This court case demonstrates that cyclists have legal rights to avoid obstructions in bike lanes under Michigan law (MCL 257.660A), and that police officers must have knowledge of applicable statutes for their orders to be considered lawful. The officer testified he did not know the relevant statutes off the top of his head, which raised questions about whether his order to use the bike lane was truly lawful when the cyclist was avoiding an obstruction. The defense argued that the cyclist was lawfully maneuvering around an obstruction in the bike lane, making the officer's order unlawful.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
COCKY COP DESTROYED IN COURT!!!!Added:
Now in this program, any resemblance between the people you see on the screen and real living people is purely intentional because in fact they are real and it's our pleasure to catch them in the act of being themselves.
>> Hey guys, Rogue Nation here with you today. We got a banging video coming to us from Court Cam Live. A smaller channel looks like it's focusing on court cases. So, uh, run by, let them know the major sent you and, uh, thanks for bringing this awesome court case to our attention. What we got here in this court case is a [ __ ] of a sergeant.
You'll see the body cam footage mocking the cyclist, challenging him to go to court, and then you're going to see the sergeant get spanked there in court.
Great video. Let me know in the comment section down below what you guys think.
As always guys, there's always going to be another video. Don't forget to sub to the new channel because I will be going out more in the coming weeks. So, want to check out some of my audits. Go ahead and sub to the majorly awesome YouTube channel because u I'll be back on the street. Okay. Thanks again, guys. catch you on the next one cuz there's always going to be a next one.
>> I would love to have you disagree this in court before a judge.
>> I think I'm going to I I would love to hear this.
>> Going to contact the lawyer.
>> Good. I hope you do. But but you keep that up and you see how that works out for you. And stop trying to be a jail house lawyer. Stop trying to tell officers that you know the law better than them.
>> And I'm growing as frustrated with it as everyone else.
>> I apologize if my answers are frustrating. I I honestly do. I feel like I'm being poked and prodded.
>> I understand that. That's that's what happens at trial. He was not familiar off the top of his head with the very statutes that are applicable to this case today. Keep a poker face because that was absolutely your testimony. We went over it many times. Calling ticket number P1875065.
This is city versus David Plex. Uh we have one count of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer and one count of interfering with pedestrian traffic.
As a prelim, we're set for trial today.
Officer is here. Mr. Plet is here. As a preliminary matter, as I open the file, there is a motion in this file uh to suppress which appears to have been filed back on April the 14th. Um what's the status of that please, Attorney Barton? This is Mr. Plex's motion.
>> Yes, your honor, if I may. I I personally haven't uh I wasn't assigned when that motion was filed, so I'm unable to speak on behalf of that particular motion, but we will uh address the issues within that motion today, your honor, which deal with the suppression component. So, >> thank you. Okay. Noting for the record that the motion is a motion to suppress based upon an unreasonable search and seizure without reasonable articulable secession or probable cause to detain.
Um, also that the order issued by the officer had no basis in Michigan law and that no Miranda warnings were given during the custodial detention for identification. Um, they there is a motion to suppress all evidence pertaining to the traffic ticket or citation. What the court will do, Mr. PL, is I will hold the motion in obeyance um until the trial and that way if we need to address it, we can. Yes, Miss Horn.
>> Um, yes. And uh yes, and the people for the record would object to that um motion. It was it was not filed on the people. Um it was not properly served and the people have not had an opportunity to uh respond to it.
>> Okay, understood. I think these are issues that will be addressed during the trial. If we need to do something more with it at the end, then we'll do that.
But for now, um as I said, we're not going to address it at this point. We're going to go on into the trial because the issues uh will be addressed, I'm sure, given the testimony. All right.
Now, now that we've dealt with the preliminary matters, I will take appearances so that we can begin the trial. Miss Horn, beginning with yours, >> Tamika Horn, on behalf of the people of the city of Detroit, P70303.
Your honor, Sergeant, would you please state your name and badge number for the record?
>> Yes, ma'am. Sergeant Yes, ma'am.
Sergeant Brian Ters, badge S88.
>> And may it please Honorable Court Darnell Barton, P83363, on behalf of Mr. David M. Plet. Sir, can you come into camera? go ahead and adjust your camera so that you're able to stay in camera full time, that the court can see you, and then just go ahead and state your name for the record for us one more time.
>> Uh, my name is David Michael Plutz.
>> Thank you, sir.
>> Thank you. All right. As I said, today is the date and time scheduled for trial. All parties are here. We'll begin with opening statements. Attorney Horn.
>> Uh, the people wave opening at this time, your honor.
>> Thank you, Attorney Barton. Yes, if I may, your honor, just very briefly, um I believe the evidence is going to show in this case that uh the the order from the officer was not a lawful order. There was there was an obstruction in the road which allows him to be treated as if he were a vehicle on the roadway. With that stated, the officer goes and tells him and and it's, if I may, this is not about a a a bad cop or anything of that nature that we're trying to get to.
We're just getting to the law. The law says that the young man had, meaning my client, had the right to ride in that street area because there was an obstruction in the road, specifically in the bike lane that the officer is telling him that he needed to be in.
Once there is an interference in that lane, he's now legally able to avoid that possible injury and/or narrowed road as MCL257.657.
657 articulates bikes have roadway rights. MCL257.6608 says that bikers can move away from obstacles um that cause unsafe conditions. And so when we get into the trial, your honor, we'll show the specific unsafe condition. And with that said, we believe that there will be no reason for the uh officer to even have illegal order. And then also that there was no interference with traffic, not to mention that he was the only person on the road at that time during the day.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right, attorney Horn, who is your first witness?
>> That will be Sergeant Ters.
>> Thank you, Sergeant Ters. Please raise your right hand and swear affirm that everything you tell the court today will be the truth.
>> I do.
>> Thank you. Attorney Horn.
>> Yes. Thank you, your honor. Um, Sergeant, uh, where are you currently employed?
>> The City of Detroit Police Department, fourth precinct. And how long have you been a police officer?
>> 27 years, ma'am.
>> And during that uh 27 years um uh have you had any training as it relates to traffic?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And specifically to bicyclists?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. And um for purposes of what the subject matter of in in this case is uh what in particular um have you learned in your training as to bicyclists? Uh briefly, when there are bike lanes available, citizens are to use those bike lanes. Uh more importantly, in this incident, the individual, the defendant was riding his bicycle in the middle of vehicular traffic lane with a bicycle lane provided.
>> Okay. And um and we will get into the um the the depth of um the actual the conduct that created the issuance of these tickets. Yes.
>> Um, do are bicyclists uh held to the same standard as motor vehicles?
>> Yes, they are. They have to operate their bicycle in a safe manner as anyone would be driving a vehicle.
>> Thank you. And on July 23rd, no, Jul March 4th, 2026, were you on duty?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> At approximately 2:32 a.m.
>> That is correct.
>> And would that been in the area of Green Street and West Fort? That is correct.
>> And is that the city of Detroit?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Uh, what brought you to the area, Sergeant?
>> I was on routine patrol traveling westbound on Fort Street at that time.
>> And what did you observe at that time?
>> At that time, I observed the defendant riding a bicycle in the middle of the only lane available for vehicular traffic while bicycle lane was provided.
>> Uh, you say a bicycle lane was provided.
Um, and he was in the middle of the road as you stated. Correct.
>> Correct. Uh, were there any other vehicles around at that time?
>> I don't recall. There were no vehicles in front of us. Um, I believe one or two vehicles may have passed going eastbound, but I I can't recall.
>> And um, does an actual obstruction or blockage or interference with traffic have to happen in order for you to issue a blockading ticket?
>> No. The actual blockading was the defendant riding in the middle of the traffic lane, which even if he was authorized to ride in that lane, he would have to move over to the farthest right side of the road for vehicular traffic, which he did not.
>> Okay. And um at that time also, uh what else happened after you observed uh and let's let's back up a little bit. Um, the person that you saw that that morning, uh, are they in the virtual courtroom today?
>> Yes.
>> And can you describe something that person is wearing?
>> Uh, he had a black hoodie on in the video.
>> Okay. And what about here?
>> Uh, same thing. I believe he had a a hoodie. Uh, he's the gentleman with the beard, Mr. Plex.
>> Okay. And you recognize that as the person that you interacted with uh during this incident?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. Your honor, may the record reflect that the sergeant has identified the defendant?
>> The record will still reflect.
>> And once you uh ran into the defendant, uh what did you do?
>> When I first observed the defendant riding in the roadway, I grabbed the uh bullhorn, the microphone on my vehicle, and I gave him a warning and asked him to move into the bike lane. Uh >> and did he do that?
>> He did not.
>> Okay. And what followed after that? I gave him a second verbal warning with the microphone of the vehicle to which uh the defendant responded by taking his hands off of the handlebars of the bicycle and started operating the bicycle without his hands down the middle of the roadway >> and he continued down the middle of the roadway.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And at that point um even after those two commands um or orders that you gave him, did he get did he proceed to get on the bicycle lane?
>> No, he did not.
>> And then what else happened >> at that point? I was able there was a um a break in the construction cones. I was able to pull up alongside of Mr. plat rolled down the window of my vehicle and I asked him if he heard me via the microphone and asked him if he heard me asking him to get into the bicycle lane.
>> And what was his response to you?
