Officer ARRESTS Bentley Driver For Not Handing Over ID

Added: 2026-05-09

[00:00:06]On October 26th, 2025, Sergeant Moore and Officer Christian of the Trotwood Police Department conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle in Trotwood, Ohio. A second vehicle stopped at a nearby stop sign, and officers detained its driver.

[00:00:19]Bentley driver Paris Boyd then pulled up behind that second vehicle and stopped.

[00:00:23]Officer Christian approached Mr. Boyd's car, and the interaction that followed was captured on his body camera.

[00:00:42]Hey, if you don't want to be part of this stop, I suggest you keep going.

[00:01:04]874.

[00:01:05]>> Okay. Can I say it please?

[00:01:08]>> 8574.

[00:01:16]>> Are you with them?

[00:01:17]>> I don't answer questions.

[00:01:19]>> Okay. You don't answer questions. Leave the scene before you become part of the traffic stop.

[00:01:22]>> I'm behind a car, so >> Okay. Well, you can cut.

[00:01:24]>> I don't have I don't >> Okay. Well, you're now part of this traffic stop.

[00:01:27]>> Yeah, I know.

[00:01:28]>> Okay. I need your ID.

[00:01:30]>> No, I ain't got what I'm messed up for.

[00:01:32]>> Hm.

[00:01:32]>> Am I being the same >> now? You are. Yeah.

[00:01:34]>> For what?

[00:01:34]>> Cuz I told you to leave this scene.

[00:01:37]>> I You'll be famous like uh dating police.

[00:01:40]>> Yeah, that's fine.

[00:01:42]>> Give me your driver's license.

[00:01:43]>> I ain't got What I'm going to stop for?

[00:01:45]>> Cuz I told you to leave this area. Cut through that parking lot.

[00:01:47]>> I'm telling you to cut through that parking lot. through a farting line.

[00:01:50]>> Okay, I'm going to ask you one more time to give me your license or I'm going to get you out of the car. Go >> ahead.

[00:01:55]>> I'm going to get you out of the car.

[00:01:58]You threaten. So, you threaten? I just want to know if you >> It's not a threat.

[00:02:02]>> I'm just saying you threatening.

[00:02:03]>> I'm giving you a lawful order to give me your ID.

[00:02:06]>> Oh, what? I'm I'm at the time.

[00:02:07]>> I'm telling you to leave the scene >> and you're still sitting here. I'm telling you to cut through the parking lot. Okay, that's it.

[00:02:13]>> Officer Christian tells Mr. Boyd that he is issuing a lawful order to provide his identification because Mr. Boyd refused to leave the scene by cutting through the parking lot. Two statutes govern when an officer may lawfully demand identification in Ohio. Section 457.35 of the Ohio Revised Code requires a driver to present their license upon demand during a traffic stop. And section 2921.29 requires an individual to provide their name, address, and date of birth to an officer who reasonably suspects them of a criminal offense. Now, at this point in the encounter, Mr. Boyd had not been subjected to a traffic stop as he had pulled up behind a driver who officers had detained and stopped of his own accord. The basis that officer Christian offered for the ID demand was Mr. Boyd's refusal to comply with his directive to cut through the parking lot and leave the scene. Section 2921.31 of the Ohio Revised Code prohibits individuals from taking any action that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of their lawful duties with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within their official capacity. As the sixth district court of appeals of Ohio explained in the 2025 case of state v.

[00:03:24]hosts. In order to sustain an obstruction charge, the state must establish that the defendant acted with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay a public official, and that the defendant's conduct actually hampered or impeded the official in the performance of their duties, making those duties more difficult to carry out. Therefore, to determine whether Officer Christian had reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Boyd was obstructing official business, a court would have to consider whether Mr. Boyd's presence on the scene after being directed to leave without any other affirmative conduct was sufficient to satisfy both elements.

[00:03:58]That he remained with the purpose to obstruct and that his presence actually hampered or impeded the officers in carrying out the traffic stop.

[00:04:06]>> My window my door.

[00:04:08]>> I will break your glass if you break it.

[00:04:09]Break it. You go to jail.

[00:04:10]>> Hold on. Hold on.

[00:04:11]>> You going to jail? Break it. You will be on the news. I'm going to call my lawyer and you will be sued.

[00:04:14]>> Tell he he'll break he break my glass.

[00:04:16]He'll be sued.

