Ex-Cop Forces Deputies to Give Up and Drive Away

Added: 2026-05-18

[00:00:00]On June 5th, licensed private investigator Michael Hoffman was conducting lawful surveillance on a subject in Jacksonville, Florida. The subject of his investigation called the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, and accused him of stalking her. An officer pulled Hoffman over, and what followed was a 17-minute roadside standoff over the limits of police authority. The interaction that followed was captured on camera.

[00:00:24]>> Now, we get to meet one another.

[00:00:27]How are you doing?

[00:00:29]What's going on with you following? Are you an investigator of some sort?

[00:00:33]>> Can I ask why you pulled me over, sir?

[00:00:34]>> I pulled you over because the young ladies came over there and said you've been following her since she left the airport yesterday. So, I want to know who you are.

[00:00:41]>> Have I committed a crime?

[00:00:43]>> No, but I'm conducting an investigation.

[00:00:45]Have you been following that young lady?

[00:00:48]I mean, if you're an investigator, investigate away. But if you're some somebody's harassing her or stalking her, that's against the law. Me pulling you over to find out who you are is me doing my job.

[00:01:04]>> You mind getting that light out of my eyes?

[00:01:07]>> Sir, it's night time. I don't know you from Adam's house cat. I don't know if you have weapons in here.

[00:01:12]>> Just keep moving my hands right here.

[00:01:14]>> Well, I don't know if you have weapons in here, man.

[00:01:17]So, I'm going to keep my flashlight right here where it is. I don't have it in your face. That would be in your face. I have it down. I'm trying to show you that respect. I'm illuminating the vehicle for my safety.

[00:01:31]Now, would you agree that I've answered every question you've asked me? And all I asked you was one simple question.

[00:01:47]>> Am I free to go?

[00:01:48]>> No, you are not. Not until I find out who you are. I'm conducting an investigation. Do >> you have your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance on you?

[00:02:00]>> Have you pulled me for a traffic driver violation, sir?

[00:02:02]>> No, sir. I've already explained that to you. Now, you can play the back and forth rigma roll all you want to. I've explained to you why I pulled you over.

[00:02:08]>> Okay. And you didn't have You see, I'm not suspected of committing a crime.

[00:02:12]>> Cause is that you've been following this young lady and she >> Do you know that, sir? Did you see that?

[00:02:15]Did you see that?

[00:02:16]>> You came back by. Why'd you come back by?

[00:02:18]>> I don't have to answer questions.

[00:02:19]>> Okay. You don't have to answer questions. Okay. You do have to identify yourself.

[00:02:23]>> Uh sir, if you suspect me of committing a crime or about to commit a crime, I have to identify myself. You have no probable cause to pull me for a traffic violation. I asked you why you pulled me.

[00:02:31]>> You because the young lady said that you've been following her since yesterday.

[00:02:35]>> So you you you believe everything everyone says to you.

[00:02:38]>> I'm conducting an investigation.

[00:02:39]>> Okay. Will you conduct right away, sir?

[00:02:41]At this point in time, I elect to not say anything. I elect to speak to my uh say anything without having my attorney present. That would be Eric Friday. The first officer told Hoffman he hadn't committed a crime, then refused to let him go. That contradiction is the core legal problem with this entire stop. A Terry stop established in Terry versus Ohio, decided in 1968, permits an officer to briefly detain someone based on reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is a foot, not a hunch, not a complaint alone, but specific facts that point toward a specific offense. When Hoffman asked what crime he was suspected of committing, the officer had no answer.

[00:03:19]He admitted there was no probable cause for a traffic violation and he could not name a crime. That is not a Terry stop.

[00:03:26]That is a fishing expedition. Hoffman's invocation of his fifth amendment right was textbook correct. In Selenus versus Texas decided in 2013, the Supreme Court held that an individual must affirmatively invoke that right. And Hoffman did exactly that, clearly stating he would not speak without his attorney present.

[00:03:44]>> Call him. Tell him to come up here.

[00:03:46]We're at the um 8100 block of B.

