INSANE Female Cop Gets SUED After Tasing Mom TWICE Over NOTHING

追加: 2026-05-16

[00:00:05]There is nothing quite like watching an officer who thinks they're above the law get a serious reality check. And we've got a significant one here for you today. Before we get into the video, I would love to give a special shout out to D. Gun from Georgia, Frank from Los Angeles, Daario from Italy, and George from Jamaica. It is people like you who make what we do here possible. Now, I should say upfront, I am not a practicing attorney, and this is not legal advice. What I offer is informed legal analysis based on published case law and constitutional doctrine. And today we're heading to East Ridge, Tennessee for a December 2021 encounter that raises some fundamental questions about the Fourth Amendment and police accountability. Here's what we're dealing with. Multiple officers, including Officer Teddy Dyer, Officer Candace Miller, Sergeant David Mrick, and Officer Anna Simmons. The encounter involves the Sherard family, and it spiraled into something that eventually landed in federal court. The legal issues here are textbook constitutional law. We're talking about the legality of a vehicle search. We're talking about use of force standards under Graham v.

[00:01:05]Connor and we're talking about resisting arrest charges that may or may not hold up under Tennessee law. What makes this case particularly instructive is how it illustrates the collision between what officers believe they can do and what the Constitution actually permits. The Fourth Amendment isn't a suggestion.

[00:01:22]It's a binding constraint on government power. And when officers forget that, well, you end up in situations exactly like this one. So, let's break this down together and see where the law actually lands. If you love watching officers get held accountable for their actions, please click that subscribe button. And while you're at it, if you'd like to get a shout out in my next video, then like the video, share it with a friend, and tell me your name and where you're watching from.

[00:01:45]>> Hello.

[00:01:46]>> Hey, what's up?

[00:01:47]>> Hey, do you live here?

[00:01:49]>> Um, my daughter's living here.

[00:01:50]>> Is she in in this? Is that 893? Yeah, it is.

[00:01:54]>> Hang on one second for me. Okay.

[00:01:56]>> Something wrong?

[00:01:57]>> Well, we got called to check on a child.

[00:02:00]>> I don't know. They didn't tell us. They just said do a welfare check >> from >> when? Like what do they say?

[00:02:08]>> I don't know. I'm going go up and knock.

[00:02:10]Is that your daughter coming now? Yeah.

[00:02:14]>> What's her name? Hey, going up to the door.

[00:02:17]>> Well, how old is the child?

[00:02:19]>> Two years old. Is there a 2-year-old that lives here?

[00:02:22]>> Okay. I bet it was um >> four mic 3 seven golf four.

[00:02:29]>> Why are you running my tag?

[00:02:30]>> Because I smell marijuana.

[00:02:33]You >> smell marijuana?

[00:02:34]>> Yes.

[00:02:34]>> Because you smell marijuana that gives you the right to run my tag.

[00:02:37]>> Not only that, I'm going to search car.

[00:02:39]>> You're not going to search anything?

[00:02:40]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:02:41]>> No, you're not.

[00:02:42]>> I promise you.

[00:02:43]>> You are not going to break my rights right now.

[00:02:45]>> You're about to get your rights in the back of my car. Well, if that's what you want to do because you do because I haven't done anything.

[00:02:53]I haven't or anything. You just sit there and talk to me and and you're going to search my car.

[00:02:59]>> I am going to search your car.

[00:03:00]>> And you're running my tag.

[00:03:02]>> I am going to search.

[00:03:02]>> I'm not doing anything but sitting out here waiting for my daughter to come back.

[00:03:05]>> I don't care. Your car is going to be searched. And if you interfere with my search, I will put you in the car. I will take you to jail.

[00:03:11]>> You go ahead and you violate my rights then.

[00:03:13]>> Okay. Put your hands on the car.

[00:03:14]>> You violate my rights.

[00:03:15]>> Put your hands on the car.

