Where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions, this episode covers disorderly conduct, self-incrimination and reckless driving and is brought to us by lackluster's channel, be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit we're driving behind. Arkansas state police, trooper, ryan wingo in hot springs arkansas when trooper wingo made a sudden u-turn to attempt to pursue a vehicle traveling the opposite direction that was allegedly speeding. Mr donner honked his horn at trooper, wingo and trooper wingo responded by making a full 360 degree, turn passing another vehicle and pulling behind mr donner, with his lights flashing. When mr pulled to the right side of the road and stopped his vehicle, trooper wingo crashed into him with his cruiser.

What the actual behind mr donner, with his lights, flashing when mr donner pulled to the right side of the road and stopped his vehicle, trooper wingo, crashed into him with his cruiser pull into the parking lot, pull it to the parking lot. 16 hot springs go and send uh one of the normal units over here to the shoot factory had a car. That was ridiculous. He didn't want to break because he didn't want to get re-entered, but they get behind him, but then he rammed this guy forward.

How does that help at all? Why make it we'll make a regular maneuver for a track? Stop what? Why are you pulling me because you're following me too, closely nearly rare to me? No, i did not you slammed on your brakes. You had no brake, you had no turn signal or nothing. I turned around on the car without speeding. I'm doing my job out here, sir.

Give me your license. You hit me, don't worry! Okay, you hit my car wrong traffic stop out here. I want to see the damage done. To my give me a minute we're on a traffic stop right now, once i get done with my traffic, stop we're falling too closely.

I was not falling too close. Clearly you, where you hit me, you stopped the middle of a roadway, sir. No, i didn't stop. I got over and i was i was in the lane you're trying to get back up.

No, i'm just trying to sleep back up. Okay, you slammed on your gap. Okay and you hit us okay, so okay! Well, i'm sorry, i told you. I stopped you because you're following me too closely, but i wasn't there: okay, okay, 28 months, thanks for at all next, do you have an idea on your mail? You don't need her id.

Yes, i do actually for that people think this is an accident or kind of stupid. It's not even an accident that was intentional. He intentionally went in between the cars right and put himself in a spot where there's nothing, he could have done. There's an accident forward or backwards in a story or you could have went inside the inside of the grass, which is the last option which was too stupid to do anyway.

It's an important that you so that you still want, sir. Yes, i do want it. Okay, there's no damage between our vehicles, though i don't give a bro you trooper wingo rips open mr donner's door, orders him to exit the vehicle and places him under arrest for disorderly conduct. Arkansas's disorderly conduct law found in section 5-71-207 of the arkansas code states.

That quote, a person commits the offense of disorderly conduct, if, with the purpose, to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly, creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm he or she engages in fighting or in violent, threatening or tumultuous behavior makes unreasonable or excessive Noise in a public place uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response. Not only was mr donner's conduct not likely to cause a public disturbance, as he was only speaking to trooper wingo, but as we've discussed before on ata, profanity is protected speech under the first amendment, and citizens cannot be arrested for simply using curse words, for instance, especially When they don't, i feel like if they don't stop the the stop or they don't hinder his job or whatever. That was whatever the 2000 case of nichols versus chicon. The west district of arkansas determined that a police officer violated the first and fourth amendments when he arrested an individual under this same disorderly conduct statute for giving him the middle finger.

The court concluded that, although the gesture was inarticulate and crude quote, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the first amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech, such as stopping or hassling. The speaker is categorically prohibited by the constitution. In reaching this decision, the court reviewed a long line of supreme court decisions on the issue, including the 1987 case of houston versus hill.

In this case, the court held that quote. The first amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. Speech is often provocative and challenging, but it is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil. So you just spam the comments, then you keep talking to you say: hey.

Can you give me this? Yes, mr cocklord yeah you as long as you continue with the interaction right. This is far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest. The court also noted that quote the freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state. Given the well-established legal precedent protecting the right to use, profanity and expressed disapproval of police officers, a court would almost certainly conclude that trooper wingo's actions violated mr donner's constitutional rights.

If you're under arrest, we'll do some of the conduct, sir come on, take a seat until you can calm down. Okay, there was no need for cussing me out until he can calm down and act like an adult he's gon na sit until he can calm down and act like a human being and stop cussing me out for no reason. So i'm trying to explain to him what happened, but he doesn't want to. Let me talk okay, so do you want to? Let me talk or not? Yes, i'm sorry.

Okay, now i'm going to calm down you're going to continue cussing. I just want your badge number in your name, you're, going to i'm asking you a simple question so you're going to. I just want your badge, your number in your name. That's all! I want okay! Well, i'm trying to ask you and i said - share officer, okay um.

This is going to be reasonable. Now the cops shouldn't be the one. That's like. Oh, i'm giving you a hand here or whatever this guy's doing good a good job of not taking the hand you shouldn't.

Take it nobody shouldn't, he shouldn't be in the car in the first place, so you're not giving me a hand over here, because that was that you know i'm sure, then i'm not going to have you sit out here and close me for no reason. There's no fit to you're, not incriminating yourself, sir. The cops are i mean they wouldn't do anything. We should just leave their mouth put a knife in the car and apologize.