[00:03:51]>> Just so you're aware, you're being videotaped.

[00:03:53]>> I do not care. Do you get my good side?

[00:03:55]My My right side is usually my best side.

[00:03:57]>> Yeah, there's no good side on the cop's face.

[00:03:59]>> Well, you're one of those people.

[00:04:00]>> Yeah, it's one of those people. Dan, you're one of those people, right? Gun and badge grant extra rice, right?

[00:04:04]>> No, it doesn't grant me any extra rice.

[00:04:06]But how about you? How about you come?

[00:04:08]How about you do your job and on your own?

[00:04:10]>> Telling me that somebody's been following her since yesterday. Yeah, I'm going investigate.

[00:04:13]>> Yeah. And you just take everything.

[00:04:14]Everyone comes up to you. Okay. I just said someone pull a gun on me. You going to go investigate that?

[00:04:17]>> I sure would. Who pulled a gun on you?

[00:04:19]>> Yeah.

[00:04:20]>> Who pulled a gun on you?

[00:04:28]>> Someone pull a gun on you?

[00:04:30]>> I don't answer questions. Stephanie, >> you don't answer questions. You just stalk young lady. Just stand by then.

[00:04:37]Stand by.

[00:04:42]>> All right.

[00:04:42]>> He's coming back up to the vehicle.

[00:04:44]>> Okay.

[00:04:50]>> Your name and badge number, deputy.

[00:04:58]>> Your name and badge and number deputy.

[00:05:10]Well, the guy that pulled me is leaving.

[00:05:15]>> The guy that pulled me over is leaving.

[00:05:19]>> Am I free to go, deputy?

[00:05:29]>> Am I free to go?

[00:05:30]>> No, sir. Not yet. What am I being detained for, sir?

[00:05:33]>> Hey, when I get around to get my car where it needs to be, I'll explain to you.

[00:05:41]>> Hey, buddy. What's going on here?

[00:05:44]>> Name and badge number, sir.

[00:05:46]>> Simpson 66190.

[00:05:48]>> Minimson. M- I N I N.

[00:05:52]>> Sir, I like to know why I'm being detained.

[00:05:54]>> No, we want to find We want to Someone's saying that you're stop claiming you're stalking them. Where is that? Is that >> Are you an investigator or anything?

[00:06:01]>> Okay, let me make this clear, sir.

[00:06:03]>> I'm not giving you a hard time. I'm not giving any you gentlemen a hard time.

[00:06:06]>> Yeah, not yet.

[00:06:07]>> I'mma roll this window up. Okay.

[00:06:09]>> Okay.

[00:06:14]>> I'd like to know >> someone's alleged.

[00:06:16]>> Let me speak for a moment, sir.

[00:06:17]>> No disrespect.

[00:06:18]>> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead.

[00:06:19]>> I would like for you to articulate what crime you suspect me of committing or what crime you suspect me of about to commit.

[00:06:26]>> No, we just have problem. We just have a a reasonable suspicion to figure out what's going on here.

[00:06:31]>> No, no, sir. So, you don't get to detain me to figure out if I've committed a crime, sir. The law on the statute states in order for you to detain me, you have must you must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that either I have committed.

[00:06:43]>> No, we have probable cause.

[00:06:44]>> What is your probable cause?

[00:06:47]>> You got a complaint that we got. That's the red.

[00:06:49]>> That's not probable cause, sir. What crime do you suspect me of committing?

[00:06:52]>> Stalking.

[00:06:54]>> And what you suspect me of committing stuff? That's why I want to know were you anywhere near this near near this area?

[00:06:59]>> I don't answer questions.

[00:07:00]>> Do you know who she is?

[00:07:02]>> I do not answer questions.

[00:07:03]>> She has no idea what you >> If you sus if you're going to articulate that you suspect me of committing a crime and have reasonable suspicion of that.

[00:07:09]>> If you don't agree with it, if you don't agree with our probable cause, >> your name and badge number, sir.

[00:07:14]>> Sir, sir, what what's your name?