>> His response to me was that there was a sign um a little bit east of us that said that the bicycle lane was closed.
And I said, I'm not aware of any sign back there that says the bike lane is closed. I said, "Would would you show me?" And we proceeded to go back east on the roadway where we first passed. And um there was a sign in the bicycle lane, but that was just a construction sign.
And then we proceed I proceeded to tell him that the bike lane was not closed and that he needs to operate his bicycle in the bike lane where it is provided.
>> And at this time, were you wearing body worn camera?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. And your honor, um, the people would request permission to publish the body worn cam. Um, first, uh, I want to lay the foundation of whose camera this is.
>> Madame prosecutor, we we would stipulate to any, uh, videos.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yep.
>> All right. Then permission to publish.
>> Yes, your honor. Thank you. Okay. And is this your body warn Cam as far as right here identified?
>> Uh, I believe so.
>> Yep. And I see the name.
>> Yes.
>> Yep. Okay, there we go.
>> Yeah, cuz you didn't look at it.
>> [ __ ] you expect me to go through that?
>> You see all the Oh, wait a minute.
You're telling me that you can't you can't slow your No, that's detour for street traffic.
>> So, you want to argue with me? Do you want me?
>> Do you want me to take your information and do you want to argue with me? All I told you was to ride in the bike lane.
>> Do I want a lawsuit? Let me see your ID.
>> I don't have it on me.
>> Oh, so you want to argue with the police when you don't have your ID and you're riding in the middle of the road? state.
>> No, you're committing an infraction right now.
>> I'm not. You're supposed to. It said the law says ride as far as possible to the right.
>> You see all of this? All of this. What's your name, sir?
>> I'm I don't I don't have to tell you.
>> Yeah, you do. Cuz you're you're detained right now.
>> Under what law did I >> radio 470? I'm at uh Green and Fort You have another car rolling this way.
What's your name?
I don't think I have to do >> Well, yeah, you do. I'm telling you.
Well, I don't care what you think. I'm telling you this bike lane, all of this construction right here.
>> What's your reason?
>> I'm not in any trouble. Just have a uncooperative individual. All of this construction was made for people like you who want to ride your bike in the street so you don't get hit and get killed by cars. Now, you have all of this >> hit and killed by this, >> my man. If you can't slow your bike down enough to avoid this minor obstacle.
>> How's Who's to say that I could even see that? If that was in the road, it would be different.
>> Well, you have a headlight on your You have a headlight on your bike, don't you? Do you have a headlight on your bike?
>> Yes, I have a headlight.
>> Yeah. Well, why don't why isn't it on?
>> It doesn't have to be. It's a bicycle.
>> Well, you're the one who said that you can't avoid obstacles. And if you have a headlight, maybe you should have it on to not hit obstacles. Does that make sense to you?
>> The obstacles shouldn't be in the bike lane.
>> It is your responsibility to control your vehicle. You see all these pylons?
We control those. You have two seconds to give me some ID or give me your name.
>> I don't think I have. What's your a reason why?
>> I told you. Put your hands behind your back.
>> I love people like you who think that you're going to tell me the law.
You got anything on you I need to know about?
>> I have a blade in my front.
>> You have a what?
>> A work blade in my front.
>> A knife. Okay.
>> And just so you know, the warning that I gave you three times, telling you not to drive in the middle of a traffic lane when there's a bike lane provided is my reasonable suspicion to talk to you.
>> Even though it's closed, >> it's not closed. That is a detour sign for vehicle traffic.
>> Why is there a sign in the road blocking?
>> It's a detour sign for vehicle traffic >> and it's blocking the bike lane.
>> That you can slow down and maneuver around. You're telling me that you can ride your bike, mind you, you were riding your bike with no hands the whole time I was behind you. So, if you're so good at riding your bike with no hands, then I have no problem believing that if you put your hands on the bike that you could go around that minor little sign right there.
>> Yeah, you should have done that when I gave you a nice warning and told you to get out of the street.
But no, you think that you're Mr. Law Johnny awesome and you know everything.
Walk over to this officer's car and give them all your information or you're going to get another charge for resisting obstructing.
>> Make sure he doesn't have any other weapons on him.
>> Yeah, I'm good.
You got any other weapons besides this knife?
Uh, there was one in there.
>> Man, you have a hard time listening, don't you?
Do you have any other weapons besides that knife?
>> Oh, you already drive.
>> Yeah. No, that's >> man.
>> Got me out here blocking trucks all because you don't want to listen. Let me tell you something, man.
I don't know where you guys get this attitude that you don't have to listen to the police.
It never works out for you guys.
>> Does he got something else on him?
I'm going to move my truck so this guy can go around. Once you get him in the seat, we'll pull off a little bit.
>> And I'm going to speed it up. Um the uh video is 23 um and 23 minutes and 53 seconds. We're at 7 minutes and 23. Um so I'll speed it up.
>> No more weapons. I don't believe so.
Anything with his name in there yet?
>> Did he give you his name yet?
I really don't understand why people think that you can just act however you want to act, especially when I'm giving you a break. All you had to say was yes, sir, and move over and let me pass. But for some reason, you've got it in your head that you you're going to argue with the police and somehow that's going to turn out good for you. How how do you how do you rationalize arguing with somebody who I've been a police officer for almost 30 years. Do you think arguing with me about something so petty is going to turn out good for you? Or do you think that maybe you should have just said, "Yeah, he's right. Let me get out of the middle of the road and move on about my day."
So >> Okay. Well, you're going to give this officer your name right now and then we're going to go from there. Sir, >> what's your what's your name? Do I have to?
>> Yes, you do. Or it's a or it's another charge.
>> Okay. We're under duress and coercion.
>> Oh, you know what? There's no duress and coercion because nobody's hurting you.
>> You are you are lawfully detained for ignoring a lawful order of a police officer. And for your information, my reasonable suspicion for stopping you is not reasonable suspicion. It's probable cause. Because I observed you violating an infraction in front of me. Do you understand? So, if you want to play jailhouse lawyer with me, you're about to get another charge of resisting, obstructing an officer, and failing to uh give your name. Do you understand?
>> I'm trying to give my name. I'm just saying it's under duress.
>> Okay. You It can be under duress all you want. So, go ahead and give your name before you catch another charge.
>> Your neighbor had a license.
Yeah. His name is your first name or your middle name?
>> That's why he hangs out out here.
>> Should call Allen Park and see if they want them.
>> Were these all issued to you when you were on a mobile?
>> They're all for repeated traffic.
>> Yeah, driving.
>> What's his last name?
>> Pl. Mr. PZ, think that I have authority over you out here as a as a government official of the state of Michigan. in the city of Detroit.
>> Unless the law provides an oath, which I don't think it is.
>> I am a duly sworn officer.
>> That's breaking the oath.
>> It's breaking the what?
>> That that is breaking.
>> Where did you go to school? Your oath.
What oath did I break of yours?
>> Your oath?
>> No, it's actually breaking my oath if I allow you to break the law in front of me and don't act.
>> If you exercise color of law, >> I'm exercising my sworn duties to uphold the laws of this city and the state, which you were in violation of after I gave you a warning.
>> I mean, we can agree to disagree.
>> I would love to have you disagree this in court before a judge.
>> I think I'm going to I I would love to hear this. going to contact the lawyer.
>> Good. I hope you do because it's all recorded.
>> And again, I don't understand where you get this this understanding that you can just do whatever you think you want to do when you're lawfully stopped by the police.
>> But but you keep that up and you see how that works out for you cuz apparently it hasn't worked out for you in Allen Park either where they gave you tickets for the same thing.
>> It was the same thing.
>> Impeding traffic.
>> I explained to him that I was driving.
>> Oh, okay. Well, you like to impede traffic whether it's in a on a car or on a bike.
No, actually I mean traffic for lawfully turning left on a yellow light because I was there.
>> Okay. Did you argue that one so vehemently with Alan Park?
>> And the copized his color of lawyer.
>> Oh, okay. So you've been arrested a few times.
>> No, I didn't cuz I didn't have the means to >> Oh. So what do you just sit on the internet and look up all these legal terms cuz you think you're going to intimidate police officers with your legal jargon?
>> So it's discriminator.
I'm sorry. You asked me something.
>> I'll just um put in there that I gave him uh several uh warnings to use the bike lane. He refused. I did not have.
>> Yeah, you did. You actually argued with me.
>> Understand why I have to use the bike lane when it's locked on.
>> It's not blocked. Okay.
>> 90% of this of of the lane in the road was blocked. You would say that's not blocked. Is that not 90%?
>> I'm sorry that you can't maneuver your little bicycle around that little thing right there. If you can't see that with this, look at this street light so brightly illuminating that little thing.
>> Okay. Well, next time >> maybe you need glasses or something.
Maybe you shouldn't ride your bike without glasses.
>> Next time on my way to work on way home from work, I'm going to ride overhead my leg and then >> Okay. So, I got it all on video now that you're attempting to defraud the city by making a false lawsuit because of your own incompetence.
>> You said it was fraud. You said I wouldn't accidentally hit it.
>> The fact that you just told me you're going to do it is not an accident. So, I'll key mark that on here.
>> Because I do something doesn't mean it won't happen as an accident.
>> Yeah. Okay. I hope that works out for you because now that's a felony fraud case.
>> Yeah. Go ahead and roll this guy's window up.
