Judge Catches the Hole in a Cop’s Story — His Own Body Cam EXPOSES Him in Court!

On February 4th, 2025 in Lansing, Michigan, a man named Lance Richmond was driving through the city when a police officer pulled him over for one thing: the tint on his windows. Not a felony, not even a crime—a civil infraction, the kind of thing that ends in a ticket or a warning.

Richmond handed over his license, his registration, and his insurance. He answered every question he was asked, and a few minutes later, he was yanked out of his own car by force, in handcuffs, under arrest, and charged with three felonies. The officer was Bailey Ueberroth. What he did on that stop and what he swore to about it under oath are two very different stories.

Because at a hearing in the 54A District Court, Richmond’s attorney did something simple: he put the officer on the stand, and then he played the officer’s own body camera back to him. By the end, the officer had been caught by his own words, his own report, and his own camera. And even the judge from the bench stopped to ask him a question he could not answer.

For over 30 years, I sat on the bench. The law gives a police officer enormous room on a traffic stop—more than most people realize—but it draws a few hard lines. Watch an officer cross every one of them over a pair of tinted windows.

“On the record in the matter of the State of Michigan versus Lance Richmond, 25-02158. Appearances.”

“Thank you, your Honor. May it please the court, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Dan Smith here on behalf of the People of the State of Michigan.”

“Your Honor, Jamie White here on behalf of the defendant Lance Richmond, who is seated to my left for examination. I understand that the officer is here now, ready to proceed.”

“Uh yes, that’s correct.”

“Affirm the testimony you’re going to give is the truth and the whole truth under penalty of perjury?”

“I do.”

“Okay. State your first and last name and spell both.”

“Sergeant Bailey Ueberroth. B-A-I-L-E-Y U-E-V-E-R-R-O-T-H.”

“Good afternoon. Uh do you mind if I use your first name?”

“Absolutely.”

“Uh are you currently employed?”

“I am.”

“And uh where are you currently employed?”

“The city of Lansing Police Department.”

“And what is your assignment there?”

“Currently I’m a sergeant with the makeshift patrol.”

“Okay. And how long have you been a sergeant?”

“Since January of this year.”

“Okay. And were you on duty on February 4th of—And what was your assignment on February 4th of 2025?”

“Uh I was uh my rank was an officer and I was assigned as a community policing division.”

“And were you on patrol on February 4th of 2025?”

“Yes.”

“Uh in that capacity?”

“Yes.”

“And uh did your tour of duty take you to uh South Martin Luther King Boulevard and West uh St. Joseph Street?”

“Yes.”

“And is that in the city of Lansing?”

“Yes.”

“Uh Ingham County?”

“Yes.”

“State of Michigan?”

“Yes.”

“And is there someone present in the courtroom today that you recognize from that time you met at that location?”

“Yes.”

“Can you point that individual out and describe an article?”

“Uh he’s sitting over there in—”

“Your Honor, may the record reflect that the witness has identified the defendant.”

“The record will reflect.”

“So, um, once you see this vehicle with the window tint and you make an assessment that you’re going to stop, what happened next?”

“I initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle. Vehicle pulled over and I made contact with the driver.”

“And you got the registration and the insurance as well?”

“I do.”

“Perfect. You mind grabbing that for me? You don’t have any firearms or nothing in the vehicle, do you?”

“No.”

“Okay. How about any narcotics?”

“No.”

“Okay. Any marijuana?”

“No.”

“All right. Perfect. Hey, so here’s what I’m going to have you do. Okay. While I run this stuff, uh I’m going to have you step out the vehicle and we’re going to um chat over here.”

“Yes.”

“Turn the car off. Step out the vehicle. I’m going to tell you one time and one time only: get out the car.”

“Sir, do you have a—”

“Pennsylvania versus Mimms. Step out the car.”

“Okay. And um I assume now you’re at the driver’s side window.”

“Yes.”

“And then and then what happened?”