[00:07:15]>> Your name and badge number, sir.

[00:07:16]>> Well, you going to remember >> by all you're being recorded. I've got four cameras in this truck.

[00:07:20]>> You're required by policy to issue your name and badge number. I'm going to ask you what I'm speaking to this gentleman right now. I'll get your name and badge number in a minute. Your name and badge number.

[00:07:30]>> What's your name?

[00:07:31]>> I just told you.

[00:07:31]>> I didn't hear it cuz I'm sitting there speaking this morning so you can pick it up later.

[00:07:34]>> So, I'm going to ask you once again. If you want to be a smartass about it, I'll file an internal affairs case on you.

[00:07:39]>> I gave you once already.

[00:07:40]>> I didn't hear it. I'm asking you once again. So, just some professional courtesy and treat me with the respect I deserve.

[00:07:46]>> I did.

[00:07:46]>> What is your name and badge number?

[00:07:49]>> Well, here I gave you 051.

[00:07:52]>> Thank you. I appreciate that, Deputy.

[00:07:53]Was that so hard?

[00:07:54]>> No. your name and badge number, sir.

[00:07:56]Second time.

[00:07:56]>> When I give you my name, badge number.

[00:07:58]>> Can I have your name?

[00:07:59]>> Name and badge number, sir. Hang on.

[00:08:02]>> I'd like to have your name, sir.

[00:08:03]>> See, the thing is, sir, the law states the law states I don't have to give my name and uh information unless you suspect me of committing a crime.

[00:08:11]>> I don't.

[00:08:12]>> Then am I free to go? Cuz this is an illegal detainment >> at this time.

[00:08:15]>> This is an illegal detainment.

[00:08:17]>> When the new deputies arrived and took over the stop, the legal clock did not reset. The detention was either lawful from its inception or it wasn't. A fresh set of uniforms doesn't cure the constitutional defect. Deputy Simpson explained that dispatch received a radio call describing a vehicle matching Hoffman's truck as following someone and that the vehicle description was the basis for the stop. Under Alabama versus White decided in 1990, the Supreme Court held that a tip from an informant, even an anonymous one, can support reasonable suspicion if it carries sufficient indisha of reliability. meaning the tip was detailed, the police were able to corroborate key details, and it pointed towards specific criminal conduct. A vehicle description alone tied to a complaint of following probably clears that low bar. The harder question is, what happens next? Because once Hoffman refused to answer questions and the officers could not point to anything more than a complaint and a matching truck, the foundation of the stop began to erode. As the Supreme Court explained in Burkimer versus McCarti decided in 1984, a detained person is not obliged to answer questions and unless their answers provide probable cause to arrest, they must be released.

[00:09:29]>> My attorney, Mr. Eric Friday, would love to bring up a civil lawsuit against you and the city for this illegal detainment.

[00:09:36]>> Sir, we're not trying to upset you.

[00:09:39]>> I'm not a radio call. Let me let me let me give you what?

[00:09:43]>> Go right ahead, sir. We gave you we got a radio call that a a a a vehicle matching this description of your vehicle was uh harassing someone in a short sense. Okay. Don't know what's transpired.

[00:09:58]>> We don't know anything about it. Your car meets what we were told and that's why we're questioning you.

[00:10:05]>> Okay.

[00:10:05]>> Just and that's is very simple. All we need to do is just ask you your name and the car and where have you been. asked how my name is going to establish whether I've harassed someone or not.

[00:10:17]>> You ask for our name. Would it be nice to have your name as well?

[00:10:20]>> It would be. But see, I I I don't >> And you don't have to give it.

[00:10:23]>> I appreciate you saying that, sir.

[00:10:24]>> All right. You don't have to give it now, >> but we just like to know. So, we can gentlemen.

[00:10:30]>> Yeah.

[00:10:30]>> Would that be okay?

[00:10:31]>> My name is Mike, sir. You can address me as Mike.

[00:10:33]>> Okay, that's fine, Mike. That's a good great beginning. And and the reason why is because like I said, your parame description we were given respect doesn't mean you're guilty. I respect that. You're talking to an ex law enforcement officer, everybody.