>> Good luck with that, buddy. just issued uh several warnings, refused uh got uh got argumentative about the uh bike lane, refused to give me his identification, and then that's when I called you guys over. So, I wonder if he just sits at home looking up stuff on the internet to But hey guys, this is a perfect example of someone who's going to throw a bunch of legal jargon at you to try and intimidate you. So when they do that, just make sure you know what you stopped him for and tell them because he want to sit here and argue with me about everything under the sun. So when you got your probable cause, you're good to go and just stand by it.
>> What's your 236148?
>> It didn't come up when you put my last in.
>> No, it's come up by my badge.
>> Oh yeah, in front of the badge. Yeah, that's how mine should come up.
>> You had nothing on. Oh, that's awesome.
He goes, he goes, "I can't see this." I said, "Well, if you're riding at night, maybe you should turn your little headlight on so that you can see obstructions." Well, I don't want them.
Okay. Okay. Yeah. All this traffic, all this road construction to put these bike lanes in and then they don't want to use them.
Find it. Awesome. And roll his window down real quick. Mr. PL, never once in my 30 years as a police officer have I ever bothered anybody that was just minding their own business. Okay. So, when you're out here doing the right thing, the police don't bother you. Next time a police officer asks you kindly and gives you a warning and they're polite to you, you should probably just take it and listen and stop trying to be a jail house lawyer. Stop trying to tell officers that you know the law better than them because all this stuff that you're spewing is just going to get you in more trouble one day. One of these days, you're going to sit here and actually resist an officer under this uh internet legal stuff that you guys look up and you're going to end up getting hurt because what you're doing is no good for yourself. Okay? I wish you the best, but you need to like read a book about what authority we really have out here.
Here's your ticket.
>> And for the record, your honor, that was the full uh 23 minute 53 second video um of uh Sergeant Tersak's uh body worn cam. Your honor, the people move for mission.
>> Attorney Barton, any objection?
>> No, your honor. We we stipulated to the video.
>> Yes, your honor. Thank you. And um at this time the people um have no further questions for the sergeant.
>> Attorney Barton cross >> officer and and I just want to make sure I pronounce your name right. Is it Terara Shanak or Ter?
>> Terara Shnak Tur Shanak.
>> Tur Shanak. Okay. All right. Good afternoon to you, Officer Tur Shanak.
I'm going to ask you a few questions. If you don't understand what I'm saying, please ask me to repeat. It's probably me, not you. Okay.
>> Yes, sir. All right. Now, I'm going to try and avoid being get into some things that you said in here, but you were an officer, you said, for over 30 years. Is that right?
>> Almost 30.
>> And then you said that Well, you didn't say that. What law school did you go to, sir?
>> I took law classes at Mesa Community College in Arizona.
>> Okay. So, your answer would be none.
Correct. You did not go to a law school, right?
>> No, I never brought up law school.
>> Uh, yeah. Well, you said you you love people who know the law. Correct? Isn't that right? In in your statement that you made in the video.
>> People who try and argue the law against me.
>> You can finish your statement.
>> I said, "I love people who try and argue the law against me."
>> Oh, okay. And so when you made your statement about duress and coercion requiring some type of force, you knew that wasn't the law either, right? your honor. Uh the people would object um relevance and also the officer stated that he did not go to law school and he took law classes which most officers do.
>> Uh yeah, your honor, the the reason why is that the officer is stating and I'm not trying to be petty, but there is a bit where I'm tongue and cheek trying to explain the fact that he made a false statement as it relates to the law in his own statement he made in the video.
And I'll tell you, he said duress and coercion. We're not you're not physically forced. And the reason why I'm bringing that up is because there was a back and forth of the officer and my client talking about the law where he basically bered him the entire time about his lack of knowledge of the law.
And then the officer goes and shows us his lack of knowledge of the law. So again, I'll ask the question, or rather I'll let you rule on that, judge, if you may, but that's the reason why we asked the question. You said duress and coercion required physical restraint in your comment in that video.
>> Your honor, another objection for relevance. What does this have to do with the subject matter of these tickets, the impeding the traffic and also disobeying a lawful order of the police officer? I think we're getting into sense feelings here. Well, I can tell you it goes to credibility specifically, but I can move on. It's the point is already made.
>> Disobeying of a lawful order of a police officer >> is directly tied to that officer's knowledge of the law.
>> As such, I find the defense council is allowed to question the officer as to whether he knew the applicable law that he is charging the defendant with violating. If the if the answer is I don't know, then the answer is I don't know. If he knows the law, he knows it.
If he doesn't, he doesn't. Attorney Barton, I'll allow you to rephrase your question if that is in fact the question. Uh it's not, you know, it's not the attorney's place to testify. If you have a question of the officer, then ask the question. We'll do, your honor.
Thank you. So, officer, I'll restate that question. You recall in your video explaining the law to Mr. PL as it relates to him not being under duress or coercion. Is that proper? Do you recall that?
>> I recall making a statement to which I responded to Mr. Plex's comment of being under duress and I believe my comment was that duress usually implies some type of force. I did not state any actual law. I just made a comment to him regarding that um statements he made under duress usually imply force. That's all. Do you mean physical force?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And so >> there was no physical force.
>> Right. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to cut you. It's just a delay. I apologize.
>> Okay.
>> So you are clear that that is not the law, right? that you can be under duress without physical force. Correct.
>> There there are different types of >> your honor. Objection. Relevance. When are we going to get to this?
>> I've already ruled on the relevance issue. The officer's knowledge of the law when he is charging a defendant with disobeying a lawful order issued by him is directly implicated as to whether or not this defendant violated a lawful order.
>> But as to the duress and coercion, we're going on a whole another I'm assuming given the notes on the ticket that the charge from disobeying a lawful order re related to Mr. Plex's initial refusal to provide identification. That's what's indicated in the notes on the ticket.
Mr. Plex's assertion in that interaction was that he was under duress as to providing that information. He then engaged with with Sergeant Tersino about whether or not the order for his identification was lawful given his feeling that he was under duress.
>> Defense council is now questioning the officer about that and officer Mr. Barton is asking you yes or no questions.
>> Okay. I'm sorry your honor. I I didn't he asked me to describe the law. It was my understanding of his question. Thank you. Attorney understood what duress was.
>> Let me ask the question one last time, sir, or excuse me, one more time, specifically as it relates to the duress and coercion statement that you made to the defender. You are clear that duress does not only require someone be physically restrained or forced.
Correct.
>> That is correct. And that is why I made the statement in which I said duress usually implies force. It doesn't always have to imply force though.
>> So then in the statement that he made to you saying that he was under duress, your response to him that it usually or usually does not, it was not relevant then. Right. It was relevant because I described that I had probable cause to detain him and that was the purpose for me asking for his identification.
>> And I don't want to take this too long, but just to be clear, you he's saying that he was under duress. You're saying he was not. He said, and then you respond saying he wasn't because usually it has to deal duress has to deal with force. Is that correct? I believe I said, "I'm sorry you feel that way." But usually duress and coercion imply some type of force. But I believe I said >> I got you. So we're there. We're that usually it could in this case you're saying that there was no force. Correct.
>> I'm stating I never I never applied force to him and I apologized that he felt he was under duress.
>> Okay. Just follow me officer. It's very simple questions. You said there was no, you didn't apply any force to him.
Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Does that negate the possibility of coercion or duress?
>> No, it doesn't. Because the coercion or duress could be his own feelings.
>> No, it it's the law, right?
>> Yes. But it objection argumentative. It feels like council is arguing with >> sustain. Attorney Barton. I I point on >> I'll move on. I apologize. Ron, thank you. You mentioned something about him riding with no hands. Is it illegal to do so?
>> Yes, it is.
>> Okay. And that would apply to a unicycle as well, right?
>> A unicycle?
>> Yes. Where there there are no handlebars on a unicycle? You're aware of that?
>> Honor. A question of point. Is is a unicycle involved in this particular case?
>> Well, we're asking about bicycles.
>> Is a unicycle involved in this case?
>> There's where we are. We all We all watch the same video.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. We all watch the same video.
>> Mhm.
>> Um, Mr. Plex is not facing a charge for operating the bicycle with no hands. The charges that he is facing are for disobeying the lawful order of a police officer and interfering with traffic.
That's it.
>> I got you, honor. I could focus on that.
I I just wanted to negate the minor points and then hit the major points, but we'll go right into it. So officer, are you familiar with MCL257 D or 657 and that deals with interfering in tra Sorry. Go ahead. I didn't want to interrupt. I'm sorry.
>> No, I'm sorry. Not off the top of my head.
>> Okay. Would it be fair to say >> No problem. Would it be fair to say that that deals with uh bicycles having roadway rights, meaning how bicycles are treated on the road?
if if I have no reason to doubt that if you're reading it from the statute that's what it says.
>> I appreciate that. And then also we have MCL257.660A and I'm going to ask you if well first I have to ask the foundation are you familiar with that MCL?
>> The same answer for your previous question >> which would be >> which is I don't have the statute in front of me to refresh my recollection.
So, I have no reason to argue with it if you're reading from it.
>> No problem. Thank you, sir. I'm just keeping the record clean. I wasn't trying to be petty. Um, in 66, excuse me, 2576A, it states that if the road is narrowed or if it exposes the rider to injury that that individual is allowed to move outside of that road area. Is that a fair assessment?
