Bellingham, WA resident, Andrew S., was surprised to experience a traffic stop while parked in his own driveway. The encounter with local police only became more bizarre as the officers changed their rationale for stopping and questioning Andrew multiple times. From claims that there were problems with his taillights to accusations that he had been doing donuts down the street, Bellingham police attempted multiple approaches to catch Andrew in a bind. Police Accountability Report goes through the cell phone video of the encounter provided by Andrew, which provides insight into how police can violate our civil rights under the mask of a pleasant demeanor and “innocent” questions.
Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham. This is Stephen Janice, and we are the Police Accountability Report, and we have breaking news for you today. Today we have an example of a police abuse of power that is so casual, such an everyday abuse of power we thought it was the perfect example to show you why police need to be held to their oath of protect and serve.
The video I’m showing you now shows a cop confronting Andrew S., a resident of Bellingham, Washington in his own driveway. The officer had pulled up behind him while he was on his way home. The officer then gets out of his car and begins to make accusations, but it’s what the police officer says on camera that is so alarming. Take a look.
Andrew S.:
I’ve no problem with… I don’t have no problem with ID myself. None of that. I just want to talk to a lieutenant or a sergeant. That’s it.
Speaker 3:
I’ve told you, you have to identify yourself as the driver.
Speaker 4:
That’s all he asks. All he asked was to-
Speaker 3:
Can I please talk to this gentleman?
Andrew S.:
Come on, come on. Calm down. Just calm down. Calm down. Just calm down. Oh my God, this is too much.
Speaker 3:
You have to identify yourself lawfully because you were driving this vehicle on public streets committing a traffic violation. The law says you have to identify yourself.
Andrew S.:
What is the traffic violation?
Speaker 3:
You’re failing to identify yourself, which is an additional violation. Is that something you want to subject yourself to?
Andrew S.:
What is the traffic violation?
Speaker 3:
You’re exhaust, it’s altered.
Andrew S.:
My exhaust. What did you pull me over for before that?
Speaker 3:
For reasonable suspicion of doing donuts and your exhaust. You went through the intersection and throttle and you hit your throttle a couple of times and the exhaust made a loud noise, which drew my attention to you.
Speaker 4:
Probably a lot of noise.
Andrew S.:
I’m going 20 miles per hour. This is crazy, bro.
Speaker 3:
Are you going to ID yourself?
Andrew S.:
Huh?
Speaker 3:
Are you going to ID yourself?
Andrew S.:
Yeah. Yeah. I’ll ID myself. I’m sitting here, bro, I’m just [inaudible 00:01:45]. Chill out. Now stay in the car. Stay in the car, bro.
Taya Graham:
Now, as the cop continues to press Andrew for his ID, he starts to make a series of allegations, alleging that a car like his was seen pulling donuts or that his exhaust pipe was altered. And I know, donuts, I promise I won’t make that joke. First, Stephen, as we replay the video, what’s your take on this possible abuse of police power? What do you see going on here?
Stephen Janis:
It’s interesting when charges evolve as an officer is engaging someone. I think it raises a lot of questions when they switch from one to the other, a modality of power there. And that raises a lot of concerns for me because I think an officer should be very definitive when he confronts someone with the possibility of criminal charges.
Taya Graham:
And I think that was one of Andrew’s concerns. As you’ll see later in the video, Andrew mentions that first it’s donuts, then it’s going to be my exhaust pipe. Then you’ll say it’s my taillight. And it’s obvious that Andrew has seen this kind of escalation before. Now, despite the fact that at the time that Andrew was approached, he was parked in his driveway, this encounter continues to escalate. Take a look.
Speaker 3:
You went through the intersection and you hit your throttle a couple of times, and the exhaust made a loud noise, which drew my attention to you.
Speaker 4:
Probably a lot of noise.
Andrew S.:
I’m going 20 miles per hour. This is crazy, bro.
Speaker 3:
Are you going to ID yourself?
Andrew S.:
Huh?
Speaker 3:
Are you going to ID yourself?
Andrew S.:
Yeah. Yeah. I’ll, ID myself. I’m sitting here like, bro, I’m just [inaudible 00:03:08]. Chill out. Now stay in the car. Stay in the car, bro.