“I asked the driver for his license, registration, insurance, which he provided. Uh at the same time, our K9 officer arrived on scene simultaneously. Standard practice. Um we do a free air sniff for officer safety reasons. We don’t want anybody in the car when we’re running around. So, I uh asked the driver to step out of the vehicle, which he then said no and glared directly at his steering wheel as if he was going to drive away.”

“Okay. And uh in your training and experience, uh when an individual who you ask out of a car when they do that, what what does that give you any indication?”

“Yes.”

Here is a piece of law that surprises most people, and police use it constantly. Under a Supreme Court case, Pennsylvania versus Mimms, an officer on a traffic stop can order the driver out of the car without needing any special reason beyond the stop itself. So yes, technically he was allowed to say get out. And normally you do have to comply, but hold on, because that is only half of it.

The part that matters most is why he wanted Richmond out. It was not for the tint. It was to run a drug dog around the car, which, as you will see, he had no right to do. So, he reached in, unbuckled the seat belt, dragged Richmond out of his own car, and charged him with a felony for it. And when the reason behind an order is unlawful, refusing it is not obstruction. Mimms lets an officer say, “Step out.” It was never meant to be a tool to haul a man out of his seat and call it a crime.

“And what was the defendant’s demeanor at the time?”

“Uh, initially he was cooperative when he provided me the documents. Um, but when I did ask him, he said no, kind of gripped the steering wheel, looked straight ahead and did not comply.”

“And uh you said that you were going to do a a a sniff of the vehicle. Is it the policy? Uh what’s the normal policy when uh when that happens?”

“Yep. So like I mentioned before, it’s an officer safety reason that we have all the occupants step out of the vehicle so the K9 handler can safely run the dog around the vehicle while we’re doing our routine steps for checking driving history, uh warrants, vehicle status, insurance—”

“And that’s for the safety of the K9 officer, the K9, and the and the defendant.”

“Correct.”

“Um as well as officer safety. Uh so you asked the defendant to step out, and then what happened?”

“When he said no, uh and looked straight ahead while grabbing the steering wheel, uh from my training experience, I thought that he was a potential flight risk. So I uh reached into the vehicle, I undid his seat belt, and um hands on him, extracted from the vehicle and told him he was under arrest for obstruction.”

“He says no. They’re trying to get him out of the vehicle. What happens next?”

“I successfully removed him from the vehicle and then secured him in handcuffs. Um once he was secured in handcuffs, my partner, Officer Weller, and I um completed a search incident to arrest. Um he was wearing a fanny pack waistband, and inside the fanny pack, Officer Weller immediately removed two uh bags of suspected—”

“Did Officer Weller’s search have anything to do with whether or not you were going to arrest the defendant?”

“Your Honor, that calls for speculation.”

“Question is the the K9 you said what—”

“The the officer the uh any search by offic—”

“K9 unit.”

“So just for my clarification, Officer Robertson is the one who was with the K9?”

“Yes.”

“And your question is whether or not the K9 search had anything to do with whether or not he was going to arrest?”

“Yes.”

“Your objection is just speculation.”

“You know, yeah, I mean it’s evidence not—”

“Yeah. I mean, he’s asking him to state a state-of-mind question based on evidence that hasn’t been brought in, and that particular witness is not available to testify.”

“I think he’s I get your point. I think his question was supposed to be, or it was posed I believe to ask what was going on in his mind, not Robertson’s mind. Am I correct?”

“So maybe you want to clarify that question, because I think the way it’s stated, it could call for speculation as to what’s going on in Officer Robertson’s mind.”

“Okay.”

“Which would be speculation, but um you can ask it directly as it relates to him.”

“Um, when you made the arrest to you, was there a sufficient basis for the defendant’s arrest before a canine sniff or search happened?”

“Yes. Yes. The arrest took place before the canine.”

“Um, and you made that arrest based off of your observations of what happened on scene before a K9 was uh uh used to to uh to sniff the vehicle to uh sniff?”

“Okay. Um, and you said that the K9 they were on the scene simultaneously. They they were at the scene at the same time.”

“Correct. The K9 was on scene simultaneously, not prolonging the—”

“Okay. Um, and did you have any other uh duties or did you do any other investigation related to the incident?”

