somebody on videotape who almost sideswiped me deliberately. He actually went into the snow trying to hit me when I was off the road trying. Well, I'll have to look at the video to see what I captured cuz I won't make a report unless I actually got his um information. >> All right. I can assure you any reason we would not do something. >> Well, videotape doesn't lie. >> We are being as courteous to you as we possibly can. >> Video doesn't lie. So, we'll see. >> Yeah, it does. >> Oh, it does. Okay. The police officer's actions constitute harassment as they persistently misrepresent legal boundaries. This incident starkly reveals how some police officers misuse their authority to intimidate and suppress lawful actions, underscoring the need for accountability and adherence to the law. Like and subscribe for more videos like this. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now. >> Step out of the vehicle. >> Step out the vehicle, ma'am. >> Why you tell us step out the vehicle? Step out. >> Step out of the vehicle now. Get out now. >> Get out of the building. Get out of jail. >> You're under arrest now. >> You're under arrest. >> We'll have court in court. >> Yeah, we're going to do that. >> Your car is getting towed. >> Oh, yeah. Because lawyers are crooked. >> I'm so police chief Samuel Dobbins has been fired. >> As attorney Jill Colin Jefferson drove through Lexington, Mississippi, she noticed a traffic stop and began recording. One of the cops saw her drive by twice while filming and signaled his partner to stop her. I talk to him. >> Well, let me say this. Let me say this first. You got the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court off. You have a right to an attorney. Can't afford one. One will be appointed for you if you wish. You have the right not to answer questions. Okay. Until you have a lawyer. Is there any more weed in this car? >> Huh? I can't hear you. >> Hey, what's up? Driver. >> Why are you stopping me? >> Why are you filming me? I'm I'm stopping you because I'm going to check your registration because you got a tag on here that's not proper. >> Actually, my tag is proper. >> In Mississippi, there's a certain amount of time when you have a tag. >> Oh, well, I don't know that till I stop you and talk to you. >> What's your name, officer? >> Scott Walker. >> My name is Attorney Joe. >> We know who you are. >> I have a lawsuit right now against Thank you for giving me >> I'm I'm requesting your drivers like you're driving on the public roadway. If you're a law, you know that >> you're asking for my driver. >> Because I'm checking your tags, >> ma'am. >> What's the reason for this roadblock? >> It's not a roadblock. We're on a federal traffic stop. >> Why are you stopping me if you >> Because you keep riding by and I don't know if you're trying to shoot me or hurt me. I have no >> Is it a crime to I don't know. Is it a crime? I don't know you. Let me see your driver's license. If you do not let me see your driver's license. Under Mississippi Code section 63-1-43, a person is only required to present a driver's license upon lawful request by an officer. However, Officer Scott Walters pulled her over without a valid reason, claiming he needed to check her registration. When she questioned the legality of the stop, Walters refused to provide a reason, instead demanding her license. Jefferson, knowing her rights, refused and called her attorney, signaling that she was prepared to challenge the officer's actions. >> You can be charged. >> I want you to charge me. Let's do I'm calling my attorney right now. >> You're an attorney. Wait a minute. You're calling your attorney, but you're an >> complaining. I've asked for a license three times. Ask one more time. >> Let me see your driver's license, ma'am. Right now. >> Why are you pulling me over? This is not a road block. Ma'am, you're about to go to jail. >> Hey, Mike. I'm in Lexington. The cops are saying they're about to arrest me >> for failure to comply >> because I was driving and they pulled me over. >> Let me see your driver's license. >> Yeah, they're saying they're about to arrest me for failure to comply. >> Because you will not hand me your license. >> They stopped me when I was driving down the road, but they said it's not a roadblock. But they're trying to get my license, and they're not telling me why they're getting my license. >> I don't have to until I identify. As Jefferson argued with the officers, she called another attorney for legal backup. Under the Sixth Amendment, every individual has the right to legal counsel, even if they themselves are an attorney. Despite this, the officers ignored her concerns and escalated the situation. They falsely claimed she was failing to comply, a tactic often used to justify unlawful arrests. Jefferson's decision to call her a attorney highlighted the importance of having legal support when dealing with corrupt law enforcement as officers often rely on intimidation tactics to suppress resistance. >> Why you step out the vehicle? >> Step out. >> Step out of the vehicle now. Step out of the vehicle. >> Step out the vehicle, ma'am. >> I'm about to handle ma'am to be removed from the vehicle. >> Step out the vehicle. I'm going to give you >> Everything is being recorded. Everything is recorded. Step out. >> Yeah, it is being recorded. >> Step out the vehicle. >> Okay, Mike. >> Step out of the vehicle now. >> Stepping out of the vehicle. >> You're going to be charged with resisting arrest. Step out the vehicle. Step out the vehicle. I'm going to >> step out of the vehicle. Get out. Step out of the vehicle. Get out of now. You're under arrest. Step out the vehicle. >> Oh, really? >> Oh, she going to resist. Step out the vehicle. Oh, really? Agent turn around. >> Okay, AJ, >> turn around. >> Let's do this. >> Mike, I need you to come. >> Mike, I need you to come to Lexington right now. >> Ma'am, if you push me one more time, I'm going to charge you with assault on the police officer, which is a felony in court. Just What IS YOUR NAME? WHAT IS YOUR NAME? What is your name? Huh? AG, I know you. What's your name? What's your name? Because we are about to get you. This is your last day. >> Yeah, this is our last day. >> Yeah. No. Where are my licenses? >> Where my You know you're You know you're not supposed to do this. And you know you're about to get in court for this. >> You know you're about to get in court for this, right? You have to do it. >> You know you're about to be in court for this, right? You have to do the office. >> How the [ __ ] You know you're about to be in court. >> Hey, that's >> You need to know that. What is your name? >> What is his name? >> That's Scott Walters. >> Scott Walters. Okay. >> Nine. Have a seat. >> Scott Walters. >> Have a seat in the vehicle. >> Why are you trying to get me to have a seat? >> Have a seat in the vehicle. AG, >> I want you to know this is an illegal stop and this is a false seizure right now. >> I'm about to get y'all's asses. This is perfect evidence. >> Okay, now we're seeing the vehicle. >> Yeah, we got this. >> Seen the vehicle now. Yeah. >> Ma'am, please have a seat in the vehicle. >> I am in the I am I am sitting in the vehicle. >> Oh, are you about to close the door? >> Have a seat in the vehicle. >> Ag, I'm sitting like this and I'm going to stay like this. Okay. >> So, we got to put your legs in the >> So, Ag, if you're going to use force on me, >> you going to use force on You going to put your legs in the vehicle? >> What is the charge? >> Failure to comply. >> Please put your legs in the vehicle. >> That is only failure to comply when I'm in the when I'm in the process committing a crime at your fault in the vehicle. >> It is only failure to comply when I'm committing a crime. >> Not here. It's not. Put your faith in the exactly what the law says. >> Put your hands in court in court. >> Yeah, we're going to do that. Ignoring Jefferson's legal arguments, the officers forced her out of the vehicle and arrested her. Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless search and seizure must be supported by probable cause. However, Officer Walters and his colleagues unlawfully opened her car, searched it, and even mocked her. During the unlawful search of Jefferson's vehicle, officers found a firearm under the driver's seat. They were happy they found evidence to indict her, but it was legally registered in her name. The gun was not reported stolen, meaning there was no legal basis for further action against her regarding the weapon. As they shut the police car door, Walters made a disturbing hand gesture mimicking a gunshot towards Jefferson, further exposing their misconduct. This blatant abuse of power was recorded, providing irrefutable evidence of the department's corruption. She thinks she knows that uh My camera went off before it's still off. Come >> here. >> Yeah. >> All right. No, my camera never went off. Damn time. She was doing suspicious behavior. >> You need to turn around. If if the road's blocked, it's probably safe to say. >> You won't in the middle of You're good. All right. You good? >> Mine went off for some reason. >> Mine never went off. >> So, yours was recording? Yeah. Okay. She was suspicious for him still riding by. And then she's got a Mississippi deal, so she's going to have two state IDs. Make sure there's no valuables in the car. That's what I'm looking for. You You follow? >> You had reasonable suspicion anyway. >> She was acting, you know, I was worried about my safety. They back. They back. I got over here. