The officer observed the defendant speaking to two other individuals and conducting a hand-to-hand transaction. The officer stopped his vehicle near the defendant and when the defendant saw the officer, he started leaving on his bicycle. The officer began to follow the defendant and the defendant actively avoided the officer by changing directions frequently. The officer stopped the car and told the defendant to stop. The defendant continued to flee until losing his balance on his bike and the defendant stated he did try to flee because he had active parole part. So, what was he doing wrong? The officer observed what appeared to be a handto-h hand narcotics transaction. Okay. Was the other person doing it? Did he do it? Did they find any dope? Probably go, but what they did observe was him on his bike and stopping with someone else. And didn't he even notify himself as police? You know, one of the one of the conditions on evading arrest is you have to notify that you're a police that you're a police officer. You can't just yell stop. Let me see the gyms. Sure. I do have that the officer was riding in a mark patrol vehicle as he was following the defendant. So there is that as well as is that implying on a bicycle. He was riding a bike and that's they were following him in the patrol vehicle while he was on his bicycle and yelling to stop. [Music] Did they find any evidence of a narcotic transaction? They obviously didn't find him with any dope. Did they find him with like a large cash and then listen to the statute? [Music] What is your argument? Um well, my argument is that he was just riding his bike. Um in in the dims it does say, and I quote, um the Oh, where did I just lost it? The defendant looked at me and attempted to flee. I don't know how you attempt to flee. Well, I guess just go the other way from him. That's fleeing though. And then it says in the DMs as well that the officer observed the defendant look at the mark patrol vehicle and then change directions as he view how many people do that. You know how many people just look at a police car? I do too. Yes, your honor. He's also riding too. He's riding a bicycle. He needs to pay attention to traffic. The only thing is that that took place after the what appeared to be a handtohead transaction. That's what the officer wrote in the D. Yeah, I'm not mine. Sorry. Thank you, Judge. The officer made the connection. He said in the DMs, "Due to my training experience, I know being grabbed and bruises being left on your body causes pain." A judge faced a critical decision when a defense attorney challenged probable cause in a 2024 assault case, pointing to a complainant's affidavit that raised doubts about an officer's claims. According to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, article 18.01b, a warrant affidavit must contain sufficient facts to establish probable cause, and misstatements can render it invalid. The complainant's statement that she did not feel pain at the time of the incident cast a shadow over the officer's assumptions, setting the stage for a pivotal ruling. Sorry, Mr. Pong. I'm just the affidavit and she says she didn't feel pain. I I don't know. All I know is that's why I'm up here challenging the There's a data compound that's avidated cuz in the dam this is bunk. This is a new case, right? It's a complaint. So it happened in October 2024. How did it get an affidavit here so quick? Cuz it's a compl complaint. She the officer's affidavated on the complaint. She used to say she stayed and she didn't feel any pain cuz she was biting. You said that she did feel that's that's the problem is the de is maybe contradicting or inaccurate or different from the affidavit that I'm talking about that the file the officer filed the complaint. So the complete games reads, "The complainant stated she did not feel pain at the time of the incident since she was sping the defendant off of her and that the officer observed the complainant shaking and crying and the officer said due to training experience I know being grabbed and bruises being left in her body causes pain." So according to the full the complaint didn't say she felt pain. She said that she didn't feel pain at the time because she was biting the pen off of her and that's what the full D states and the officer based on experience saw the bruises on her and being grabbed and squeezed and came to conclusion I caused pain. It could also be the exact that she said was I was shaking and crying cuz I was fighting him. She's the one that says that in I mean I get it like at the time you're in the stressing anxiety so you're not feeling it but then after that's not what she said though that's not stress the the key thing the officer observed were the bruises all the complaints are she he observed the bruising and then came to conclusion based on that and what she told him she did say the defendant squeezed her arm and based on that her crying shaking and the bruising he concluded that she got through that being squeezed. I mean, take as a totality. Is that not sufficient for problem cause purposes? I don't know. You have a sworn document where she says one of the elements is missing. And then everything else that he's adding is not in that document. To be more specific, she's saying she did not feel pain at the time of the incident since she were fighting. She didn't say she didn't ever feel pain. She said at the time since she was fighting with an offer, but the not. But the officer never asked, "Hey, do you feel pain?" Well, also never asked you to include totality, but I don't know. I mean, I need to look up case. I'm not I'm not sure. I I don't know if that's enough. Um because I mean, such a low standard for problem cause purposes, you know. I mean, I get that you're saying that it's not alleged the pain as an element, but taken as a totality. I guess you're saying taking a totality. I'm saying that's a lot of speculation about stuff that's not in the DMs or in the avidated like you're you're making all these connections Steve also made a connection. He said in the DMs due to my training experience I know being grabbed and bruises being left on your body causes pain. He made that connection. You don't operate on hunches, right? And she's also stated that I was fighting him. So that could be because of her fight. I mean here's the deal. Like if I find no PC, right, they may just reindict it though. That's fine. That's their Kelsey. Did you you see what's going on? So in this case here, the officer never asks her, "Do you feel pain?" He assumes she does just because of bruising on her arm. And because I guess they're in the stress of the excitement. So at the time she doesn't feel pain but after a while he assumes that she feels pain because of bruising on her arm and on camera says you don't know but I I mean this is a probable cause hearing we haven't seen it so he wants me to find no PC if I do though right there injuries we can go in there but he's saying that you know I mean if it were like blood like some kind The tearing of the skin, that's one thing. But bruising, is it possible to get a bruise without feeling pain? Yeah, I do all the time. If you fall down stairs and you're embarrassed more than in pain, you might be crying or shaking cuz you're embarrassed or excited, but it's not because of you injuring yourself down the stairs. But your honor, that also ignores that she did say the squeeze itself. He mentioning a fall, but in this case, we do have a specific statement about a squeeze. She doesn't say that she's in pain because of the squeeze. So if you laid it out in front of her journey, you would always have that statement saying at the time she didn't feel pain. Whatever you said contradicting that, that's fine. But it would not take away that statement that eliminates an element. So maybe grand jury might find it different, but based on that they have someone saying I didn't feel pain. I think that's kind of like and your honor, I will say at the time we don't have the full O. If you want to find OPC, we can revisit it. If we want to reindict it, we can. Okay. All right. I'll find OPC. All right. Okay. The officer's affidavit leaned heavily on his observation of bruises and the complainant's emotional state. Concluding pain was present despite her explicit denial. Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 18.01C, probable cause requires a substantial basis in evidence, not mere speculation. The judge scrutinized the officer's failure to ask the complainant if she felt pain, noting that bruises alone don't inherently prove it. The defense argued this assumption was a leap unsupported by the affidavit's core statement. By finding no probable cause, the judge upheld justice, protecting the defendant from an overzealous officer's hunchdriven narrative. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now.