Taya Graham:
Now, Stephen, I think it’s worth noting that Andrew denies doing any donuts and having an altered tailpipe. I mean, what do we even know about those rules and regulations around altering your exhaust pipe in Washington state?
Stephen Janis:
Well, Washington state has very explicit rules about tailpipe. You have to have a well-maintained tailpipe. I guess my reading of the statute would be that doesn’t make excessive noise. That if you have a car that really excessively makes noise when you read the engine, that would be considered not legal. But it doesn’t prescribe any sort of criminal punishment for that particular offense. I mean, it seems very sketchy to me. But there is a law that says you must maintain a good working tailpipe.
Taya Graham:
Now, at this point, Andrew does hand over his ID. Well, rather, shows that he is willing to. Take a look.
Andrew S.:
By law, I got to hand you this, right?
Speaker 3:
You sure do.
Andrew S.:
And what you’re pulling me over for, again?
Speaker 3:
For the altered exhaust.
Andrew S.:
Altered exhaust.
Speaker 3:
And reasonable suspicion.
Andrew S.:
What? Reasonable-
Speaker 3:
For the donuts. Reasonable sufficient for the donuts and the altered exhaust.
Andrew S.:
Reasonable suspicion for what donuts?
Speaker 3:
The donuts that were called into 911. I’m not arresting you on that. I’m [inaudible 00:04:16].
Andrew S.:
No, I’m just saying. No, I’m just trying to get it all on here for when I go.
Speaker 3:
That’s fair. That’s fair.
Andrew S.:
Okay. I can’t get no sergeant, no lieutenant.
Speaker 3:
No, not right now.
Speaker 4:
Why?
Andrew S.:
And why is that?
Speaker 3:
First you have to identify yourself.
Andrew S.:
Chill out. Chill out.
Speaker 3:
Can we do that before we deescalate?
Taya Graham:
You can also hear Andrew asking for a supervisor, which he is denied. Stephen, let us know. Do they have to provide a supervisor if they’re asked? Is that an obligation that the police have to fulfill?
Stephen Janis:
No, unfortunately. I mean, I think it’s a good thing to ask. I think it’s always good to ask. But no, there’s no law that I can see in any municipality or state that we’ve looked at that we research that says they have to provide an officer. It would be absurd to a certain extent. But I’ve seen cases that we covered where it has been quite helpful.
Taya Graham:
Just as a note, if it is a case of excessive force or if it’s a collision, most likely an ask for supervisor does have to be obeyed. And as Stephen said, we always think it is a good idea to ask for a supervisor, especially if you feel your rights are being violated. But remember, most police departments don’t have any statutes they have to obey that gives them the obligation to fulfill your request. Now as again, Andrew’s request for a supervisor is denied. One of his neighbors comes over to vouch for him. Just take a listen.
Andrew S.:
I’m chilling it down. I’m just trying to make sure I get everything.
Speaker 3:
Oh, sure.
Andrew S.:
I’m trying to make sure I get everything.
Speaker 3:
Do you mind just hanging out over there for us?
Speaker 6:
Yeah. He’s my neighbor. He’s a good guy.
Speaker 3:
Yeah, but [inaudible 00:05:39].
Andrew S.:
Yeah, man, they didn’t pull me over some bull. Now it’s a loud exhaust. Before that, they say 10 blocks away somebody’s doing donuts. My car was reported supposedly.
Speaker 6:
Yeah. I don’t think it was this guy.
Andrew S.:
Bro, it’s some bullshit. But I’m just trying to get him to call a sergeant or a lieutenant to talk to somebody head.
Speaker 6:
[inaudible 00:05:56].
Andrew S.:
Yeah, that’s it.
Speaker 6:
He’s a good guy.
Andrew S.:
And he’s saying, I can’t get no sergeant or lieutenant. That’s it. And I’m trying to make sure before I hand over my ID, you violated my rights. I want to make sure.