[00:04:17]>> Okay, sir.

[00:04:18]>> I can't leave. Who's that? My name is Sergeant Mor.

[00:04:21]>> YOU WANT ME? TELL ME he'll be sued. Tell me. Okay, sir. Now you are being stopped. Stay in your car.

[00:04:26]>> I said I'll be entertained. He said no.

[00:04:28]You're being stopped. I can't get through this car right now.

[00:04:30]>> Okay. Listen to me.

[00:04:31]>> All right. Listen.

[00:04:32]>> Okay. You Now you're being stopped for your tent.

[00:04:34]>> Okay.

[00:04:35]>> Okay. I need to see your ID.

[00:04:36]>> Okay.

[00:04:37]>> Now, and and what what crime I committed?

[00:04:39]>> Tent violation.

[00:04:40]>> Okay. Tent violation. Okay.

[00:04:41]>> Okay. Put your car in park. It's >> in park.

[00:04:43]>> Okay. Need to see your ID.

[00:04:45]>> I don't ask question, sir.

[00:04:46]>> Step out. Step out. Step.

[00:04:47]>> Hey, don't step out. What I do? I need to take your ID out.

[00:04:51]>> Okay.

[00:04:51]>> Come on. I got I can't take >> Yes, I can, sir.

[00:04:54]>> I asked you for your ID. Now, step out of the car. Step out of the car.

[00:04:58]>> Take my What's the name?

[00:04:59]>> Step out of the car, sir.

[00:05:01]>> Take my ID.

[00:05:02]>> Step out of the car, sir.

[00:05:04]>> You can't take my ID, though.

[00:05:05]>> Yes, I can, sir.

[00:05:06]>> You can't take my ID out my hand. That's >> Yes, I I asked you for your ID. I believe stopping you.

[00:05:11]>> You can't put your business. Don't touch me. Okay, sir.

[00:05:13]>> I'm touching I'm my ID. I'm sorry. I'm Sir I'm complying.

[00:05:16]>> No, you're not.

[00:05:17]>> I'm complying. No, you're not.

[00:05:18]PENNSYLVANIA VERSUS M. Keep saying that PIT CUZ Y'ALL BEING SUED RIGHT NOW.

[00:05:23]DON'T TOUCH ME. I AIN'T touching me.

[00:05:25]Don't touch me. Don't put your hands in my face. Touch me, bro. Do not put your hands in my face. You will be sued, bro.

[00:05:29]>> Turn around. You will be sued. Turn around.

[00:05:31]>> Turn around. Turn around. You're being detained.

[00:05:34]>> Put your hands behind your back. You're being detained.

[00:05:36]>> For what?

[00:05:37]>> Because of the way you're pulling away from me.

[00:05:39]>> I'm not pulling. I'm not pulling down.

[00:05:40]>> I ain't pulling away.

[00:05:41]>> You are pulling away. Stop.

[00:05:43]>> Get off my coat.

[00:05:44]>> Stop. Stop. You know, I got a complaint on your back.

[00:05:47]>> I got a complaint on you already.

[00:05:48]>> Okay.

[00:05:49]>> What's tonight?

[00:05:50]>> Sergeant Moore informs Mr. Boyd that he is detained for a window tint violation and orders him to produce his identification. Mr. Boyd opens his wallet and displays his license, at which point Sergeant Moore takes it from his hand. Mr. Boyd protests that the officers cannot take the license from him, exits the vehicle when ordered to do so, and retrieves his wallet. The officers then direct Mr. Boyd to turn around and place him in handcuffs, stating that he is being detained based on the way that he's acting. Now, the statute governing driver's license production during a traffic stop is section 45507.35 of the Ohio Revised Code, which provides that a driver must quote unquote display their license upon demand and shall not refuse to do so. The statute does not use the word surrender or require that the driver physically relinquish the license to the officer. Accordingly, whether displaying a license within a wallet satisfies the statute's requirement or whether an officer is entitled to physically take possession of it is a question that the statute does not cleanly resolve. Now, regarding the officer's decision to handcuff Mr. Boyd, where officers have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, courts generally find the use of handcuffs to be constitutional. where probable cause is absent and the detention remains investigatory. The use of handcuffs does not automatically transform a reasonable suspicion-based detention into a de facto arrest requiring probable cause. However, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Ohio, explained in the 2015 case of Brown v.