[00:10:44]>> All right. We're not We're not saying you're guilty of anything. We didn't say that.

[00:10:49]>> Then you are illegally detaining me. I asked the last deputy that left what was his reason for stopping me. He didn't stop me for trafficking. Let me first of all, let me calm down. I shouldn't be yelling at you.

[00:10:58]>> Thank you.

[00:10:59]>> I should be doing I'm not I'm not I'm not yelling at you.

[00:11:01]>> This deputy that stopped me, sir, did not articulate he was stopped me for a traffic violation. Then I asked him what his probable cause was or what crime he suspected of committing or what reasonable crime or reasonable case. The case is, as I stated, is that we had a description of the of a vehicle. Your vehicle matched that, and we're just here to determine, no, you're not the one or yes, you are the one.

[00:11:24]>> But see, the law protects me. I don't have to answer questions.

[00:11:29]>> Yes, sir. But we're asking for your cooperation.

[00:11:32]>> Can we get that cooperation?

[00:11:34]>> I'm cooperating. The fact that I extend my rights doesn't mean I'm not cooperating, sir.

[00:11:39]>> Would you agree with that, sir? But I don't understand it. If you said you're an ex law enforcement officer and you understand that when somebody calls us and says, "Hey, this vehicle was following me."

[00:11:50]>> Okay. And we stop you and we ask you questions regarding you either you did or you didn't.

[00:11:56]>> Correct.

[00:11:58]>> What do you think a citizen if they weren't doing anything wrong would say, "No, I'm not doing that."

[00:12:02]>> Sir, as a law enforcement officer, I realize how leos twist people's words.

[00:12:07]Let me finish speaking. Okay. Okay. Yes, please do.

[00:12:10]>> They twist people's words. Any attorney and all you three gentlemen will know you don't ever speak to the cops.

[00:12:16]>> I want to hear what he got to say.

[00:12:16]>> You don't ever talk to cops. Never. You never talk to cops unless you're legally obligated to. Nothing good can come from that. I'm very well in my rights. Very, very well aware of my rights. Now, I understand you're doing no fault with that. You are doing your job. Okay? And the mere fact that I'm exercising my legal rights does not make me uncooperative. Okay. Now, the fact that someone called you and said they're harassing doesn't give you the general order just to stop people.

[00:12:46]>> But that wasn't that wasn't the reason why because a person in a vehicle that matched your description was doing that.

[00:12:53]We didn't say you were doing it.

[00:12:55]>> Okay.

[00:12:56]>> And and that's all coming down to.

[00:12:58]>> But how do you define harassing? Someone just post says they were harassing. Did you ask her what they did? Did you ask ask the person?

[00:13:05]>> You said a vape a red truck said the truck was following her since town.

[00:13:10]>> Is that a crime?

[00:13:12]>> We haven't determined that. We just want to make sure.

[00:13:14]>> Do you see where I'm going with this, sir? I mean, I understand you guys are doing your job. But do you see how this goes? I'm aware of my rights. You do not have or excuse me, you have the right to ask me whatever question you want.

[00:13:24]>> You're really enjoying this.

[00:13:26]>> I'm not enjoying anything.

[00:13:28]>> You know what I am enjoying? how you officers fail to realize that those badges and those guns don't give you the right to violate other people's rights.

[00:13:38]I have sir you are. I've articulated to you that you were illegally detaining me and because you choose to abuse your authority and not recognize that what I'm saying is a fact, you are illegally violating my rights.

[00:13:53]>> To question you to find out if you are the one or not the one that was violating this other woman's rights.

[00:14:03]>> But I've made it clear, sir. I'm not going to answer questions. I've made it clearer.

[00:14:08]>> Yes, sir. The fact that I'm exercising my rights does not mean I'm not cooperating, sir.

[00:14:12]>> Yes, it does.

[00:14:13]>> It does not.

[00:14:15]>> It absolutely does not. Now, if I was doing something against the law or resisting you in some manner, >> we can't determine that.