“No.”

“Okay. Thank you. No further questions.”

“I’m just a little confused I guess on your last question then, because you asked him was there sufficient basis for arrest prior to the K9. You said yes, but my understanding is why there was an arrest was for resisting because he refused to get out of the vehicle so that the K9 could search.”

“Correct.”

“So I’m not sure that I’m following how was there sufficient basis for arrest prior to the K9, because the arrest was precipitated for his failure to comply for the K9.”

“Correct.”

Now listen closely, because this is not the defense attorney talking. This is the judge. The prosecutor had just walked the officer into saying there was a solid basis to arrest Richmond before the drug dog ever did anything, and the judge stops him cold because the logic runs in a circle.

Why was Richmond pulled out of the car? So a canine could sniff it. Why was he arrested for obstruction? For not getting out fast enough for that same canine. So, the crime is refusing the thing that was questionable in the first place.

And this matters even more in Michigan than in most states. Under a case called People versus Moreno, the Michigan Supreme Court held that you keep the right to resist an unlawful arrest. So, if the command was not lawful, refusing it is not obstruction at all. The judge saw that circle before anyone drew it for her. Remember that, because that felony obstruction charge is not going to survive.

“Correct. Well, to get out of the car. So, the K9 had not been taken out of the car yet. The canine officer was on scene. Standard practice is that we’ll remove everyone out of the vehicle, then get the dog out, and then do the the free air sniff. So to answer your question, yes, he was removed from the vehicle for the purpose of the K9 sniff. However, the reason he was placed under arrest was for the obstruction of—”

“Okay, got it.”

“Does that make sense?”

“Got it. Thank you. So the K9 was still in the uh in the thing. That’s what you’re saying. Got it.”

“Cross-examination.”

“I’m sorry. I forgot to get exhibit stickers.”

“No problem.”

“Sergeant Ueberroth, what is the community policing division? What do they What is their role of the community?”

“Yeah, so the community policing division uh it’s still a fully marked patrol capacity officer. Uh they’re just assigned to a smaller area within the city with responsibilities of uh you know doing more of the quality of life issues and making relationships with business owners and uh neighborhood you know stakeholders. But you’re still in that patrol capacity, still responding to 911 calls throughout the city, still patrolling the entire city.”

“Is Are there times when you uh collaborate with other police departments, Michigan State Police?”

“Yeah, for the purpose of investigations.”

“And were you collaborating with Michigan State Police on Feb in February when the incident occurred?”

“No. However, they were driving by and stopped when it wasn’t coordinated.”

“Okay. Um, have you read the police report of the Michigan State Police that were on the scene?”

“No, I was unaware that police report was even—”

“Okay. And it’s your testimony there was no collaboration with them on this day. It was just a traffic stop.”

“Correct. This was a traffic stop.”

“Okay. Um your Honor, I’m going to put on what’s marked as Exhibit A if it refreshes his memory as to what was going on tonight.”

“Well, I would object to that. I mean, I don’t believe the officer has indicated that he doesn’t remember anything. So, that’s the basis.”

“Is that his police report?”

“That is the Michigan State Police report.”

“And and he says he has no indication that this was even written, so—”

“I don’t think we can admit a police report as an exhibit.”

“I’m offering it for impeachment.”

“Oh, okay. Well, you don’t have a copy to show him? I don’t need to see it.”

“Um—”

“We’ll put it on the screen.”

“Well, you can’t put it on the screen without us all seeing it. If you’re just offering to show him, is that what you’re doing?”

“I’m offering it to the court for the purposes of impeachment. I mean—”

“Okay. And this came from them. This came from the prosecutor’s office.”

“So, it’s the incident report that was authored by whom?”

“Michigan State Police that were on the scene.”

“Okay. And—”

“He says they weren’t collaborating. This police report will show that they were.”

The officer testified this was just a random traffic stop. No coordination, no operation, nothing planned. Richmond’s attorney does not buy it, and he has the paperwork to argue otherwise. His point to the court is this: on a simple window tint stop, there were three police vehicles—two Lansing cars and a Michigan State Police car, plus a K-9 unit—all arriving at the same moment. The officer calls that a coincidence.