[00:07:15]Lewis, a bare inference or speculation that a detainee may somehow be violent is not sufficient to justify handcuffing, and officers must point to a specific reason to believe that the detainee poses a risk of flight or violence. Importantly, the court recognized that an unarmed detainee who displays aggressive, erratic, or nervous behavior during a stop may give rise to a reasonable belief of dangerousness sufficient to justify restraints. Here, the stated justification for Mr. Boyd's handcuffed detention was his verbally combative and argumentative behavior.

[00:07:48]Accordingly, it is possible that a court could conclude based on this precedent that handcuffing Mr. Boyd was constitutionally reasonable under the circumstances, even if the officers did not have probable cause at the time that he was handcuffed.

[00:08:01]>> Huh? I got a complaint on you.

[00:08:03]>> Sure. Okay.

[00:08:03]>> You know, you know you ain't you ain't supposed to be doing this. I already got a complaint on you.

[00:08:06]>> I don't know you from Adam, sir.

[00:08:07]>> You know me. You know, this your third time. I'm not doing nothing. I'm right here. YOU DON'T GOT TO hold me.

[00:08:11]>> Okay. Nothing but let me know. Hey, sir.

[00:08:14]You know I got a complaint on you.

[00:08:15]Corner Trotwood. I told you something.

[00:08:17]>> What's my name?

[00:08:18]>> What's your name?

[00:08:19]>> My name's not Connor.

[00:08:20]>> What's your name? It's over to see.

[00:08:21]>> No, it doesn't, sir.

[00:08:22]>> I got you. What's your name? Stop throwing my stuff on there. What's up?

[00:08:25]Stop.

[00:08:25]>> I'm not moving. I'm good. Come on.

[00:08:27]>> Come on.

[00:08:30]>> Come on, >> McDaniel. If we don't need them, kick them loose.

[00:08:33]>> Yeah. Come on. He He been watching that.

[00:08:35]But it's all right.

[00:08:37]>> Again, I've already identified myself.

[00:08:39]My name is Sergeant Moore.

[00:08:40]>> Moore?

[00:08:41]>> Yes, sir. I we don't ran into each other.

[00:08:43]>> No, sir.

[00:08:44]>> I don't know you from matter. I'm not a sergeant.

[00:08:46]>> Yes, I am.

[00:08:46]>> Okay. I'm not ran to you. I don't matter. I don't know. I don't know you from madam. You know, >> okay. The way you're acting is why you're in you're in handcuffs right now.

[00:08:54]>> No, cuz he going to tell me, SIR.

[00:08:57]>> I'M NOT TAKING MY CAR THROUGH. NO.

[00:08:58]What's the name? And I said I got to wait till the show get you got a violation. And that's a legal reason to stop.

[00:09:04]>> Look, you can't you can't stop. You ain't got to stop. You got >> Yes, I do.

[00:09:11]What's happen now? You're going to walk over.

[00:09:22]Okay. All right.

[00:09:28]Walk over here.

[00:09:36]>> Okay, sir. All right. The reason you're in passage is because Y'ALL WANT TO WORK FOR A BLACK MAN. I I DON'T CARE ABOUT NOTHING like that, sir. Stop holding me like that.

[00:09:46]>> You obstruct You obstructed official business. You were because he asked for you to multiple times.

[00:09:50]>> He told me to go through the truck. I said I'm not going through that car.

[00:09:54]>> Okay. Legal reason to stop you. Okay.

[00:09:56]Legal reason to stop you for the black dude. They're both racet.

[00:10:07]Okay.

[00:10:08]>> I tried to stop is not searching.

[00:10:09]>> I I have a reason to search you.

[00:10:11]>> I can I can I can patch you down by by the way you're at.

[00:10:15]>> Yes, I can. Sir, >> stop ripping MY POCKET.

[00:10:18]>> STOP RIPPING MY POCKET.

[00:10:20]>> OKAY, SIR. STOP.

[00:10:21]>> Stop reaching my pocket.

[00:10:23]>> Have a seat.

[00:10:24]>> Stop reaching my pocket.

[00:10:26]>> Stop. Have a seat.

[00:10:27]>> Tell him he'll get sold.

[00:10:28]>> He will get s.

[00:10:30]>> Okay.

[00:10:30]>> Yeah. You can't do that.

[00:10:32]>> No, you can't take my phone. Yes, I can.