>> Again, if I have no reason to doubt you >> and and so I would ask, is that a fair assessment? If that's what the statute states, my statement, is that a fair assessment?
>> Objection. This is speculative. You're asking the officer to speculate as to something that he has nothing in front of him as he stated before.
>> I will sustain the objection. However, officer is instructed. If you don't know, then the answer is I don't know.
If you don't, we that's it. It's a yes, no, or I don't know.
>> Thank you. Okay. So, MCL257660660A.
Again, I'm I'm asking, is it fair to say that it gives bikers the permission to move out of a roadway when there's either an obstacle, the road is narrow?
>> The officer has already said >> asked and answered. Your honor, >> I agree. It's been asked and answered.
Attorney Barton, there may place for that at closing, but if he, you know, the officer has stated that he does not know the statute off the top of his head. Um, and now you're asking him to confirm what is or is not in the statute. He's answered, "I don't know."
It sounds like to both of the statutes that you've questioned him about. If you want to clarify that that his answer was he doesn't know what's in those statutes, then that's fine. Um, but we're not going to ask him to speculate about, you know, agreeing with you when he's already said he doesn't know.
>> Understood, your honor. Again, my apologies to the court. I'll move forward. Okay. All right. Let's just ask about these. You, just to be clear, to your knowledge, you don't need or you don't need a license to ride a bike.
Correct.
>> You need a you need the bike to be licensed technically in the city of Detroit, but you do not need a driver's license to operate a bicycle if that's your question. And you don't even need an ident an ID to ride a bicycle.
Correct?
>> Tech.
>> No, technically you do not need to carry ID in the state of Michigan.
>> And so when you said that to him, when he told you he didn't have his ID, your response was that he had committed another crime.
>> No, what I stated was that I had probable cause to investigate him for an infraction. At that point in time, he is required to identify himself.
>> All right. And then clearly there was well not clearly let me ask you didn't see anyone on the road that entire video that we showed there was only that one car at the end right that you guys let by. As I stated previously I believe there were other vehicles traveling the opposite direction. But at the time I stopped the defendant he was in front of me. There was no vehicles in front of him.
>> But he was blocking my mode of travel.
And even though I am a police vehicle, I am entitled to the same privileges as anybody else on the road. And I am considered vehicular traffic.
>> Absolutely. Now, speaking of blocking, you never gave him a blockading charge, right?
>> No, I gave him an interfering with traffic.
>> Gotcha. And then you didn't have any video of him riding down the middle of the road with his hands up or anything like that, right?
>> If the if all the video you have is there, I don't know what it recorded.
>> Well, I'm asking you. You didn't record any video to your knowledge of him riding down the middle of the street with his hands up as you stated earlier, right? Uh, the video in our car records once I either start the body warn camera or turn the lights on. Listen, >> and your honor, I would question the relevance of this question. I think we're focusing more of the interaction versus the actual conduct that uh brought aart brought about these charges. Respectfully, if we're asking, if we're saying that he was disregarding the officer's command and then the officer goes and says that not only did he dis disobey it, he went in the middle of the road. And I my question is is where where was that interaction if you interacted with him prior to stopping with him? Let me see if I can state that another way. I'm going to read the notes before we begin written on this ticket because I think it may help to focus the questioning.
>> Okay.
>> Interactions between citizens and offers officers sometimes contain a bit of back and forth, right? And so when someone is charged with disobeying the lawful order of a police officer, we've got to try to focus and figure out what is the lawful order that the officer is claiming the person disregarded or disobeyed. Here is what the notes on the ticket say that were issued by officer Turja. Issued several warnings to use provided bike lane. Mr. Pletz refused and became argumentative with officers on scene.
Initially refused to identify himself.
So there appear to be two different instances where Sergeant Tren, excuse me, Tchinuk alleges that Mr. Pletz disregarding disregarded his lawful order. I got >> one when he was ordered to use the bike lane. So questions related to that order to use the bike lane are relevant.
Second, the refusal to identify himself.
So questions related to the refusal to identify are going to be relevant.
According to the notes, those are the two ways that the sergeant has claimed Mr. Plex disobeyed his commands. And so if attorney Barton is asking the officer about the command to remove himself from the roadway, it's a relevant question because that is one of the ways that Mr. Plex is being accused of disregarding the officer's lawful order.
All right, we can keep the questions focused to those two things >> in terms of the disobeying lawful order.
>> Attorney Barton.
>> Thank you. So, Officer Ters, I'm just going to ask uh that question one more time. You just for the record, you don't have any video of my client in the middle of the road at any time without his hands or with his hands on the steering or the the handlebars at all.
Correct.
>> I do not know what was recorded.
>> Did you not watch your video, your body cam video? I just watched what we all saw here in court today.
>> Attorney Barton, the answer was I don't know. You've gotten an answer to your question.
>> I I understand your honor. I I would prefer he actually say I don't know to keep the record clean, but I will go I'll move on out of respect court.
>> Okay. Officer Chernok, I believe the question is, did your video capture images of Mr. Lex riding his bicycle in the middle of the roadway.
>> Yes, your honor. And I believe I stated I don't know what was fully recorded by my vehicle's camera.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Um, so real quick, so you talked to the client. He told you there was a a blockage or an obstruction in the roadway and then you and he went back to that location. Isn't that proper?
>> That's not proper.
>> Okay. Tell me what happened. He went Well, let me rephrase that. I'll strike that. You said that he told you a sign was in the B bike lane saying that the bike lane was blocked off. Is that proper?
>> No. He stated there was a sign in the bike lane saying that the bike lane was closed.
>> Okay. Sorry. Closed, not blocked off.
Correct. So, there was this there was a sign ahead that said the bike lane was closed or whatever have you.
He say after I gave him three after I requested he move into the bike lane three separate times. He became argumentative and said there's a sign back there that says the bike lane is closed.
>> I got you. So then you and he go back to where he alleges this sign is. Correct.
>> That's correct. I said, "Take me back there and show me because if there's a sign that says the bike lane's closed, then we're all good here."
>> Gotcha. Now, if you take a look at our screen here, this is the sign that he's talking about. Isn't that proper?
>> That was the sign he was alleging said the lane was closed.
>> Right. And we we can all see here and agree that that is not a sign that says the lane is closed. Right.
>> That is correct.
>> Okay. But we can also look here and we can see that it is obstructing the bike lane. Correct.
>> That's also correct.
>> Now, knowing that it was obstructing the bike lane, you still ordered him to go into that bike lane. Correct.
>> He was already past that point when I made contact with him. There's still more bike lane westbound of that location. Are are you do you know if there are any other in obstructions other than this sign here on that road >> from this? Well, all I can see is the the next block up. But as you can see, >> west from that sign, it's not obstructed.
>> Clearly gone back into the bike lane with no obstructions.
>> Okay. I'm respectfully, sir. I'm not going to ask you what he could have done. I'm I'm asking you what you saw that night. Not this video. that night.
Did you see any other obstructions in the bike lane on that road?
>> No. That's what I'm trying to explain to you.
>> Okay. So, this is the only obstruction you saw on that road that night in the bike lane. Correct.
>> In the area where we were traveling?
>> Yes.
>> No, there were no other obstructions that I saw.
>> Okay. All right. Now, are you familiar with this road as well, sir?
>> Well, let me go back. Let's let's strike that question. an objection, your honor, to publishing these. I did see the one before. I did not see this one, >> and I don't think it's fair that it be presented in court.
>> Well, if I may, >> I'll give attorney Barton a chance to lay the foundation.
>> I Okay, I'll do that. Although we stipulated to all of the videos, your honor, that we received, so I'm not sure.
>> Absolutely. But this is stuff that you didn't send us in discovery either.
>> Well, respectfully, this is your video.
This This is not my video. This is officer >> a still pick from the video. No ma'am, respectfully, this is the video. This is their video that they sent us >> from.
>> Yes, ma'am. But this one doesn't have any audio.
>> No, no, I got you. Still picked.
>> Yes. No, it's not a still. We just stayed here at the end of the video.
>> Gotcha. Thank you.
>> This is an actual video.
>> Am I clear to move forward respectfully, honor?
>> The objection is overruled given the explanation that this was a video provided by the city and not objected to by the defense.
>> Uh, Mr. Officer Tersog, are you familiar with the video?
>> No, you'd have to give me some street locations or something there. It It appears that that's Sport Street, but >> Well, not the street, sir. The video.
Are you familiar with taking this or are you familiar with this video being associated with your scout car?
>> Your honor, point of clarification.
Mr. Barton is showing clips. I showed a whole video to lay out the whole story.
I don't think that this this line of showing the video, if you're going to play the video, play it is a video.
These aren't pictures. It's a full video.
>> Well, haven't we already watched the full video?
>> This, I believe, is scout car. So, we have not watched the full scout cam video >> and and I can I can alleviate that because we don't have any intention other than showing that particular last segment of the video. So, I'm just laying foundation. It's not to move the video. My my apologies to madam prosecutor. So sir, I will not move the video. I will ask you, do you recall taking a video through your scout car on that particular day of the incident?
>> At what point in time when is this?
>> The question is, what did you have scout car video of the interaction with Mr. PL?