The attorney answers with the state police’s own report, which he argues shows the departments were working together. Now, to be clear on the law, a pretext stop—using a small violation as a reason to look at someone police are already interested in—is technically allowed under Whren versus United States. So, the attorney’s argument is not that the stop was illegal for being pretextual. It is about credibility.

If the officer will call a coordinated three-car K-9 operation a random coincidence under oath, the defense is entitled to ask what else in his testimony will not hold. A tint ticket does not bring three squad cars and a drug dog by accident. And the attorney has a report that lets him say so out loud.

“So, is it okay if I read this into the record, your Honor?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. Um, I just want to clarify for the record, it’s your position that this was a random traffic stop and you were you were not working in conjunction with the Michigan State Police for any purposes involving Mr. Richmond?”

“I was not working.”

“Uh, I just want to talk a little bit about the sniff dog. Um, that dog was also immediately on the scene at the time of the stop.”

“That’s correct.”

“So, you had a sniff dog in a separate vehicle. There was another car of Lansing Police Department on the scene. There was three cars, correct?”

“There was two Lansing Police and Michigan State Police.”

“Okay. So, three cars: Michigan State Police, two Lansing Police Department cars, and that one of them had a sniff dog. All happened to be on the traffic stop of Mr. Richmond. Total coincidence.”

“What’s the What’s the objection to?”

“Well, he said before it happens all the time. It’s a coincidence. So, I’m going to allow him to ask the question that way only because the previous question as to how everybody arrived at the same time, his response was, ‘Yeah, it happens all the time.’ So, I’ll allow it at this point.”

“So, this was a total coincidence that all of the officers that I’ve described appeared on the scene simultaneously for a window stop.”

“The State Police, to my knowledge, was… me and the K9 car were driving through the city together.”

“You say were driving to where?”

“Driving through the city together.”

“Got it. Okay. And was that for a particular purpose, or you just follow each other as a matter of protocol?”

“Matter of protocol.”

“So she followed you to the scene.”

“Followed me to the traffic stop.”

“She followed you to the traffic stop. Was she behind you, next to you, or—”

“She was behind you.”

“She was behind you. Okay. All right. So, we’re going to show um the dash cam of officer’s car. Your original testimony wasn’t that you saw the car with tint around Martin Luther King and St. Joe? Car is right there with—”

“So I just want to clarify to make this record clear. Do you agree with me that you originally testified that you saw the tint at Martin Luther King and St. Joe when the prosecutor asked you the question?”

“Yes.”

“Is that still your testimony?”

“Yes, I saw the vehicle at King and St. Joe. I also previously saw it prior to that trying to catch up.”

“And the car was in front of you at that time on the highway.”

“Got in front of you.”

“Did you have any reason to believe that there were narcotics in this car?”

“I don’t remember if the dog hit on the vehicle or not. However, obviously located on his person after the sniff during… Now whether the the dog sniff happened while I’m doing the search, that could have happened. However, he was in handcuffs, search incident to arrest is when my focus and attention was on.”

“Good. So, you pull the car over for a window tint violation. You’re traveling behind it.”

“Yes.”

“Okay. And you can see the back of the vehicle. At any time was that car behind you?”

“It was in a position where I could see it and that’s how it got so far ahead of me on Cedar. So, I take the um ramp and so I shifted gears and that’s how I got this.”

“But would you agree with me, and I can play it again, but would you agree with me that your vantage point at all times was behind this vehicle?”

“The video doesn’t capture the the previous observations I saw when I was before I was trying to catch up.”

“Okay. Well, that’s what I’m asking you. So, when you had previous observations, this car was in front of you.”

“Yeah, car was traveling the same direction as me on Cedar Street near 496.”

“Right? And you were behind that car.”

“I don’t remember if I was directly behind it, in the lane next to it, or whatnot. However, I observed window tint.”

“Okay. So, the purpose of the line of this question is to determine how he seen the tint.”

“Where the cars were positioned when he saw the tint.”