Speaker 6:
It’s all good. I’m just telling these guys-
Taya Graham:
Now, given the shifting set of charges, Andrew is understandably concerned about his rights being violated. Stephen, as we’re watching this, I mean, is it reminiscent to you of a fishing expedition? What do you think of the shifting of the goalpost here?
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, I mean, I think that’s very, very indicative of a cop looking for an excuse. When you change the charges around and you’re not very specific. And that’s what we talked about this at the beginning, being specific is a way of giving a person surety that these charges are actually legitimate. I think in this case, he’s just looking for a pretext to run his ID so he can look for something else, is what it seems to me just watching it from my perspective.
Taya Graham:
Here’s where the concerns about a fishing expedition are warranted because the officers suggests that Andrew might have warrants. Take a listen.
Speaker 6:
That sound easy for you, bro, because your rights not being violated.
Speaker 3:
I’m not violating your rights, man.
Speaker 4:
[inaudible 00:07:02] car.
Speaker 3:
I have no intention of violating your rights.
Speaker 4:
Assumed it’s this car. Assumed.
Andrew S.:
Bro, you just said you pulling me over for suspicion of doing donuts.
Speaker 4:
Assumed.
Speaker 3:
And the exhaust.
Andrew S.:
I ain’t… I mean I live right here, bro.
Speaker 3:
I’m going to get you.
Andrew S.:
I ain’t got no fucking-
Speaker 3:
I’m going to just jot your name down. I’m going to give you your ID back. I’m going to make sure you don’t have any warrants. Then I’m going to finish my [inaudible 00:07:18].
Andrew S.:
Just chill out, bro. Just chill.
Speaker 6:
Bro.
Andrew S.:
Just chill out.
Speaker 6:
You guys, seriously, have nothing better to do.
Andrew S.:
Chill out. Come on. Just chill out. Let me talk to him. We’re talking, bro. We come on.
Speaker 6:
Fuck.
Andrew S.:
Come on. Chill out. Just get a pen, bro, because I feel like y’all violating my rights, bro.
Speaker 4:
[inaudible 00:07:32].
Andrew S.:
That’s it. I’m talking calmly, bro.
Speaker 3:
You sure?
Andrew S.:
I’m trying to be calm.
Speaker 3:
Appreciate that.
Andrew S.:
I’m over here. I’m pissed. Believe me, I’m fucking pissed, bro.
Speaker 3:
You have to identify yourself. I could arrest you. I’m trying not to arrest you, man.
Andrew S.:
But, bro, I feel like…
Speaker 3:
I’m trying to not arrest you.
Speaker 4:
[inaudible 00:07:46].
Andrew S.:
But I feel like you’re supposed to call a sergeant or something though.
Speaker 3:
I don’t have to do that.
Andrew S.:
Or lieutenant when you ask.
Speaker 3:
I don’t have to do that, man.
Andrew S.:
That’s the thing. That’s it. Look, I’m not resisting.
Speaker 3:
You’re not. You’re not.
Andrew S.:
Look, look, this is my ID right here. My shit is right here. I’m just trying to make sure my rights, bro. It’s all about your rights.
Speaker 3:
I understand that.
Andrew S.:
If you don’t use them, you lose them.
Speaker 3:
I totally agree with that.
Taya Graham:
At this point, I think it becomes clear that the officer isn’t really concerned about Andrew’s tailpipe. But I also think Andrew makes an interesting point. If you don’t use your rights, you lose them. Stephen, what do you think?
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, I mean that’s very important because no matter what happens in a police encounter, make sure to invoke your rights. Your right to remain silent. You might not to answer any questions. Even right to your personal effects without a warrant. Use these rights. These are wonderful rights…
Taya Graham:
Absolutely.
Stephen Janis:
That we have been granted hundreds of years ago, but they still, they’re very relevant today. I think he’s very right about that. Make sure to implement and use your rights because that’s the only way we can preserve them.
Taya Graham:
Absolutely. Now, understandably, Andrew starts really pushing back here because he is parked in his driveway. This has taken a great deal of time much longer than a traffic stop should. And understandably, he’s quite annoyed with this entire process. Just watch.
Andrew S.:
Yeah, bro.
Speaker 3:
I hear you, man.
