Arkansas resident Shawn Chaperone was cut off by a reckless driver and was shocked that police chose to pull him over. However, it was the local police department’s turn to be surprised when they discovered how well Shawn knew his rights and local ordinances! Join us for this episode of the Police Accountability Report, which illustrates the importance of knowing your rights and the dangers of arbitrary police power.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
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 and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today, we will achieve that goal by showing you this video of a cop who tries to entrap a motorist with false accusations about a costly traffic violation. However, it’s how this driver fought back, and how police responded when he did, that shows how cops can bend the law when they’re caught misusing it.

But before we get started, I want you to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com, or reach out to me at Facebook or Twitter @TayasBaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And also please like share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and can even help our guests. And of course, I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there. And we do have a Patreon, Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as we’ve reported on this show, there was no process more fraught with potential for both abuse and overreach than the American traffic stop. It is in some ways unique to our American version of law enforcement, simply because cops here think there is no better way to catch criminals than by randomly pulling over hundreds of people. How else can you explain the myriad of stops we have reported on for this show that have led to, let’s just say, bad outcomes, unnecessary and often futile efforts to entangle innocent Americans in our sprawling criminal justice system that often seems more motivated by greed, stupidity, or even just a hunger for power? And to prove my point, I’m going to show you this video of a traffic stop that explains all the preceding overreach and backwards rationalizations that American police use to justify their addiction to lighting up the roof and ensnaring often innocent motorists in the labyrinth system of tickets, fines, court fees, and more.

But this take on over policing also has a twist, which you’ll see leads to an even more revealing truism about law enforcement’s addiction to traffic stops than all the aforementioned incidents combined. Now, this story starts in Stuttgart, Arkansas. There, Sean Chaperone was driving home after a long day at work. He was traveling at the reasonable speed of 35 miles per hour, when suddenly a motorist jumped in front of his car, slowed to 20 miles per hour, slammed on their brakes, and cut him off. Now, Sean did what any driver would do when confronted with a reckless motorist, he switched into the next lane to avoid a collision and maintained his speed. But this seemingly reasonable reaction to a reckless motorist apparently caught the eye of the ever vigilant Stuttgart Police. This laser-like attention was not drawn to the driver who cut Sean off. No, these able practitioners of law enforcement where apparently focused on the fact he changed lanes to avoid an accident. Just watch.

Sean Chaperone:

So he’s behind me, but you couldn’t catch him, but you could catch me?

Speaker 3:

This is what I seen. I seen you slam on your brakes and come to a sliding stop in the middle of-

Sean Chaperone:

That is correct because he cut me off, sir.

Speaker 3:

Listen to me. Listen to me. Listen to me. First of all, I’m not going to roadside court. Second of all, your attitude, you should probably lose it right now. Do you understand?

Sean Chaperone:

Or what?

Speaker 3:

Do you understand?

Sean Chaperone:

Or what do you going to do, man?

Speaker 3:

It is a simple yes or no.

Sean Chaperone:

I don’t answer questions, man. You go do what you got to do.

Speaker 3:

All right.

Taya Graham:

Now, it’s interesting to note that this alleged traffic infraction caught the attention of not one, not two, but three Stuttgart cops, a veritable posse of law enforcement that descended on his car with a variety of allegations. Take a look.

Sean Chaperone:

Got a officer right here over here. Can I get your name and badge number? Are you going to be officer right here too?

Speaker 4:

Oh, the reason why I pulled you over, because I’m the one that actually pulled you over, is a high rate of speed.

Sean Chaperone:

Okay, well, I was cut off. Did you get my speed?

Speaker 4:

What I saw was a high rate of speed.

Sean Chaperone:

So this is-

Speaker 4:

I’m worried about people walking down the street.

Sean Chaperone:

Right. And I’m worried about someone cutting me off.

Speaker 4:

Okay. My issue is people walking down the street. I get it. At that point you should have called 911. “Hey, this is my issue.” We could have solved it then. But you speeding down the street, that’s-

Sean Chaperone:

Doing 35 in a 35?

Speaker 4:

Nu-uh.

Sean Chaperone:

Yes, ma’am. Absolutely.

Speaker 4:

Okay, so the reason why I pulled you over was a high rate of speed. We’re not going to play this game, okay?

Sean Chaperone:

Yeah. No, we’re not. We’re just going to go to court.

Taya Graham:

But even though Sean was now confronted by a full interrogation by these traffic enforcement vigilantes, he had an ace in the hole, so to speak. Because unbeknownst to the cadre of cops, Sean had a dash cam, which was running at the time of the near collision. And when he lets the cops know this, I think it’s curious how they respond to the fact that there is evidence that might challenge their capricious interpretation of the law. Take a look.

Sean Chaperone:

I ain’t got a problem with it. I got a dash cam. Y’all want to say that I’m speeding? Go for it. But the dash cam’s going to make y’all look really funny.

I mean, if she’s going to shine her light in my eyes, I can do the same back.

Speaker 4:

[inaudible 00:05:47], you mind coming up here please?

Sean Chaperone:

I’m going to need a supervisor. Can y’all give me a supervisor?

Speaker 4:

No problem. He just rolled up on here.

Sean Chaperone:

All right, perfect. Hey-

Corporal Williams:

How you doing, sir? Corporal Williams, Stuttgart Police Department.

Sean Chaperone:

All right.

Corporal Williams:

What’s going on, man?

Sean Chaperone:

Not much, [inaudible 00:06:01]. You don’t have to roll it all the way down. How’s it going?

Corporal Williams:

Pretty good. What’s going on?

Sean Chaperone:

Oh, not much. I had someone cut me off back there. They were on a traffic stop. They decided to pull me over. The guy that was behind me was the one that initially cut me off. They told me that they couldn’t catch him, that they decided to pull me over even though he was behind me.

Corporal Williams:

Okay. If he cut you off, how was he behind you?

Sean Chaperone:

Because I jumped around in front of him.

Corporal Williams:

All right.

Sean Chaperone:

He was doing about 25, getting ready to turn. I pulled back over in front of, got in the left-hand lane, passed him, got back over in the right-hand lane, took the right right back here at the stoplight.

Corporal Williams:

Okay. Well, according to the other officer, he said all he saw was you slam on your brakes, stop in the middle of Michigan-

Sean Chaperone:

I did. I slammed on my brakes because I had just gotten cut off and I slammed on the horn. That’s absolutely what I did.

Corporal Williams:

Okay.

Sean Chaperone:

He’s got that part right.

Corporal Williams:

All right. And the car cut you off?

Sean Chaperone:

That is correct. 110%.

Speaker 4:

Well the horn part-

Sean Chaperone:

Can you ask her to get her light out of my eyes, please?

Speaker 4:

[inaudible 00:07:02]-

Corporal Williams:

What’s that?

Sean Chaperone:

Can you ask her to get her light out of my eyes?

Corporal Williams:

Well, if he didn’t see what took place is what I’m saying. You understand that? If he didn’t see the car cut you off because he was on a traffic stop, obviously he’s paying attention to this traffic stop.

Taya Graham:

As I watch this video, I’m reminded of an idea that I think we sometimes forget: the notion that enforcing the law is often subjective and therefore arbitrary. But despite that truism, what happened to Sean here is a stark reminder that once the law is aimed at you, the subjective aspect of law enforcement is simply forgotten. Instead, we, and Sean, are subject to its exacting consequences, often solely because an officer, in their opinion, deem you guilty. And this exacting judgment persists even if the evidence presented challenges their assumptions. Just watch this idea play out as officers give Sean a ticket while simply ignoring his version of events.

Sean Chaperone:

Hey, it’s been well more than 15 minutes. Are we going to go or what? Are we being detained? We free to go? It’s been more than 15 minutes. Turned into an unlawful detainment three and a half minutes ago. We’ve been here 20 minutes, man.

Speaker 3:

Okay.

Sean Chaperone:

All right.

Speaker 3:

Go ahead and roll your window down for me.

Sean Chaperone:

It’s cracked. I can hear you just fine.

Speaker 3:

Okay. That’s cool. I need you to roll the window down.

Sean Chaperone:

I mean-

Speaker 3:

Roll the window open.

Sean Chaperone:

No, sir. I’m not going to. That is against my constitutional rights. I do not have to.

Speaker 3:

Okay. First of all, you need to learn your constitutional rights.

Sean Chaperone:

I do know my constitutional rights. Do…

Speaker 3:

So roll the window down.

Sean Chaperone:

… you know that your vehicle’s an extension of your house?

Speaker 3:

Yeah. Okay.

Sean Chaperone:

Okay.

Speaker 3:

So roll the window down so you can sign this citation.

Sean Chaperone:

I’ll sign the citation. All you got to do is just hand it to me right here.

Speaker 3:

No, I don’t hand my clipboard through the window. Roll your window down.

Sean Chaperone:

If you won’t hand it through your window, then how is rolling my window down going to help?

Speaker 3:

You’re going to lean toward me, you’re going to sign this citation, and we’re going to go about [inaudible 00:08:57], or-

Sean Chaperone:

I can step out and we can sign it. I can step out and we can sign it.

Speaker 3:

Or I’m going to take you to jail for obstruction. You understand?

Sean Chaperone:

Obstruction is a physical crime. You do realize that?

Speaker 3:

You are obstructing my justice.

Sean Chaperone:

Obstructing is a physical crime.

Corporal Williams:

You can go ahead. [inaudible 00:09:15] refused to sign, hand him his copy, and go [inaudible 00:09:17]. It doesn’t change it either way.

Speaker 3:

Are you going to sign my ticket?

Sean Chaperone:

I mean, did he just said… What did he just say?

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:09:27].

Sean Chaperone:

That’s why we have to have y’all’s supervisors here to keep y’all honest.

Taya Graham:

Now, the ticket was just the beginning of Sean’s ordeal, a series of events that have forced him to fight back in a way we will be discussing with him soon. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Steven Janis, who’s been looking into the case. Steven, thank you so much for joining us.

Steven Janis:

Taya, thanks having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So Steven, you’ve been reaching out to the Stuttgart Police. What are they saying?

Steven Janis:

Well, Taya, not a lot right now. I reached out to the Chief of Police of Stuttgart through his departmental email, asked him a couple questions, most notably, why the obstruction of justice charges? I thought that was kind of weird. I asked him if he actually thought that was a legitimate use of that charge in that situation. I also asked him why they didn’t take into account Mr. Chaperone’s version of events, why they didn’t look for the other driver. I’m waiting to hear back. If I hear something, I’ll mention it in the chat. I haven’t heard it back yet, but I will keep reporting on it.

Taya Graham:

Often when reporting on these types of questionable tickets, there are some underlying reasons rather than just public safety. You’ve been looking into the town itself. What have you learned?

Steven Janis:

Well, it’s really weird. I went to the Stuttgart town website to look through their financial information, budgets, et cetera. Nothing was posted. It was completely blank. I’m showing you on the screen right now. They do not share budget information with the public, which I think raises a lot of questions. They’ve also given police officers a raise, although they weren’t making a lot of money, like $11 an hour for a rookie, so maybe they need to raise money and write a lot of tickets. I get that feeling because they really don’t share information. Lack of transparency always leaves questions unanswered.