“He’s asked several times.”

“Well, the officer’s plainly told him.”

“Okay. The answer is he was in front of he was behind the vehicle the whole time. I’ll take it.”

“Is that your answer?”

“Yes. Okay.”

“Are you sure? I don’t—”

“But it sounds like you’re conceding—”

“No, I I don’t remember the exact vehicle positioning. However, you could see vehicle tint. Are we even arguing that the car has vehicle tint?”

“I’ll answer the questions.”

“Okay. I’m not trying to disrespect, but yes, I I observed the car to have vehicle tint. I don’t remember my exact vehicle positioning.”

“Was the vehicle’s interior at any point in time visible to you? The interior of the vehicle?”

“Yes.”

“And at what point was that?”

“When I opened the door.”

“You said when—”

“And if you know, is window tint a civil infraction or is it a criminal offense?”

“Civil infraction.”

“And for window tint does somebody get a ticket usually, a ticket or a warning?”

“Yes.”

“Did you give him a ticket on this occasion?”

“That bill is discretionary on your part.”

“Correct.”

“Okay. Officer Ueberroth, after you receive the information, insurance, driver license, all that, did he have everything that you asked for?”

“Yes.”

“Is it your practice to have this dog do an open air sniff to basically detain the individual in a vehicle for a civil infraction?”

“It’s standard procedure to have the occupants—”

“So would you agree that that would be a seizure of—”

“Objection.”

“What’s the objection?”

“Calls for legal conclusion.”

“Was Mr.—”

“Question—”

“I’ll rephrase it.”

“Okay. Thank you.”

“When you remove people for the purposes of an open air sniff, are they free to leave?”

“No.”

“Okay. So to some extent he was in your custody at that point in time.”

“Essentially was in my custody the moment traffic stopped.”

“So at what point for a civil infraction are they usually free to leave?”

“When the stop—when there is an open air sniff—”

This is the cleanest point in the whole case and every driver should know it: window tint is a civil infraction, a ticket. The officer admitted that to hold Richmond, get him out, and run a drug dog around the car, he kept him there past the tint stop, and that Richmond was not free to leave.

There is a Supreme Court case that governs this exactly: Rodriguez versus United States. It says a traffic stop can only last as long as it takes to handle the reason for the stop. Write the tint ticket and you are done. Police cannot stretch that stop out to walk a drug dog around your car unless they have their own separate specific reason to suspect drugs.

They did not. So the moment they held him past the ticket to bring in that dog, the stop became an unlawful seizure—the precise move the Supreme Court banned in Rodriguez.

“Do you remember seizing evidence, personal items? You’ve already described suspected drugs. Do you remember taking any personal items from Mr. Richmond?”

“I remember putting all this property in a bag.”

“Did you put it in a bag or did a different officer put it in a bag?”

“I don’t remember what all the items were and I don’t remember if I did it or if it went with me to the jail.”

“And I’m going to object now to relevance. We’re here to establish probable cause whether or not the defendant possessed cocaine at the time. If it’s any questions other than was the the the things that you carried cocaine, I see how it’s—”

“I’m going to present evidence that there was evidence misappropriated by this officer.”

“Was it cocaine?”

“I don’t think it matters, but I’m going to impeach his credibility.”

“Okay. So, it’s going to impeachment.”

“Let’s make—”

“Um so the objection’s overruled. Your question—because the objection and your end of your answer kind of overlapped. You were saying you don’t remember if it was you who seized the or another officer.”

“Correct.”

“Okay. And you also don’t remember what the items were.”

“Various personal—”

“Okay. Would it refresh your memory if I showed you the inventory from your report?”

“Sure.”

“Does that refresh your memory?”

“Yeah. Okay.”

“Is it your practice to always inventory everything that is taken from a scene, like written down?”

“Yes.”

“Under what circumstances would you not include in your—Have you read this is your report. You draft this report. Can we agree on that?”

“That is an automated generated report comes from what I wrote the narrative.”

“But this information came from you, came from the automated report. The items on there were entered into evidence, which is separate from prisoner property, which are entered in by other people that were—”

“Okay. So did you take a cell phone?”