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> She hold that. Who's that? Attorney. >> If she's an attorney, why don't she say she had an attorney? Now, if you got a Mississippi, you can't have a Mississippi DL in another state. Oh, expires on 17. I see. All right. So, I'm going to put in her wallet. That's all. >> Expired. >> This here is she she gave me a uh I've got another one. >> Where? No, you got it. >> Oh, okay. It's going to be over here. >> You [ __ ] Number one, sir to arrest. I'm required because your car is getting towed. Oh, yeah, sweetheart. We'll see. It is. So, I'm responsible in case something gets stolen because lawyers are crooked. I don't believe it, sir. >> I'm not buying. Oh, IS THAT A GUN? >> OH, NO. >> Please be stolen. >> Oh [ __ ] Got a gun under a legal unless it's stolen. Please. I ain't never hoped you're going to be stolen before. And that's on camera. I don't know. I don't give a for 35 years. Don't scare me. >> Yeah, I was just about to say you found a gun. I want some dope in there. You stand up under the seat up under there. I don't give a damn if you see a seed on the [ __ ] >> Jefferson refused to be silenced and took legal action against the Lexington Police Department. Under 42 US Code section 1,983, individuals can sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights. During the case, an officer falsely testified that Jefferson had blocked traffic, but video evidence contradicted his claim. Despite this, before Jefferson's arrest, an officer testified that he overheard colleagues plotting ways to arrest her. >> My name is Attorney Joe Colin Jefferson. >> We know who you are. >> My name is Attorney Joe. >> We know who you are. 30-year-old judge Marcus Fizer, who was not even a licensed attorney, found her guilty on all charges. Instead of backing down, Jefferson intensified her legal battle, determined to expose the corruption within the department. >> Jefferson says the police department there in Lexington has been terrorizing citizens up there for far too long, and she and other leaders are calling for the Department of Justice to open a patterns and practice investigation against LPD. Jefferson's relentless pursuit of justice alongside the ACLU drew national attention to Lexington's police corruption. As a result, the Department of Justice launched a federal investigation into the department's misconduct, uncovering patterns of unlawful stops, excessive force, and racial bias. >> Civil rights investigation is officially underway for the city of Lexington, Mississippi, and the Lexington Police Department. As 12 News Cameron Smith reports, officials say this investigation will determine if the behavior in Lexington violates the Constitution and federal law. This pressure led into the firing of multiple police chiefs, including Samuel Dobbins, who was caught on tape bragging about killing 13 people. The exposure of Lexington's corruption, also highlighted the need for federal oversight, with the DOJ considering a consent decree to monitor the department. No city, no town, no law enforcement agency is too big or too small to evade our enforcement of the constitutional rights every American enjoys. Small and midsize police departments cannot and must not be allowed to violate people's civil rights with impunity. Jefferson's legal battle proved that even in small towns, no police force is above the law. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now. >> This officer violating my rights. >> I'm not. >> Yes, he is. >> You're talking to lawyers right now. >> But you're talking to us >> because I want you to [ __ ] leave. >> So, just understand if you come back on the property, you're going to jail. >> You going to violate my rights? >> I'm going to take you to jail. >> You're going to violate my rights. >> I'm going to take you to jail. The interaction began when officers approached a campsite in a national forest without any visible indication of illegal activity, prompting questions about their authority. Under Terry v. Ohio, law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct to justify investigatory stops or questioning. The attorney immediately identified the officer's lack of reasonable suspicion and asserted his right to be left undisturbed. Their claim of unrestricted authority to interact with individuals in the area conflicted with constitutional protections against unwarranted interference. >> He's on training. >> He's on training. >> Yeah. He doesn't He He He thinks he's Look, he's just trying to talk to everybody. >> I know. Okay. >> And I'm trying not to talk to anybody. >> Okay. >> Cuz it's my right. >> Yeah, it is. >> And you guys don't have the right to come up to people that aren't obviously hunting. But but I get it. I don't want to start an argument with you. He's a rookie. Okay. >> You You have no reasonable suspicion to come up to me. You're in I'm an attorney. You're in the national forest. We can come talk to you. >> No, you can't. I'm an attorney. What's your name and badge number? >> Officer Portal 328. >> We're not hunting. We're about to leave. Have a nice day. >> But we can talk to you. We can come >> and I can ignore you just like I did, right? >> But you're not ignoring us. >> I ignored him, right? >> Kind of. >> Okay. Okay. I could play the game, too. >> I'm just No reason to to get all >> Actually, there actually there is. There's cops standing in front of me at 7:00 a.m. for no reason. >> You're in national forest. >> Your fishing game. We're a state certified peace officer. >> Guess what? You also are >> on my land. >> It's my land, too. >> So, so, so I have the right to be offended that you're standing here asking me questions with no reason. Does it look like I'm hunting? >> I was just asking the question. >> That's what I'm saying. >> I mean, we can walk around your camp with no issues. You're unforced. >> You can get sued, too. >> I can't go into your stuff, but I can walk around. >> That's what I'm saying. >> But you can't but not without reasonable suspicion. You can't just pull up to my camp and walk around. Uh, >> yeah, I can. >> No, you can't. It's for >> Do you have reasonable suspicion to believe I'm hunting? You could. Now, I'll agree. I'll agree that you could do that if I'm hunting. If you if you have if you see mountain bikes, okay, you can't. If you see hunting, you can. You do not have unauthor un uh unchecked power to just walk into people's camps at any time. >> Yeah, we do. >> Not in the national forest. On state land, you do, dude. All right. So, now I'm going to have to turn this into a You're going to be on my YouTube. Have a great day. >> You're going to get a bunch of calls. I'm going to make a formal complaint against you. >> And what was your badge number? I'm offer but badge 45. >> We're just trying to be cordial. That's all we're trying to do here. >> Uh coming up to people and telling them how you think you can go places and do things isn't cordial. >> We didn't walk around your stuff. >> But you said you could. >> We could. >> And you have a badge and a gun, right? So that's intimidating in and of itself, right? So if you're attempting to intimidate me, it's not going to work. >> Who who why? >> Telling me telling me that I said I'm not comfortable with you coming up to me and you said, "Well, I can walk around your camp if I want." So, how how is that cordial? [music] >> Because you started out with an attitude. >> I started out by ignoring you, right? Hoping you'd turn around and leave, right? Because you should pick up on the hint that unless you have reasonable suspicion, we have no reason to talk to you, right? You're talking to lawyers right now. >> But you're talking to us >> because I want you to [ __ ] leave and I want to make a YouTube video clowning you now. >> Okay. >> So, that's what I'm doing. >> Okay. Thank you. Have a great day. >> Thank you. >> You didn't still didn't say your badge number either. >> Yeah, I said 328. >> 328. Watch your video. Who's your Who's your uh supervisor? >> Uh Paul Ger. >> So you're telling me when I take Paul Ger, he's going to tell me that you guys could. As a matter of fact, I don't even need to You show me the ARS that authorizes you to walk through people's camps. >> Show me the ARS that says you can't. >> Yeah. It's called >> There has to be a law that says you can't do something. >> It's called reasonable, articulable suspicion. >> There's not a law, you can do it. >> The attorney shifted focus to holding the officers accountable by questioning the legal foundation for their claims. Colinder versus Lawson establishes that vague or arbitrary enforcement without clear statutory authority violates due process. When pressed for the specific law permitting their actions, the officers could not provide one, undermining their credibility. This lack of clarity exposed the encounter as an overreach rather than a legitimate exercise of authority. The attorney's insistence on adherence to the law underscored the importance of challenging such actions to prevent abuses of power. has to be a law that said you can't do something. >> It's called reasonable, articulable suspicion. If there's not a law, you can do it. >> Tell me what >> So you can make up laws. >> No, you're saying No, what you're saying, but but hear me out now. >> Okay. You wanted me to leave? >> You're saying you can walk into somebody's camp without reasonable suspicion, right? >> The attorney attempted to trap him with a question about inventing laws, but he avoided answering it. Talking about making up laws, here are cops who tried to bend the law to their own will. >> This officer violating my rights? >> No, I'm not. Yes, he is. >> Okay, hang on. >> The officers received a call about a suspicious person and approached a man near a sheriff's office to investigate. [music] Texas law allows officers to detain someone temporarily if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. However, the man was standing on public property, which is not inherently suspicious. When the officers demanded answers, he remained calm, refused to answer questions, and reminded them of his rights. The interaction escalated when they attempted to search him, violating his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. >> Stop right there. >> Back off. Back off. >> No, I'm not going to back off. Okay. What's going on? What's going on? Nobody's done anything to you yet. [laughter] Are you going to talk to me? Look, we got a complaint about you being up here. Talk to me. >> What's going on? >> Hey, talk to me. >> DON'T APPROACH ME. DON'T APPROACH ME. Don't approach me. PUT YOUR PUT YOUR HANDS UP ON THE CAR. I have broken the law exercising MY RIGHTS IN PUBLIC. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TOUCH ME. I don't get out the way. >> This officer violated my rights. I'm not. >> Yes, he is. >> Okay. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. >> I don't consent to certain seas of my property. >> We're not trying to do. We're packing you down for our safety. Okay. >> Move. Move. Get off of me. Stop touching me. >> Stop touching me. I already told you that. >> Sir, you have no right to touch me. >> Okay. Calm down. >> Yes, I do. Calm down. >> This guy's touching me right here. >> What is your name? >> What's going on, man? >> What's your badge number, ma'am? Identify yourself since you want to go handle. >> I'm Sergeant Wild. What is your name? >> What's your name and bash number, ma'am? >> I'm asking you a question. >> What's your name and bash number? Are you not going to identify yourself? >> I am. You need to identify yourself. >> What's your B number? >> Okay. Be respectful. >> What is your What is your name? You got an ID on you? >> Am I being detained for a crime? We're investigating. We got called on you. Okay. >> How about you guys disperse and get up out of here? [laughter] >> Okay. >> Why would we do that? >> Because you have no reason to be here. >> Yes, we do. >> Yes, we do. We got a call on you. >> Get around the sheriff's office here. >> Okay. We got a complaint to find out what's going on. I come up to talk to you and you take off running. So, yes, that's very suspicious. >> Not illegal. >> I didn't say it was illegal. I said it was suspicious. I try and talk to you and you don't want to talk to me. So, tell me what's going on >> right now. What I need you to do is get from behind me and go back in into your vehicle. >> I don't have to do that. >> Well, I'm I'm going to go and walk away then. >> Then walk away. How about that? Walk away. >> How about that? >> Go on. >> I don't have to. I actually can stay here if I want. >> You're actually in the roadway. So, >> because you pulled me against the car. >> Oh, no way. You stepped over here towards me. >> HE DID NOT MOVE ME. HE didn't move me. >> OKAY. HOW ABOUT you get out of the roadway and get on the sidewalk? Get out the roadway. Not an issue there. But y'all push me against the car. [screaming] >> Okay, keep moving. >> I don't have to keep moving. I haven't broken the law. >> Do what? >> I haven't broken the law. Ma'am, do yourself a favor. Go back in your patrol car. >> You're not telling me what to do. >> I am I am telling you what to do because then we don't listen to you, right? >> I mean, you're wasting tax dollars. So, >> on you. You're right. >> That's your fault. You chose to be here. No, we >> No, we got We got calling. Somebody thought it was very suspicious that you're hanging around the sheriff's office over here, >> which is funded by our tax dollars, right? >> Oh, do you pay taxes? >> I sure do. I pay a lot more than you think, too. >> Oh, I'm sure. >> I pay a lot more taxes than you think. >> I'm sure you do. >> E hands. Do yourself a favor. Go back in your car. >> Tell me when I can leave and when I can't leave. >> Actually, I'm going to tell you when when you >> Well, guess what? I don't have to listen to you. >> Well, I guess we're going to be here all day then, huh? I got nothing but I want to hear. >> I don't care either. Are you intoxicated? >> You sound like you're intoxicated. Or or >> are you making false? >> Are you making false accusations? Are you making false? >> I'm asking you. Are you answering or not? >> Nothing wrong with exercising your first amendment rights in public. You guys came to me, bro. I was >> So, what's the first amendment? >> Freedom of press. >> Okay. What are you >> right now? I'm recording you guys >> and >> that's good. I'm recording you, too. Because you guys are funded by tax dollars, >> right? >> We're doing our job. >> How about since there's no crime happening here, how about you guys dispers? >> That's what we're trying to figure out. >> I've already I've already explained it to you. >> Call on you. You don't need to explain nothing to us. >> Don't you want to explain? Get out of my sight now. >> For what? >> Well, I can't do nothing to you cuz I go to jail. So, get out. >> Exactly. >> Yeah, cuz you got that badge. >> That's right. You got you got that badge. That badge is the only thing that's that's making you stand here right now. That's That's right. I got called here and I'm doing my job. >> Now that there's no crime committed, how about get going? >> I don't know if there's a crime committed cuz you will not identify yourself. >> I don't have to give my ID to you. >> Well, okay. So, what is the deal? I asked you if you were intoxicated and you didn't give me an answer. >> I don't answer questions. How about that? Oh, >> okay. How about that? >> Yep. Well, I got nothing but I got nothing but time. So, the officers insisted on identifying the man, citing their need to ensure he wasn't a threat. Under Texas Penal Code section 38.02, a person is only required to identify themselves if they are lawfully arrested. The man standing firm reminded the officer that he wasn't breaking any laws and therefore had no obligation to comply. His refusal frustrated the officers who accused him of obstruction, though he was simply exercising his First Amendment right to film in a public space. >> You guys can disperse at any time you guys want. You guys can disperse at any time you want. What's your name and bass number? >> It's written right there. >> Written right there. Mhm. >> Your name is right here? >> Yep. >> Can you pronounce it? >> Born down. Pass number >> 222. >> Good job. You already identify yourself. >> I did. >> Next time when I ask you for your identification. >> What? What? When I ask you for ID, you give it to me. Okay. >> You don't have to. >> How about How about you put money in your head? Do yourself a favor. >> You're going to buy tax dollars. It's your obligation to identify yourself. How do I know you're not in person? How do you know you're not a fake police officer? >> You think we're a person? Call the police. >> Is it? They'll tell you whether or not we are right. >> Good. Yeah. >> That one will >> That's the whole point of identifying yourself. That was You got me that. >> I can't lie. >> I guess we're just going to sit here and do nothing and we'll have >> No, we're waiting on an answer. >> Answer? >> Yep. From the sheriff's office. Once we get an answer from the sheriff's office, we'll move from there. This Mr. Just want to let you know something. You can't trespass me from the sheriff's department. It is public property. >> Going to buy tax dollars. >> Actually, it's not public. >> Who funds the sheriff's department? >> This isn't the sheriff's department. >> Doesn't matter who this is. >> It's still in West Texas. >> Why does it say sheriff's department? >> It's still funded by tax dollars. I could be at the prison and it wouldn't matter. It's funded by our tax dollars. So, I'm going to be in the tank for you in prison. So I said it's like being on a prison property. It's still funded by tax dollars. >> Yeah. That that doesn't mean you can't be on prison property. Try it and see what happens. Try to get in there. >> I've done a lot of things on a prison. >> Oh, I'm sure >> I've exercised my rights on a prison. >> Oh, I'm I'm sure you have. >> I don't know. Absolutely. Okay. I don't know what you're insinuating, but >> am I being detained for a crime? >> I told you before you leave. >> Okay. So, I'm not detained. So, you >> never said you were detained. >> Okay. I just want I just want to get that clarified. If I'm if I'm not detained, then I'm free to stay. >> I just want >> No, if we're right in on an answer to see if they want you crimly trespassed. If we do, then you're going to be crimally trespassed and then you will leave the property. If not, you can stay here. >> By all means, >> you can stand right there, too. I don't I don't care where you stand. But if they want you CT does not be here. >> Oh, I'm going to tell you something. I'm not detained, so you don't get my best thing you guys can do for yourself is to go back in your car and leave. I'm being I'm just being honest. >> I'm glad you made that position. >> Oh, see, I'm so glad I do these audits. >> Yeah, you're doing good. >> I'm doing a very good job. >> Hey, you're going to be the star of the show. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> I appreciate that. That's comfortable. I like being the star. >> Yeah, you can now. >> Star a lot of things. I guess your attitude is problem though. That's why that's why there's a disconnect. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Yeah, >> that's what I'm here for. To test out to see if you guys respect my rights and you failed miserably. >> Thank you. >> You know the other on my email. >> The other the other place >> or you can look up the complaint form and write a complaint, too. >> I might do that. >> Do it. >> I might. >> Just not today. Got I got better things to do. >> Me, too. So, I mean, you can leave. >> I will whenever I get an answer. >> As the standoff continued, the officers warned the man that he could be criminally trespassed from the sheriff's office property. According to Penal Code section 30.05, criminal trespass occurs only when a person knowingly enters or remains on property after receiving explicit notice to depart. The man countered that standing on public property funded by taxpayers didn't qualify as trespass. He also demanded confirmation of this claim from a higher authority, highlighting the officer's lack of understanding of public access laws. >> Respect the Constitution with you being criminal trespass. >> It has a lot to do with it. If if I'm not able to exercise my rights on a sheriff's department property, which is funded by our tax dollars, then that is going against Constitution. Let me >> explain something to you. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Because who owned by doesn't have anything to do with it. It's like school property. School property is private property. If they want you removed from that >> depend on schools. >> No, it public school is private property. It's it's owned by the school district. Okay. And if they want you removed from that, you can be removed from that property. Okay. Just like the sheriff's office. >> Okay. It's not public property. Public property would be like this sidewalk right here. On when I drove up, you were in their parking lot up there by the office. Okay. So, that's >> I was never told I was never told to leave here. You didn't give us a chance either. You took off running. >> I wasn't detained at the time either. >> No, but you but we've gotten to that point now where we're talking to you about it. So once we find out trespass, then we'll do that. >> So you guys, so if I'm not detained, I'm going I'm going behead I'm going to go ahead and leave. Okay. >> Okay. >> I'm just waiting on you guys to disperse. >> We're not going to. We're staying here until we get an answer. >> Okay. >> And we don't have to leave either. You don't have to tell us to disperse cuz we don't have to. We can do them however we want to go. >> I guess. >> Yeah. >> I guess. Okay. >> I would like to have the sheriff come out here to confirm your criminal trespass, too. >> Well, I'm not I'm not >> I'm not going to take your word for it. >> I'm not going to take your word for it, man. I would rather have the sheriff tell me. So, I have that right. I have that right. If they tell us to do that, then we'll do it. >> That's our legal right. >> Well, we'll see. You seem kind of boring. >> You know, >> I'd rather be doing what real crimes, you know, >> people use. >> Well, you can leave. >> Think they know all. >> I do know the laws. I'm sure >> I may not know all the laws that I'll give you. I do that I'll give you, but I know enough. >> All right. SHERIFF SAID YOU NEED TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY. I AM ON THE SIDEWALK. >> OKAY. And keep walking. >> I am on the sidewalk. This is not their property. How about you disperse and when you guys leave, I'll leave. >> How about you ride in your dumb mouth? >> Why you got to be so mean? >> I'm not mean. You're just fool out of yourself. >> You're calling me dumb. >> I want you to understand something. Okay. >> If you go back on the property over here, Sheriff's property, that's the parking lot, parking lot, their property, anywhere around there. Okay. And we come back and see you there, you'll be arrested and you'll go to jail. [laughter] Okay. So, don't do that. Sidewalk's okay. >> I mean, if you want a lawsuit, go ahead. >> It's not about whether we want a lawsuit. >> It's about you're being criminally trespassed from that >> from a public facility, man. It's a public. >> So, can you walk in there right now? >> Right now, it's closed. >> Exactly. >> That don't mean >> that means it's not open to the public right now. So, >> it is a public facility. >> No, it's it's private property. >> Belongs to the county. That makes it private property. No. >> Yes, it does. >> Who funds the county? >> It doesn't matter who pays for it. >> I pay taxes. So therefore, I fund the county. >> It has nothing to do with whether it's private property or not. So [laughter] I'm trying to explain to you about the school. Walmart, all these where you go shopping, all these places are private property. >> The school was fun by public. But I have no reason to be at a school. I don't test teacher about their rights. I test police about their rights. That's all that's all I do, man. And if you know I'm not breaking the law. Why not you? >> We did. Okay. You were on private property. They wanted you to leave. You were suspicious. We came to check you out and you took off running. That's even more suspicious. Instead of just stopping and talking to me like I wanted you to, you decide to to make this a bigger deal than what it is. >> There's nothing wrong with exercising your rights in public. We all have our styles. >> Nothing wrong with that. >> There's nothing wrong with me doing my job either, right? I mean, there's a way about there's a way about going about doing your job. >> There is you're threatened to arrest me for going back on sheriff to arrest you. >> You just said if I go on their property that I'll be arrested. >> Yes. Because you are being criminally trespassed from that property. >> Which is fun by want you there. >> How about get the sheriff out here? >> I don't have to get anybody out here or a deputy sheriff out here. They told us we have the authority to do it. Okay. It's within the city limits. Okay. >> Whatever you say. >> So, I'm just letting you know. Don't go back on the property. Okay. >> Okay. Do you just want to go home now? I mean, do you want to go back on patrol? Clearly, there's no crime happening. Clearly, there's no crime happening right now. >> I'm sure there is elsewhere. >> Well, maybe going that you have us tied up with. So, just understand if you come back on the property, you're going to jail. >> You're going to violate my rights. I'm going to take you to jail. >> You're going to violate my rights. >> I'm going to take you to jail. I promise you that. >> That's how we going to do it. Okay. >> Okay. >> Well, you have a GOOD DAY. OKAY. >> BYE. >> BYE-BYE. I I'll be back tomorrow during business hours to confirm that trespass. >> The officers eventually retreated after realizing they couldn't legally detain or arrest him. The man reaffirmed his intention to follow up with a sheriff's office to confirm his rights to access public property. This encounter exposed the officer's misuse of authority and failure to respect constitutional protections, specifically the Fourth and First Amendments. The man left without charges, demonstrating the importance of knowing and asserting one's rights in the face of unlawful police actions. Like and subscribe for more police camp stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now. >> Deal with what you got here for. >> You shut up. I'm dealing with this. Okay. You're telling me you got permission to be >> I'm an invited guest. It's none of your business. It's none of your business. >> Father, I understand. I'm an attorney cuz he's a minor and you need to tell me. Is he going to be here? >> I don't need to tell you anything. Being weird, right? If >> anyone's being weird, it's the person that rearended me and blamed it on me. >> Here are moments when lawyers destroys dumb cops. >> How is my name going to help you determine anything? You are an attorney that must >> The incident began with an interview conducted by the lawyer's client with KSAT12 regarding a lawsuit against the Kirby police chief and others stemming from a land dispute involving private property rights. The Texas Penal Code section 30.05 specifies that criminal trespass only applies when an individual knowingly enters or remains on property without consent. Both the media and the lawyer had permission to be on this private road from one of the property owners, making any trespass enforcement invalid. Nonetheless, Kirby Police Department was called to issue criminal trespass warnings against the reporters even though they had no authority on the road. >> He never said he never set foot on the property. So that's a f that's a false report. >> He's not follow >> whatever it is. He's alleging that he was on their property and never set foot on it. I set foot on it to get out of the >> Again, we weren't here. We can only go off when they're taking camera and we're not camera they want to show it to you. Yes. But at the end of the day on the property, >> they have a right to test. Okay. >> How do we get your chief to respond to us? We've been emailing for weeks about this. Sir, >> do you have any ID on you? >> Cuz this is a private roadway. >> I know. Okay. >> Can we get your ID then, please? >> I'm not talking to you. >> No. I have a I have permission to be here. >> From who? >> I have permission to be here. >> By who? >> By who? >> I have permission to be here. >> By who? >> I have permission to be here. >> Who do you have permission to be here for? >> By someone who has permission to give me or has authority to give me permission. >> And who is that? >> None of your damn business. >> One of these residents here. >> Yes, it is. >> There's only four of them. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Which resident? >> None of your business. I'm telling you, I have permission to be here. >> Okay. I don't know. You can't trespass me when I'm an invited guest. >> You're not an invited guest. >> I am an invited guest. How do you know I'm not? >> How do you know I'm not? Then shut up. Then shut up and deal with what you got here for. >> You shut up. I'm dealing with this. Okay. You're telling me you got permission to be here? >> I'm an invited guest. It's none of your business. It's none of your business. >> If that's >> It is none of your business. This is It's a civil matter. I am invited to be here. >> By who? >> By one of the property owners that are that are abided along this road. >> Okay. that have a right of way and access to this road. >> Officer McCclary and Sergeant Lackey from Kirby Police Department approached with the intention of enforcing a criminal trespass order on the reporters and the lawyer. Under Texas Penal Code section 1.07, a peace officer cannot conduct a criminal trespass enforcement without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a violation. The lawyer informed the officers that the media and he were legally invited onto the property by an owner. Despite this, officer McCclary continued to demand identification, which wasn't required without a legitimate trespass order, revealing a disregard for legal protocols. The lawyer asserted their rights, reminding them they lacked any basis to remove >> by who? >> By one of the property owners that that are abided along this road, >> okay, >> that have a right of way and access to this road, >> okay? And just tell me which resident. >> None of your business. >> That's all we got to do. I'll come >> I don't have to do anything to you. I do not have to invest. I do not have to help with your investigation. >> Okay. >> Now, if you have some evidence that I'm not allowed to be here, >> well, then