Taya Graham:

So I talked about the idea of an arbitrary nature of police power and how it can infect the process of law enforcement. I know you have some ideas on the topic. Can you talk about them?

Steven Janis:

Yeah, Taya. There’s nothing more anti-democratic than arbitrary power, especially police power, because the consequences of when it is imposed upon us are life altering. So, really, giving someone the ability to, say, write you a ticket when it’s not justified, or put you in a cage when there’s no real basis for criminal charges, all results in the same thing, a sort of roving sort of mobile fascism that really can entrap you in a system that’s unjust. And I think that’s why we have to keep our eye on, and always hold in check, indiscriminate and, what we say, arbitrary police power.

Taya Graham:

And now to discuss this confrontation with Stuttgart Police, why he challenged the officers, and how he’s fighting back against the ticket, I’m joined by Sean Chaperone. Sean, thank you for joining me.

Sean Chaperone:

Thank you for having me.

Taya Graham:

So first, tell me why you were pulled over. What are we seeing at the beginning of this video?

Sean Chaperone:

So initially, I had turned left onto the street that I was on. There was a vehicle that had cut me off and had their right turn signal on. After they cut me off, they turned their turn signal on signaling that they were going to turn into the motel. Well, when they had cut me off, I was doing approximately 35. They were doing about 20. They cut me off, I slammed on my brakes, slammed on the horn, and then got in the left-hand lane, went around them, and then got back in the right-hand lane. They never ended up turning into the motel and ended up coming up behind me. Well, I took a right at the stoplight, and that’s when the police got behind me and pulled me over and said that I was going at a high rate of speed.

Taya Graham:

I think it’s interesting that the officer said that he chose to stop you as opposed to the more reckless driver. How did they explain that?

Sean Chaperone:

Yeah, well, initially in that video, he says that he saw both vehicles. He saw me and the vehicle that had cut me off. And then in the video three times, he denies ever seeing the vehicle cut me off. So my question is, what did the officer really see? I think he just heard some things. He just heard me slamming on my brakes and blowing on my horn, and then decided that I was the aggressor even though I was driving defensively.

Taya Graham:

Sean, some people might say you were confrontational, and others might say you were standing on your rights. How did the cop respond to your pushback?

Sean Chaperone:

He initially walked up to the vehicle with an attitude, yelling at me. Personally, I mean, I was just acting defensively. Yet again, I was driving defensively, and then when he comes up acting aggressively, now I’m acting defensively. And I’ve seen people say that, “Well, this is a bad time for an audit.” Well, first of all, this wasn’t an audit. I’m just on my way home. So this is… Exactly, this is just me standing up for my rights. And unfortunately, he got a little upset about it.

Taya Graham:

You seem very knowledgeable about your rights and the rules surrounding traffic enforcement. How do you think that helped you in the situation? How do you think things would’ve turned out if you hadn’t?

Sean Chaperone:

Oh, it definitely helped me in the situation. I mean, towards the end of it, they’re threatening to arrest me. So, I mean, definitely know your rights and record the police. Even if you don’t know your rights, just record the police to hold them accountable because there’s so many times that their body cams come up missing when it comes to court, and the only thing that you have to stand on is your evidence.

Taya Graham:

How did you become so knowledgeable about your rights? What inspired you to learn so much?

Sean Chaperone:

Well, my father’s a retired police officer. He is a retired K9 officer, so that definitely helped. As well as him being a police officer, he has also gone over the last probably four or five years and really hammered to me, educating me on my rights, because he sees it as well. He sees the officers that are stripping people of their rights and he never was that way, but he sees it happening now and he sees that if we don’t stand up for it, we’re going to lose it.

Taya Graham:

Did you have any concern that the officer might violate your rights because of your pushback, because of the way you asserted yourself?

Sean Chaperone:

Absolutely not. If they’re going to violate my rights, if they want to arrest me, I guess that they have every right to do so. I’m not going to let them intimidate me or try and bully me in any way, shape, fashion, or form. Let’s say they would’ve arrested me. I mean, we’d be going to court right now on a counter suit for unlawful arrest. So, no. I mean, for me, personally, it doesn’t intimidate me.

Taya Graham:

So I noticed that you were counting down the time, that the officer only had 15 minutes to write you a ticket. What was your next move if he took over 15 minutes?

Sean Chaperone:

I mean, I wasn’t going to run. That’s for sure. It’s a state specific law. It’s Arkansas Criminal 3.1 that states that an officer only has 15 minutes to write you a citation. So it’s a very state specific thing. I wasn’t going to leave, but I was definitely going to get out of my vehicle, start asking questions, because now it’s starting to turn into an unlawful detainment. So that’s pretty much what I would’ve done.

Taya Graham:

So what exactly was the ticket for?

Sean Chaperone:

So the ticket ended up being for… I think it was reckless and prohibited driving. It’s $150 ticket and currently we are going to court. The court date is, I believe, August 3rd. So it’s going to trial and I will be representing myself and I look forward to seeing the officers on the stand.

Taya Graham:

Now, I think it’s important to expound a little bit on the idea Steven and I discussed, namely the arbitrary nature of police power. It’s important because I think it acknowledges that policing is just as much an idea as it is an institution, and for that reason, something worth examining beyond the usual critiques that views cops and badges as the inevitable result of our ongoing experiment with self-governance.

Let’s remember, as we’ve said before, modern policing was one of the last iterations of democratic governance to emerge, an institution that didn’t evolve until the form resembles today until the mid 19th century. Which is why we need to sometimes examine it in a way that doesn’t simply assume it should, or even inevitably, exist. Not so much to say we don’t need police, but rather a way to truly understand what the prevalence of policing in our country truly engenders. In other words, how does the existence and growth and proliferation of law enforcement actually affect the way we live? To answer that question, as I already mentioned, we need to explore the notion of the arbitrary nature of police power, meaning how the latitude to enforce the law, take our freedom, and sometimes even our lives, affects how we both move through the world and even view ourselves.

First, we need to focus on the idea of what it means to be subject to arbitrary power and how it affects us. I want to examine this idea through the prism of another refrain we hear over and over again from politicians and other elites. Namely, “No one is above the law.” Now, this idea has become an oft used talking point of the mainstream media and their elite group of proselytizing pundits. The concept that the law is an unbiased arbiter that applies to everyone is pretty much a mantra for elites to pat themselves on the back as objective arbiters of justice.

Well, fair enough. But it’s an intriguing invocation when you consider just how the law works, especially if you view it through the lens of the stories we have reported on for this show. Because as we’ve seen, in case after case, how the law is applied can be quite arbitrary. In other words, whether we’re talking about a Texas firefighter falsely accused of a DUI, a man whose car was searched while he was walking his dog, or this story about a quite subjective rendering of traffic laws, all of this means, in reality, is that the law is arbitrary for those of us who actually have to live with it. Which, of course, sits in stark contrast to those who don’t, namely the cops who enforce it. How do I know?

Well, consider the predicament of a dedicated New York City traffic cop, Matthew Bianchi. Bianchi was a veteran officer who actually liked enforcing traffic laws. That’s because, at a young age, Bianchi lost a friend in an accident to a reckless driver. Therefore, when he felt someone was being particularly over the top and driving poorly, he would write a ticket as the law requires. That is with one fairly broad exception. Turns out New York cops are given what are known as courtesy cards. What are courtesy cards? Well, basically a get out of jail free pass handed out by police unions, so officers can give them to friends, family, and anyone else they want to. So when an officer pulls someone over, regardless of the infraction, the informal rule is to let them go, provided they have a courtesy card.

Unfortunately, for Bianchi, this was a problem. He found himself often having to let people go who were endangering others. To prove his point, he cited an encounter when he pulled over a driver who was not just recklessly speeding but didn’t even have a license or insurance. That same motorist had a courtesy card, which he refused to honor and subsequently ticketed the driver. But this exercise of officer discretion did not go unnoticed. Soon he found himself the recipient of retaliation across the department. He was demoted and the union told him it would not protect him. He was sent to work in the borough of Staten Island, where he estimated half, that’s 50% of the people he pulled over, had courtesy cards.

To make matters worse, officers can buy them for a dollar a piece from the union, no word on who keeps the dollar by the way, and hand them out to anyone they want. Things came to a head when Bianchi refused to honor a card from a relative of the department’s highest ranking officer, a move that led to further demotion. Now, Bianchi is suing over what he says is unfair retaliation and abuse of his discretion. But I think this whole ordeal makes a more interesting and important point. And that is, of course some people are above the law. In fact, the people who are empowered to enforce it are not just above it, but can grant impunity to friends, family, and anyone else they please. And this so-called unqualified immunity is applied indiscriminately to anyone and everyone who happens to know a cop who happens to have a dollar.

But it also points out the impact arbitrary enforcement has on a democratic, supposedly free society. Because if the people who enforce the law are not subject to it, then the law itself truly has no meaning. If the cops who profess to be the bastion between uncivilized and civilized society can dole out pardons like confectionary treats, then what we have is not a nation of laws, but a Congress of tyranny. That’s right. I said it. I know it sounds a little discomfiting, but it’s true. And please let me explain why I used it.

Let me start with a question. Have you ever worked for a bad boss who made your life miserable? Who constantly changed your assignments, ignored your input, belittled you in front of others, called you at all hours and otherwise just treated you like a toy? Because if you have, then you know what it’s like to work for a tyrant. Someone who’s bounded by no rules, a person who implicitly works under the assumption that what applies to you does not apply to them. And by embracing that notion, they are then free to wreak havoc on your life any way they see fit. Well, that’s called tyranny, and I think you can see how this concept is applicable to the police. Because if cops in New York can enforce laws on others that don’t apply to themselves and their friends, then they’re basically above the law. And if they can retaliate against people who follow the law honorably, they can assure they are immune from it. That means they, in a sense, become the law itself, which literally allows them to engage in a form of individual tyranny towards the people they subject to it.

Think about it. How can the institution that professes to fairly enforce the law simply exclude themselves from it? How can a group of people called law enforcers use that same power to evade it? The point is that this idea of occupational immunization simply makes the law wholly subjective. That is, when the law enforcers can also be the lawbreakers, the whole process becomes subject to the whims of an individual, namely a tyrant. That is why we have to continue to hold cops accountable, because clearly it’s up to us, the people, to guard our freedoms and preserve our rights from the people who would otherwise abuse them.

I want to thank Sean for coming forward and helping educate us about our rights and sharing his experience. Thank you, Sean. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Steven Janis, for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you, Steven.

Steven Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank friends of the show, Nolie D and Lacey R, for their support. We appreciate you. And a very special thanks to our Patreons. We appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, John E.R., David K., and Louis P., and Super Friends, Shane Busta, Pineapple Girl, Chris R., Matter of Rights, and Angela True.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or @EyesonPolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @TayasBaltimore on Twitter and Facebook. And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

Bradley was finishing a walk with his dog along a nature trail near the rural town of Plattsmouth, Nebraska when local police suddenly pulled him over. When the officers immediately went for Bradley’s center console and produced a CBD pipe, he knew something was off. When he confronted the police, they admitted they’d searched his parked car while he was away—and then waited for him so they could pull him over while driving. Police Accountability Report examines this disturbing case, and what it says about the activities police departments devote their bloated budgets toward.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
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 and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we will achieve that goal by showing you this video of a cop who tried to search a man’s car while it was parked and he was walking his dog. But it’s what happened when the officer confronted the motorist on the road that reveals just how destructive and unfettered police power really can be.