[00:10:33]Sir, >> you cannot take my phone. That's my [ __ ] I'm recording. Okay, I'm recording you.

[00:10:38]>> I'm recording. I'm recording you.

[00:10:39]>> Okay, I'm recording, sir.

[00:10:41]>> I'm recording.

[00:10:42]>> We are too, sir.

[00:10:42]>> I'm recording.

[00:10:43]>> Have a seat. We're recording, too. Sit down.

[00:10:45]>> Sit down. Sit down.

[00:10:49]>> Sit down, >> sir. Sit down.

[00:10:52]>> How can I get in here?

[00:10:59]>> Don't touch me, bro. I'm in here.

[00:11:04]Everybody wants to come here to this traffic stop.

[00:11:07]>> Oh, everybody's just pulling up.

[00:11:09]>> Yeah.

[00:11:10]>> Oh, okay.

[00:11:14]>> Stay with them.

[00:11:29]>> You will be on uh what's the name? You don't even know what it is. Stop talking.

[00:11:36]>> Don't even worry about it.

[00:11:39]>> You're a sucker.

[00:11:41]>> Cold sucker.

[00:11:42]>> Okay.

[00:11:42]>> Tell you a rookie cuz you don't even know what you're doing.

[00:11:46]>> Can't pull me out my car. None of that.

[00:11:48]Make sure we go to court for everything.

[00:11:50]Make sure you have y pins together.

[00:11:52]>> Okay.

[00:11:53]>> While seated in the back of the cruiser, Mr. Boyd informs the officers that they had no authority to remove him from his vehicle. In the 1977 case of Pennsylvania v. Mims, the Supreme Court held that once a lawful traffic stop has been initiated, an officer may order the driver out of the vehicle as a matter of course with no additional justification required. Here, the window tint violation had been identified prior to the order to exit the vehicle, providing an objective basis for the stop. Now, although the window tint violation was not the original reason that officer Christian approached Mr. void and it is possible that the officers would have ordered him out regardless of any traffic infraction. The Supreme Court determined in the 1996 case of Ren v.

[00:12:31]United States that a traffic detention is constitutionally valid so long as officers have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred regardless of the officer's subjective motivations for making the stop.

[00:12:44]Therefore, as the officers had identified a traffic violation at the time that they ordered Mr. boy out of his vehicle. A court would likely conclude that they did not violate the Fourth Amendment by doing so.

[00:12:55]>> What's the name? Amen.

[00:12:58]>> Hey, what's your name? Sergeant uh uh Officer >> Officer Christian.

[00:13:02]>> Officer Cru.

[00:13:03]>> Christian.

[00:13:04]>> What's your badge number?

[00:13:05]>> 166.

[00:13:06]>> Okay. Make sure you give me your card with your name on.

[00:13:08]>> Yep.

[00:13:09]>> Make sure you go viral.

[00:13:10]>> Cool.

[00:13:10]>> Your body cam on?

[00:13:11]>> Yes, sir.

[00:13:12]>> Okay.

[00:13:14]Go viral.

[00:13:15]>> Cool.

[00:13:16]>> Yeah.

[00:13:28]Go ahead.

[00:13:33]>> Next.

[00:13:35]>> Can you check and see if has an operator available?

[00:13:49]Um, do his citation. Your your tent is at 2%, sir.

[00:13:53]>> Don't worry about it. I need your I need your ID number, too.

[00:13:56]>> It's 85.

[00:13:57]>> Okay. Make sure you give me your badge number.

[00:13:58]>> I I just did. It's number 85. It's 85. I don't have a card on me, sir. I told you it's 85.

[00:14:05]He's going to be cited for the um uh the temp violation and uh he's going to be uh start the uh order for uh disorderly conduct.

[00:14:15]>> Okay.

[00:14:18]>> Okay. Um hey sir, I got a K9 in route. I don't >> I'm just I'm just I'm trying to explain to you, sir, what's happening.

[00:14:25]>> Uh I don't I don't condone.

[00:14:27]>> Okay. Well, I'm telling you a K9 is in route. If if the K9 alerts on your car, then we will be doing a search in your car.

[00:14:34]>> Sergeant Moore directs Officer Christian to issue a citation for the window tint violation and an order or summons in lie of arrest for disorderly conduct and then informs Mr. Boyd that a canine unit is in route and that if the dog alerts on his vehicle, a search will follow.