by all means, you know, use your reasonable, articulable suspicion and your probable cause and do your job. >> Sergeant name, we would let you know. >> How is how is my name going to help you determine anything? >> You are an attorney that's not supposed to be here, then you're criminally. >> I haven't been trespassed from anything. >> Okay. >> Nobody has presented me with a trespass from anywhere. >> If you want to show me a trespass, go ahead. >> We're working on it. Give us a second. Yeah, show it to me. >> I have to be served a trespass before you can you can trespass me. Hey, why is Adrien hiding? Why won't he be served? >> What's Adrian hiding from? >> Is that Chad? >> No, that's not Chad. Are you McCreary? >> Who's that? >> I don't know. Are you or mccclary or mccury? What's your name, officer? >> That is officer mccclary, sir. >> McCclary. Oh, you are okay. Yes, sir. >> I think you're one of the ones that are about to get added to my lawsuit >> now that I've seen some of the video. >> Subsequently, the cops backed off when they knew they can't handle him. He then educates the KSAT team on how to handle trespassing issues. >> And just so you know, I mean, it's up to you guys how you deal your own thing, but uh in order to receive a criminal trespass warning, you're not required to identify. You don't have to give them anything. Just >> What if they take us in though? >> Well, they can't take you in unless they trespass you and you refuse to leave. That's when it becomes a crime. Right now, it's just them executing paperwork on behalf of another party. So, >> tell me, can we pack up and leave? >> You can just pack up and leave legally. >> I mean, you get what you need. >> I mean, you're not you're not being there there's no reasonable suspicion to hold you for a crime. Matter of fact, I'll do the same thing. >> As the situation escalated, it became evident that Officer McCclary and Sergeant Lackey were attempting to use their positions to intimidate the lawyer and the media despite their lack of lawful grounds. According to Texas Transportation Code section 521.025, officers cannot compel a citizen to provide identification without reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. Knowing the law was on their side, the lawyer informed the officers he wouldn't assist in their investigation, making it clear they were in the wrong. When asked repeatedly for his identity, the lawyer reiterated that unless they could present evidence that he was unlawfully present, they had no right to demand his compliance. Here's another incident when an attorney sued dumb cops. >> You please go sit in your car. You have nothing to do with this. Father, >> I understand. >> I'm an attorney cuz he's a minor. >> A highway accident involving a young driver prompted a passing lawyer to stop and offer assistance. Concerned for the minor involved, the lawyer contacted the boy's father to inform him of the situation. When law enforcement arrived, an officer became agitated as the lawyer continued her call, insisting she returned to her car. The lawyer calmly explained that she was ensuring the minor's parent was informed, but the officer grew impatient and issued a threat of arrest for interference. Yeah, he's stuck. >> Are you So, you think he's going to be taken to the scene or or will he just >> Are you >> I'm not No, no, I'm focusing. >> How many How many cars are involved right now? >> Not mine. That's fine. >> Let's Let's We need to get that off the road. All right. Can we get that into the parking lot? >> Yeah. >> We We'll take care of him. >> I was I was trying to tell his father. So, >> we're in the middle and behind. >> All right. Can you Can you move your car, please? Thank you. My man, is your car drivable? >> Yes. >> All right, we're going to get it off to the side of the road. All right. >> All I'm saying is I can leave. I just want to tell by >> You don't have to leave. Just move our car. >> I just want to tell you. >> The lawyer attempted to explain her role as a concerned bystander, citing Texas Family Code section 32.001, which grants parents access to information in emergencies involving minors. Despite her valid explanation, the officer demanded she immediately stop her call and stay out of the investigation. The lawyer's refusal to comply with what she perceived as an unlawful order led the officer to escalate the situation, ignoring her rights and dismissing her attempts to deescalate. >> Are you okay? >> Yeah. >> Let's have a seat right over here. >> Is that your mom? >> No. No. >> You want to talk to your mom? >> I'm working. Can you please go sit in your car? You have nothing to do with this. I understand. I'm an attorney cuz he's a minor and you need to tell me. Is he going to be here? >> I don't need to tell you anything. I'm going to arrest you in a second if you don't get in your car. Do you understand me? I'm not kidding you. You are impeding an investigation right now and you're really bothering me. Go sit in your car. >> I will talk to him IN A MINUTE. GET IN YOUR CAR NOW. >> Tensions boiled over as the officer forcibly restrained the lawyer, causing her visible distress and pain. She repeatedly claimed her shoulder was dislocated during the struggle, but the officer continued applying pressure. Despite her protests, the officer handcuffed her and ignored her explanation that she was acting lawfully as a good Samaritan. Witnesses at the scene noted that the lawyer remained calm while the officer's actions grew increasingly aggressive. >> Sit in your car. >> I will talk to HIM IN A MINUTE. GET IN YOUR CAR NOW. >> HELP. TAKE IT. NO, YOU DO NOT TOUCH ME. OH MY GOD. STOP. WHAT ARE YOU DOING? >> OH MY GOD. >> Are you kidding me? >> Knock it off. >> You will BE >> KNOCK IT OFF. >> NO. JUST GET YOUR HANDS off me right now. Get your hands to get your hands off. I do. OH MY GOD. ARE YOU >> STOP? >> NO, I'M NOT STARVING. ARE YOU GUYS are so >> It's recording. >> Record it. >> I'm wearing a body cam. >> I understand. Why am I under >> Because you weren't listening to anything WE WERE SAYING. >> OH MY GOD. YEAH. THIS IS BOTHERING SOMEBODY. OH MY GOD. PLEASE TAKE A BREATHER. >> NO, you don't take a breather. I can just >> I JUST How about you stop resisting? >> My shoulder let us put you in handcuff. >> My shoulder is dislocated and you're making it work. >> Rescue, please. >> Oh my god. >> Can you please call Bob Barber? Call Bob Barber right now. >> Who is that? He's in there. Please, please call him. >> Well, we're not in there. >> I understand that. I cannot believe you. Take this [ __ ] off me right now. >> Okay, baby. I have one in custody. >> Oh. Oh my god. You got to be kidding me. >> You got to be kidding me. >> Stop. >> No. >> STOP TALKING. >> NO. NO. This This is so RIDIC I CANNOT EVEN BELIEVE THIS. >> YEAH. >> OH MY GOD. >> Don't put her in my car. >> I just wanted to know. I could tell his father if he was going to the hospital. I'm not even involved in this. I can't believe this. >> That was our point the WHOLE TIME. >> I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS. >> That was our point the whole time. You are not involved. >> You are not involved. >> Who instructed you to do something? >> I am a good Samaritan who refused to do it. >> I am a good Samaritan who stopped to help a kid and Okay, stop growing on top OF MY OWN. >> OH MY GOD. STOP IT. I want my phone OVER THERE. WHAT AM I DOING? HE'S PULLING MY He's pulling my Hey, STOP. GET MY SHOE. Please get my shoe. >> Get my Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. I'VE NEVER I CANNOT EVEN believe this. NO. THIS MAN IS beating the [ __ ] out of me. Holy. SHE GETS ME DEAD. OH MY GOD. Oh my god. This is the craziest. I've never OH MY STOP PUSHING ME, PLEASE. I WILL WALK. Are you kidding me? You are You guys are going to have this trouble. I am going to see both of I know. >> You're in so much trouble. I can't even I can't even tell you. Oh my god. This is the craziest thing I've ever IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. I am SO I CAN'T I DON'T HAVE TO. You guys, what do you where do you get this much hat [ __ ] This is [ __ ] And my phone is on the ground over there. >> Well, my husband, he's also an attorney. >> This is so bad. Yeah, I can't even. >> Oh, the lawyer was placed in a police vehicle with officers refusing her request to retrieve her phone and contact the minor's father. They justified their actions as maintaining order, but made dismissive remarks about the lawyer's resistance, ignoring her rights and her role in assisting the minor. The treatment she received highlighted a concerning disregard for lawful actions and the rights of bystanders trying to help in emergencies. >> Find her key, but the car started up. So, it's in there somewhere. Would it start up from like Yeah. All right. If the car is on and running with our push to start, the car is on and running. It will run as long as the keys a certain distance. This is probably only a certain distance. >> Now you did you take the key off of her. Her? >> Yeah. When you when you I didn't either. >> She put a lot on the car in her pocketbook and everything. >> She didn't she she was just out of the car. All we have is her cell phone, her shoe, glasses. The keys either on her person most likely or the keys in her body or they uh not in >> No, cuz it started right up. Right. >> Yeah. I just couldn't find it. You want me to move his Volvo? >> Why don't you bring her? Why don't you bring her back? Get her out of here. Get her. I'm She's attorney. She's got nothing. We'll get her. I heard you guys. I heard you guys say one across country. I'm like, "Oh, here we go." >> It was so It was so unnecessary. >> Yeah. >> But like my tolerance for that is like I'm just like, "Listen, if you're not going to listen to what I'm saying, we're in the middle of the highway. Get in your car and get off the highway." >> I [ __ ] stood her up, too. She started screaming like the kid was even more freaked out than anything. How old was the kid that was? >> Five is his birthday. 