But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com, or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It does help us get the word out and can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there. And we do have an Accountability Reports Patreon page, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. Anything you can spare is truly appreciated. Okay, we’ve gotten that out of the way.

Now, if there is one refrain we hear from police unions and cop partisans and tough on crime politicians, it’s that there just aren’t enough cops. The complaint, no matter how much we fund them, is that law enforcement is simply stretched too thin to do their jobs. Of course, if that is true, I think the video I’m about to show you now will require some explaining from the elites who demand more dollars for cops and less power for us because the encounter with the cop on the screen now calls into question the entire, “We need more cops,” mantra, a sequence of events that paints an entirely different picture than the conjured crisis of a country chronically short on law enforcement.

Because if it’s true, why would the officer who I’m showing now on the video do what he did here? That is, searching for a parked car in rural Nebraska next to a nature trail with no evidence of a crime. If there are too few cops, then I am all ears as to why this particular act of law enforcement is worth the precious time of the dwindling number of officers on the job.

Now the story starts in Plattsmouth, Nebraska. There, Bradley Connolly was walking his dog on a nature trail after a hard day at work. At the time, Connolly was building a dollar store for the town, which is why he was taking a breather and enjoying nature with his beloved dog, Rosebud. Afterwards, Bradley and Rosebud hopped into his car and headed on their way. However, he was almost immediately pulled over for a traffic stop and was surprised that the officer reached straight into his car and headed for the center console and retrieved his CBD pipe. When Bradley confronted the officer and asked the officer how he knew where the pipe was, he made a shocking discovery. Just listen.

Sargeant Sommer:

I said I smelled marijuana coming from your vehicle, and that’s not marijuana, sir?

Bradley Connolly:

You went in my car… No, that’s CBD, but you went in my car when I was over there.

Sargeant Sommer:

So now you know you’re playing games with me.

Bradley Connolly:

I’m not playing games.

Sargeant Sommer:

Yeah, because you knew.

Bradley Connolly:

That you went in my car. You went right to it. Yeah. You shouldn’t have went in my car. Nobody gave you permission to go in my car.

Sargeant Sommer:

Yes. So let me explain how this works, okay? Your vehicle is a rental car. It’s parked in a place that it’s not supposed to be.

Bradley Connolly:

We’re on a trail.

Sargeant Sommer:

Let me me explain to you the situation. If you want to listen, I’m more than glad to explain to you, okay?

Bradley Connolly:

I’m listening. I’m listening.

Sargeant Sommer:

Like I said, you’re parked in an area where you’re not supposed to be parked. We just had a bunch of break-ins and cars stolen out here last week.

Bradley Connolly:

That’s not me, man. I just explained to you, I’m here-

Sargeant Sommer:

It doesn’t matters if it’s you. I’m explaining to you, your car is not registered to you. It’s a rental car and it’s parked in a place-

Bradley Connolly:

I’m here-

Sargeant Sommer:

I’m not going to continue to talk over you.

Bradley Connolly:

You’re being idolatry.

Sargeant Sommer:

You can stop and listen-

Bradley Connolly:

This should be a consensual conversation.

Sargeant Sommer:

It should be a, you listen to me because I’m explaining to you the reason why we are where we are right now. Okay?

Taya Graham:

This officer revealed that he had opened his parked rental car, carried out a search without his permission or presence, and then waited for him to drive away to pull him over.

Sargeant Sommer:

Okay? You’re parked in a place where you’re not supposed to be parked.

Bradley Connolly:

Not a crime.

Sargeant Sommer:

I’m sorry?

Bradley Connolly:

That’s not a crime.

Sargeant Sommer:

Blocking the road is. I could have towed your vehicle.

Bradley Connolly:

I was off to the side.

Sargeant Sommer:

Your tire’s in the roadway, okay?

Bradley Connolly:

I’m glad you didn’t. I’m glad you didn’t tow.

Sargeant Sommer:

Yeah, I’m glad I didn’t either. I was waiting because you know what? I’ll be honest with you. I’ve already run you. I know you have warrants in Illinois for burglary-

Bradley Connolly:

They’re unextraditable.

Sargeant Sommer:

… For burglary and drugs-

Bradley Connolly:

Out of Illinois.

Sargeant Sommer:

See? Exactly. You know, all this, and yet you want to play games with me.

Bradley Connolly:

I do. I’m not playing games.

Sargeant Sommer:

When I asked you for your ID, you could have simply given me your ID and we would’ve been done.

Bradley Connolly:

I didn’t want to.

Sargeant Sommer:

But you want to argue and you want to play games.

Bradley Connolly:

So you broke into my car…I’m not.

Sargeant Sommer:

I did break into your car. I have a right to determine if this car is stolen and who owns the vehicle.

Bradley Connolly:

You could have run the plates. All that other stuff is irrelevant.

Sargeant Sommer:

I did. You know what? Rental cars aren’t reported stolen until 30 days after.

Taya Graham:

Now, Bradley was of course disturbed by the officer’s actions. So he did whatever US citizen has the right to do and he asked the officer to legally justify the search. But how the officer responded is a troubling commentary on the state of our constitutional rights at this particular moment. Just watch.

Sargeant Sommer:

You can sit here and argue the law with me all day, but guess what? I’ve been a cop for over 20 years.

Bradley Connolly:

Okay.

Sargeant Sommer:

I know what the law is, okay? So all you have to do-

Bradley Connolly:

Then you know that warrants are unextraditable.

Sargeant Sommer:

Yeah, exactly.

Bradley Connolly:

Yeah, and so-

Sargeant Sommer:

All you had to do was provide me a driver’s license.

Bradley Connolly:

I shouldn’t have to, man.

Sargeant Sommer:

Yeah, you should.

Bradley Connolly:

This this isn’t Nazi Germany.

Sargeant Sommer:

If you’re in an area doing something illegal-

Bradley Connolly:

This isn’t Nazi Germany. I wasn’t doing anything illegal. I was walking my dog.

Sargeant Sommer:

I have reasonable suspicion that you have a vehicle that’s not registered to you.

Bradley Connolly:

Not so.

Sargeant Sommer:

It’s a rental car parked illegally in an area that had break-ins last week.

Bradley Connolly:

Not so.

Sargeant Sommer:

I have every right to do an investigation. That’s what I’m going to do.

Bradley Connolly:

Listen, I’ve been up here seven weeks building that store, man.

Sargeant Sommer:

Right.

Bradley Connolly:

No trouble. As a matter of fact, the police in Plattsmouth were very, very good.

Deputy Murphy:

[inaudible 00:05:39].

Bradley Connolly:

I can’t believe you went in my car.

Sargeant Sommer:

This is very simple.

Bradley Connolly:

No, it’s not simple. When you break into my car-

Sargeant Sommer:

It’s not breaking in, sir.

Bradley Connolly:

It is. You can’t-

Sargeant Sommer:

No, it’s not.

Bradley Connolly:

You can’t just go in the car.

Sargeant Sommer:

You left the vehicle unlocked.

Bradley Connolly:

It doesn’t matter.

Sargeant Sommer:

I have a right to go-

Bradley Connolly:

No, you don’t.

Sargeant Sommer:

… In your car and determine who owns it.

Bradley Connolly:

So anybody has the right to go-

Sargeant Sommer:

I have a right to-

Bradley Connolly:

Come on, man.

Sargeant Sommer:

I’m a law enforcement officer. It’s a difference.

Bradley Connolly:

Yeah, and I’m a citizen of the United States. Free.

Sargeant Sommer:

There’s a big difference.

Taya Graham:

Just a note. Searching a car that is on a public road requires two prongs, so to speak, for it to meet the threshold of conducting it lawfully. One, the officer must have probable cause to search, and that means reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred. And two, there has to be exigent circumstances. That means the car has to have been on a public road where someone can move it.

So in this case, that means probable cause is critical to making this search lawful because the car is parked on the side street where, conceivably, it could drive off. Which is why I want you to listen again to the officer legally justifying the search. But also, take note of how once he realizes how his case is weak, he throws every theory against the wall, so to speak, to see if it sticks. Take a look.

Bradley Connolly:

And I’m a citizen of the United States. Free.

Sargeant Sommer:

There’s a big difference.

Bradley Connolly:

Free.

Sargeant Sommer:

Yeah, exactly.

Bradley Connolly:

Yeah, exactly what? You can’t just go-

Sargeant Sommer:

And you want to stop arguing. Yes, I can. By law, I can determine who owns this vehicle and where it’s supposed to be be, okay?

Bradley Connolly:

You don’t have a supervisor?

Sargeant Sommer:

I am the supervisor.

Bradley Connolly:

Man. You can’t go into go into somebody-

Sargeant Sommer:

You lied to me, first off. Okay?

Bradley Connolly:

I did not lie to you.

Sargeant Sommer:

I’ve explained this and I’m not going to continue to explain it.

Bradley Connolly:

I understand what you’re saying.

Sargeant Sommer:

You did lie to you. I did say I smelled marijuana in your car. You said, “There’s no marijuana.”

Bradley Connolly:

You went in my car and you found it, man. Without my permission.

Sargeant Sommer:

I smelled it before.

Bradley Connolly:

No you didn’t.

Sargeant Sommer:

Yeah.

Bradley Connolly:

Because I haven’t smoked it in two days.

Sargeant Sommer:

Guess what? It doesn’t matter. Marijuana has a distinct smell and I smelled it earlier. It’s on my body camera. When I was looking in your vehicle for a rental agreement to determine who owned the vehicle to make sure it wasn’t stolen.

Bradley Connolly:

Okay.

Sargeant Sommer:

All completely legal-

Bradley Connolly:

Was it stolen?

Sargeant Sommer:

Under the state law and under the constitution, okay?

Bradley Connolly:

Well, I’m not trying-

Sargeant Sommer:

Simple. Plain and simple. And so this is CBD, it’s not marijuana?

Bradley Connolly:

That’s correct.

Deputy Murphy:

[inaudible 00:07:47].

Bradley Connolly:

That’s correct.

Sargeant Sommer:

Okay. So when it gets tested, it’s not going to come back as marijuana.

Bradley Connolly:

That’s absolutely 100% true.

Taya Graham:

Oh really? You smelled marijuana, Officer? But wasn’t the car door closed? Isn’t that what you admitted on camera? So how did you smell this marijuana? I mean, had Bradley literally been smoking a bong two hours prior to your arrival so that the car reeked? Because your probable cause only works if you opened the door, and that is before you have met the legal threshold. So we’re going to have to give you a fail on our impromptu field constitutional policing test.

But don’t worry, I’m not going to ask you to touch your finger to your nose or stand on one foot. I would just suggest you take some time to review a few law books. You may find it enlightening. But I digress.

Now, Bradley’s obvious discomfort turns into a heated discussion about the law, which the officer declares he doesn’t have to explain. A curious assertion given his clear lack of understanding revealed by his haphazard and possibly illegal search. Just take a look.

Sargeant Sommer:

So then why were you so worried about it?

Bradley Connolly:

I’m not worried, man. This is my right.

Sargeant Sommer:

You’re making a complete issue out of it.

Bradley Connolly:

I’m trying not to.