Andrew S.:
I feel like it’s bullshit you picked my car out. I’m home.
Speaker 3:
Correct. You made it home.
Andrew S.:
I know. I am home. It probably say on my fucking ID right here.
Speaker 4:
Just fishing. How many other cars are out there?
Andrew S.:
Yes, it say it. I am home.
Speaker 3:
Correct. Can I please have your ID? You have to identify yourself.
Andrew S.:
Last time, you can’t call no sergeant?
Speaker 3:
I’m not going to do that.
Andrew S.:
No lieutenant.
Speaker 3:
No.
Andrew S.:
Nobody ahead of you.
Speaker 3:
No.
Andrew S.:
All right. Know you got his back, bro. I’m having a conversation with him. I ain’t going to talk to you no more, bro, because you whatever he do, bro.
Speaker 4:
They’re saying [inaudible 00:09:32].
Andrew S.:
But I didn’t got pulled over, bro, and I didn’t ask for a lieutenant or sergeant, bro, and they called. That’s all I’m saying.
Speaker 3:
Sure.
Andrew S.:
Okay. Look at my point of view.
Speaker 3:
I understand your point of view.
Andrew S.:
You’re saying you stopping me for donuts, supposedly. You ain’t seen me do no fucking donuts and now it’s exhaust. Let’s imagine, next it’s going to be a taillight.
Speaker 3:
No.
Andrew S.:
That’s how I feel. I’m just saying that’s how I feel.
Speaker 3:
I understand that you feel that way. Maybe it’s happened that way in the past. That’s not how it’s going to happen.
Andrew S.:
Definitely not. I’m saying.
Speaker 3:
I understand what you’re saying-
Taya Graham:
Now, since we’ve been watching this video, I just want to make sure that it is clear. If you are operating a motor vehicle, you do have to provide your ID. Of course that’s not the same for your passengers. However, Andrew was parked in his driveway, so you can understand why Andrew felt that this was somewhat unreasonable. Would you agree, Stephen?
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. I mean, we just want to be clear because sometimes people say, “I don’t have to give my ID.” If you’re operating a motor vehicle, yeah, you got to give your ID. If you’re parked in your driveway and you’re not operating it, I think that’s questionable. But if the officer observes you driving it, then it becomes a gray area. But of course, you just don’t want to adjudicate these things on a driveway. You want to make sure you’re as cautious as possible so that officer has no reason to handcuff you. That’s our main thing. We don’t want anyone to have to deal with handcuffs or go to prison or anything over something that might be a misinterpretation of the law. Just err on the side of safety for you.
Taya Graham:
Absolutely. I completely agree with Stephen. Err on the side of caution. We want you to go home not to jail. According to the court records, we found Andrew’s concerns weren’t unwarranted. As a matter of fact, he has gotten two charges. Stephen, what is he facing right now?
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, he’s charged with reckless driving and he’s also charged with a failure to obey a lawful order. Which of course, at least a failure to obey a lawful order could be a criminal charge. And that can sometimes result in serious problems for someone. I mean the reckless driving should be a citation. But these two charges are in the record in court. We confirm them. Obviously this officer decided to resolve this situation with some sort of arrest or some sort of ticket. It’s very disturbing. But it shows that I think Andrew’s concerns were warranted from the beginning.
Taya Graham:
We will continue to investigate this case and others because as we always say, the point of the show is to hold the system accountable that makes bad policing possible. And certainly, I think today we have a questionable use of police powers. And although this police officer was measured and even tempered throughout this experience, it’s still an example of over-policing and the casual violation of rights that we see on a daily basis.
And as we all know from our extensive reporting, the price of this type of overreach is paid by us. When cops failed to be judicious with their power, innocent people suffer. That’s why we take the time to parse videos like this and explore not just the legal questions, but the broader inquiry about what kind of policing we want, what kind is effective, and what we can do to preserve our most precious possessions, our rights.
And as always, if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Reach out to us at par@therealnews.com and of course, you can always message me directly, @tayasbaltimore on Facebook or Twitter.
I’m Taya Graham. This is Stephen Janis. We are the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.
This post was originally published on The Real News Network.