[00:14:22]>> But you don't get to question me so I can give you information so you can make a case or not a case. I'm not saying I am this person. I'm not saying I am not this person. But what you fail to realize is I do not have to speak to you, sir. And that does not give you the right to detain me. until you get some information to charge me with the crime.

[00:14:42]You don't get to search and search until I say something or you twist something I say to use it against me. You gentlemen have a dangerous job. There is 19 unsolved murders in this city. Okay?

[00:14:56]You've got much better things to do to [ __ ] with me.

[00:15:00]Okay?

[00:15:01]>> I'm not a threat to anyone.

[00:15:04]>> Hoffman's core legal argument was right about one thing and wrong about another.

[00:15:08]He was correct that silence and refusal to answer questions cannot by itself justify continued detention and that once you invoke your fifth amendment right, officers cannot punish you for exercising it. Where he went wrong was in insisting that officers must suspect him of a specific named crime before a Terry stop is valid. In United States versus Arvu decided in 2002, the Supreme Court made clear that reasonable suspicion is judged by the totality of the circumstances and that officers are not required to rule out innocent explanations before making a stop. The suspicion does not need to attach to a specific charge. It needs to attach to the possibility that criminal activity is a foot. Florida statute 784.048 defines stalking as willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following another person. A licensed private investigator following someone for a domestic case almost certainly lacks the malicious intent required by that statute. But the deputies on scene had no way of knowing that. Hoffman's silence kept them in the dark about the one fact that would have resolved everything.

[00:16:08]>> What? Sir, there's five cops here. The gentleman that pulled me and if he had any reasonable articulate suspicion is no longer here. I'm assuming I don't know where he is or where he's gone. You three gentlemen have no firsthand information. No firsthand. No firthand information. This officer that pulled me over said he spoke with some individual that says apparently I was doing something was classified as harassment.

[00:16:33]>> We said we didn't say you >> you didn't say that. I said that officer >> your vehicle was.

[00:16:39]>> Now were you here? See see this camera here?

[00:16:41]>> That officer stood here and said he spoke to a woman that said I was harassing her and following her for days. I didn't say you three. the the black gentleman, the the gentleman that was here a few moments ago that has now left the scene.

[00:16:55]>> So once again, gentlemen, hold on.

[00:16:57]>> Let me calm down. Go >> ahead.

[00:17:00]>> Once again, gentlemen, >> if you have a reasonable art articulate suspicion of me committing a crime or about to commit a crime, you have a right to detain me, ask me for my ID, which I will oblige you with as I'm required by law.

[00:17:15]>> Short of that standard, you are illegally detaining me. I've asked to be free to go and you are telling me until I give you some information I'm not free to go. That is a violation of my right sir. Do you understand that?

[00:17:30]>> Please going to give us your >> You know what guys? I would love to give it to you because I used to be one of them. But because I'm aware of my rights and because of my life experiences with law enforcement, I choose to exercise my rights. Not to be difficult, sir. You guys have much more better things. See, that's just it. Cuz people don't know the rights. And because Leos, I don't know you three gentlemen personally. I quit a department cuz I ratted out the crook cops that worked with me.

[00:17:59]>> Okay. I'm sick of it. The corruption is everywhere.

[00:18:04]Every single cop in this nation is a liar. All right. I used to be one of them.

[00:18:10]>> And you're calling three of us liars?

[00:18:12]>> Yes, sir. If you're going to stand here and tell me you've never falsified, tweaked, twisted a report just to your benefit or provided false information or saw one of your fellow brothers in blue violate someone's rights or do something wrong by the mere fact of you withholding that information and not going to need your supervisor makes you a liar.

[00:18:30]>> I did not.

[00:18:31]>> In your life, you've never ever lied.

[00:18:33]You've never ever lied in your entire life.

[00:18:35]>> Oh, that's something you're talking as a police officer or as a human being? As a police officer, you've never lied in your life.