Sargeant Sommer:

No, you absolutely are.

Bradley Connolly:

You should watch some of my videos, man. I highlight great officers all over the country.

Sargeant Sommer:

Right.

Bradley Connolly:

I do.

Sargeant Sommer:

Okay. And I appreciate that you-

Bradley Connolly:

Yeah, but you’re not. You’re acting like a tyrant right now.

Sargeant Sommer:

You know what? Here’s the situation. If your job is to drive around and try to all lure officers into doing something-

Bradley Connolly:

I don’t do that, bro.

Sargeant Sommer:

Because-

Bradley Connolly:

That’s not me.

Sargeant Sommer:

… Obviously you parked in a place that you shouldn’t have been.

Bradley Connolly:

No, it’s a golf course with a walk. I came back with my dog. The first thing you should have said is, “Oh, he just took his dog for a long walk.”

Sargeant Sommer:

Right.

Bradley Connolly:

Yeah.

Sargeant Sommer:

Right.

Bradley Connolly:

Do you think I’m going to take my dog to break into fricking houses? Come on.

Sargeant Sommer:

You know what, sir? All kinds of things happen, unfortunately.

Bradley Connolly:

Well-

Sargeant Sommer:

My job is to investigate those things. Again, like I said, last week, multiple cars were stolen… I’m sorry. Multiple vehicles were broken into-

Bradley Connolly:

That happens all over the country, man.

Sargeant Sommer:

… And a car was stolen.

Bradley Connolly:

I’m all over the country. I’ve seen it.

Sargeant Sommer:

And that’s fine. I’m glad that you’re all over the country and I’m glad that you’re doing your part to be a great citizen.

Bradley Connolly:

Can I have your name and badge number?

Sargeant Sommer:

Sergeant Summer. 92021.

Bradley Connolly:

S-O-M-M-E-R?

Sargeant Sommer:

That’s correct.

Bradley Connolly:

And you, sir?

Deputy Murphy:

Deputy Murphy.

Bradley Connolly:

Murphy? And your badge number?

Deputy Murphy:

[inaudible 00:09:58].

Bradley Connolly:

One more time?

Deputy Murphy:

92032.

Bradley Connolly:

Thank you.

Taya Graham:

You know, just watching the video and the officer’s justification that there have been car break-ins is intriguing. Is that why he had to then break into Bradley’s car? I mean, if, as officer says, he is investigating the crimes, how is going through someone’s car going to solve it? How is searching out parked cars for a supposed criminal who’s breaking into cars productive?

Finally, the officer decides that contrary to the evidence, he has to entangle Bradley in the legal system by issuing him a citation. But he also, without justification, confiscated Bradley’s wallet, which Bradley alleges had $2,000 in it. Money he has yet to get back. Just watch.

Sargeant Sommer:

All right. We’re going to get you a citation for the paraphernalia and the marijuana. If it comes back that it’s not marijuana, then most likely they’ll drop the charge. But I can’t field test it at this point right here. It smells like marijuana. It appears to be marijuana.

Bradley Connolly:

Same thing as CBD, you know?

Sargeant Sommer:

Okay. I don’t use marijuana, I don’t use CBD, so I can’t think of the difference.

Bradley Connolly:

Well maybe you should, because you’re a little high-strung.

Sargeant Sommer:

No.

Bradley Connolly:

Yes.

Sargeant Sommer:

Well unfortunately, that happens when people are uncooperative.

Bradley Connolly:

No.

Sargeant Sommer:

That’s what happens.

Bradley Connolly:

I’m not uncooperative.

Sargeant Sommer:

You were absolutely uncooperative.

Bradley Connolly:

You have no right to go through my vehicle. You have no-

Sargeant Sommer:

I’m not going to continue.

Bradley Connolly:

I don’t care if you want to continue or not.

Sargeant Sommer:

Why don’t you Google the constitution?

Bradley Connolly:

Why don’t you Google… Man-

Sargeant Sommer:

You’re good.

Bradley Connolly:

Tell me what the first amendment is in.

Deputy Murphy:

Right.

Sargeant Sommer:

I choose to-

Bradley Connolly:

Because you love to put people in cages.

Sargeant Sommer:

Sir, if you choose to be a criminal and be belligerent to officers-

Bradley Connolly:

I’m not a criminal.

Sargeant Sommer:

That’s your-

Bradley Connolly:

You’re a criminal.

Sargeant Sommer:

That’s your decision.

Bradley Connolly:

You went through my car while I was walking my dog.

Sargeant Sommer:

Legally check… If I leave-

Bradley Connolly:

He’s got my wallet. That’s the only money I have.

Sargeant Sommer:

Think that matters that he has your wallet?

Bradley Connolly:

Shut up.

Taya Graham:

But this encounter was just the beginning of the legal repercussions for Bradley, because the officer and department contacted his employer after he posted a video exposing the illegal search. And the consequences for Bradley were devastating.

And for more on that, we will be speaking to Bradley shortly. But before we do, I’m joined by my reporting partner Stephen Janis. Steven, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So Steven, first I know you have some breaking news about the case we reported on last week involving a former Texas firefighter. Denton County sheriffs used a bogus DUI to destroy his career and run him out of the department. What’s your update?

Stephen Janis:

Well, what’s amazing to me is when I sent the case to prosecutors for comment, because I’m like, “Why did you prosecute this case?” They said they have no evidence of this case even existing. And I said, “Blood tests, whatever?” They’re like, “No, we have nothing. We never received this case.”

I think it’s really questionable. I mean this case was devastating for Thomas. He was basically run out of the fire department. It turned his life upside down, and yet this case ever made to prosecutors. Let’s remember, prosecutors are a check on police. They’re very, very, very important to make sure the police don’t file bogus charges. In this case prosecutors haven’t seen it, and I think it raises a lot of more questions about the Denton sheriff’s office.

Taya Graham:

Wow. Steven, that is really disturbing. Please continue to follow up on that and keep us updated.

Okay. So back to Bradley. You have been reaching out to the Nebraska Police Department. How are they explaining this case?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I reached out to the Plattsmouth prosecutor because I really wanted to see how this case was processed, and he sent me a very detailed email about what happened with the charges. First of all, the charges were dropped. He would not comment on the legality of the search, but he did say nothing was used against Mr. Connolly from that search, and he also said that he disputes, or at least was not able to reach a conclusion about the $2,000 that Bradley said was missing.

He says that he did an investigation, it’s still ongoing, but at this point he has no evidence either way. So that’s where this case stands. Certainly the prosecutor seemed to take it seriously and the prosecutor also said there were no charges brought against him. The case was dropped. So that’s pretty much where we are right now with this case.

Taya Graham:

So the officer seems to suggest that the smell of marijuana is probable cause, but using that as a pretext is facing some pushback. Can you talk about that?

Stephen Janis:

If there is one statement into probable cause that is really eroded our constitutional rights, it’s the smell of marijuana. It’s basically been used as a bogus pretext for decades and it’s wreaked a lot of havoc. In our own city, we had police officers chase two young men for the smell of marijuana at 100 miles per hour and cause a fatal accident that killed three innocent people.

So really, a lot of states and a lot of legal authorities are saying it is time to end this. This is not a statement of probable cause. It’s absolutely irrelevant in the particular case we’re talking about. Supposedly searching for cars that have been rifled through or stolen. What the hell does marijuana have to do with that? So it’s evidence not even pertaining. It is bogus and it really erodes our rights and a lot of states are saying, “Stop.”

Taya Graham:

And now to talk to the man who endured this invasive search and some of the lingering consequences for him. I’m joined by Bradley Connolly. Bradley, thank you so much for joining me.

Bradley Connolly:

Absolutely. Thank you. I’ve been watching you since the beginning. You and Steve, I love you guys.

Taya Graham:

So first, what are we seeing at the beginning of the video? I mean, at first I didn’t even realize it was a traffic stop.

Bradley Connolly:

If I may back up just a little bit. So for the past five years I’ve built Dollar Trees and Family Dollars around the country, and I built one in Plattsmouth, Nebraska, which is a small town. Her and I actually went through a tornado there during the build, but I had to come back to hang up a couple signs and do a couple things, and I’d rented a car. I drove 12 hours approximately with her. Of course we stopped along the way and stuff, but while I was up there building the store, we always went to this rural golf course and there was long paths and walks and it was not in golf season, so nobody golfed.

And we had got there maybe 20 minutes before dusk or so on this long drive and I said, like I always do for her, “Hey, do you want to go to the park or golf course? Do you want to go to the park?” And she gets really excited. So we pulled off there and I actually had pulled behind somebody, and like I say, there’s a few neighborhoods around, but cornfield surround the thing. I mean it’s out in the middle of nowhere. And we went on a walk and I came back and I got in my car and it was completely dark when we got back. And when I started the rental car, I noticed that some lights came on in the back of me. And me being an advocate, I was just like, “I hope that this isn’t a cop.” Of course I’m following all the speed limits and the laws and as I turn at the stop sign, I see the insignia. And he started the lights and I pulled over and he asked me for my license, and me being an advocate, I wanted to know what I did wrong.

Taya Graham:

So why were you initially pulled over by the officer?

Bradley Connolly:

When I asked him why he pulled me over, he said I was suspicious. And I asked him, of course, “A suspicion of misdemeanor or felony, and how am I being suspicious?” And then he went from that to, “It smells like marijuana in the car,” which it definitely didn’t. It was a rental car. And that’s when they pulled me out and went into the center console.

When he pulled me over, I rolled down the window. He wanted my ID and I said, “If I haven’t committed a crime, I’m not going to give you my ID.” And he called his back-up, and that was Deputy Murphy, came up and pulled the taser at my passenger side window and told me to get out. So I got out and I had no idea that they had went through my car. And I’m not the smartest person in the world, but I got out and the only thing I had in the car… It was a rental car. I don’t smoke marijuana in the car, CBD or anything, so I know that the car didn’t smell. It was in the center console, it was a pipe, and he went right to it and pulled it out. And like I say, I’m not the smartest person in the world, but I thought, “He’s been in my car.”

Taya Graham:

Were you surprised to discover through your conversation that the officer had admitted to searching your car before he pulled you over?

Bradley Connolly:

Honestly, I was mind baffled. I couldn’t believe that he had went into my car. I mean, if I would’ve broke into his car in his reasoning, which, again, mind baffled. It gives me chills. It makes me so upset. He said it was because I left the car door unlocked, and now that should tell everybody how rural the place is. My wallet was on the front seat with $2,000 on it. That’s how rural the place was.

I questioned him that way and sure enough, he said he had every right to go through my car and he’d been through my car. If you find a pipe in a car as an officer, you probably are going to want to search the trunk. He never looked in the trunk. You’re probably going to want to search under the seats. In my presence, he never looked under the seats. So anyway, from my point of view video, you can kind of see… And I stopped at one point and went live, and I think I’ve tried to air that, but it’s all bits and pieces. That’s kind of why I wanted the dash cam footage. And I’ve been trying head over heels. I’ve spoke with the prosecutor.

Taya Graham:

Do you think your knowledge of the law helped protect you from the situation becoming worse?