[00:14:49]The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of dog sniffs in the 2005 case of Illinois v. Kobayas concluding that a dog sniff conducted on the exterior of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop does not implicate the Fourth Amendment because a well-trained narcotics detection dog reveals only the presence of contraband in which no person has a legitimate privacy interest. The Supreme Court clarified the limits of that rule in the 2015 case of Rodriguez v. United States, holding that a traffic stop becomes unlawful if prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete its mission, with the critical question being not when the dog sniff occurs relative to the issuance of a ticket, but whether the sniff adds time to the stop. Now, here the citation and summons were still being processed at the time that the canine was called, meaning that the stop's mission had not yet concluded, and a court would likely find that a sniff conducted during that window did not unlawfully prolong the stop. Additionally, when a canine quote unquote alerts or signals through a trained behavior that it has detected the odor of a controlled substance, that alert would generally establish probable cause to search the vehicle. In the 2013 case of Florida v. Harris, the Supreme Court determined that a dog's alert provides probable cause to search if the dog's reliability is established through evidence of its training and its certification record. Accordingly, as long as Mr. Boyd's detention was not unlawfully extended beyond the time required to process the citation and summons. A court would likely conclude that the officers were within their fourth amendment authority to deploy the canine. And if the dog alerted to conduct a full search of the vehicle's interior.

[00:16:23]>> Y'all be seated. As Sergeant Wilson, I'll make sure he tell y'all about it.

[00:16:26]Who?

[00:16:26]>> Don't worry about Yeah. Who wouldn't know?

[00:16:28]>> No, I don't.

[00:16:29]>> Yeah, don't worry about it. Make sure >> Yeah, he was in there. Yeah.

[00:16:51]Do the obstructing.

[00:16:53]>> Yeah. Uh do the obstructing. Actually, he can go to jail for the obstruction.

[00:16:57]>> I'll take him to jail for obstructing.

[00:16:59]>> Yeah.

[00:17:02]>> Well, do right now. We'll do the order in.

[00:17:04]>> Okay.

[00:17:05]>> Right now. Um, do the order in for the obstructing disorderly conduct and it citation.

[00:17:14]>> Tag real quick.

[00:17:16]>> It should be in the >> but it didn't add it.

[00:17:19]>> Mhm. Okay.

[00:17:22]>> Did you uh when >> when you took his wallet, did you uh >> I got his ID.

[00:17:30]>> You got his ID?

[00:17:32]>> Sounds good.

[00:17:32]>> Cool. Thank you. So, that's where we're getting the instructing because we're asking him for his ID and he's trying to show me when it's right here. No, I have to take it out. No, I don't have to.

[00:17:44]>> Yeah, >> you do. So, we'll do the uh due to the obstructing and we'll go from there.

[00:17:51]>> Okay. So, I'm I'm charging him with obstruction then?

[00:17:54]>> Yes, obstructing. Just order the conduct >> as a order in or >> as of right now.

[00:18:00]>> Okay. We still got the K9 in route to do the um 3 years.

[00:18:05]>> Sergeant Moore directs Officer Christian to initiate an order in lie of arrest for obstructing official business, citing Mr. Boyd's refusal to physically surrender his driver's license after displaying it in his wallet. As discussed earlier in this episode, section 2921.31 of the Ohio Revised Code prohibits any person from taking an action that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of their lawful duties with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay an authorized act within the officials capacity. The Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio addressed a similar issue in the 2022 case of State V. Kelly, holding that a defendant's refusal to provide a driver's license upon request does not constitute obstructing official business because the mere refusal to comply without an affirmative overt act is insufficient to sustain the charge. And that while a motorist's failure to produce a license may constitute a separate violation of section 457.35 of the Ohio Revised Code, that same conduct does not rise to the level of obstructing official business.

[00:19:06]Accordingly, if an outright refusal to produce a license cannot support an obstruction charge, displaying a license but declining to physically hand it over presents an even weaker basis for that charge. And a court applying this precedent would likely conclude that Mr. Boyd's handling of his license did not rise to the level of obstructing official business.

[00:19:34]Add make add him to the call. What's his name? I don't I don't know this guy. He He swears up and down. He's >> I don't even think he knows where he's at.

[00:19:42]>> Yeah.

[00:19:43]>> Freaking goofball.

[00:19:44]>> Oh, I know. Paris boy. Yeah, I know who it is.