>> The scout car video should have recorded when the body cam was activated, your honor. But again, as I stated, I'm not aware of what video they have >> nonresponsive. It's a it's a yes or no question. Do you recall taking a video through your scout cam on the date of the incident?
>> And as stated to your question previously, I do not know what video was recorded.
>> So I'll just go ahead and ask. So once again, are you saying that you did not review video prior to coming your video?
>> Objection asked and answered.
Are we going to play the video or not?
Well, are you Here's here's the issue cuz now I'm confused. This is not the video that we've all watched. Is that correct?
>> No, your honor.
>> No, there's two videos, your honor.
There's body cam and then there's scout cam.
>> Okay. And we we have watched the body cam video, but we have not seen the scout cam video.
>> There's been a stipulation to admission of all video evidence that was turned over. There was no objection issued by attorney Barton. However, it was to the video. The problem is we must have a foundation that affirms that these images are coming from that video, Attorney Barton. And so the the most efficient procedure is likely to be to play the video from beginning so that officer Tina can confirm that that is in fact a scout car video.
>> Okay, we can do that. I'll try one other quick way your on the date of the incident, you do recall driving a scout vehicle. Is that correct?
>> Yes.
>> And that scout vehicle was armed or rather equipped with recording equipment?
>> Yes.
>> And it would be fair to say that you invoked that recording device at that time?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir. And now we're looking at a video right now. Does this look like a fair and accurate representation of your scout cam video or scout car video on the date of the incident?
>> Yes, it does.
>> Okay.
>> Now, I'm going to ask you, your honor, would that suffice we can move forward to publish? Well, it's already um he's he's authenticated the video.
Madam, >> yes, that that I found the foundation has been laid. Miss Horn, any objection?
>> No objections, your honor. Thank you.
Thank you, >> Madam if you could just pause it and drag it all the way to the end. 1740 mark. Now, officer, if you take a look at the screen, are you able to see the the totality of the screen where you can see the sign that says work zone beginning or work zone begins and then you can see the traffic cones to the left.
>> Yes, it says work zone beginning.
>> Okay, perfect. Now, if we were to go from right to left from that work zone begin sign, we come across the first orange cone. Can you see that orange cone is right next to the street light?
I mean, excuse me, the street sign.
>> Yes.
>> Would it be fair to say that you see that cone is in front of the bike lane?
Oh, well, let's go back a step. I'm sorry.
>> No. That road that you see where there says work zone begins, that little gully in between, that's the bike lane. Or would it be fair to say that that's the bike lane?
>> So you see where it says work zone beginning, that sign?
>> Yes, sir.
>> All that clear roadway and that giant curb, >> that is all the bike lanes.
>> Okay. So to clear answering my question, that is the bike lane right here. Right to the right where it says work zone begin.
>> Correct.
>> Correct. That's part of the bike lane.
It appears to be on Fourth Street.
>> I I I can't see what street that is in the picture.
>> That's fine. We just want to clarify that that where the arrow is, where Madame prosecutor's arrow is, that's the bike lane.
>> Yes, that is a dedicated >> I got you, sir.
>> Bike lane. So now when you go up forward to where the street sign is, that green street sign, >> there's also in that bike lane, as Madame prosecutor moves her mouse, we see that orange cone. Is that proper?
>> There is an orange cone there.
>> Are you asking me if it's blocking the bike lane?
>> Well, that just would be your opinion.
You can give it to us. Do you Is that your opinion that it is or is >> I'm not I was just trying to answer your question.
>> Go ahead. I just asked it. Is that your opinion that it's blocking or not blocking?
>> No, that is clearly not blocking the bike lane.
>> Gotcha. Okay. Where would you say that orange cone is?
>> It's to the It's to the left of the bike lane, but there is clearly enough room for someone who is operating a bicycle properly and within the guidelines of the law >> to maneuver around that cone.
>> Gotcha. So, they just to be clear, they would have to in fact maneuver around it, right? That's your assertion?
>> No, I No, not at all.
>> Okay. All right. I'm gonna move on. I'm gonna move on. I appreciate it. All right.
>> My assertion is that there is plenty of room for someone to maneuver a bicycle.
>> Officer, we understand your response. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> You're going to have to wait till I finish talking, sir. So, now you made a statement earlier that you said he quote can't maneuver around that little thing.
That little thing you were talking about was the obstruction that you agreed to ear in the bike lane. Correct.
>> To drop it at your house.
>> Yes. The orange sandbags that were marking the sign, >> right?
>> So that people could see it, >> right? And you said to him you you quote can't maneuver around that little thing.
Is that proper? It's not like older.
>> I believe I said that he should he is required by law to operate his bicycle in such a manner that he is able to maneuver around obstacles.
>> Listen guys, we all watch the same video.
>> All right, we can move forward >> and we all know what we heard on that video.
>> Right. So, let's just narrow this down and move forward. Thank you, your honor.
Appreciate it. Um, real quick. So, we agree that there was an obstruction in the bike lane. However, your assertion is that you believe he could have maneuvered around it. Maneuvered around it, right?
>> I believe if he had his >> and answer it, your honor, >> part of the problem is there are yes or no questions being asked because this is cross-examination and almost every answer is narrative in nature, which is not proper in response to cross-examination. So the answers are unclear. When a yes or no question is answer asked, the answer is yes, no, or I don't know. It's real simple.
>> My apologies, your honor.
>> Thank you.
>> You can go ahead and answer the question then, sir.
>> I'm sorry. Could you ref could you repeat that for me?
>> Sure. We agree that there was an obstruction in the bike lane, >> correct?
>> Yes.
>> Told him he just needed to, if I I quote you properly, you said he He can't just maneuver around that little thing. That's That was the question. You You told him to maneuver around it, right?
>> Like 11:30.
>> I did not tell him to maneuver around it.
>> Okay. All right. Let's move forward. You didn't measure the distance between that obstruction and the remaining component of the lane, did you?
>> What do you mean by remaining component?
the distance between the obstruction and the remaining space in the bike lane.
You did not calculate that distance, correct?
>> No, I did not.
>> Right. So, you don't know if that was a safe distance for a bicyclist or anyone to travel into. Correct. Or safe area, excuse me.
>> It had no relevance at the time because that's not where I stopped him and investigated him.
>> Had he passed that area prior to you investigating him and stopping him? I did not see him traveling at that point in time.
>> Well, I guess the logical question is is did you stop him before that obstacle or after the obstacle?
>> That's what I'm trying to say. I stopped him after we had already passed that obstacle.
>> Right. So, >> so it had no relevance to what I was investigating him for.
>> So, at Well, again, that we'll go into that. So what you So it's fair to say that the obstacle that he said prevented him from riding in the lane, you had not seen prior to stopping him. Is that proper?
>> I'm sorry. Could you say that one more time?
>> Sure. The obstacle that he said was in the lane that prevented him from riding safely in the lane. You're saying that you didn't see that obstacle prior to stopping him. Is that proper? No, it's not proper because he did not tell me he was traveling in the roadway because of an obstacle. He stated that the bike lane was closed.
>> Okay, let's ask the question and and answer the question that I'm asking. You said earlier you did not see the obstacle prior to stopping him. Is that right?
>> Correct.
So, you did not see him maneuver in or out of that bike lane in that area prior to stopping him? Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Thank you. So, with that said, now that you know there was an obstacle there, or rather, let's go back in that date. Once he showed you the obstacle was there, you knew he then had the right to evade that obstacle. Isn't that proper? If he does, >> uh, I would object for us.
>> I'm sorry. Um, for speculation. Also, it's my understanding with the video that we all watched that way they went back and looked at a sign and what the wording on that the communication was on that sign, not an obstacle.
>> Well, it it Okay, attorney Barton.
>> It seems to me that officer Tren Tret >> Ters >> Ters, thank you. Yeah, >> Persian has testified that there wasn't something to was in fact something to maneuver around >> at the point where those sandbags and and sign were located. If that's wrong, then that needs to be clarified because certainly in terms of the video that I watched, there was questioning about using a headlight, using a whatever to maneuver around this obstacle. I don't know what else to call it. That was in the bicycle lane of sandbags and a sign, right? It's either an obstacle or it's not. If if someone's on a bicycle and they keep riding straight forward, they're going to run into it. It's an obstacle.
>> I'm not saying whether or not it can be maneuvered around without entering the public roadway. I'm not answering that question, but it's an obstacle.
>> Right. And and he's admitted to that, your honor. So my question led to and I guess to answer the madam prosecutor's objection question is my question relates to the fact that he had prior or didn't have prior knowledge of the obstacle when he gave the order.
Therefore the order would not be lawful because the citizen had the right. But again I don't want to make the argument now. I'm just >> you are >> I'm trying >> that would be okay guys that's that's closing argument if when we get there.
All right. So your question was was there an obstacle in the roadway? That has been asked and answered >> as as far as I'm concerned. If you want to reask it, you can. And then your second question seemed to be was the officer aware that that particular obstacle existed at the time that he encountered Mr. Pletz for the first time?
>> Yes. That seems to be all right. So if you need clarification, please go ahead and get that so that that's clear for the record.
>> Sure. Just to be clear, sir, uh officer, you did not see the obstacle prior to stopping Mr. Plex. Is that correct?
>> That is correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. Now, and you didn't determine whether a car could safely pass um Mr. Plex with adequate clearance. Did you Can I restate that? I'm sorry. I was You didn't >> Please.