Bradley Connolly:

To answer your question, I think it could have went both ways and I’ll tell you why. Because if I wouldn’t have known my rights, I probably would’ve handed over my ID and I knew I had warrants for theft of my dog right here. Long story, but ex, easy. It’s nothing. But I knew they were non-extraditable. I could have just handed him my ID and been on the way, maybe. He probably would’ve escalated it, the way he is.

Now, the other aspect of that is I was really angry that he went into my car. All I wanted to do a after a 12-hour drive was get to the store, finish up what I had to do, get some rest, and go back. He stole my wallet that night. I ended up having to sleep in my car because I didn’t have any way to pay for anything. That being said, I don’t like bullies and the way I reacted isn’t typically how I talk to people. I try to treat everybody with kindness and respect, and I have so much mad love for people and things. I really do. And I try to portray that, but with auditing cops who seem to be untouchable and above the law, something in me just gets so mad because I see them treat people… And I’ve been in areas where I’ve seen what they do because they can. And just because you can doesn’t mean it’s right.

Taya Graham:

Why do you think the officer was so fixated on it being a rental car?

Bradley Connolly:

I have no idea. That’s a good question. I’ve never really thought of it before, so I don’t have an answer that I know to be the truth. All I can say is that all the police in Plattsmouth, they would stop by and see me building the store. I built it with one other guy, and I got to know them. They were okay. They watched my tools and my equipment. So it was really, really odd to me. I don’t know why.

Had he just been doing his job… And I have no problem with him running. He sees a car, they’re running the plates, see if it’s stolen or whatnot. But when he broke into it and then ran my license and all that good stuff, that really irritated me. There’s no burglary tools. There’s a dog and a leash and a guy coming back on a trail. I mean, use your common sense. If somebody didn’t call in that there was a burglary, why are you bothering me?

Taya Graham:

I have to admit, this does seem a bit like what some people call a fishing expedition.

Bradley Connolly:

I know exactly what you mean. Even in the video, if you watch the entire video, I told them that’s all the money I had on me. I had $2,000 in it. Well, when they released me, I took off, obviously, and then I realized that they never gave me my wallet or my money back. So it was two miles up the road and I called dispatch, the sheriff’s office, and I told them, “Hey, they never gave me my wallet back.”

And they told me… Mind you, two miles, two minutes. It’s 15 minutes to the police station. They told me it was in the property, I could get it tomorrow. And that’s when I went in live and they told me that the property officer wasn’t there. So a month later they sent me back my wallet without my money in it. So they stole my $2,000. And that’s all on video, too.

Taya Graham:

How has posting this encounter impacted you? I mean, it did cost you your job.

Bradley Connolly:

Well, it’s affected many nights of sleep. I have made countless calls to the prosecutor’s office, countless calls to the police department and he called my work, Southwestern Services, who gets the contracts from Dollar Tree. I don’t know what he said. It was never told to me what he said. I tried to FOIA request that phone call and apparently there wasn’t one, but they told me that I could no longer work for them because of the video.

And my response was, “I did nothing wrong.” I didn’t commit any kind of crime. I actually highlighted Dollar Tree and Family Dollar, and I put my blood, sweat, and tears into it for five years. I’ve built maybe 60 by myself, ground up. I hired a few people to help me along the way, but I know them backwards and forwards. I practically don’t even need the plans. So anyways, to answer your question, they told me that I could no longer work for him.

Taya Graham:

Okay, so the officer referred to a warrant. What was the warrant for?

Bradley Connolly:

So the warrants are… There’s two. I was building a store in Iowa and I had a passenger and he had four grams of marijuana on my center console. We actually worked so long that we slept all day. And I’m not saying that I’m a perfect person and I’m not saying that I smoke or don’t smoke marijuana, but I’ve never done another drug in my entire life. So it’s not like I’m out there committing crimes for drugs. Actually, I was in the parking lot that I was building, resting, taking a nap with one of my workers that I hired. And he came up on us and I’m not one to tell on anybody, and they were asking us, so they did a walkthrough, four grams, a walkthrough in jail, and I told them I’d never be back in Iowa. Forget it, right? What’s in Iowa? Beans?

So anyways, the other one is my dog that I’ve had since a baby, supposedly, allegedly was taken. And it’s a long story, but to make a long story short, my ex of three and a half years tried to take my dog from me and it’s the love of my life. So that didn’t happen. So I have two warrants, felony warrants with a $75,000 bond, but they’re unextraditable as of present, and as they were, out of Illinois, I’m not saying I was a perfect child, but I haven’t had a conviction on my record for… Oh, no, this is going to date me. Since 2000.

Taya Graham:

What would you like to see change about policing or how do you hope posting on your auditing channel will help?

Bradley Connolly:

That’s an amazing question. I just want police… Because we’re all human. We are all going to make mistakes. We do some pretty idiotic and dumb things at some certain times. A couple months training is not enough for an officer. I want them to treat everybody, whether they’re drug-induced, mental health. You see these videos where the police kill these mentally ill people. I mean, I could have got them out of the car with maybe a butter knife and they shoot them in the head. It just doesn’t make any sense.

And don’t get me wrong. I want to make it very clear, I do not hate police. I actually have a lot of police friends on my Facebook and officers. And not all officers are bad, but I think that being in a negative environment along with the… And I would almost… Man, I’ve just seen it too much to not say that to become an officer, you have a certain personality. And that personality needs to, or persona, it needs kindness, love, respect. There is going to be times when evil is there and you got to do what you got to do. I get that. But if you see somebody’s hurting, if you see somebody that is maybe able to talk down, negotiation skills, deescalation skills and realizing that that’s another human on this planet.

Taya Graham:

Now I want to address something that I’m sure police partisans are soon going to squawk about in the comment section after they watch the show. It’s the off-sighted, but nevertheless unchallenged assertion that the right to search a car is simply a legal question. And so long as police can conjure, and notice I’m using a very specific word here, a reasonable, articulable suspicion, they should be able to search when and wherever they please.

What usually companies that argument is this addendum.”Why should you have a problem with a search if you have nothing to hide? What’s the big issue with cops doing their job? I mean, aren’t you always calling them out for not solving cases? I mean, why are you making such a big deal about constitutional rights when you should be more concerned about crime?” Well, besides the fact that we’ve had several cops here in my hometown, Baltimore, caught on their own body camera planting drugs, I think we need to consider for a moment just how the system, so to speak, only amplifies bad policing. Not just by abusing search powers, but turning those illegal searches into the life-altering stigma of criminality that happens all too often. How the system created to ensure cops don’t overstep and the innocent aren’t unjustly charged has been warped by our culture of indiscriminate guilt. So what do I mean?

Well consider this recent ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court regarding the misuse and withholding of evidence by the state police over a faulty breathalyzer test, a case that could lead to the possible dismissal of over 27,000 convictions. That’s right. Convictions. The case focuses on the fact that a common breathalyzer machine, the Dräger Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer, which the state police crime lab determined could produce false positives when not calibrated correctly, was still used despite the evidence. In fact, in 2017, a representative of the company that made the machines said that of the 400 they tested in the state, none were correctly calibrated and thus capable of flagging false positives.

Fair enough, no machine is perfect and certainly if the lab quickly and appropriately revealed the problem, the state could have fixed the problem and perhaps procured a different device. But that’s not what happened. Not hardly. The state continued to use the machines despite the fact that the concerns had been raised publicly and were found to be factual. Instead, thousands of people had to live with convictions for a serious crime despite the real potential of tainted evidence. That is until the recent state Supreme Court decision giving everyone, every single person convicted, the right to ask for a new trial.

This is an unusually sweeping case, but it didn’t happen because the state who had imposed harsh sentences on innocent drivers asked for it. No, this all occurred because one of the victims of a false conviction sued, and that case was finally decided last month. In that decision, the court called the state’s actions egregious government misconduct, which is why the court made the sweeping decision to allow anyone, meaning 27,000 people, to ask for the new chance to prove their innocence.

Now I want you to think about that number in relation to Bradley’s case or to the case we just updated of Thomas the Texas firefighter falsely charged with a DUI. How sweeping and consequential the impact of a decision to ignore the flaws in the machines was for the people who were victimized by it. How many lives were turned upside down or thrown into chaos and otherwise destroyed by this inexplicable decision to ignore the facts? How many licenses were revoked, jobs lost, and opportunities cast aside because the state, the state, simply chose to ignore evidence?

It’s kind of an interestingly cavalier attitude towards the consequences of our massive law enforcement industrial complex, a defiance to the truth, which I think can only be countenanced by people who are simply immune to it, meaning only the elites cosseted from the law could simply stand by while thousands of people suffered. And that’s kind of what you have to conclude when you attempt to understand the cruel indifference of the people who made the decision to allow innocent people to go to jail.

That’s right, and it was not elected officials or anyone in power who felt compelled to act in defense of the innocent. It was not a governor or a state legislator, or anyone with the ability to intervene who defended people unjustly accused. It was solely up to a victim of their malfeasance to take up the defense of the people wrongly accused, someone who had to hire lawyers and battle the case all the way up to the state’s highest court.

That’s why I think it’s important to remember that when we see videos like Bradley’s to put them into the proper context, that we remember the larger and broader injustices when we analyze how these same forces bear down on smaller but no less insignificant cases like the one we reported on today. Because I think the same sense of entitlement and immunity that prompted that Nebraska cop to illegally search Bradley’s car and confiscate his wallet is similar to the callous indifference of the Massachusetts State Police. I think the sense of careless impunity exhibited by that individual cop is really part of a larger process that allows an entire state to put innocent people in handcuffs.

It’s all about that intangible but potent power of unconstitutional entitlement. The idea that I, meaning the cop, I am the law, not representing it. That I, the cop with the gun in a badge, I am the sole arbiter of your rights, and that the power conferred upon me is not a privilege to be exercised with prudence, but a legally prescribed intoxicants that allows me to confiscate your rights, put them in handcuffs, and then discard them on the roadside like an abandoned vehicle.

This impudence, both in one case and in thousands, is the result of the culture of our version of an untouchable elite. Those elites who don’t pay taxes, have amassed ill-gotten fortunes, and who simply aren’t worried about the law. It’s their power, conferred upon cops, that we witnessed on that video. And also what spurred Massachusetts police to act without conscience. It’s also why the institution of policing must be watched as ardently as they like to watch us. Their utter disregard for our rights must be matched with the vigilance of our cameras. Their casual and consequential indifference must be overwhelmed by our passion for the rights that we must refuse to relinquish. What they treat as unimportant, we must make paramount. What they think is just the cost of doing business, illegal searches, unjust DUI convictions, we must define as unambiguously wrong.

The plethora of fake charges and false criminal records that they cast upon us like a blanket unconstitutional conviction, we must throw back at them with the indignity of a people who know our lives and our rights should not, cannot, and will not be torn asunder. That’s what we do on this show and that’s why we will continue to grow our community of constitutional activists, of defenders of rights and believers in the proposition that all of us, and I do mean all of us, are entitled to the rights to often ignored, but I believe will endure if we are willing to fight for them.

I’d like to thank Bradley Connolly for joining us and for sharing his experience. Thank you, Bradley. And of course I have to thank intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I have to thank friends of the show, Nolie D. and Lacey R. or their support. You know I appreciate you. And I want to thank every single Patreon that supports us. In our next live stream, make sure to listen for your name. I want to thank you too.

And of course, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter and Facebook.