17. >> Determined to seek justice, the lawyer filed a lawsuit against the officer and the department for excessive force, unlawful detention, and violation of her constitutional rights. Her legal claim emphasized her lawful status as a good Samaritan and her right to communicate with the minor's parent. The case aimed to hold the officer accountable for his actions and shed light on the importance of respecting citizens rights, even in high pressure situations. Talking about accidents, here's an offduty cop who thinks he's smarter than a lawyer. question, right? >> I'll take the blame. >> It was a dumb question. It was a question, but it was a dumb question. >> This situation unfolded when an offduty police officer rear ended a lawyer who was stopped at a red light. The officer, instead of acknowledging fault, tried to place blame on the lawyer, suggesting that he had somehow backed into him. Texas Transportation Code section 545.062 makes it clear that the driver who rearends another is typically at fault for failing to maintain a safe following distance. The lawyer, taken aback by the officer's accusation, recorded the interaction, ensuring an accurate record of what was said. >> No, you hit me. >> I did. >> All right. On the break. >> How dare you blame it on me? >> Huh? >> How dare you blame it on me? >> Yeah, we can exchange information. You want to get down the roadway? >> Yeah. As soon as I get your license plate number, meet uh meet me in the subway parking lot. I'll get your insurance information. >> There's no damage, though. >> I see damage. Well, we'll check it out on Subway. >> There's no damage. >> That's fine. We'll check it out on Subway. Can you meet me there, please? Don't drive away. I got all your information. I'm a police officer, so I'm not going to drive away. Well, I'm a lawyer, so uh meet me at Subway, please. >> From the start, the lawyer recognized the importance of having solid evidence, such as dash cam footage, to document the circumstances of the collision. According to Texas Insurance Code section 542.003, insurance companies must consider all evidence when assessing claims, and having video proof can significantly impact liability decisions. The lawyer's dash cam footage was key to countering the officer's claims, capturing the scene, and preserving evidence in case the matter went to court. >> Are you drunk or what? What? Are you drunk? Okay. got your information anyways. >> What? Your insurance card? >> Yeah. Do you have your notepad or something or something to write it on? >> Yes, it's recording right now. >> You ready for it? >> Yep. My policy number, my policy number is 041 0 C as in Charles 71. >> That's pretty cool. You read it like a police officer. Can I get a copy of that or something? >> Um, you don't need a copy of the HF number. >> Okay. >> I have my name and number as well. >> Can I record that screen? >> Yeah. [clears throat] So, I'll write everything down for you. >> What department do you work for? >> You're being weird right now. >> How am I being weird? You just rear ended me and I'm recording it for evidence. >> I don't remember. >> Do you have body cams when at your work? >> No, I don't. >> Throughout the interaction, the lawyer stayed composed, questioning the officer's version of events. The officer made various statements, first claiming that the lawyer had backed into him, then questioning if his own foot was even on the brake. The lawyer pointed out these inconsistencies, noting that such contradictory claims demonstrated a lack of personal accountability, particularly inappropriate for someone in law enforcement. His calm responses placed pressure on the officer to reconsider his position. >> Here, you just rearended me and I'm recording it for evidence. >> Do you have body cams when at your work? >> No, I don't. >> Well, you should get body cams. Most police officers do have body cams. There's nothing wrong with documenting a car accident. You should know that as a police officer. >> Yes. Okay. And if anyone's weird, it's the person that rear ended me and blamed it on me. >> What? >> I said if anyone's being weird, it's the person that rearended me and blamed it on me. Like, did I hate you? >> I asked you a [ __ ] question. If you rear ended me or if you [ __ ] rear ended me. This is a question, right? >> I'll take the blame. >> It was a dumb question. It was a question, but it was a dumb question. It was a reasonable question cuz I don't remember my foot on the brake. >> I don't remember. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The officer's shifting explanations quickly unraveled, leading him to admit fault after the lawyer pressed him to clarify his account of the incident under Texas Penal Code section 37.02, 02. Knowingly providing false information, especially in a way that could mislead others reflects poorly on a public servant's integrity. The lawyer emphasized that it's essential for officers to uphold high ethical standards, which includes immediately taking responsibility for mistakes instead of trying to shift blame. The lawyer's calm demeanor ultimately led the officer to acknowledge the truth. Here, my name, address, number, I need yours, too. Yeah, I'll just give you my bar card. Bar card. >> What? Cuz you're being weird right now. If >> anyone's being weird, it's the person that rear ended me and blamed it on me. Like, did I hit you? >> I'll ask you a [ __ ] question. If you rear ended me or if he [ __ ] ran into me, I just a question. All right, I'll take the blame. >> It was a dumb question. It was a question, but it was a dumb question. In the end, the lawyer made it clear that he held no grudges against the officer, viewing the incident as a learning moment. Dash cams, he noted, are invaluable tools that provide an objective account, protecting all parties in a dispute. For law enforcement, such situations highlight the importance of body cameras and maintaining professionalism even when off duty. By standing his ground and relying on evidence, the lawyer underscored the value of honesty and accountability, especially when it involves an officer of the law. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now. >> I'll tell you this cuz I'm a lawyer. I've studied this. I'm not going to come out here without knowing the law. Hey, >> get your get your get your hand off of me. Get your hand off of me. >> You're next as well. >> Constitutional detention. I want him arrested for unlawful detention and battery. >> After the meeting, meeting closed. >> All right. The state fire marshall's decision to host a public meeting in a room with a capacity for only 40 individuals created a legal problem. Under the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, all governmental entities must conduct their public meetings in a manner that ensures transparency and accessibility for citizens. The failure to accommodate the public violates this act as government officials cannot restrict access to meetings that determine public affairs. A simple solution, such as live streaming the event, could have prevented this issue. However, officials chose to limit participation, prompting legal concerns over citizen rights being disregarded. >> Meaning close. All right. >> Hey, stop talking. >> As long as everybody wants to uh behave and act orderly and not get out of control and be disruptive. >> What does that mean? Give us a definition of that. >> Well, are you serious? >> Yes, I need a definition. But you're welcome to stay right here that some point you become disruptive and disorderly then that becomes different. Does that make sense? >> No, it doesn't make sense at all. >> Good. I totally explained myself. >> No, you don't make sense at all. >> Don't cause us to come back out here. I would stay away from this guy because he's probably going to get you guys all in trouble. >> You need to file a police report, sir. All right. >> Related to the violation of the open meetings act. I also need to place arrest. >> You need any help? >> You're not doing that. I need to file a complaint against you for dilation of duty master charges. Take always take care of that. All right, we'll get out of here. If you need help, call a report number. >> No, that's why I requested a report number. >> You're not going to issue us a report number. >> That's dereliction of duty. You understand? >> The refusal of law enforcement to acknowledge a citizen's request to file a complaint further highlights their dereliction of duty. Title 22 of the Oklahoma statutes allows citizens to initiate a citizen's arrest for violations of the law. When the attorney attempted to exercise this right, officers ignored the request, dismissing the citizen's legal authority. This disregard escalated tensions with one officer unlawfully detaining the attorney without reasonable suspicion or cause, further infringing on the attorney's rights. >> Hey, get your get your get your hand off of me. Get your hand off of me. Well, they they won't let you in the public building to do that. So, >> why did you touch me? >> All right. Follow me to my car. You're going to sit in the backseat of my car and I'm going to make sure you don't get any warrants. >> So, you're as a threat of arrest. >> I don't have the So, you're telling me if I follow you, I'm going to be arrested. >> You don't have the right to check me for warrants. Do you have reasonable articulable suspicion that I've committed a crime? You do understand I'm an attorney, right? You understand that bar number? You might want to check yourself. I know this is a little bit better than you do. Okay. >> Have a good day. >> You going to walk away or what are we going to do? >> I'm going to stand right here. >> Okay. We're going to check. Make sure you don't hear any warrants. >> Okay. Where are you coming? You got any ID on you? >> I do. Uh, you're next as well. >> Why am I arrested? >> You're not arrested. I'm going to make see who you are since you're uh being disruptive. >> Right pocket. >> Where's your ID? >> All right. I'm going to take that out and get your ID. It's on the left hand side. Very top right. Not very top. After I handcuff him, I'm going to each one of you guys are going to come over and sit in my car. We're