>> Yeah, no problem. You didn't determine or verify whether a car would be able to safely pass with adequate clearance in that particular location. You You did not. Is that correct?
>> In which particular location are you referring to? where you stopped him is the only location that you would have.
>> You You're asking me if I was able to determine if a vehicle could pass him at the at the position that I stopped him.
>> Correct. I'm asking, did you determine >> I absolutely determined that a vehicle could not safely maneuver around him because he was in the middle of the roadway >> where a bike lane was provided.
>> Mhm.
>> Past the obstruction that you keep speaking of.
>> He was operating a vehicle, a a bicycle in the middle of the roadway.
>> Mhm.
>> Past that obstruction that had nothing to do with why I stopped him.
>> Right. He could have maneuvered back over to the right, which is he's required to do.
>> I got you, sir. Um, but again, just to answer my question, you said earlier that you weren't sure if there were any other obstructions on the road up and down that road, right? That's the only one you saw was the one we pointed to, right?
>> I believe I testified in the area where I was at. I believe I testified that I did not see any other obstructions in the area in which I stopped him.
>> Gotcha. Thank you. And we're clear that prior to that area or even further from that area, you have no knowledge of any obstructions. Correct.
>> I believe I already answered that.
>> Answer it again, please.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> We need a record. So I we need a record.
So >> I'm sorry, your honor. It It just seems like he keeps asking me the same questions over and over.
>> That's because you're not answering. So, it seems like that. Just answer the question.
>> Okay. As I stated previously, I do not recall any other obstructions in the area where I stopped the defendant.
>> And that wasn't the question, sir. And I really want to move on.
>> Well, then could you please clarif I've never said >> this is badgering.
>> This is going This is going too far.
Quite frankly, I don't find badgering. I find a lot of problems here.
>> Thank you. There are questions being asked of a witness on crossexamination.
They are yes or no questions or I yes, no, I don't know. Did you see an obstacle earlier in the roadway? Yes, no, I can't recall. I don't know.
Instead, we're not getting clear answers. We're getting run on testimony, and I'm growing as frustrated with it as everyone else. Your honor, I I apologize if my >> No wants to be here in trial on this case for four hours today. There are questions being asked. This is direct examination. Miss Horn will have a chance to redirect.
This is Sorry. THIS IS CROSS. OKAY.
CROSS has its purpose. The defense attorney is drawing out the answers that he wants. You don't have to give him the answers he wants, but you have to give him the answer that's true. Yes. No. I don't know.
>> Your honor, I apologize. I apologize if my answers are frustrating. I I honestly do. I I just I feel like I'm being poked and prodded.
>> I understand that. That's That's what happens at trial when you're >> I I apologize, your honor. I will do my best.
>> Know that you're going to be poked and prodded at trial.
>> Again, I will do my best. Miss Horn's job is to come back and allow you to clear it up, clean it up, whatever you need to do when you finish. Okay? We're not in front of a jury. This is me. I get it. I've read the statute. I know the law. I understand how this works.
>> Again, your honor, I I completely apologize. I will do my best.
>> And your honor, for the record that people stand with the objection of badgering these is it's it's very repetitive. Some questions being asked more than five, six times. Well, the problem is there's a defense attorney trying to create a clean record, right?
A a lot of trial is about the record. We have to get clear answers to the questions and if they're not clear, he's going to keep asking because he needs a clean record. Mr. Barton, please frame your question succinctly so that they get a succinct answer. Okay.
>> Right. And don't elicit a narrative.
Yep.
>> All right. Yes. No question. So, he's giving a narrative if he chooses to.
>> Okay. Let's please continue. Okay.
>> All right. So, Officer Ters, we're at the Hold on one second. Um, we're we're at the bike lane thing. So, you you earlier or Well, let me ask you this.
You never asked my client whether he had moved into that lane to avoid the obstruction. Correct.
>> I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?
>> Sure. You never asked my client whether he moved into the main road to avoid an obstruction. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Gotcha. There was no crash that occurred. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> There was no driver that gave you a written complaint about my client intentionally blocking traffic. Correct.
>> No, sir.
>> Okay. And later on, you did not even remove the obstruction from that area where my client was ordered to riot.
Correct. No.
>> So, you left it there.
>> It's a construction zone. That's a That's a state sign that's there for detour purposes for traffic. I'm not authorized to remove it.
>> Did you notify anyone with the city or the state to move the sign because it was an obstruction?
>> No, I did not.
>> And you're clear that an officer's traffic order must be lawful and related to safety. Correct.
>> Yes. Uh, as it relates to the obstruction, um, I think we already stated that it was that my client encountered it before he encountered you, but just to be clear, uh, we're we're it's fair to say my client didn't create the obstruction, correct?
>> Not to my knowledge, no.
>> And I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be petty. I'm just keeping the record clean. And then the client did advise you that he moved I'm sorry. You never asked, but he did advise you that he moved out of the lane due to the obstruction. Is that correct?
>> I don't recall him saying that to me.
>> Okay. Do you recall what do you recall him telling you why he was not in the bike lane?
>> As I stated before, he said that there was a sign that said the bike lane was closed.
>> Gotcha.
>> And that's why he was riding in the middle of the street.
>> Okay. And so just to be clear as far as the the orders, you're not claiming that my client had no right to be on the roadway at all, right?
>> No, not at all.
>> Okay. And you're not claiming that bicycles are prohibited from being on the roadway, correct?
>> No.
>> And you're also not saying that my client was required to ride through the obstruction, right?
>> No, I'm not saying he would. No.
>> Okay. Now, as to the ID, I think we already stated that as you know, just the person riding a bike is not required to have an ID. Correct. Correct.
>> And so if he was lawfully riding his vehicle, he wouldn't have to produce an identification to you or any other officer. Right.
>> If lawfully, >> right? So if the off if the order was not proper, he would be lawfully riding.
Right.
>> Say that again. I'm sorry.
>> Sure. If if the order so say I give an unlawful order to do something for a bike rider, that means if the lawful if the order was unlawful, they still have the right to do whatever it was that I'm telling them they can't do.
>> Correct.
>> All right. Just I just want to make sure I'm done here, honor. I have everything in the moment. Uh last I think last thing you you mentioned the headlights on his bike. The headlights on the bike wouldn't move an obstacle out the way, right?
>> No, it would not move it. We mentioned about being to the right of the road and that would include or excuse me, let me ask you this. Based on the video that we saw you, it would be fair to say that there was uh construction all over that road or in that area where you were, right?
>> Sport Street Heads construction. Yes.
>> I got you. I think that covers it, your honor. One moment. Oh, I'm sorry. Last thing. There was no driver reports of any injuries or anything like that, right?
>> No.
>> Okay. Thank you. I think that covers us, your honor. No further questions from defense.
>> Thank you, Attorney Horn.
>> Yes. Thank you, your honor. Um, officer, you testified earlier that he was in the middle of the roadway, >> correct?
>> And if that bike lane, say it was um obstructed, where should he have been riding to avoid it? Even if the bike lane was obstructed, which it was not, he still has a duty to move to the far right side of the traffic lane to give the right of way to vehicular traffic that's traveling on the road.
>> Okay. And um as you approached, did he was he blocking your right of way?
>> Yes, he was in the middle of my lane of traffic. And uh you stated that you didn't see any obstructions um you know where in the lane that you were in um as you were riding. Um and you asked him what did you ask him? You asked him to move into the bike lane.
>> Yes.
>> And how many times did you ask that question?
>> I gave I asked him twice to move into the bike lane via the uh loudspeaker on my vehicle.
Then a third time once the traffic cones where there was a space for vehicles to turn left, I pulled up alongside of him and rolled my window down and asked him a third time and said he needs to be in the bike lane. And then that's when he began arguing with me. And at that time before the argument start started in the LA the third command uh that you had given him to properly use the bike lane uh had you had any intentions on giving him a ticket?
>> No, not at all. I'm just >> No further questions, your honor.
>> Thank you. Right.
>> A very brief redirect, your honor. Um again, you said >> is that is that a thing, your honor?
It's I got what he meant. It's recross and as long as he doesn't exceed his >> I'm going to allow >> I'm sorry.
>> It's very brief. Very brief. Recross.
Excuse me.
>> Um you said the middle of the road, etc. Again, we don't have any video of that of that encounter of him in the middle of the road, right?
>> I don't know what was recorded on the on the dash cam or the body cam. and the people would object to the middle of the road. Um, for a long time, ever since even uh before the criminal law was codified, we have def we have depended on witness testimony. So whether or not we have video or if we don't have it, we don't have it.
>> Well, respectfully, your honor, I'm I'm asking.
>> It's just a question. It's just a question. Is is there video of it?
That's it.
>> That's it. And just so the question was you didn't have any Oh, I'm sorry. He answered it. I believe he said he essentially said he didn't know. Right.
Got it.
>> Let's, you know, you've had your cross, so let's finish up.
>> Very last question was just that the the middle lane, quote unquote, you said him he was riding in the middle of the road, but we are clear that there was construction on the road narrowing the road. Is that fair to say?
>> In order to answer that, that's not a yes or no answer. I I would have to describe >> that's 100% a yes or no answer. Is there construction on the road narrowing the road, making the road less wide than it would be had that construction not been there? It's a yes or no question. Very simple.