And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them, and even if I don’t get to answer every single one, you know I read them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Report, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated.

My name is Taya Graham and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

Thomas, a Texas firefighter, was driving in Denton County when he was suddenly pulled over by local sheriffs. Despite being completely sober, he quickly found himself railroaded into a DUI charge by police, who claimed he appeared “slow” and “heavy footed.” Body camera footage has since revealed that the arresting officers even commented during the arrest that they did not believe Thomas was drunk. So why was Thomas arrested, and what does this reveal about the capricious nature of police power? Police Accountability Report examines the evidence.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
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, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. To do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. Today, we will achieve that goal by showing you this video of yet another questionable DUI arrest, a video that catches officers in shocking unguarded moments, making admissions about the whole process of DUI arrests that raises troubling questions about what aspect of public safety they’re actually intended to address.

But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. You can email us tips privately at PAR@TheRealNews.com and share your evidence. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or @EyesonPolice on Twitter. Of course, you can always message me directly @TayasBaltimore on Twitter and Facebook. Please share, like, and comment. It really can help our guests, and it helps us get the word out. And as you know, I really do read your comments and appreciate them. We have a Patreon to donate for Accountability Reports. So, if this type of work is important to you, please help us keep doing it.

Okay, now we’ve gotten all that out of the way. We all know that drunk driving or driving while impaired is a serious and consequential crime. In 2021, roughly 13,000 people died as a result of motorists operating under the influence. As a result of this tragic toll, authorities have passed laws that have profound consequences for people who are charged with it. They’ve also rolled out federal grants to incentivize catching DUIs that encourages officers to rack up arrests and thwart people who insist on driving under the influence. All of this is allocable, and certainly no one disagrees with the underlying goal, public safety. Just like any power conferred upon the government, it also requires vigilance to make sure it is not abused. The DUI arrest we will show you today reveals just how important that task is.

The story starts in Lakewood Village in Denton County, Texas in April 2021. There, a lifelong firefighter, Thomas, he does not want us to use his last name, was driving home from work. That’s when police started following him and eventually pulled him over. From the outset, even though he had not exhibited any conceivable type of erratic driving. The officer began questioning him about being impaired for reasons, that at that moment remained unclear. Let’s watch.

Male Officer:

How much you had to drink today? What have you taken today? You taken prescription, narcotics, or anything like that? No? Okay. Are you prescribed anything?

Thomas:

Actually, I’m prescribed Adderall with medication.

Male Officer:

Okay. What time you took that?

Thomas:

I think it was today earlier [inaudible 00:03:18].

Male Officer:

[inaudible 00:03:18] at work? What time did you work today?

Thomas:

From 7:00 to 3:00.

Male Officer:

Okay. 7:00 to 3:00? Where at?

Thomas:

Downtown Dallas. I work for the fire department. Right now, I’m on light duty.

Male Officer:

Okay. Okay.

Thomas:

For my eye, I had a detached retina a few years ago, and then I had five surgeries since then. It’s now starting to plow down [inaudible 00:03:47].

Male Officer:

Okay.

Thomas:

Anyway, they won’t let me work in the field.

Male Officer:

I gotcha.

That’s a better excuse for his eye. He’s still acting kind of odd. You think he’s normal, or do you think he’s just-

Female Officer:

He’s lethargic.

Male Officer:

Lethargic, mm-hmm.

Female Officer:

Slow-moving. Slow-talking.

Male Officer:

Very. Do you think he possibly could be intoxicated?

Female Officer:

Maybe.

Male Officer:

You want to run him through FSFTs?

Female Officer:

I can.

Male Officer:

Even if he has only good eye, we can in theory still do HGN on him.

Female Officer:

Tell him to cover up his bad eye?

Male Officer:

We’re going to let him run with it open-

Female Officer:

Okay.

Male Officer:

… because even to do HGN, you work the good eye out, you’re still going to see signs of that.

Female Officer:

Okay.

Male Officer:

He mentioned Adderall. Adderall’s a stimulant. So, we may not see HGN on a stimulant. We should see a lot of other stuff.

Female Officer:

He’s acting so lethargic. You think it’s…

Male Officer:

From the indications of a stimulant? He’s very rigid.

Female Officer:

Yeah.

Male Officer:

Like very weird. A lot of body movement, almost like he sort of moved everything out of his wallet and just kind of maneuver in general. Go ahead and pull him out. We’ll just talk to him outside of the car for a little bit. He told us he’s on light duty because of his eye. Everything else should be fine. We’ll see what comes of that.

Female Officer:

Okay.

Male Officer:

Go get him then.

Taya Graham:

Now, in the sworn affidavit, the officer said Thomas had been speeding, which Thomas denies. But he also made a somewhat curious claim about Thomas’s behavior, which is odd to say the least. He wrote that Thomas appeared “slow” when he handed over his ID. He also noted that he made exaggerated movements while he responded to the officer’s demand. It’s a somewhat puzzling take on Thomas’s behavior because the video tells a different story. Take a look and decide for yourself.

Thomas:

No, my right eye. It’s your left.

Female Officer:

Yeah, my left. Yeah, your right.

Male Officer:

What happened to your eye again? I only caught part of that.

Thomas:

I had a detached retina, and then the subsequent surgeries have led to… Its kind of got a blue haze around there. And so, it’s just hard to see through this eye. Sometimes it gets kind of irritated and it turns red. I don’t know if it is now, but-

Male Officer:

It looks a little tender right now.

Female Officer:

Yeah.

Thomas:

Is it really? This one is-

Male Officer:

It’s clear.

Thomas:

… clear, okay. Yeah, so.

Male Officer:

Well, when’s the last time you said you took your medication today?

Thomas:

Like 3:00, 2:00-

Male Officer:

About 3:00 today?

Thomas:

2:00 or something, 1:00.

Male Officer:

I just wanted to ensure you’re safe to operate a vehicle, just giving kind of the [inaudible 00:06:29] so far. I just want to make sure you’re safe to operate your truck. We’re run you through just a few standardized field tests, and we’ll kind of go from there.

Taya Graham:

This, at the very least, questionable rendering of Thomas’s actions led to what’s known as a field sobriety test. This test was to say the least a bit surreal, a series of instructions that seemed at once contradictory, and at the same time hard to understand what exactly they were intended to prove. Just a note before we watch, Texas has several tests as part of the field sobriety assessment that you will see during this video. They are as follows, a leg turn test where the person has to walk in a straight line, heel-to-toe, turn, and walk back. The one leg stand test, where you raise one foot and stand in place for 30 seconds. And, the modified Rhomberg balance test, which requires the subject to bend their neck, close their eyes, and count to 30. Finally, the finger-to-nose test, which is self-explanatory. Take a look.

Female Officer:

All right, look at the tip of the pen. Don’t move your head. You’re just going to look at the pen. The next test, stand over here in the grass real quick. Imagine there is an inch-long line right here in front of you. One foot on the line. You put your right foot right in front of your left foot, with her heels touching your toes. Your arms down by your side. You’re going to take nine heel-to-toe steps forward.

Thomas:

I did.

Female Officer:

All right, look down.

Thomas:

It’s sloppy isn’t it?

Female Officer:

You said your legs feel weak?

Thomas:

Yeah.

Female Officer:

Okay, we probably got one more test for you okay? Arms down by your side. You’re going to keep your arms just like that. In excess, you’re going to raise one foot, either one, approximately six inches above the ground with your foot parallel to the ground.

Thomas:

Okay. One thousand one. One thousand two. One thousand three. One thousand four. One thousand 15, 16.

Female Officer:

Okay, you’re good.

Male Officer:

I just have maybe one or two more I’d like you to run through real quick.

Thomas:

Are you going to tell me when 30 seconds are-

Male Officer:

No, you’re going to tell me when 30 seconds is up.

Thomas:

Okay.

Male Officer:

To the best of your knowledge. Do you understand that? Okay. How long was that?

Thomas:

30 seconds or so.

Male Officer:

36. Pretty close. When I tell you, I’m going to pick a hand. I’m going to say, “Right.” You’re going to bring your right finger up and touch the tip of your finger to the tip of your nose. Right. Left. Right. Left. Left. And right. Go on and have a seat for me right there on the bed of your truck for a second.

Taya Graham:

Now I want you to think about what you just witnessed. Not just how Thomas performed, but how bizarre and counterintuitive the test was. Even more important, the conclusions the officers reached based upon Thomas responded. I’ll read them as you watch what unfolds on the screen. “Thomas was heavy-footed as he walked,” the officer wrote. “During the walk-and-turn, Thomas’s actions were exaggerated and he forgot instructions. During the hand-to-nose, Thomas used the pad of his finger.” And so, as you can see, this process led to officers being able to charge Thomas with a DUI, but not before having a very revealing conversation captured on body camera that calls the entire series of events we’ve just witnessed into question, an admission that these officers probably never thought would see the light of day. But we are going to show you now. Just watch.

Female Officer:

Miscounting steps. Turned wrong. Stopped on walking. Used arms.

Male Officer:

He stepped out of position briefly during the [inaudible 00:10:07] phase. On the Rhomberg, I was to estimate 30 seconds to kind of see where the clock’s at. He came in at 36 seconds, which is right on the edge of the window of error. The error is 25 to 35. I told him to close his eyes, watching it. His eyes were flooding like crazy, and his body’s super rigid. He does have a messed up eye. He’s been on light duty. He has a detached retina. I asked him, I’m like, “What else besides your eye hurts? Anything else?” “No, just fine.” I gave him every opportunity to explain to me legs not working right, arms not working right. He came out of the truck looking good, walking pretty decent. A little heavy-footed, but he wasn’t stumbling out. Do you believe he’s intoxicated?

Female Officer:

I believe he’s unable to drive from whatever he has. I don’t know the alcohol-

Male Officer:

That a medical emergency? Or are we talking about intoxication?

Female Officer:

Intoxicated on something, but I don’t think alcohol.

Male Officer:

Do you think we have a medical emergency here?

Female Officer:

No.

Male Officer:

No, so this is not a medical emergency. Is he normal or do you believe he’s possibly intoxicated under something?

Female Officer:

Yeah, I think he’s intoxicated on something.

Male Officer:

Okay, we’ll try to get [inaudible 00:11:02]. I don’t think it’s alcohol. I don’t see any signs of alcohol. I see some signs of a narcotic that he admitted to. So, we’re going to go that route. There’s also the dog in the car. We’re going to have to [inaudible 00:11:12].

Female Officer:

[inaudible 00:11:12] or just go?

Male Officer:

We’ll cross that bridge [inaudible 00:11:17]. Let’s first get him taken care of, and then we’ll address everything else.

Taya Graham:

That’s right, even though the officers wrote a statement of probable cause that Thomas was guilty of driving under the influence, they admitted on camera, on camera no less, that he was not drunk. The only substance in his system they suspected was a legally prescribed non-narcotic adult deficit attention disorder medication known as Adderall. For that, without an apparently legally sufficient justification, Thomas was arrested.

Female Officer:

[inaudible 00:11:48].

Male Officer:

Our decision’s made.

Female Officer:

So go up and tell him, “More tests. Put your hands behind your back?”