going to make sure you don't have any warrants. Okay? So, uh, this is your chance to walk away just like I told this. >> Walk further back. Walk further back. >> Slide this way. Yes, sir. Stay right there. >> You're having a really bad day. Right. >> The attorney was subjected to an unconstitutional detention when an officer insisted on running a warrant check without probable cause. According to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, a person cannot be detained without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The attorney reminded the officer of his professional standing, stating, "I'm an attorney." and explained the lack of legal grounds for the detention. Despite this, the officer insisted on detaining him, exemplifying an abuse of authority and a failure to uphold constitutional protections. The cop eventually released the attorney after a display of power trips and rights violations, leaving the attorney furious and determined to pursue legal repercussions. >> Hold me. But it was all live streaming, so that's awesome. Thanks for that one. Yeah. >> Oh well. >> Amazing [ __ ] Let me >> Woo. What a day. >> Oh my god. I mean, it's like it's like constitutional right to say guys. I I did not get his name back, you know. I need to file. How do I How do I do that? Absolutely. Back number the police department and do that. He didn't direct me where to do that. I was maintaining this. He could not articulate a crime for which he was suspected. He wanted to run me for warrants that unconstitutional detention and I want him arrested for unlawful detention and battery. So, I'd like to file a report. I know the supervisor's coming. That's perfect. He >> I mean he he way screwed up, >> man. He's got an attitude problem. He's got an anger problem. >> When I said good morning to you and your name, you just said smiled and said good morning. He literally is all I did. He walked up. I said good morning. He goes >> patrol. I'm a patrol guy. When we were going to the building, he said, "You can't go into the room where they're having the meeting." So, I'm walking into the building and he grabs me like pushes me and we're Hey, it's okay. But we have a cordal conversation. No problems. Hickin Bothan comes out of there like a dagum tyrant for us. And this is how this is as excited as I've gotten today. I can get excited, but I' I've not even been excited. And yeah, he wants to check me for warrants. And then he's like, "Are you sure Tulsa doesn't warn you?" Like, N was trying to find some reason to take me down to the to the jail. And I I told him I was just there on Friday for disturbing the peace at Tulsa County courthouse. Uh so I knew I didn't have any warrants. I was just in the courthouse yesterday passing out stopsharinghomes.com stuff for the drunk driving judge we've got in Tulsa County. I'm a lawyer. I do this. I I I kind of know a little bit of what I'm doing. So, I'd like to citizens arrest him. Uh, that officer. >> Okay. Well, I'm going to citizens arrest him for unlawful detention, battery, assault, um, uh, intentional push of emotional control. What I was suing for on top of my civil rights violations, 42 USC 1983, but we'll wait. >> That's what I do for a living. I do civil rights for a living. >> You had your opportunity to talk to you again? >> Yes, sir. Absolutely. I will. So, I'll tell you the reason that we call we got called out here um was somebody somebody from I believe your organization she's born and she wanted >> public report and that officer wouldn't give us a report. So the open meetings act is a the violation of the open meetings act which denies the public access to a public meeting which is about what that is and you can't restrict it on the basis of you've got 44 otherwise the government would just put in a room of 10 people and you'd never have open access to government meetings right there's rules that very clearly state that if you can't have the public accessible to that then what you do is you you can stream it live. We had all these co things that changed where we can just live stream it as long as you can hear everybody. The public's aware. They're not even public comments. They don't even have to entertain say something, right? All they have to do is let everybody see it. >> Yeah. No, he won't give us a He wouldn't give us a report number. And and and that was the problem where explain, hey, we just want a report number because it's a violation. And as I explained to him, as a citizen, we have the right to a citizen's arrest. I explained to him the statute under title 22 and I said I'd like to exercise the right for y'all to site this for this violation so we can get some kind of case started. He gets he just gets absolutely irate and I think officer if you're not going to do anything that's derction of duty >> the student's been rock solid and chill since he rolled I'd like to file a complaint against you and I'd like to file charges against you duty and that's when he got really love to work with us like the one that public with us constitution United States I know me too sidewalk open public gathering and I can yell as loud as I want As long as I'm not using a a noise assistance device in this specific case of standing outside of a courtroom for the purposes of disturbing a judicial process, I can yell outside any other government building as loud as I want to. Right. I mean, so Wow. >> Wow. Lieutenant >> Yeah, y'all talk. We'll give you a minute. Yeah, >> you give me a few minutes. >> Yeah. Hey, by the way, pass this around. Check it out. Definitely check if you care about your job. This is drug. >> Yep. Yeah, you should definitely watch it. >> At least make sure your people and your boss got that video. >> Make sure your people know. >> It's a good learning video if anything. >> Yeah, watch. It really is. >> And and look, y'all just got to watch me get detained unconstitutionally. And I mean, it's all on FX3. Sony FX3. >> We should have me miked up, man. >> We should have I thought about that the one time we >> mic on. >> I didn't say much in I didn't say much in the car anymore. Quiet. I was just quiet watching smile. >> How many times? >> No, it's only one. >> Um, how did it go? >> What happened? Hey, can somebody give us an update of what happened in that meeting? >> When we got here, we were here a little bit early before 10:00. They let us know they were only going to allow about 49 people. Uh, I then let Ron know, hey, you guys, they're not going to let everybody in. I let them know at the front that there was going to be a problem. this 2,100 plus businesses have been issued this letter and they have something to say and that there are going to be a lot of people that were denied access. >> The attorney maintained composure while asserting his legal knowledge and defending his rights. Under 42 US Code section 1,983, individuals have the right to seek redress for civil rights violations by government officials. The attorney openly declared his intention to pursue civil action for unlawful detention, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. By citing relevant laws and refusing to back down, the attorney set a precedent for holding law enforcement accountable when they violate fundamental rights. This case highlights the necessity of being aware of and standing up for one's legal protections. Just like this incident, here's a Christian lawyer who refuses to be intimidated. >> I'll tell you this cuz I'm a lawyer. I've studied this. I'm not going to come out here without knowing the law. >> The incident began with a discussion about the volume of amplified sound used by a preacher on a public sidewalk. The officer stated disorderly conduct for unreasonable noise could apply if the volume exceeded acceptable levels. However, the preacher identifying as a lawyer argued that amplification is constitutionally protected under free speech. He further clarified Arlington doesn't actually have a city code for noise except for parks and recreation areas. This ensured his compliance by reducing the volume slightly while emphasizing his legal right to amplify his message in public spaces. >> So, we understand you you have the right to be out here, you know, freedom of speech, all that. We're good with that. All right. Um, this is public property. That's where you're at. you're not obstructing the sidewalk. All right. So, we appreciate all that. Right. >> Um, we have had complaints on the volume. Okay. So, we've we've made the determination that we're not going that you can have some semblance of of amplified sound, but whenever it becomes excessive and people are complaining that you're hurting their ears as they're walking by, that that is excessive. So, so if we can turn it down, >> that would be the the best part about that. >> I'll turn it down. Did you want to issue a criminal trespass for Cowboys property or did you want to public property? >> Uh well I make a phone call. >> Okay. >> Uh run it up. I know you're out here earlier. >> Yeah. >> So um >> up the sidewalk. Yeah. I didn't step on your on your property. So, so at first at first you were over there with uh you were actually on Cowboys property from my understanding. >> Well, then you moved and then you were on the sidewalk is what I I didn't see it all. This is what being related to me. Okay. >> You were on the sidewalk and you were blocking the sidewalk, but then you moved from there. So therefore, you're okay, right? >> When I came here this morning, there was no one here. >> Okay. I was here like at 10:00 in the morning. >> I got you. I went here sidewalk. >> Yeah. Chalk. It's like children's chalk. So, it's going to rain. It's going to be gone. I mean, >> so so the big deal on this is you got you got to lower the volume, right? >> There's an unreasonable There's disorderly conduct for unreasonable noise. >> There's choice dec whenever someone's walking by here. >> I could probably take a dec right here beside your speaker if you wanted me to. >> Yeah. >> I can turn it down cuz I want to comply with you. >> No, I got you from >> But I don't want to be to like such a low level where like >> I