[00:18:42]>> Sir, you're allowed to lie in investigations. The Supreme Court has ruled you're allowed to lie. So, your credibility just went out the window me window for me. I'm a certified interrogator, buddy. Don't sit here and play this game with me. You just lost your credibility. Now, any respectable person would say, "Of course, I've lied.

[00:18:57]I've lied in the line of duty. I've lied in my personal life." Integity.

[00:19:02]>> Yeah. I got more integrity in my finger, buddy, than you've got in your whole body.

[00:19:05]>> Sir, back to my original question when I first got here. Yes, sir.

[00:19:08]>> Hey, are you following somebody?

[00:19:10]>> I don't answer questions, sir.

[00:19:12]>> Okay.

[00:19:13]>> Am I free to go?

[00:19:15]>> Yes, you're free to go.

[00:19:16]>> Thank you.

[00:19:17]>> The deputies walked away not because the law required them to at that exact moment, but because they ran out of legal footing and did not know how to The deputies walked away not because the law required them to at that exact moment, but because they ran out of legal footing and did not know how to proceed. Florida's Stop and Identify Statute, section 856.021, 021 permits officers to detain someone and demand identification when that person fails to explain their presence to the officer's satisfaction in circumstances that suggest a breach of the peace is imminent. The deputies never meaningfully invoked that statute. They asked for cooperation, received a legal lecture in return, and eventually gave up. That is not a rights violation by the officers at that stage. It is a failure of training. The problem was not that the deputies left. The problem is that for 16 minutes, nobody on that scene, not the officers, not Hoffman, fully understood the law they were arguing about. And when nobody knows the rules, the citizen without a gun is the one who pays the price if things go sideways. Michael Hoffman gets a B. He was right that he had no obligation to answer the deputy's questions. He was right to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege explicitly. He was right that the first officer's admission, no crime, no traffic violation, was legally significant. and he was right that exercising rights is not the same as failing to cooperate. What holds him back from an A is a clear misunderstanding of how reasonable suspicion actually works. He repeatedly insisted the officers needed suspicion of a specific crime, which is not what the Fourth Amendment requires. The Supreme Court in United States versus Arvu was explicit. Officers may look at the totality of circumstances and act on a particularized and objective basis for suspecting wrongdoing without needing to name the offense before they detain you.

[00:20:55]Beyond the legal error, there is a practical point. Hoffman was a licensed private investigator conducting a lawful surveillance operation. Had he stated that one fact, nothing more, nothing less, the deputies would have had almost nothing left to stand on. His silence was legal. His silence was also the reason this stop lasted 16 minutes instead of three. The first responding officer gets a D. He is the officer who set this entire encounter in motion. And by his own admission, he had no probable cause for a traffic stop and no specific crime he suspected Hoffman of committing. He told Hoffman he hadn't committed a crime, then refused to let him leave. That is the definition of an unlawful detention under Terry versus Ohio. He did not articulate any specific facts linking Hoffman to criminal conduct beyond a third-party complaint he could not verify on the spot. The moment Hoffman asked to be free to go, and the officer could not name a crime or a traffic violation, the stop should have ended. It didn't, and then the officer left the scene entirely without completing whatever investigation he claimed to be conducting, which tells you everything about how solid his legal footing actually was. Deputy Simpson and the responding backup officers get a C.

[00:22:00]They arrived at a stop they did not initiate, inherited a legal situation they did not fully understand, and handled it with more patience and calm than the first officer. They explained the vehicle description corroboration.

[00:22:11]They acknowledged Hoffman's former law enforcement background. They gave their names and badge numbers when pressed.

[00:22:16]They did not escalate. But they also could not articulate a coherent legal basis for continuing the detention. And when Florida Statute 784.048, the stalking statute, was sitting right there as the potential offense, none of them signed it, explained it, or used it to ground their reasonable suspicion.

[00:22:33]They held Hoffman roadside for roughly 14 additional minutes without knowing what they were investigating or what legal standard they needed to meet. That is not a rights violation, but it is a failure of training that the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office should take seriously. Let us know if there's an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to subscribe to Grade the Batch for police accountability analysis.