Male Officer:

Go that route if you’d like to. Or you can tell him point-blank… I’ve done it both ways depending on whether they’re engaging. If they’re [inaudible 00:11:56] compliant, I’ll tell them “Hey, be advised that you’re placed under arrested [inaudible 00:11:59].” If I don’t believe that’s going to work, I’ll play the tricker. I’ll be “One more test. Turn around for me,” and that’s what I’ll do. I gave the guy that wanted to do that. I think we can go that direction with him.

Female Officer:

Sir, we are putting you under arrest for driving while intoxicated. We believe that you’re unsafe to drive. Stand up. Put your hands behind your back.

Male Officer:

Turn around.

Female Officer:

Turn around.

Male Officer:

Do you have anybody at home who could come up here and pick up your dog and possibly your truck?

Thomas:

No.

Male Officer:

No one at home?

Thomas:

Nope.

Male Officer:

Okay.

Female Officer:

Do you have a friend that could get your dog?

Thomas:

I don’t know.

Female Officer:

Can’t think of anybody?

Thomas:

No, I’d have to make some phone calls.

Male Officer:

All right, like I said, if you’re willing to give me somebody to call, a person I can call myself, if not, I’m going to have to call my Animal Control officer and they’re going to pick up your dog, and they’re going to put him in our shelter for the night. I’m trying to avoid that option.

Thomas:

I haven’t had a drink in over 30 years.

Male Officer:

I didn’t say you were drinking, sir.

Thomas:

I haven’t had a drug in over 30 years. Where’s the Animal Control?

Male Officer:

He works for my agency. I’ll have to call him to come over with me.

Thomas:

Where is he?

Male Officer:

It’s just in Denton. About five minutes from our jail.

Taya Graham:

But even this highly questionable arrest was not the end of Thomas’s ordeal. That’s because the police, after admitting he was not drunk, filed a complaint against him at his job, which I’m showing on the screen now. That complaint led to an Internal Affairs investigation which then prompted his employer, a local fire department, to let him go. That’s not all the problems with this arrest, because we have been investigating and digging deeper into both the department and the county where it occurred. What we have uncovered is that there was more behind-the-scenes driving police to make this arrest than is readily apparent. That evidence shows just how far astray American policing can be from it’s overarching goal to keep us safe.

So soon, we will be talking to Thomas about what he has endured since his arrest and how it has changed his life. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, whose been reaching out to police and as already mentioned, investigating the motive that may have been driving police to charge Thomas. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, before we get into the behind-the-scenes maneuvering regarding this case, I want to do something kind of different. I want to administer a field sobriety test to you, just to make a point of how tricky these tests actually are, and show that even in less stressful circumstances they can be difficult to pass.

Stephen Janis:

What? No.

Taya Graham:

Okay, you have two choices. Do the test, or stay outside.

Stephen Janis:

You know what, Taya, I haven’t had anything to drink, but still, I don’t want to do a test.

Taya Graham:

All night.

Stephen Janis:

Fair enough.

Taya Graham:

But first, have you had anything to drink?

Stephen Janis:

No. No, I haven’t anything to drink. No. Taya, nope I have drank a freaking thing.

Taya Graham:

Now first, I want you to walk in a straight line by pacing one foot in front of the other, heel-to-toe, then turn around and walk back with your hands at your sides.

Okay, not too good. Let’s try balancing on one foot for 30 seconds and don’t use your hands.

Not too good, Stephen. Last chance. Touch your hand to your nose with your eyes close, left then right, then right then left.

All right, that’s not bad. One out of three. Unfortunately, despite your claims to the contrary, I’m going to have to refer you to the nearest law enforcement agency for reporting while intoxicated.

Stephen Janis:

You know what, I spend so much time outside, I don’t care. Refer me to anyone who will give me a place to sleep for the night. So, fine.

Taya Graham:

But we’ll put that on hold for a moment. So, you’ve been looking into the Denton Sheriff’s Department and their DUI program. What have you found?

Stephen Janis:

As you can see what I’m showing you on the screen now, Denton incentivizes DUI. They have this whole program. One of the major parts of it that we found was that they actually incentivize officers to make arrests. They have a small section where they say they want to give them awards. So clearly, Denton has some incentivization of DUI arrests that’s in black and white, and you can see it right there.

Taya Graham:

Did the Denton Sheriff have any comment about this arrest, and why Thomas was charged? What was it that you dug up in Denton County that might explain why police were so aggressive?

Stephen Janis:

I sent an email to the prosecutor, because that was my main concern, why did they even continue with this case when there was no sign of alcohol and the officers admitted on body camera they should have dropped it right away? What I did find is very interesting. Number one, Denton takes in about $2 million in fines from traffic arrests, traffic enforcement. One thing I found in their budget that’s really interesting, they said “Fines are a very important source of revenue.” So, just do the math. You have one thing in their sort of police procedure book that says, “Hey, we need to incentivize arrests.” You have something in the budget that says, “We need fines.” Put two and two together, you add it up, you get really crazy enforcement like I think we saw in this body camera footage. That perhaps explains why they did what they did.

Taya Graham:

And now, I’m joined by the man who was the subject of the unrelenting scrutiny of the Denton County Sheriffs to discuss how the arrest has impacted his life, and the status of the case going forward. Thomas, thank you so much for joining me.

Thomas:

Thank you, Taya. I love your program.

Taya Graham:

Thank you, Thomas. I really appreciate that. First, you mentioned something to me that could not be seen on the dash camera footage. How did the officers initially follow and approach you?

Thomas:

I’m coming up over a bridge and once I kind of reached the top and come over the top, I noticed there’s a car sticking in the lane. The front of this vehicle is sitting in the lane. When I work as a fireman, once you see that you assume it’s a wreck. We look for wrecks all the time. You get called out and you see cars all turned around, facing the wrong way on the freeway. That’s what it reminded me of. And so I just kind of tapped my brakes and slowed down, but I continued on and that’s when I noticed ah, it’s a police car. They just sat there. They didn’t move.

As soon as I passed them, I could see them real aggressively spin around, because they were facing me where I passed them. They do a U-turn and come right up on on me real close. And so I thought wow, they’re going to pull me over. Well, he didn’t pull me over. He was just following me. When he hits his lights, I pull over. I’m ready to be pulled over because they’re still behind me. Now he’s not right up on me like he was at the beginning, but it almost felt like he was trying to get me to do something, or scare me, or something.

Taya Graham:

When the officers pulled you over, what did they say was the reason?

Thomas:

All they said was, they asked me for my identification, driver’s license, and my insurance or whatever. While I’m getting that she said, “Do you know fast you were going?” Or she said, “Do you know the speed limit?” I said, “I think it’s 50. Is that right?” She goes, “Yeah, it’s 50.” I said, “Well how fast was I going?” She goes, “You were going a little faster than that.” I’m thinking okay, a little faster than that. I’m thinking, well are they going to give me a ticket for going a little faster than that? What is happening? Five miles an hour over the speed limit or something like that? Now, what I was thinking at the time was a little over the speed limit. That’s it. How this would turn into an arrest, I’m just thinking this is… Blew me away.

Taya Graham:

Okay, so the officers asked you to pull over to a second location, and you were polite and compliant while the officers asked you very personal questions. Did you have any idea of what was going to happen next?

Thomas:

When he said that I look really lethargic and sunked, and all that, just from when I handed him my driver’s license, that was only about 30 seconds, maybe a minute. That’s how it was started. Then when the second time they told me, he starts asking about medications and medical history, and all this stuff. I’m thinking, I know the HIPAA laws for privacy. At the same time, I’m thinking, well I understand they’re police officers. If someone’s a diabetic or something, they’re going into a coma, and I’ve seen this happen where they’re on the freeway and literally one time a car turned around on the freeway going the opposite way. I get it.

This was a diabetic who was going through that, and had lost their consciousness more or less, but was able to still drive the car. Ended up crashing and we got her out of the car or whatever. But, I get it. I just went ahead and answered those personal medical questions, but before that even happened I was offering to them, because of my eye, I had this issue where it’s blue now. I don’t know if you can see it, but there’s a blue haze over it. If you ever looked at my mugshot, you can see that that is significant enough that you can’t even see my pupil very well. You would have to look real hard. You’d at least have to a pen light and shine it in there to see my pupil. If you were looking for a reaction.

Well, they never did check my pupils. They checked my gaze. They’re looking for the horizontal gaze. That’s not checking pupils. Pupils, you’re going to check for a reaction. Kind of why I said more than I should have, because looking back now I shouldn’t even have opened my mouth. I should have just told them “I don’t talk to police.”

Taya Graham:

Now, I apologize for having to bring this up, but you have two health conditions that could affect your responses on the DUI test. You’re hard of hearing in one ear, and you have a detached retina in one eye. How do you think that impacted your reactions to the field sobriety tests? And how do you think this impacted the officers’ response to you?

Thomas:

He brings it up that I talk extremely slow. He said it quite a few times in the body cam footage. I’m thinking, I can’t even understand this guy. I checked just one small clip, he said seven words in one second. They were all like [inaudible 00:23:37]. As I was watching on the replay, I’m thinking yeah, I don’t talk that fast, but I’m not sure I talk that slowly either. But he kept bringing that up. The thing is about me hearing them, that affected it too.

It also, because it’s a neuroma, it’s a tumor actually, so it affects your balance as well. I haven’t had really issues with it, but watching the replay on the video… That’s why I was so surprised. I can’t do this because I was flopping around trying to balance on one leg. Now, I did it, but I was having to balance like I’m on a high wire or something. Anyway, the point is, is that yes, my hearing affected me understanding him, and he’s picking up every little detail. He’s looking for anything. If I asked him or repeat something, he turned that into kind of like “There’s something wrong with him.” Be that as it may, it’s clear to me. They wanted a DWI from the word go.

Taya Graham:

So you complied with the field sobriety test. Were you surprised to discover how stringently they were judging you? Were you surprised by their comments?

Thomas:

I wasn’t surprised what she said because she’s doing this for the first time. But if she saw a drunk person doing these tests, she might have a different viewpoint of the whole thing. I am stone-cold sober, and I’m actually very agile. So, I don’t know if my hearing or my ear was better… I had that tumor treated, and I don’t think it’s gotten worse, but my balance was off. Yeah, I can pick out stuff, but he had her looking every little thing. It was just sudden. I was not prepared for it. In your mind, you think this easy, but when you’re doing it, it’s a little different. I probably should practice my DWI field sobriety tests every time I leave the house because if that’s what determines if I’m intoxicated or not, if they send my blood to Austin, Texas and it takes over 10 years to get back the results, then they’re going to charge me and convict me if they want. The fact that he keeps calling this… The medication he keeps calling it, a prescription narcotic, it is not a narcotic.

Taya Graham:

How long were you in jail, and what was your experience like? What were the exact charges?

Thomas:

I was charged with DWI. I got to the jail probably… I think the video started about 6:00 PM. I got to the jail about 7:00 PM. I was there until 3:30 in the afternoon the next day. I had to go to an arraignment and make my plea. I had no access to a lawyer. I had no access to a phone. I couldn’t call anyone. Which surprised me. Not only that, but I was on my way home to get something to eat when this started, and so I was already hungry. Then we get this little sandwich thing, two pieces of white bread and a piece of bologna at about 11:00. So, I hadn’t eaten since 7:00 in the morning or something. And then we got another one at about 4:00 in the morning, the same thing, two pieces of white bread and a piece of bologna. They’re already punishing you for nothing. They made up their mind before they pull you over, or the initial stop that they’re going to take you in. Don’t you need more evidence than just somebody looks lethargic?