understand that. So, but like I said, from from whenever I rolled up here, I could almost guarantee you if I would have pulled out a decimal meter, right? Then, you would have been well over that. So, I'll turn it down some. >> Yeah, let's do that. Let's let's turn it down. Um, it is there. It's It's their option. Okay. As Cowboys Well, if they offer, >> I'm saying so if you were over there, >> they want to get sued. That's right. >> So, so they Well, they can issue a criminal trespass warning, but all that just means is that you can't come on property, right? The officers attempted to link the preacher's activities to nearby private property, specifically Cowboy Stadium. According to the preacher, "I never stepped on your property. I've been on the public sidewalk the entire time." The Texas Penal Code section 30.05 regarding trespassing highlights that an individual must physically enter private property after being explicitly warned. The preacher remained on public property defending his right to be there while the head of security acknowledged his compliance. >> I'm not on the property. >> You're not on the property. Not right now. You're not. >> And on that sidewalk, I'm not on the property either. >> I don't I'm not arguing with you. >> I'm just letting you know that if that's what they choose to do, we're going to do a criminal trespass warning, which mean there's no there's no action being taken against you other than the fact of them officially saying they don't want you on your on their property. And as long as you don't go on their property, then there's no issue. So cool. So, so this this he's the director of security. So, he'll he'll make that determination whether that's what they want to do or not. But in the meantime, we're going to turn down the volume just a little bit for us. >> And uh and as long as we don't have any complaints or anything like that about the problem cuz amplification is actually constitutionally protected. >> It is. It's established. Uh so it's not really disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct would be if I'm inciting, I'm calling uh If there's an unreasonable noise level, uh, that >> for Arlington, >> then we have to pull that up and drop that. But, >> yeah, Arlington. So, I'll tell you this cuz I'm a lawyer and I've studied this. I'm not going to come out here without knowing the law. So, Arlington doesn't actually have a city code for noise. They do for parks and recreation. That's the only So, if I go to like a public park and I'm doing this, then there's like decel readings and there's all this. It's kind of a weird, but I want to work with you. So, I'm willing to turn it down some. I just I don't want to be like drowned out. I I hear you. I hear you. No problem. You're You're out here full purpose. I understand that. Uh but uh so let's let's >> see what they want to do. If if you >> I got pictures, too. If you want of the chalk, >> it's on public. >> That doesn't that doesn't bother me. >> They already washed it off. It's in a little concerned about the chalk. So, okay. I know you responded. >> That's not an issue right now. So, actually, so we got actually calls from people that were walking by. They were they were reporting that they were they were being disturbed by it, which I understand there there's a level of you. No, no, not the chalk. I'm talking about the volume the speaker said. >> The preacher addressed complaints from passers by, stating content-based restrictions on speech violate the First Amendment. He argued that complaints about his message being disturbing were tied to its religious content, not its volume. He further explained that expressing a neutral message, like praising Kenny Chzn, would not result in complaints, proving a bias against his speech. The officer acknowledged this distinction, agreeing to work within legal boundaries while ensuring public order. >> Well, that's what I mean like being disturbed. It's not this only conduct. >> I I understand there's there's a balance in there, right? >> Well, there's a constitution balance for free speech. >> So, there's not a heckler's veto. >> Like, if I was out here just saying, "Hey, you know, beer's awesome, man. Kenny Chestnut's awesome." You'd get no calls, right? So, because it's content based, then it becomes something else. >> Well, cuz they don't like the content of what I'm saying. my volume like this, I guarantee if I started saying Kenny Chisy, you get no phone calls. So, because of that, it becomes content based, but I'm willing I'm willing to turn it down some, but like I said, I don't want to get tangled up with legal stuff. I've done it in the past. It's a pain in the butt. >> And that's not what your purpose. Your purpose isn't to isn't to go to court and fight tickets and do all that kind of business. Your purpose is to get out here and get your message out. So, >> so I'll turn it down some. >> All right. So, Wow, that's pretty loud. >> That hurts your ears a little bit. >> Come on, man. You ever go in there? It's pretty loud. I've >> been there all the time. >> Whole lot louder than this. >> Part of the reason why my my ears do hurt. >> Yes, sir. >> Well, I mean, there's ear plugs. I mean, he doesn't have to stand. That's not That's no legal basis for But I will turn it down. So, all right. So, show you. I'm doing it right now. Now it's on 10 >> dec. So I'm going to turn it down to I'm going to try that. See how that works. >> Okay. >> I'll even go a little further. 20ug check. >> Check check. >> That's that's cool. As of right now that to me that seems reasonable. >> Doesn't hurt your ears. You're not like >> No. And the speakers aren't facing. >> I try to be concerned. I don't want blast in people's ears either. I got some hearing damage from the military. Cool. >> All right. Well, just uh hang tight. We'll find out what it is. If if if you know, you're right. You are in a public place right here. So, >> and I never like I didn't draw here. I know that's kind of their turf, >> right? It's just on this sidewalk, but on that side and on that side. >> So, here's my answer. And I'm the director of security for the building. Volume. >> Sure. >> Bow that down now. >> Yeah. Turn it down. >> Okay. Yeah. You You've got >> No worries. plenty of rights to be out here. Obviously, there's there's an event that people and where it kind of comes into is for the stadium. We've got tailgating policies as well. There's amplified sound that we um focus on when it comes to whether it's the person who's over there in a tent dialing that down. So, that's going to be my ask to go in there for paying like a tailgating fee and all that. They're under your pave the parking. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. >> I'll work with you guys. I'm not here to antagonize anybody. I you know for my side I would I would make the ask if you wouldn't mind moving someplace else not not on property you are you are within again this is me asking as an individual >> um again that's not anything that you have to do you have the rights >> well I'm going to be here >> until your show starts then I'm leaving at 4:30 right now >> is that cool >> I say it's cool again my my ask would be that you you do move along >> it's going to take a long time for me to break it down and by that time all these people are going by like right I came to appreciate people, but you guys are quite honestly I'm trying to be respectful. We're we're good. We're good. I turned it down. I'm not chalking on your sidewalk. Actually, it's public sidewalk, but I'm not chalking on it. I get it. Some people were don't like the message, but uh it's it's it's kids chalk, so it's going to the next rain comes, it's going to vanish. >> Sure. >> I get it. You got a job to do. >> Yeah. But aesthetically, we had to have housekeeping come out, which spent time, money individually. >> That was your choice. I didn't make you guys >> to be able to get [laughter] out and and clean that. Because there's there's there's a look, there's appearance at as at the stadium we try to hold by >> in the future. I won't write on that sidewalk. >> Thank you. >> I I'll choose other sidewalks. >> It's not AT&T. >> Correct. Nor was I stating that. >> Right. >> Not not this vicinity. That really pissed off your pardon. That really upset uh some of your security people and they were quite vile with me in doing that. So I would if you're the head of security, I would uh be concerned with my employees being vile to some taxpaying resident citizen of the United States and taxes. >> I I can definitely address that and it is whether it's you with this message, whether it's somebody else with another message or individuals selling things. This is a very standard procedure that we do come across as we host events, as people pay to come to these events. They're not going to stop banning either. >> The thing but but again the message to you >> is no different whether it be to you to another individual with a different cause a different purpose. It is standard policy that that we do address this with that individual. We do ask other individuals if they could if they would move on to another location. My name is Gabriel. My name is Brian. >> My name is Gabriel. Thank you very much. Officer >> Oh, it's great. God bless you guys. Any more issues, just let me know if there's any more issues. He turned the volume down. It was at a -10. Now it's at 20. So hopefully that that'll be good for Praise God. About 30 more minutes. I'll be out of here. Thank you. God bless you. >> The lawyer demonstrated a cooperative approach, turning down the volume and offering to adjust his activities to avoid unnecessary conflict. The Arlington Municipal Code allows such peaceful resolutions provided no laws are violated. Despite previous hostility from some security personnel, the preacher reminded the head of security to ensure his employees maintained professionalism. By standing firm and informed, he maintained his rights while respecting lawful authority, reinforcing that knowing the law is crucial in protecting one's freedoms. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now.