[00:03:16]>> All right. So, we're watching this unfold and immediately I'm catching some significant legal flags here. The officer arrives for what he says is a welfare check on a child. Fine. That's a legitimate community caretaking function. But watch how quickly this pivots. Mrs. Sherard is sitting in her vehicle outside the residence. She's not driving. She's not operating the vehicle. She's waiting for her daughter.

[00:03:35]And then we get the magic words. I smell marijuana. Now, here's where I need to pause and give you some critical legal context. In Tennessee, the odor of marijuana has historically provided probable cause for a vehicle search under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed this in state v. Hawkins back in 2019, confirming that the smell of marijuana can establish probable cause. But here's the constitutional tension. The fourth amendment, as interpreted in cases like New York vlass from 1986, establishes that while vehicles receive diminished privacy expectations, the government still needs articulable justification for a search.

[00:04:10]You can't just claim you smell something and have that be an unchallenged key to search whatever you want. What strikes me about this footage is the escalation pattern. Mrs. Sherard asks questions.

[00:04:20]She pushes back on the search. And the officer's response is immediate. You're about to get your rights up in the back of my car. That phrasing alone should concern anyone who studies constitutional law. Rights don't disappear because you assert them. And here's what the clip doesn't tell you.

[00:04:34]This encounter eventually resulted in a federal lawsuit. Sherard v. City of East Ridge. The case was settled in 2023 with the family receiving compensation. That settlement tells you something about how the city assessed its own legal exposure. The Tennessee courts in state v Hampton from 2022 continued to grapple with the boundaries of marijuana odor searches. The legal landscape isn't as simple as officers sometimes treat it.

[00:04:56]There are requirements around specificity and reliability that courts examine closely. What I'm watching here is an officer who seems to believe that invoking marijuana odor creates unlimited authority. That's not how the Fourth Amendment works. You're going to put >> I said put your hands on the caring for >> put YOUR HAND BACK UP.

[00:05:14]>> HEY, DON'T YOU PUT your >> God. I'm so dizzy right now. He's just drank my >> Oh my god.

[00:05:28]>> Oh my god.

[00:05:29]>> Shut up. I'm moving.

[00:05:32]>> HE'S PULLING my hair.

[00:05:34]>> GET IN THE CAR. GET IN THE CAR. IF YOU >> OH MY GOD, I CAN'T. I'M TOO BIG.

[00:05:40]>> Sucks to be you. Get in the car.

[00:05:43]>> I didn't do anything. You're a woman.

[00:05:45]You're going to treat me like that?

[00:05:47]>> You're going to get tased. Get in the car.

[00:05:49]>> Get in the car.

[00:05:50]>> GET IN THE CAR.

[00:05:52]>> I'M getting in the car.

[00:05:53]>> Okay, I'm in. I'm in.

[00:05:56]>> Now, that that right there is where everything changes legally. What we just witnessed is physical force being applied to a woman who moments ago was simply sitting in her car. And that phrase she shouted, "He just banged my head." That allegation transforms this entire encounter from a contested search into a potential excessive force case under the Fourth Amendment. Let me break down the legal framework that governs this exact moment. Graham v. Connor from 1989 is the Supreme Court's definitive statement on police use of force. The court established what's called the objective reasonleness standard. It requires us to evaluate force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on scene, not with 2020 hindsight, but considering the totality of circumstances the officer faced. The Graham factors are specific. The severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to officers or others, whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. So, let's apply that framework here. What crime justifies this level of force? A suspected marijuana odor? Not a violent felony, not a weapons offense, a smell. Is Mrs. Sherard posing an immediate physical threat to these officers? I see no evidence of that in this footage. Is she resisting? She's verbally protesting and appears confused, but I'm not seeing active physical aggression that would justify slamming someone's head. And here's critical context the clip doesn't provide. Officer Anna Simmons, who was involved in this encounter, has a documented history. She was named in another excessive force lawsuit filed in January 2023, a separate incident entirely. That pattern matters when evaluating departmental accountability.

[00:07:38]The Sixth Circuit, which covers Tennessee, has consistently held that force must be proportional to the resistance encountered. In cases like Morrison v. board of trustees from 2009.