>> Are you asking me if it narrowed the lane of travel or the entire roadway?
>> May I ask a clar clarifying question?
Does the construction on the road lessen the area upon which vehicles have to travel on that road?
>> That's kind of what I was asking uh defense attorney because the construction, yes, narrows the road, but the cones and the curb for the bike lane still establish a well established lane of travel for vehicles.
>> So that's what I was trying to clarify.
All right. So just to answer my question, the road itself, I understand what you're saying. The road itself is narrowed by the construction. Is that correct?
>> No. Technically, no, it's not. The only thing that's >> That's fine. That's >> okay.
>> That's fine. That's your answer. That's >> That's why I said I'm I'm trying to help you out.
>> No, you know what? Let Let's help out.
Last one. If we pull up that video at the 1740 mark and we look at that road, you're telling me that that road and those cones do not block the normal flow of traffic.
>> What I'm telling you is that the construction, >> your honor, I would object because he didn't ask whether it blocked the normal flow of traffic. The question was whether it narrowed. Is that correct?
>> Let's Yeah, let's do this. Strike those.
Let's do a very simple question. With the construction on the road, does it alter, narrow, or change the ability or the total space for off for any driver to I think he left, your honor. I think we lost him.
>> We did.
>> We did. My apologies.
>> Battery or something. All right. We'll wait for >> Okay. Nothing happened without you.
>> I'm sorry, ma'am. My phone dropped.
>> Good.
>> No problem. Very last question, sir.
Very briefly.
>> Yes.
>> And you can take a look at the video of the 1740 mark of video number two from the SC. I'm asking you on that road, was that road narrowed or obstructed in any way that would limit a driver from the normal road that was there?
That's >> Let's ask strike that >> your your term of narrowing >> on the road where the cones are. Can you drive a car where the cones are on that road?
>> You could, but you would go into the construction zone.
>> Let's Let's try and I'm >> Attorney Barton, I understand your question. I understand. Again, we've watched the video. You're asking um Tersek, Officer Tersuk, if you know for his subjective opinion about whether or not it narrows the road. Objectively in the video, one can see that construction is going to make less road available to the vehicles. And depending upon where those barrels are sitting, it may be by narrowing. Um because otherwise, as as Sergeant has testified, you could keep driving, but you're going to drive into construction and maybe into an orange barrel. We hit. Okay.
>> We We'll make the arguments at closing.
Thank you, your honor. That was all.
Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything further?
>> Nothing further from the people. Thank you, your honor.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, uh, Sergeant.
>> Sergeant T.
>> Thank you, your honor.
>> And what about Mr. Plet? Attorney Barton.
>> Yes.
>> Are you calling witnesses?
>> No, your honor. No.
>> All right.
>> Thank you. Right, Mr. Pledge, go ahead and activate your camera, please. We'll move on to closing arguments. Attorney Horn, let's make sure Mr. Plet is still with us just because I'm not getting video or audio. There we go. Okay.
Attorney Horn.
>> Thank you, honor. Um, uh, the people have, um, shown that Mr. Pletz, uh, was riding in the middle of the roadway, whether it was narrower or not. He even admitted himself in the video, uh, that he should have been he should be to the farthest right. Officer uh Sergeant Terich Teranak also testified that if the bike uh way was not available that he would be should be to the far right.
Mr. Plex's and his bike as he was riding were in the middle of the roadway and blocked the officer. The officer is also, you know, a citizen um with rights uh motor vehicle rights um and and a bike should not have been there whether the it was narrower or not. there was mentioned to be an obstruction that he had gotten past already and didn't uh Mr. P was not complaining that there was an obstruction. He actually thought the bike lane was closed um and he may have hopped off the pathway. We don't know if that's where he started. Um but we do know that when officer uh Tyrann say when Sergeant um asked him to get on the bike lane and use that bike lane three times, he he refused to do so. and as a matter of fact uh commenced to arguing with the officer. Um officer testified that he was not even seeking to give a ticket and I can understand why. We're talking about 2:32 a.m. in the morning.
Um and so uh that argument ensued and the interaction ensued uh at the uh at the instance of Mr. Plet. Um there's some video that is missing and and that happens. Um but for centuries we've used the uh testimony of the witnesses um to flesh out cases. Um the question here outside of any um red herrings that I found um personally or uh professionally um was number one was a off was a lawful order made. Yes it was. The statute provides 257602 of the Michigan legislature states, "A person shall not refuse to comply with a lawful order or direction of a police officer when that officer for public interest and safety is guiding, directing, controlling, or regulating traffic on the highways of this state.
West Fort Street is a public roadway in the city of Detroit, and that's where Miss uh Sergeant was on duty, and he was directing traffic. um while he may have been the only vehicle that was um blocked um he was in fact blocked while he approached Mr. Plet's bike. In addition to um the the lawfulness of the order is it came from him regulating traffic as far as interference with normal flow. Uh Sergeant testified that he was interfering with his own flow.
Um, you know, and so that is impeding just by nature of a pedestrian or even a a vehicle blocking uh blocking traffic being in the middle of the roadway and he still could have been to the far right no matter how narrow the roadway was. Outside of that, these are the issues that are here. Um, as far as the obstruction, I I think that's something that was thrown into the picture because I don't think in the video nor was it stated here until um it formed into an obstruction. I think the issue was that the he believed that the roadway was closed. The bike lane was closed. Um he didn't complain about any obstructions um on the scene. He didn't complain about uh you know not being able to get through somewhere. And at that point he had already got past that. So if he'd already gotten past that, why are we using it as an obstruction now? All the officer did was say, "Hey, please hop on the bike lane." And like I said, if that's where he started, I believe the people have proven um the burden beyond a reasonable doubt and by the preponderance of the evidence that he had impeded traffic. Thank you, your honor.
>> Thank you, Attorney Barton.
>> Thank you, your honor. Um Y, at this point in time, we just want to make the the very clear arguments as it relates to the two components that the court, the bike lane and the ID. We'll get to the third component which is credibility after. So the bike lane itself, your honor, we've already concluded that there was an obstruction. How and to what degree down the road there were further instruction obstructions. My client would not know once he approached signal obstruction. He would have to do what any other logical driver would do, which is to be in a safe distance, which is where he placed himself. a safe distance from that obstacle. And we saw the distance, we looked at it on the camera, it was about yay big. So, in order for his bike to go through that distance, literally his pedals would be on both sides of that little pier, meaning that the only the tire would be able to get through. So, as it relates to safety, the MCL says that a biker has as a motorist as well, just not a biker, but a a motorist has the right to a safe passage and it has to be reasonable. So, again, when the officer says, "Hey, the guy told me that there was a sign that said this road was closed." And we go back there and we see it wasn't closed, he's missing the reasonable component of it. It was blocked. It was still obstructed. So instead of him taking that time to, as he said, he's an officer of 30 years and taking that time to deescalate, he re-escalated and then he continued to berate this man, calling him a clown, a beach hippie, alleging fraud. It it was it was pretty egregious. However, they said that there was 2 it was 2:00 a.m. and there's no cars on the road. That was the point cuz there was no interference in traffic.
And if the officer is saying he was interfered with in traffic, then the officer should know that again cuz he loves people who knows the law, he should know the law that he has to give the bicyclist 3 ft of space as per the um MCL uh excuse me, I'm sorry, I want to make sure I quote it properly. Um, the Michigan Vehicle Code Act 300 of 1949.
It's 257636, overtaking and passing vehicles. So, the officer should have known that had he known the law, that he was in the wrong, if he thinks he was the vehicle that was not giving safe passage. Second, your honor, we asked about the video, not because we don't believe that not having the video uh should allow for a dismissal. What we're saying is is if the young man was in the road, you're saying that you had your body cam on, there's a scout car, and not one video of this occurring. The only video you have is after you and him are arguing, which insinuates, going back to the third component of credibility, that there's a lack of credibility in this particular officer statement. And we know that for a fact based on the fact that it took him 30 minutes to answer yes or no questions. Let's move on. The next thing is is the ID. So, as far as the bike lane is concerned, we have already gotten him to admit that there was an obstruction. He's already ruled that 257660A says that the cyclist has the right uh excuse me, it has the right to um and if there is an unsafe or unreasonably safe road, then they can maneuver around it.
Right? So, we know that for sure. And we also know MCL257657 says that bicyclists on the road are operating as if they had the same duties as a driver. Right? So we've got that.
Now the ID, they're saying that he had a lawful order. Well, we've already established that the order wasn't lawful because the young man had the right to not be in that bike lane due to the obstruction. We know that it was an obstruction. He agreed. And we also know that they didn't even go forward to try and remove the obstruction afterwards.
So, I'm assuming somebody else is probably dealing with that same situation. However, if there was no lawful order, then there was no lawful requirement for him to give an ID. Very clear, very specific, and I even asked it, although there was an option to object to speculation, he still answered it. He still answered it because it was a logical question. If he was riding lawfully, would he have to provide ID?
No. That was his answer. And that's the law. That's true. So now we know he was lawfully able to avoid that bike lane.
For what distance, we don't know because we don't know to what degree the obstruction could have occurred down the road. The officer says he didn't see any obstruction. And then the young man bought him to the obstruction. And now he's saying, "Okay, well, yeah, but it's only here." Well, how does he know that?
