Arkansas Trooper Caught Assaulting Driver During Routine Traffic Stop

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]There's the rad that was in the in your trailer. There's your magazine.

[00:00:04]There's your weapon. Thank you for cooperation. What it was. Have a good day.

[00:00:15]>> Thanks, sir. No problem. The driver referred to throughout this episode as Mark was traveling through Arkansas when Garland County Sheriff's Office, Captain Dodd, initiated a traffic stop using an unmarked police vehicle. It is important to note the legal context of that decision at the outset. In 1997, Arkansas Senate Bill 562 added a provision explicitly prohibiting law enforcement from stopping civilian vehicles using unmarked police units except in documented emergency circumstances. While Arkansas has since reversed the specific statutory provision added by that bill, the stop itself has been argued to have occurred in conflict with standard departmental operating procedures that were in effect at the time. The department declined to respond to requests for comment on this issue. Captain Dodd's vehicle was also not equipped with a body camera or dash cam, meaning the only recorded documentation of what occurred comes from footage captured by Mark himself.

[00:01:19]Captain Dodd called Arkansas State Police Trooper Ryan Wingo to the scene.

[00:01:24]When Wingo arrived, Captain Dodd approached Mark's vehicle. Mark informed Captain Dodd that there was a lawfully carried handgun in the center console of the truck. This disclosure is worth examining immediately. Arkansas is a constitutional carry state. The open and concealed carry of a lawfully owned firearm by a person not otherwise prohibited from possessing one requires no permit and violates no law. The presence of a legally carried firearm in the center console of a civilian vehicle in Arkansas is not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, and not grounds for any escalation of a traffic stop.

[00:02:03]Welcome to Badge on Trial, where the law holds the badge accountable. If you're new here, hit subscribe and join us.

[00:02:10]Now, let's get into the case.

[00:02:15]>> I don't want you to step on your car.

[00:02:20]Thank you.

[00:02:34]>> Hey man, get your hand out your pocket, please. Thank you.

[00:02:49]At this point, Mark begins to film from his cell phone.

[00:02:56]>> You record all you want, though, no matter how you have I need to get your insurance and registration.

[00:03:03]>> So, I need your insurance and your registration.

[00:03:07]>> I will I will gladly get you.

[00:03:10]>> I need your insurance and your registration now.

[00:03:14]This is his stop.

[00:03:18]>> Captain Dodd then grabbed the phone out of Mark's hand and threw it into the bed of the truck. He then told Mark that he would be taken into custody if he attempted to record the encounter again.

[00:03:30]Trooper Wingo watched the entire sequence of events from a few feet away and did nothing. Three distinct constitutional violations are implicated by this sequence and each one deserves precise legal analysis. The first is the physical seizure of the recording device. The First Amendment right to record law enforcement officers performing their duties in a public space has been recognized across multiple federal circuit courts as a clearly established constitutional right. The 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th circuits have all held that citizens possess a First Amendment right to photograph and record police activity in public. While the Supreme Court has not yet issued a definitive ruling on this specific right, the consensus across the federal circuits is sufficiently established that officers operating within those jurisdictions are on legal notice that interfering with a citizen's right to record constitutes a constitutional violation. The physical act of taking the phone from Mark's hand and throwing it constitutes both a Fourth Amendment seizure of personal property without legal authority and a First Amendment violation targeting protected expressive activity. The second constitutional issue is Captain Dodd's threat that Mark would be taken into custody if he recorded again. In the context of First Amendment law, a credible threat of arrest for engaging in constitutionally protected conduct made by a law enforcement officer acting under color of law constitutes a chilling effect on the exercise of that right. Courts have consistently held that the government may not use the threat of criminal sanctions to deter deter the exercise of first amendment freedoms. The threat alone without any subsequent arrest is sufficient to ground a constitutional claim. The third and in many ways most significant constitutional issue in this encounter involves trooper Wingo's complete inaction. He observed a fellow officer physically seize a citizen's phone, throw it into the truck bed, and threaten the citizen with arrest for recording. He said nothing. He did nothing. He did not remind Captain Dodd that recording law enforcement in public is constitutionally protected. He did not intervene to prevent the phone seizure. He did not take any step to deescalate the encounter. under the duty to intervene doctrine, a principle rooted in the Supreme Court's 1977 decision Bird versus Brriski and developed extensively through subsequent circuit court decisions. A law enforcement officer who witnesses a witnesses a fellow officer violating a citizen's constitutional rights and takes no action to prevent or stop that violation may bear inindependent constitutional liability for the resulting harm. Passive observation of a rights violation by a fellow officer is not a defense. It is its own form of constitutional failure. Here is what I want you to think carefully about. And I want your response in the comments. If an officer stands within arms reach of a constitutional violation committed by his colleague and does nothing, should the law treat his inaction differently than if he had committed the violation himself? Drop your reasoning below.

[00:06:55]Here's uh his completely unmarked vehicle. Pull me over cuz my truck's loud.

[00:07:06]Mark stopped recording temporarily and then resumed a short time later as Captain Dodd returned to the vehicle.

[00:07:13]The decision to resume recording despite the captain's explicit threat was a constitutionally protected act. No officer has the lawful authority to prohibit a civilian from recording a tra traffic stop in a public space. Captain Dodd's directive was not a lawful order under any recognized legal framework. An unlawful order carries no compliance obligation and compliance with it would have represented a surrender of clearly established constitutional rights.

[00:07:44]Privy driving court for dates the 9th of November at 8:30 in the morning at district court which is located at 607 Avenue. Need your signature here.

[00:07:55]>> What what did I do that was careless?

[00:07:58]>> I need your signature for citation sir.

[00:08:00]>> What did you do with my >> I need I need your signature here.