[00:07:48]The court emphasized that minor resistance doesn't justify major force.

[00:07:53]What I'm watching here is force that appears to escalate beyond what the Graham factors would justify. The taser deployment to get someone into a vehicle after they've already been restrained raises serious constitutional questions about necessity and proportionality.

[00:08:07]This is where documentation becomes crucial.

[00:08:10]>> Shut the up >> before I take your TO JAIL, TOO. GET BACK.

[00:08:16]>> SHE JUST GOT a 100 baby. You do not arrest her. Girl, do not push me. What is wrong with you? Who did it? I need to know who did it.

[00:08:23]>> Who did what?

[00:08:24]>> Who tased my mom?

[00:08:24]>> She didn't get tased. Get tased.

[00:08:26]>> Then why was there a taser going off over there?

[00:08:28]>> Checking the fire, I guess.

[00:08:30]>> So then why was there a taser?

[00:08:31]>> How about you worry about you?

[00:08:33]>> We'll worry about your mama.

[00:08:35]>> I don't really give a >> Y'all are violating our rights right now.

[00:08:38]>> Which one?

[00:08:39]>> You want to act like a big girl, you're going to get treated like a big girl.

[00:08:42]So, I drive sununn mom to get her in the car. Uh, other than that, she's perfectly fine.

[00:08:47]>> Just drive.

[00:08:49]>> I'm just making sure.

[00:08:50]>> Yeah. No, she just drive son. But I did it twice. I'm emotionally invested. Can I take her?

[00:08:56]>> Yes. Well, we were thinking >> I love it when you do this.

[00:08:59]>> Going to the hospital. I'm going to come. I'm talking. I'm telling you what's going to happen. Okay.

[00:09:04]>> You are very rude.

[00:09:05]>> Taking mom for disorderly conduct, resistance, stop frisk.

[00:09:09]>> They are now.

[00:09:10]>> Hold on. Did that officer just threaten those children with arrest for asking what happened to their mother? That right there is a moment that should concern every single person watching this because what we're witnessing is coercion being used against minors who are understandably distraught. The daughter asks a completely reasonable question. Why was her taser going off?

[00:09:29]And instead of providing transparency, the officer deflects with checking the fire. I guess that dismissive response tells you everything about the mindset operating here. Now, let's talk about these charges because this is where Tennessee law becomes critically important. Mrs. Sherard was charged with disorderly conduct in resisting a frisk.

[00:09:46]Under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-305, disorderly conduct requires behavior that creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition with no legitimate purpose. Standing outside your own vehicle asking questions about why officers are searching your property does not meet that statutory threshold.

[00:10:05]And resisting frisk is particularly troubling because a terry frisk under the fourth amendment requires reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous. The suspicion has to be specific and individualized. You cannot frisk someone simply because they're present during a tense encounter or because they're asking questions you don't like. Here's what the clip doesn't tell you. This case went to federal court. Sherard versus City of East Ridge was settled in July 2023 with the daughter ALS receiving a $10,000 settlement. The city paying out money means their own legal council looked at this footage and recognized liability.

[00:10:40]The officer casually admitting, "I drive stunned her twice to get compliance is an admission that should make every constitutional scholar pause." Drive stunning means pressing the taser directly against someone's body and activating it without firing the probes.

[00:10:54]Using that technique twice on a woman already in custody to force her into a vehicle raises serious questions under the ETH amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the fourth amendment's reasonleness requirement. When force becomes the first option rather than the last resort, we have abandoned constitutional policing entirely.

[00:11:12]>> Just the car can just stay here.

[00:11:15]I mean, I'm her daughter and I >> Please don't like it's already like holding up cuz like I out of jail and I just had a baby >> and I'm and I feel for you and I'm not trying to cause you no headache. You just got to understand we have a job to do also. Step out. Let's talk.

[00:11:31]How old are you in?

[00:11:32]>> I'm 18, sir.

[00:11:33]>> 18.

[00:11:34]>> Mhm.

[00:11:34]>> And I'm a man like you. Why you got to hit my mama like that, bro?

