Cuffed for Asking a Cop to Turn Off His Spotlight — His Own SERGEANT Filed the Complaint

Sacramento, California, 4 a.m., February 9, 2022. A man asks a police officer to take his spotlight off his face, and ends up in handcuffs in the back of a patrol car. He was standing at the passenger door of a parked Toyota outside a laundromat. He was released about twenty minutes after the officer first told him to turn around, with no charge. The department published six cameras and two recorded interviews. On November 30, 2022, it sustained four of the five allegations against the officer (improper search and seizure, discourtesy, conduct unbecoming, improper tactics), found the force allegation unfounded, and wrote: "You did not have legal cause to continue detaining Mr. [name redacted] after you had identified him and conducted records checks." The officer got a letter of reprimand and retraining. The complaint itself was written by the officer's own sergeant, at 5:33 the next morning. The man never spoke to Internal Affairs: they could not reach him. So when can an officer keep holding you? On screen and read aloud: Florida v. Royer (1983), Arizona v. Johnson (2009), People v. Stier (2008), Kolender v. Lawson (1983) and Hiibel (2004), then the three places where the rule stops. The department's side is in the video too: the no-loitering sign, the complaints about drugs, and the officer's own account. CHAPTERS 00:00 "I just asked you to take the light off my face" 00:37 A light on his face, a laundromat, 4 a.m. 01:13 What each of the six cameras saw 02:48 The back seat, and a threat to tow 06:38 They know who he is. He stays cuffed 07:14 The sergeant asks for the reason 09:43 The sergeant defends the stop 12:09 Florida v. Royer: the text 13:00 The pat-down and the handcuffs 13:37 Where the rule stops: three places 14:30 The sergeant's e-mail: "Complaint" 17:40 The sentence that decides the case 18:53 "Give me his name": Kolender and Hiibel 19:31 A verdict, person by person SOURCES — FOOTAGE Every recording in this video was released by the Sacramento Police Department on its own channel on Sept. 6, 2024 (file IAD2022-039). Full playlist:    • IAD2022-039 Improper Search and Seizure Fe...   0:00 — The officer's in-car camera (front):    • IAD2022-039 Improper Search and Seizure Fe...   0:09 — The officer's body camera:    • IAD2022-039 Improper Search and Seizure Fe...   0:19 — The cover officer's body camera:    • IAD2022-039 Improper Search and Seizure Fe...   0:37 — The cover officer's in-car camera:    • IAD2022-039 Improper Search and Seizure Fe...   1:07 — The sergeant's body camera:    • IAD2022-039 Improper Search and Seizure Fe...   4:58 — The officer's in-car camera (rear seat):    • IAD2022-039 Improper Search and Seizure Fe...   14:54 — Internal Affairs' call to the man (audio):    • IAD2022-039 Improper Search and Seizure Fe...   15:29 — Internal Affairs interview of the officer, Aug. 24, 2022 (audio):    • IAD2022-039 Improper Search and Seizure Fe...   16:51 — Internal Affairs interview of the cover officer, Aug. 17, 2022 (audio):    • IAD2022-039 Improper Search and Seizure Fe...   SOURCES — RECORD • Sacramento Police Department, Internal Affairs file IAD2022-039 (Improper Search and Seizure, complaint of February 10, 2022): the complaint e-mail, the Internal Affairs log and summary, the patrol-unit message log, the compelled interviews of the officer and the cover officer, the Letter of Reprimand, and the Office of Public Safety Accountability's close-out of December 13, 2022. Published by the department, September 6, 2024: https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/police/po... • California Penal Code § 832.7(b)(1)(E), the law that opens files with a sustained finding of an unlawful arrest or an unlawful search, as in force on February 9, 2022. • Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983); Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009); People v. Stier, 168 Cal.App.4th 21 (2008); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983); Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). • California Vehicle Code § 22651(o)(1)(A), the text in force in 2022, on towing a car for an expired registration. ⚠️ DISCLAIMER This video explains public records and published law. It is legal information, not legal advice. The department's findings are stated as the department wrote them. No court has ruled on this stop: there was no charge and no trial, and nothing here says what a court would decide. The man's name is redacted in the file, and the officers, the investigators and the driver are not named here either. A message sent between patrol units four hours before the stop is shown as the file records it; the file does not say who typed it, and does not say the man was homeless. Anyone facing a stop or a charge should talk to a lawyer licensed in their state. Every episode: one encounter, one statute or one holding, read out loud with the text on screen. Subscribe if that is the version you want. #Bodycam #Sacramento #JohnNoven