“Probably.”

“Was that evidence in this case?”

“Uh potentially. I I don’t know. All all the property evidence is just turned over to Officer—”

“Officer Ueber—”

“Zuber.”

“Zuber.”

“At any point in time, did you handle personal property after Officer Zuber had the evidence?”

“No.”

“Were you there at the time of booking Mr. Richmond?”

“Yes.”

“And do you recall handling the personal evidence at that point in time? I’m going to say personal items.”

“Personal items.”

“Yeah. Because none of this stuff was dealt with. It was returned to him. Correct. Cell phone was returned to him.”

“I don’t know if the cell phone was returned or not. If you’re saying it was, I’ll take your word for it.”

“All right. So, did you take a knife on this occasion off Mr. Richmond?”

“Yeah, I think a knife was taken off Mr. Richmond. I don’t know if I was the one that personally did it or another officer, but I know yes, a knife was taken.”

“And do you recall handling that knife at any point in time after it was taken off from Mr. Richmond?”

“I believe it was secured in the same area as the narcotics.”

“And where was that?”

“Bag that was brought to the jail that was then left on the counter for pickup.”

“Okay. Is Are there any circumstances where you would remove items before that envelope is turned over?”

“Typically what happens is that whoever the arresting officer is, they would just handle all the evidence or divvy it up between your partners. Officer Zuber was responding to the jail and was a narcotics officer at the time.”

“And handled the evidence?”

“Did you remove the knife from the personal evidence and take it into your possession at any point in time in the booking process?”

“No.”

This last one is not really about a knife. It is about whether you can believe a single word this officer says under oath. On the stand, he stated plainly that he never handled the knife taken off Richmond. It went straight into the evidence bag for another officer. But the defense says the video tells a different story—that the officer did handle that knife and that it was never properly accounted for afterward.

It is a small thing. That is exactly why it matters. If an officer will look a court in the eye and swear to something this minor that his own camera contradicts, what happens to the rest of his testimony? And one more quiet detail: after Richmond complained, the city offered him $400 to drop all claims against the department. That is not what an honest stop costs.

“The video is going to show him taking the knife out of the bag in booking and then covering up his body cam with his hand and the knife was never accounted for. In fact, Mr. Richmond made a complaint and the city attorney sent him, which I have in my possession, an offer to release all claims against the police department for $400.”

“I think that goes to impeachment. I’m going to show I’m going to show this.”

“I’m sorry.”

“I’m going to show this in the video. He said he never handled the knife, that he turned over the envelope. That is not what happened.”

“Yeah, he said it. And this line of questioning is intended to attack the credibility of this witness. And so he said he didn’t handle the knife. He’s going to now allegedly show video that shows that he did handle the knife, that the knife was not accounted for. And that is for the purposes again to try to attack the credibility. The court has to allow him opportunity for impeachment.”

“You object to that one for the purposes of what?”

“He just said it was the knife in his hand. I just offer property to the court that he personally—”

“I think he’s offering that instead of the video is what I’m assuming.”

“I mean I’m just trying to—”

“You’re trying to establish that. Although he said that, well if it’s for impeachment we don’t need an exhibit though.”

“Yeah. We don’t need—”

“If it’s impeachment you don’t need to admit it as an exhibit. You just need to offer it for impeachment purposes.”

“Right. So, I think we got to the point. There was a knife that he pulled out. He said he didn’t touch it, but we in fact know that he did.”

“Based off the proffer to the court, correct.”

“Correct.”

“We can move on.”

“Um, so you’re familiar with the tinted window statute?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. And you saw tint on Mr. Richmond’s back window. Does that refresh your memory?”

“Yeah.”

“Okay. So, where were you when you saw the window tint location geographically?”

“Again, your Honor, I object.”

“Let me ask you. Is your testimony still the same on Cedar Street?”

“Initially, I saw a car at Cedar and 496. The location and the windows… what I noticed was the driver—the front, the front passenger you’re talking about.”

“Yeah. Okay. Is that what your report says?”

