I'm going to jail. Come on. All right, guys. You hear this? I'm going to jail. I'd like to know what for. >> You're under arrest for obstructing an officer. >> What am I obstructing? >> Obstructing identification. So, file a car. Come on. >> Step out of the >> Really? >> Yes. >> You're going to do this. >> got to do is show me your ID. >> Nope. Go ahead. Come on. Thank you. Thank you for this. Thank you very much. I was dying for this. I'm not going to resist it. >> What's that? >> I said I'm not going to resist it. >> Narrator: Handcuffed and thrown into jail, the driver was nonetheless delighted and expressed his thanks because he had a brilliant counter suit strategy ready to go. What had happened beforehand? >> I don't answer questions. >> Let me see your driver's license. >> Did I do something wrong? >> We're roadside safety check. Let me see your driver's license. We're not going anywhere until you show your driver's license. >> Did I do something wrong? >> Per federal law and state of Illinois >> Michigan State Police versus uh I think it's Miller. Supreme Court rules we can do safety checks to make sure no one's in a crash and has a license. >> Not a valid license. >> Yes. Valid license. >> Narrator: The driver immediately refused to present his ID, maintaining that he had committed no violation. The officer then threatened him by citing the Michigan versus Sitz Supreme Court precedent. But do traffic checkpoints actually authorize police to arbitrarily demand documentation? >> What I need you to do is pull up in front of this squad car here to the left. >> Yep. >> And uh we'll get you a tow and everything since I don't know if you're valid or not. And we'll go from there. >> You're going to hate me tonight, brother. You are going to hate. This is what we're going to do. We're going to do this. I'm a law-abiding citizen, so I don't believe I've done anything wrong. >> say you weren't a law-abiding citizen. I said you were a law-abiding citizen. >> You can't just demand ID. >> Yes. Supreme Court rule Department of Michigan State Police versus Sitz. >> That does not allow you to ID me without a cause. >> It's a Supreme Court rule. >> Without a cause? >> Yes, on a valid >> Narrator: The driver immediately refused to present his ID, maintaining that he had committed no violation. The officer then threatened him by citing the Michigan versus Sitz Supreme Court precedent. But do traffic checkpoints actually authorize police to arbitrarily demand documentation? >> I will find out who you are and write you a ticket for no valid license. And I'll tow your vehicle. >> Go ahead. That's what you think you want to do. >> You know what? I hear this all the time, brother. >> By who? I'm a cop. >> My fourth amendment right. >> Fourth amendment right for what? >> Yeah. Stop and ID. >> You don't have to stop and ID. >> I believe that. >> Well, show it to me. >> I don't have to show you anything. You have to. I don't have to know the law. I don't have to know the law. >> All right, man. >> You guys do >> What are you going to do? >> I'm going to write him a ticket. I'm going to find out who he is. I'll tow his >> You got his ID? >> No, I'll run his plates and everything. I'll I'll try to figure it out. It's not my car. >> You got to produce ID, brother. >> You got to just go >> Narrator: A brilliant outsmarting move. The officer awkwardly admitted he didn't ta need to know the law, but just as he was about to run the license plate to identify the owner, the driver revealed the car was borrowed leaving the officer completely stumped. >> 29 we're clear on that. >> You guys figure that out, let me know. >> All right, everything's fine. >> Narrator: Submitting quietly to arrest in order to secure evidence of police abuse of power for court an incredibly shrewd move. What do you think of how this driver handled the situation? Leave a comment. Comma.