[00:11:38]>> You going to keep All right. I tried I You see I tried to talk to you like a man. I tried to talk.

[00:11:42]>> Why did you have to do her like that, bro?

[00:11:43]>> Get in the car. I try. I tried to talk to you.

[00:11:46]>> I tried. I tried. I'm not your bro. You see, I tried. You see, I tried to talk to him. How old is he?

[00:11:52]>> 18. He's old enough to take a ride. He goes to the big boy jail. Listen, I want you to know how this would have went.

[00:12:00]Ma'am, I'm going to have to search your car. Okay. I didn't find anything. Guess what? Have a good night.

[00:12:05]>> And there it is. Ma'am, I'm going to have to search your car. Okay. I didn't find anything. Guess what? Have a good night. That line right there encapsulates everything wrong with this encounter. The officer is essentially admitting how this should have gone from the very beginning. A search yields nothing and everyone goes home. Instead, what we witnessed over the course of this footage was constitutional rights trampled and a family traumatized and taxpayer money eventually spent on legal settlements because officers couldn't follow their own stated procedure. Let me be absolutely clear about what happened here. No marijuana was found.

[00:12:39]None. The entire justification for this search and the subsequent arrest and the force used against Mrs. Sherard was predicated on an officer claiming to smell marijuana. And when the search concluded, there was nothing there to validate that claim. Now, I want to be careful here because I'm not a practicing attorney and this is not legal advice. But from a legal analysis standpoint, this outcome is devastating to the officer's position. The absence of contraband doesn't automatically mean the search was unlawful since courts evaluate probable cause based on what officers reasonably believed at the time of the search, not what they ultimately found. That's established doctrine.

[00:13:12]However, the complete absence of marijuana combined with everything else we witnessed, raises serious questions about whether that odor claim was genuine or whether it was being used as a pretext to conduct a search that otherwise lacked constitutional foundation. What strikes me most watching this final clip is the son 18 years old being told he's going to big boy jail for what exactly? For being hostile? For being upset that his mother was just tased twice and his sister was arrested. The Fourth Amendment doesn't have an exception for family members who display understandable emotional distress during traumatic police encounters. The settlement in Sherard versus City of East Ridge tells us what the city's own attorneys concluded when they reviewed this footage. They saw liability. $10,000 to the daughter. ALS may not sound like much, but settlements represent institutional acknowledgement that something went wrong. Cities don't pay money to make meritless claims disappear. They pay when they recognize their officers created constitutional exposure. And officer Anna Simmons, her story didn't end with this case. Another excessive force lawsuit followed in January 2023. When you see the same officer's name appearing in multiple federal complaints, that's not coincidence. That's pattern. That's exactly the kind of documented history that should trigger enhanced oversight and intervention from department leadership. The broader lesson here extends far beyond East Ridge, Tennessee. Every person watching needs to understand that knowing your constitutional rights matters, but it only matters if you can survive the encounter to assert them in court. Mrs. Sherard knew her rights. She articulated them, and she was still tased twice and arrested. The vindication came later through litigation, but that vindication doesn't erase the trauma or restore the dignity that was stripped away that night. This is why police accountability mechanisms matter. This is why body cameras matter, even when officers sometimes forget to activate them. This is why civilian oversight boards and pattern or practice investigations and consent decrees exist because without those mechanisms, cases like this disappear into the noise. I should note that as of my current information, Chief Clinton continues to lead the East Ridge Police Department. The question every resident of that community should be asking is what systemic changes have been implemented to prevent encounters like this from recurring. Settlements are accountability after the fact. True reform means preventing the violation before it happens. If you found this analysis valuable, please subscribe to the channel and let me know your name and where you're watching from so I can give you a shout out in the next video.

[00:15:35]And speaking of constitutional encounters, you need to see the case I'm covering next. A man who was illegally arrested by officers who thought they could ignore the law and then he took them to court and absolutely dismantled their case. Now he's facing the same department again and the outcome is going to be remarkable. You do not want to miss that one. If you'd like to support the work we do here, please click the join button below to become a channel member.