“Yes.”

“Look at the reason for stop window description. It never says anything about Cedar Street. Is that true?”

“Yes, Cedar Street is true. There’s nothing in the report about seeing this on Cedar Street.”

“My apologies. Yes, that is true. It does not talk about Cedar Street.”

“Does it say that you first saw the tint in the area of Martin Luther King and St. Joe?”

“It says that I did observe it in that area.”

“Okay. And would you agree with me that’s different than what you just testified?”

“I would say that I observed it in both areas.”

“Are you done with this witness?”

“Yeah, briefly. Sorry, do you have prior training about window tint?”

“Prior training on what?”

“To tell the difference between illegal and legal window tint?”

“No, but you are aware of the shape, the degree to which you’re allowed to have the—”

“So you see this car go on the highway, right? You see the window tint. You believe that the window tint is dark, too dark, illegal.”

“Correct.”

“You stop the car.”

“Correct.”

“For the window tint.”

“Correct.”

“You ask the defendant to get out of the car, right?”

“Right.”

“He, would you say, holds on to the steering wheel and tells you no, right?”

“Right.”

“And you have to use force in order to get him out of the car.”

“Correct.”

“You place him under arrest because you asked him to get out of the car and he tensed up and held the steering wheel, told you no.”

“Correct.”

“You arrest him. You do a search incident to arrest.”

“Correct.”

“And you find cocaine or what you believe is cocaine.”

“Correct.”

“Does that accurately describe what happened?”

“Yes.”

“And you turn that those drugs over to officers.”

“Thank you. No further questions.”

“Your Honor, can we play the video of Mr. Lance Richmond being removed from the car?”

“So you want to play the video of him being removed? I mean just just so you can see exactly where it is.”

“Okay.”

“And you got the registration and the insurance as well?”

“I do.”

“Perfect. You mind grabbing that for me? You don’t have any firearms or nothing in the vehicle, do you?”

“No.”

“Okay. How about any narcotics?”

“No.”

“Okay. Any marijuana?”

“No.”

“All right. Perfect. Hey, so here’s what I’m going to have you do. Okay. While I run this stuff, uh I’m going to have you step out the vehicle and we’re going to um chat over here.”

“No.”

“Yes.”

“No.”

“Turn the car off. Step out the vehicle. I’m going to tell you one time and one time only: get out the car.”

“Sir, do you have a—”

“Pennsylvania versus Mimms. Step out the car.”

“Well, if you’re going to refuse to get out like and I tell you and you say no—”

“Well, do you have a reason to pull me out of here?”

“I do.”

“For what?”

“It’s just a knife on you.”

“Yeah, it’s right there in my my pocket.”

“Yeah. Just because of the way you’re acting right there, we’re going to put you in handcuffs. So, like I was telling you, Pennsylvania versus Mimms is a US Supreme Court case law, right? I can, as a police officer, I can have anyone step out of the vehicle for any reason. Okay. When you say no, that’s obstructing. Okay. So, what you did is you obstructed. Can you tell me why you’re not—”

“Just to be clear, you weren’t familiar with the defendant prior to this, were you?”

“No.”

“Oh, okay. You can be excused.”

“Thank you.”

So, how did it end? The felony that all of this was built on—resisting and obstructing—was dismissed. One of the two cocaine felonies was dismissed, too. In the end, Lance Richmond pleaded to a single misdemeanor and got a year of probation and treatment. No prison.

Now, I am going to be straight with you because it matters: Richmond was not a saint. There was cocaine in that fanny pack, and he answered for it. That is the misdemeanor he pleaded to.

This is not the story of an innocent man. It is the story of what an officer is allowed to do to anyone, guilty or not. Because look at what it took to build this case: an officer orders a man out over tinted windows, holds him for a drug dog he cannot justify, drags him out by force, calls the man’s resistance a felony, and swears he never touched a knife his own camera shows in his hand.

The law gives police enormous room: Mimms, Whren, all of it. But it draws its lines: Rodriguez, Moreno. And there is one line no court will ever move: the line between what an officer swears under oath and what his own camera saw.