[00:08:04]>> Once you sign a citation I'll give it to you when you're ready to leave.

[00:08:08]>> You have no concealed carry permit. You not carry that weapon with you in the state of Arkansas. may need your signature here if you wish to sign a ticket.

[00:08:15]>> So, you're you're telling me that I can't have a I can't have a pistol in the state of Arkansas and you made me get out of my truck to >> and you just signed a site. I'm not arguing the case.

[00:08:27]>> I'm not arguing. I just want I'm asking I'm >> Your court date your court date 9th of November, >> sir. I'm not arguing. I just want >> Your court date 9th of November.

[00:08:35]>> I just want I just want some clarity on that.

[00:08:37]>> Your court date 9th of November.

[00:08:50]So, one one one other question. Was when when you pulled me over, was was I suspected of a crime? Your court date 9th of November 8:30 in the morning.

[00:09:03]>> Yes. No. Your court date November 9th, 8:30 in the morning.

[00:09:15]I don't know why you won't answer that.

[00:09:17]>> Your court date 9th of November 8:30 in the morning. There's the round that was in the in your chamber. There's your magazine.

[00:09:25]There's your weapon. Thank you for cooperation. What it was. Have a good day.

[00:09:36]>> Thanks, sir. No problem. Captain Dodd then falsely claimed that Mark was not authorized to carry the handgun in his vehicle. This assertion was factually and legally incorrect. Arkansas's Code, Title 5, Section 73, Subsection 119, Arkansas's Constitutional Carry Statute, permits any person 21 years of age or older who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm to carry a handgun openly or concealed without a permit. Captain Dodd either did not know the law governing the jurisdiction in which he was operating or he made a deliberate misrepresentation to a civilian in order to justify continued escalation of the encounter. Neither explanation reflects conduct consistent with the standards of a sworn law enforcement officer. Captain Dodd ultimately returned the firearm to Mark along with a citation for reckless driving and unspecified traffic violations without explaining what conduct had led to the reckless driving citation. The absence of any explanation for a citation, particularly one carrying potential insurance and licensing consequences, raises an additional procedural concern concern.

[00:10:50]Arkansas Code, Title 27, Section 50, Subsection 505, requires officers issuing citations to inform the recipient of the specific violation being charged. A citation issued without any explanation of the underlying conduct does not satisfy that requirement. Mark filed a formal misconduct complaint with the Garland County Sheriff's Office on October 29th, 2020. The department conducted an internal review and subsequently sent Mark the following communication. The chief had made a final decision on the misconduct complaint. The concerns raised had been addressed with Captain Dodd and no further comment would be provided. No disciplinary record was made public. No civil rights lawsuit outcome has been confirmed in connection with this specific encounter. The broader legal record surrounding Trooper Ryan Wingo, who was present at this stop and failed to intervene, is worth placing on the record for the purposes of this episode. In June 2021, trooper Wingo fatally shot Timothy Andrew Kemp Jer, 34, of Mountain Pine during a foot pursuit following a motorcycle stop on US Highway 70 in Garland County.

[00:12:06]According to the Arkansas State Police, Kemp grabbed the trooper's weapon during a physical struggle resulting in the fatal discharge. The shooting was ruled justified by the Garland County prosecutor based on Wingo's testimony.

[00:12:21]No independent video documentation of the encounter was available. In June 2022, Trooper Wingo was named as a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by attorney Don Cook, who alleged that Wingo fired a less lethal beanag projectile directly into his face during the June 1st, 2020 civil unrest response in Little Rock, embedding lead pellets into his jaw, and requiring emergency surgery. The lawsuit alleged that Wingo falsified his incident report, claiming Cook had advanced toward him and that pepper balls rather than a bean bag round had been used. The state of Arkansas subsequently dropped charges that had been filed against Cook. Three separate incidents. Three documented accusations of falsifying official records or providing inaccurate accounts. A fatal shooting with no independent video. A less lethal weapon discharge that shattered an attorney's jaw. An encounter at a traffic stop where a colleague violated a citizen's constitutional rights within full view without any intervention. The Arkansas State Police, as of the dates of the research for this episode, has not publicly confirmed any termination or disciplinary action resulting in removal from service. The Garland County Sheriff's Office's internal response to Mark's complaint that concerns had been addressed with Captain Dodd represents the minimum institutional response the law technically permits. It does not constitute accountability. It does not constitute transparency and it does not address the documented pattern this episode has placed before you. Under title 42, United States Code section 1983, any person acting under color of law who subjects a citizen to a deprivation of their constitutional rights is liable in a civil rights action for compensatory and punitive damages. Both Captain Dodd's direct conduct and Trooper Wingo's deliberate inaction in the presence of that conduct fall within the analytical scope of that statute. Mark had the legal basis for a federal civil rights claim from the moment that phone left his hand. If this episode made clear why the duty to intervene matters as much as the duty not to violate rights in the first place, share it with someone who needs to understand what police accountability actually requires. Subscribe to Badge on Trial for weekly constitutional and legal analysis and drop your answer in the comments. Should an officer who watches a constitutional violation happen and does nothing face the same civil liability as the officer who committed it? That is the case of Mark, Captain Dodd, and trooper Ryan Wingo. An officer whose name has now appeared in this channel's legal analysis more times than any other across incidents involving falsified reports, a fatal shooting, a shattered jaw, and now this.

[00:15:21]a traffic stop where a fellow officer grabbed a citizen's phone, threw it into his truck, and threatened him with arrest for recording. While Wingo stood within arms reach, and did absolutely nothing. The badge was put on trial. The department called it addressed. The cameras called it something else entirely. Here on Badge on Trial, we follow the camera. Subscribe, stay informed, and remember, the duty to intervene is not optional. It is constitutional. I will see you in the next case.