Taya Graham:

Despite the difficulty in being arrested, separated from your pet, and having them taken to Animal Control, there were other consequences. You almost missed your father’s funeral because of this. And it cost you your job, and impacted your finances, right?

Thomas:

I had already been on light duty because of my eye. I would need a cornea transplant to get my eye fixed. The fire department only gives you so long to be on light duty before they turn you loose and no more pay. If they have another job, I believe they’re obligated to you offer you another job. So, they sent me to go work in Communications as a dispatcher. I was in training to become a dispatcher at the time. Because of the DWI, I was no longer allowed on the floor of the dispatch center. Because I was no longer allowed on the floor of the dispatch center, they ended up giving me a letter “You can retire now or go work in another department in the city,” or by then I already knew that once I’d been charged, I go to tell someone, “You wouldn’t believe what happened. I got charged with a DWI. I don’t even drink. I haven’t in 33 years.” I never heard of someone getting a DWI that doesn’t even drink.

Taya Graham:

You mentioned something to me that stood out, because it’s an impact that isn’t measured. That is, people often aren’t believed when they say that they are innocent, and that being charged and arrested can be very isolating. Can you talk about that?

Thomas:

People start distancing themselves from you a little bit. I’ve got friends that didn’t care, but at the same time, that was my family. The whole fire department, it’s a big department and it’s a good department. We’ve got some incredible people working there, and I had some really close friends that were like family. So, leaving was, although I had 30 years already, leaving was going to be difficult. I knew it. But leaving like that was kind of… It wasn’t really what I had hoped for.

Taya Graham:

Because of the legal entanglement, you almost missed saying goodbye to your father before he died.

Thomas:

The issue with my father was, when he passed away, just before he passed away, I had to call my bail bonds people. If you leave the county you’re supposed to call them. I called them and they seemed kind of resistant to me leaving. I had to just tell them, “I’m going anyway.” You could hear them on the phone, kind of in the background going “Whoa.” You know, they could have theoretically arrested me for doing that without their permission. This is happening before he died. My sister called me up and said, “Dad’s passing away. He might not make it until tomorrow.” So I’m trying to throw everything together and go, and I had to call the bail bonds people, and they’re going to resist? Come on. I hadn’t done anything, but I haven’t been convicted either. So it’s like you’re already convicting me. You’re treating me like I’m a criminal already.

Taya Graham:

You told me you were worried about your dog. In the video, you can even hear the dog whimpering as police take you away. How much did this ordeal cost you? It cost you your job, but there were out-of-pocket costs, right?

Thomas:

First of all, the bail. Check this out, they say “Well, we need to get to your credit card to pay the bail.” There’s a phone on the wall and there’s a list of bail bond agencies, and the phone only goes to them. You couldn’t call anyone else except collect. Sign a release, and they take my credit. Well, they took the cash out of my wallet. I had $80.00 in my wallet. They gave me a debit card. Come to find out, there’s no money on it at all. Instead of giving me the $80.00 cash back, they gave me the debit card. There’s no money on it. It has no value. I had no access to a phone.

The next morning, I wanted to call my employer. The employer at their jail should have access to right there through a main line of some kind called a dispatch center in Dallas and tell them, “Hey Tom’s up in jail in Denton,” just to let them know. Because I’m supposed to be at work now. I pay bail for $1,000.00. They took it off my credit card. That was the first one. Then I went to get a lawyer. I asked random, “What do you do when this happens?” And the lawyer cost me $3,300.00. Then to get my truck back the next day, to get my truck it cost $470.00. For one night overnight. Then I had to get my dog, which cost me… He had to stay in the pound for two nights because I couldn’t get him out in time. I had heard horror stories in the past, so I’m thinking they’re going to see him, he looks ferocious, and they’re going to strangle him with one of those ropes or something.

The way that deputy was acting, there’s no telling… To me, I’m thinking there’s no telling this guy has no conscious, because he’s just deliberately ruining my life. For nothing.

Taya Graham:

I have quite a bit to say about the arrest of Thomas, little of it having to do with the usual complaints about law enforcement that seem to, in my opinion, limit the debate over the broader structural issues that prompts the type of arrests we have witnessed in this story. As I’ve said before, our fixation on the particulars of law enforcement, i.e. bad cops and bad arrests, often limits our ability to critique the justifications that empower them. What do I mean? Well, let’s drill down into the details. Not of the arrest itself, but the actual paperwork used to facilitate it. What I mean is, let’s take a look at some of the details of how cops are enabled to make these kinds of arrests that at least on the surface seem hard to justify.

As we do, I want you to hold a question in your head that hopefully when I’m done you’ll be able to answer. That question is simply, why are cops empowered with making arrests by just using adjectives? In other words, since when did we bestow the right to put us in a cage solely based on their subjective interpretation of our behavior? I mean, how many times have we had police apologists say, when confronted with police brutality that, “Cops aren’t social workers, and police aren’t worried about your feelings. They enforce the law.” It said simple, “You either broke it or you didn’t.” Well, apparently based on the form used to turn Thomas into a criminal, cops are actually very perceptive clinical psychologists. I wish I were kidding, but I am not. Just take a look at the form given to Denton Police to assess a DUI that I am showing you on the screen now. It lists, and I’m not kidding, a series of adjectival descriptions to justify charging a motorist with a DUI.

I just want you to ponder this for a second. The flexibility this list provides cops who want to make an arrest and contrast it with the harsh consequences is apparently literary description can impose. Let’s start with clothing. Is it torn, stained, or disorderly? You’re drunk. Or how about your attitude? Yes, your attitude. Are you cocky, indifferent, or apologetic? You clearly shouldn’t be driving. Or is your speech thick-tongued? I’m not even going to touch that one. Or slow? Again, are charges justified? Just remember, never drive with droopy or watery eyes because that’s apparently a crime too. My point is these descriptors are not meant to evaluate a person’s condition. They are so utterly subjective. They’re more like a tool to justify an officer’s desire to make an arrest. I mean, if you look at the document it looks more like a fictive or ChatGPT writing prompt than an objective assessment of someone’s ability to drive. It’s a random list of enforcement adjectives, for lack of a better phrase, intended to give cops the illusory pretext for racking up arrests and earning those rewards Stephen was talking about earlier.

Now, this criteria is even more suspect given the technical tools police have at their disposal to determine if someone is drunk. I mean, don’t we have blood tests and breathalyzers to figure out if someone is drunk? Can’t we find a way to utilize this same technology to more objectively assess a person’s ability to drive, especially considering the consequences if they’re charged? Well, I think what we have here is a manifestation of the cultural power conferred to policing that in some ways is much more insidious than the already-consequential ability to arrest and imprison us. An excessive amount of social capital bestowed upon cops makes a questionable form we showed you before not only possible, but in some ways inevitable.

So, what do I mean? Well there’s actually a cultural theory that explains this phenomena. It generally applies to advantages of being rich and powerful. I think it merits application to this question as well. It’s called the “Hierarchy of Credibility”. It was a concept proffered by sociologist, Howard Becker, in an attempt to explain a thorny question, who gets to set the narrative or define the truth about the present conditions in which we live? Whose interpretation of current events is used to set the agenda for policy decisions that affect millions of lives? Becker said that the richer and more powerful person, the more likely their interpretation of current events would be believed and accepted. This process, he argued, led to the perpetuation of the injustice and inequality we see today, where a working class person can toil their entire lives, pay taxes, follow the law, and still end up broke, bankrupt, and homeless just because they got sick.

I think it also applies to policing because how can you justify destroying a man’s life over a baseless allegation, other than by acknowledging that the Hierarchy of Credibility applies to police as well? How can you use such scant evidence to force a man into a cage, out of a job, and into a world where he cannot be hired and will forever be branded a criminal, unless you’ve been bestowed the immeasurable power of cops to brand us unworthy of fairness and justice? I can prove to you just how potent the police version of the Hierarchy of Credibility is. I have the receipts, so to speak, to show you just how this works. To do so, I want to share with you a piece about a very sketchy fundraising scheme that was the subject of a New York Times investigation. You might even be familiar with it because it’s primarily facilitated by robocalls.

These calls are made to millions of people every day. During the call, a person whose actually a pre-recorded voice solicits funds from groups with names like The American Police Officers Alliance. The voice asks a person who answered to consider donating to support law enforcement. The pitch is, support cops because they deserve it. Now, the New York Times investigation found that these robocalls raised roughly $89 million over a seven-year period. They also found that the organizations that ran them spent almost nothing on funding the politicians who support policing over the years the fundraisers were the most active. In fact, almost all the money raised was spent on, you guessed it, more fundraising. Oh, and by the way, the Times investigation also found that the organizations that purported to support cops paid hefty fees to political consultants, totalling millions of dollars.

So, we have a fictitious charity making questionable claims able to raise tens or millions of dollars, all while doing nothing to support it’s purported cause, a scheme that led thousands of people to donate multiple times without a single iota of proof that the organization had done anything to work on behalf of law enforcement itself. Which brings us back to the concept of this so-called Hierarchy of Credibility, because let’s remember, the ruse used to extract money from the unsuspecting donors was simply to invoke the name “police”. All they had to do was say the word “cop”, and people parted with their money apparently no questions asked, which shows how police fit into the pyramid of credibility because there are few institutions that can prompt you or I to simply turn over cash without explanation. There are even fewer professions so to speak that can literally open your wallet without having to provide anything tangible in exchange.

I think what this example points out is the crucial role police play in reinforcing the Hierarchy of Credibility for the powers that be, and why disseminating copaganda in our media and culture is a vital part of that process, and that by making arrests like what we just witnessed, the police become enforcers who impose essentially a sociology of silence on the working class. That is, through fake arrests, false charges, extortion-level fees and fines, and other impediments police make our stories theirs. They construct a narrative so to speak where our police for justice for equity are sullied by false charges and bogus arrests. It’s really an insidious calculus, a method to the madness that enables our system of growing income and wealth inequality to flourish unchecked. It’s essentially the scaffolding of our structural divide between the ultra-rich and the rest of us buttress by bad policing.

In a way, police in this capacity amplify the voices of the most powerful, and they do so by telling a tale of us, the people who act indifferent, whose clothes are stained, and whose eyes are watery. If that is the basis to convict us and take our freedom, and sully our future, then we must battle the system that makes it possible. Certainly, on this show, we will continue the fight to do so. I’d like to thank my guest Thomas for joining us, and for sharing his experience with us. Thank you, Thomas. Of course, I have to thank Intrepid Reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank friend of the show, Nole Dee and Modley CR for their support. Thank you both so much. A very special thanks to our Patreons. We appreciate you. I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon Associate Producers John ER, David K, Louie P, and super friends, Shane Bushtup, Pineapple Girl, Chris R Matter Writes, and Angela True. I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at PAR@TheRealNews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct.

You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or @EyesonPolice on Twitter. Of course, you can always message me directly at @TayasBaltimore on Twitter and Facebook. Please like and comment. You know I read your comments, and that I appreciate them. We do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham, and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.

This post was originally published on The Real News Network.