[00:19:47]>> That's what I thought that was.

[00:19:48]>> No.

[00:19:53]Find him.

[00:19:54]>> Yeah.

[00:20:16]Hey. Hey, Paris. You're right. I do know you and I have cited you for this in this vehicle.

[00:20:20]>> I know you don't. Yeah. Don't worry about harassing me. I wrote >> It's not harassment.

[00:20:24]>> You're harassing me, bro. Same thing.

[00:20:26]Make sure you holl at my judge. You know who I am. You know who you is. Same person. He know I am. Yeah.

[00:20:39]Chasing young punks the same thing.

[00:20:41]Teaching the young young dummies the same thing. How to arrest people.

[00:20:48]Luck ain't never going to be no good, man.

[00:21:02]Paris, you're being charged with instructing and uh disorderly conduct from >> and the citation.

[00:21:07]>> Don't worry about it. You going to hear from my attorney. You >> Yeah, you the same police officer bound with me all the time.

[00:21:15]>> I know being charged with nothing.

[00:21:23]Obstruction of what?

[00:21:29]It's on tape. Everything on tape. So that body cam won't lie.

[00:21:38]>> Now he know who I am. I know. He saying why I made a complaint. Like what's your name? You said your name was. Huh?

[00:21:47]>> I already told you.

[00:21:48]>> So who?

[00:21:48]>> So I already told you.

[00:21:49]>> No, I don't know. You got to repeat yourself.

[00:21:51]>> I don't have to.

[00:21:52]>> What is it? I already told you.

[00:21:53]>> I No. What's your name? I'm asking you.

[00:21:55]>> I already told you what my name is.

[00:21:56]>> Tell me.

[00:21:57]>> What's your name? You're not You >> I already told you.

[00:22:00]>> Under law, you got to tell me who >> Under what?

[00:22:03]>> What? What? Under law, you got to tell me who your badge and what your name is.

[00:22:07]>> I already did.

[00:22:08]>> What is it?

[00:22:08]>> I already did.

[00:22:09]>> Yeah, you playing games. Don't worry about it.

[00:22:11]>> Yeah. All right.

[00:22:11]>> You got to write this ticket up. You'll be the same one on the face with him.

[00:22:14]>> That's fine.

[00:22:15]>> You know, >> you'll see my name on the ticket.

[00:22:16]>> What?

[00:22:17]>> You heard me.

[00:22:18]>> No, I didn't hear you.

[00:22:19]>> Okay. Well, clean your ears.

[00:22:20]>> You said what?

[00:22:22]You tort >> cold sucker. You ain't without that badge. I'll tell you that.

[00:22:28]>> Okay.

[00:22:30]>> Hide behind the badge. You're is a coward. That's all you is.

[00:22:35]>> Okay.

[00:22:38]>> Go back and lie to your chick. That's cheating on you.

[00:22:42]>> Probably with somebody right now.

[00:22:44]>> Pretty generic, dude. Come up with a new one.

[00:22:46]>> Probably somebody right now, man.

[00:22:52]coward.

[00:22:53]>> You think you tough?

[00:22:55]>> Don't worry about you. You hear you here for my >> show.

[00:23:06]>> Paris, I'm not searching your vehicle unless the K9 alerts on the car. But I am asking you right now, is there any guns, drugs, anything like that in the vehicle?

[00:23:14]>> I don't consistent searches and I don't answer no questions.

[00:23:16]>> Okay. All right.

[00:23:17]>> I know. No, I know my rights.

[00:23:20]Hope we got a good lawsuit. What's your B? What's your boundary? Uh, >> he already told you.

[00:23:26]>> Listen to your boss. He'll tell you.

[00:23:29]Your boss.

[00:23:31]>> And I need And I need I want I requested a lieutenant >> over him. Give me your lieutenant out here ASAP.

[00:23:38]>> A what?

[00:23:38]>> Your lieutenant out here.

[00:23:41]>> You can do like I said, Japan. English.

[00:23:44]What?

[00:23:44]>> Uh, preferably English.

[00:23:46]>> You understand? Cuz you act like you can't understand. Get your little tenant out here.

[00:23:53]Matter of fact, yeah. Yeah.

[00:23:57]Make sure you go viral.

[00:24:00]>> You already said that.

[00:24:02]>> I'm say it again. Make sure you go viral.

[00:24:04]>> Okay. You're like a broken record.