How no how long how does he know how what distance this young man was traveling before he got to where the officer was for him to say there's no other obstructions? Maybe this young man ran across several obstructions down that road and he just used logic that said, "Hey, it's 2:00 in the morning.
I'm going to run into one of these obstructions. Let me move over. There are no cars in the road." Last thing again I'm going to your honor is to the credibility and again I say this with all due respect. I'm I'm I work with officers all the time. I work with ceasefire. I'm former state prosecutor myself. What I'm saying is is that as it relates to the credibility of this particular officer. It was very clear that my client violated the number one rule which was pissing off an officer.
That's it. That's all he did. He made this guy upset and he did not want to take it from he didn't want to deescalate from there cuz he thought he was doing him a favor. He thought he was just going to, hey man, I'm just telling you get out the road. I'm helping you out, etc., etc. But no, he wasn't helping him out. When the guy gave him push back, when my client gave him push back and told him the actual law, then he started to berate him on on internet law and all that. So again, your honor, I just want to make sure that we're clear. MCL2567 says he can operate as a vehicle.
MCL2567660A says that the cyclist can, if I may, a cyclist riding slower than traffic generally must ride a side as close to the edge as practical, the right-handed curb or edge of the roadway except when conditions make the right edge unsafe or unreasonable to use. That's why I asked the officer and it took us 30 minutes to get a yes or no question that we can see on the video. Was their construction narrowing the road in any way? Was the road no longer the way it was intended as it was designed and the construction cones changed or altered that? Very simple question. And yet the credibility of the officer allowed him to be evasive to that. Why? because he knows MCL257660A says if that was narrowed that changes the dynamic of where he is to go to the right or left because it's not safe. So with that said your honor we would respectfully ask that they dismiss these charges all both of the charges because one leads to the other. One was that he disobeyed lawful order. There was no lawful order evidenced by um the officer stating that there was an obstruction.
Second off, that he failed to present ID, which is again improper because he was not required to present ID. With those stated, your honor, we would respectfully ask that the court dismiss all of the relevant charges. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. Um >> rebuttal, your honor.
>> All right, I'll allow rebuttal.
>> Okay. Uh thank you, your honor. Um in this particular case, there was a lawful order given and it was simply to please get back on the bike lane. Um, and if not, if you're riding near the curb or close to the curb, farthest right of the traffic, um, that it was talked about here, that that would have likely been okay. But in this case, he was riding in the middle in the front of the officer's vehicle um, in the very front. And so, while he decided to um, jump, we don't even know where he started. We don't even know if he started on the bike lane, but >> the reason his reasons this is this is closing. Miss Horn is speaking. Stop.
>> Objecting to facts not in the record, your honor. There was no >> right and we don't even know where he started. So, as far as being in the roadway, um this is what the officer testified to. He was in the middle of the roadway. He was not in the bike lane, but some of the argument is that he was not in the bike lane for some justification. However, he was no safer in the middle of the street at 2:30 in the morning. Um and officer was not trying to pass him. So, as far as being safe passage and enough room, the officer was not trying to pass him. The officer was giving a lawful order to use the bike lane instead of the middle of the road. The officer did not testify that he had 30 years of experience on the force. He testified that it was 27 years. And in the video, he said close to 30. I think when we round up, when we all do math, 27 years is close to 30, but he never said that he had 30 years.
Um, and that's just to make a clarification for the record. the officer testified. When I asked him how long had he been a police officer, he said 27 years. Um, so I'm just making that clarification. However, here, uh, uh, Mr. P was in the middle of the road.
He got a lawful order from the police and he repeatedly refused to identify himself. While the defense may feel that it was not lawful for him to pull him over because he was doing everything right, even with and even if he wasn't, he has a justification for doing what he did. However, when a police officer asks you to identify yourself, that is a lawful order for investigation purposes only, and he was merely detained. Thank you, your honor.
>> Thank you. All right, we'll take these one at a time. First, let's deal with the interference with traffic. What the law says, and part of the issue is that we're dealing with subjective judgment all around here from the cyclist to the officer to those of us who are viewing the video. And that's because the law is framed subjectively in this kind of a case. What it says is that they are to ride as close as practicable. Right?
Practicable. There goes the first subjectivity. What's practicable to you may not be what's practable practicable to me. They are to ride as close as practicable to the right hand curve or edge of the roadway. Your second part is all of us who've been to law school know about elements when traveling slower than surrounding traffic. That's the second element. Was he as far right as practicable? Was he traveling slower than other traffic? Then there are the exceptions. Overtaking, making a left turn. Here's the big one for us today.
Avoiding hazards and one-way streets.
Those things allow the cyclist to leave the right curve in terms of practicability. I have the great privilege of traveling Fort Street.
That's a joke because it is the bane of my existence on days when I have to do it, especially at 2:30ish in the morning. It is full of construction. It is full of barrels. It is full of detours and arrows and lights that make it very difficult to navigate in that area. It is difficult to imagine that what a cyclist is expected to do rather than following a straight quarter course of action allowing him to avoid the obstacle that's here. Weave back in, avoid the next obstacle that occurs in the next two feet, weave back in, weave back out. As a cyclist, I don't know that that what is what a cyclist would determine is practicable in terms of staying close to the right hand curve.
Clearly that sign was there with sandbags. And we can argue semantics about whether detour means closed or closed means detour, right? But as drivers, if we see a detour sign, we generally move. That's what a detour says. Even if it doesn't say closed, it means move somewhere else. You're detourred. And so we have a cyclist who saw a detour sign according to to him or his attorney and moved. So then the question is, should should he have moved back in, right? Or by not moving back in, was he obstructing traffic? And here's what was very telling to me, and I wrote it down in terms of the first video that was shown. Between 17 minutes and 5 seconds and 17 minutes and 7 seconds, when police cars were sitting in the lane, a large oil tanker truck went by traveling the exact same direction. If that large oil tanker was not obstructed by numerous police cars and individuals in the roadway, it's difficult for me to understand how one cyclist obstructs traffic if a tanker can still get by cuz it did. It caught my attention because of what we're examining today. It's a huge truck. I invite you to go back and watch the video if you doubt what I'm saying. So somehow traffic is not obstructed by large vehicles, police cars, but is obstructed by a a single cyclist? I don't think so. An officer, as it was phrased, kindly asking you to do something or giving you a friendly reminder to do something might be nice, but that doesn't turn a request into a lawful order simply because it's coming from an officer. It still has to have its basis in the law. Sergeant Tersino testified under cross-examination that he was not familiar off the top of his head with the very statutes that are applicable to this case today.
Absolutely. That was your testimony, officer. And if you don't want me to address you, then keep a co keep a poker face because that was absolutely your testimony. We went over it many times where the answer was yes, no, or I don't know. read >> the question was directly about the statutes and the content of the statutes and the answer was I don't know off the top of my head and that's okay I don't keep a book of statutes in my head either and it's way easier to keep the general rule in your head than all of the exceptions and here we have numerous exceptions that Mr. PL was relying upon the biggest one being I could not travel in the bike lane because there were obstructions in the bike lane. Whether we think it was enough room to maneuver around or his headlight should have lit it up for him. You know, I have a disease where I have vision issues. I don't know. I can't imputee my ability to see to everyone else. What we can see though is that there was an obstruction in the bike lane. And what was clear by the end of the second video that was shown, as we all know Fort Street to be right now, is that it is full of obstructions everywhere. That barrel appeared to be very close to the bike lane at the end of the video. Now, Officer Church saw it in person. Maybe it was further to the left than it appears to me. Maybe to Mr. Plet, who was further back and not looking at a still photo of it as we are. He sees another obstruction in the bike lane.
So, he's traveling the roadway until he gets past the obstructions that would cause him to quite frankly not maintain a single course, but be dodging in and out of traffic to avoid every obstacle in that bike lane, in that roadway.
There is a practicality to the law. It's supposed to make sense. It's supposed to protect people and not endanger people.
And if we are trying to say I mean that's the only alternative because we know that there's construction and obstructions all over that place. So the alternative is to say well Mr. P should have just been dodging in and out on the bike lane when he could, off the bike lane when he couldn't, on the bike lane when he could, off the bike lane when he couldn't at 2:30 in the morning when there are possibly drunk drivers. All kinds of people could be on the street, although there didn't appear to be many that night. I don't know. I mean, I could say more. I think it'll just muddy the record. I I was, you know, I don't think that unfortunately is something that we have to advise people, but we should not be saying to people when an officer kindly asks you to do something or gives you a friendly reminder, you just do it or it's going to turn out bad for you.
That's not the kind of place that we're supposed to live in. It's okay for people to know their rights. You don't even have to take a bar exam in every state in this country to be a lawyer.
You don't have to go to law school in every state. Law is still done in some places through learning and apprenticeship. There are smart people who study and learn the law. There are quote unquote jailhouse lawyers that could go toe-to-toe with any of us in this courtroom today. I do not find that Mr. Pletz interfered with traffic. I do not find that Mr. Pletz disobeyed the lawful order of a police officer. Just so it's clear, I believe that Mr. his actions fell within the exception of the statute rendering the order for him to return to the bike lane unlawful. I do not believe that there is a violation here. My finding is not guilty.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, your honor.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, councel.
Thank you, Sergeant.
>> All right. You guys have a good Thank you, Sergeant. You guys have a great day. Thank you.
>> Okay. Two.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