[00:24:06]>> It be it be you car police officers messing up for the business.

[00:24:10]>> Mhm.

[00:24:10]>> Yeah.

[00:24:15]>> Hey, did you pull a separate case report? Hey, he can still pull >> I know.

[00:24:22]>> No, not yet.

[00:24:23]>> Okay, you're going to have to pull a second case report number for >> this other It's It's going to be considered a separate >> Okay. Gotcha. So, I can do it from the same call, though.

[00:24:32]>> Yeah.

[00:24:33]>> Um >> from the same.

[00:24:34]>> Gotcha. Uh what kind of Bentley is that >> besides old?

[00:24:40]>> I'm not sure.

[00:24:42]>> Doesn't say. Just four-door.

[00:24:45]>> I know. for >> for for the um solve. It wants a model.

[00:24:53]What's that? W12. I don't know if that means anything.

[00:25:00]>> Oh, no. I I didn't even bother asking him.

[00:25:14]>> Thank you.

[00:25:28]Stop. Hey, stop. Stop messing with me, bro. Stop messing with me, bro. I'm doing good. He won't tell me. He throw me, man. Stop messing with me.

[00:25:36]>> We got to relax.

[00:25:38]I got It's him, though. I got >> relax.

[00:25:56]>> I'm send Yes, sir.

[00:26:17]>> You can't sign in on the 11th because it's Veterans Day.

[00:26:19]>> No, no.

[00:26:20]>> Okay.

[00:26:21]>> I'm going to pull my cruiser off Salem.

[00:26:23]Put it over here. I'll be right back.

[00:26:25]>> Mr. Boyd was charged with obstructing official business, disorderly conduct, and a window tint violation. He retained counsel and entered a plea of not guilty on all charges. And as of the date of writing this episode, all charges remain pending. Overall, Sergeant Moore and Officer Christian get a C minus for exercising poor discretion in escalating a routine encounter into a custodial detention, pursuing an obstruction charge that controlling case law does not support and conducting themselves in a manner that was unnecessarily combative and antagonistic throughout the encounter. The window tint stop, the exit order, and the K-9 deployment all rest on defensible ground under established precedent. And the handcuffing, while debatable, is not without legal support given Mr. Boyd's persistent verbal combiveness. What is more difficult to defend is the officer's judgment. Mr. Boyd initially did nothing more than stop his car behind another vehicle. whatever legal authority existed to order him to move along. The decision to transform that moment into a detention, a custodial handcuffing, and multiple criminal charges reflects a significant failure of proportionality. The obstruction charge premised on Mr. Boyd's handling of his license is particularly difficult to square with the six appellet districts holding that an outright refusal to produce a license does not constitute obstructing official business. Beyond the legal analysis, the officer's demeanor throughout this encounter was dismissive, condescending, and at times openly contemptuous, none of which served any legitimate law enforcement purpose, and all of which contributed to an escalation that a more measured approach could have avoided.

[00:28:04]Mr. Boyd gets a C plus for refusing to comply with officer's directions in a manner that escalated the encounter, demonstrating a lack of understanding of his legal obligations during the stop, and engaging in persistently combative and unproductive behavior that undermined otherwise valid legal arguments. Mr. Boyd's initial conduct was entirely unremarkable. He stopped his car behind a vehicle that was stopped in front of him. However, Mr. Boyd's persistent verbal combiveness, refusal to engage cooperatively, and escalating hostility throughout the detention. It gave the officers the justification they needed to sustain a handcuffing that might otherwise have been difficult to defend. Likewise, Mr. Boyd's objection to being ordered out of the vehicle reflects a misapprehension of the law. The window tin violation had been identified before the exit order was issued and once a lawful traffic stop is underway, officers may order a driver out of the vehicle without any additional justification. His resistance to that order, however understandable emotionally, was not legally grounded.

[00:29:04]Mr. Boyd was not without valid legal arguments in this encounter, and the obstruction charge brought against him is difficult to defend given the relevant case law. However, his conduct throughout the encounter made it significantly harder for those arguments to succeed, and it transformed what could have been a brief stop into a prolonged custodial detention. This interaction highlights how knowing your rights and effectively exercising them are two distinct skills, and that combative behavior, even in response to questionable police conduct, can erode the legal footing of an otherwise legitimate grievance. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to check out Audit the Court if you're interested in exploring the legal nuance beyond the body cam.