They should be backwards here. Trooper wingo tells mr donner that he doesn't need to invoke his right to silence because he's not being asked incriminating questions. However, the fifth amendment applies to a much broader range of interrogation than blatantly incriminating questions. An individual should exercise their right to remain silent in a variety of situations.

In the 1951 case of hoffman vs united states, the supreme court held that the right against self-incrimination quote not only extends to answers. That would in themselves support a conviction, but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant. The court also determined that citizens cannot be compelled to answer questions when they have reasonable cause to fear consequences from answering the question or when it is quote evident from the implications of the question in the setting in which it is asked that a responsive answer to The question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result. Similarly, in the 2001 case of ohio versus reiner, the supreme court determined that both innocent and guilty individuals have the right to remain forced in silent during police interrogation because quote truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrong doer may provide the Government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth and that it is reasonable for an individual to fear that answering police questions might incriminate them in this situation, answering even a seemingly innocuous question such as.

Are you going to calm down now could have caused? Mr donner, to unintentionally implicate himself, for instance, if mr donner had agreed to calm down and stop cussing out trooper wingo, it could have insinuated that his conduct was unreasonable before he was handcuffed, that he believed that his detention was justified. This is one of the many reasons that citizens should invoke their right to remain silent when police officers attempt to question them as when an individual answers, a question inexactly or incorrectly, it can be used to incriminate them even when they are innocent. I just want your badge number. I just want your badge number and your name.

Okay, that's all! I want okay. This is gon na end horribly. I just want him i'm trying to get him to calm down, but he doesn't want to. He wants to continue yelling for no reason.

Okay, he said yes give me your ptsd. I don't know if he has malicious content he's over here, yelling and cussing me now, i'm just trying to get his information and he don't start yelling and stop and mill the road for no reason. I understand why he was freaking out because you hit her card. That's why he was upset with because you hit us he started cuts me out.

I was coming this way. He was. I saw him riding my butt. I didn't really care.

Car tops he'll go on just turned around turned around when i turned around somebody's in the trunk. Okay, he moved straight over from the inside lane to the outside lane straight over and just slams on the brakes and i'm just trying to get behind him and he stands on his break. And i didn't even have my life on at that point. But he just stopped in the middle of the road trooper wingo recounts his version of events to a fellow trooper who responded to the scene, which is wildly different from what the dash and cab cam show actually occurred.

First trooper wingo claims that mr donner was following him too closely, but the cab footage shows that mr donner left plenty of distance between the two vehicles, while trooper wingo was driving in front of him. Trooper wingo also alleges that he had not activated his emergency lights when mr donner stopped his vehicle, but the cab cam also shows that he did in fact turn on his emergency lights before the collision occurred. Finally, trooper wingo insists that mr donner stopped in the middle of the road when mr donner had clearly pulled into the right lane to yield to the police vehicle. What the video footage also shows is that trooper wingo started to make a u-turn without first getting into the middle turning lane.

Then, when mr donner honked his horn at him, trooper wingo turned back around to pull over mr donner and ultimately slammed into mr donner's vehicle. When he stopped, although arkansas law does allow police vehicles to disregard traffic laws in some circumstances, they are generally required to follow the same rules of the road as everyone else. For example, section 27-51-202 of the arkansas code establishes that certain speed limit laws quote do not apply to authorized emergency vehicles. Responding to emergency calls when the driver of the emergency vehicle is operating the vehicle's emergency lights and is also operating an audible signal by bell siren or exhaust whistle if other vehicles are present.

However, the statute also explicitly states that quote. This section does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the street, nor shall it protect the driver of any emergency vehicle from the consequences of that reckless disregard of the safety Of others, given this evidence, a court would probably determine the trooper wingo's arrest. Attic driving was not only likely responsible for the accident, but it was also illegal. I didn't slam on my brakes.

Trooper wingo eventually released mr donner, without charging him with disorderly conduct and issued him a citation for following too closely and parking on a highway because of the traumatic experience they had with trooper wingo, the donners decided not to fight these charges and paid the 330 fine. The couple recently decided to retain an attorney to pursue a civil rights lawsuit against trooper wingo, and ms donner has created a gofundme campaign to help cover the costs of attorney fees. You can find a link in the description below overall trooper wingo gets an f for causing a crash by recklessly operating his patrol vehicle intentionally, misrepresenting the facts of the encounter to justify his actions and for violating mr donner's first and fourth amendment rights by arresting him For his speech, not only did trooper wingo exercise poor discretion by choosing to pull over someone who honked at him, rather than an individual who was potentially committing an actual violation, but he also needlessly violated several traffic laws and caused a low low-speed crash. In an effort to do so, it could certainly be argued that the trooper's actions put more citizens in danger than mr donner would have if he actually had been following the trooper too closely, and it would be difficult for anyone much less a court to find trooper Wingo's conduct anything but objectively unreasonable, trooper wingo failed to take responsibility for his actions, arrested a citizen for criticizing his conduct and was unable to control the situation in a peaceful and professional manner.

And this is yet another encounter where an officer attempted to criminalize behavior that their ego could not tolerate, rather than making a legitimate effort to de-escalate the situation. That, mr donner has a civil case on his hands and it'll be interesting to see whether he is able to raise the funds to find representation. Mr donner gets an a for remaining relatively calm and collected throughout the encounter verbally invoking his right to remain silent and for maintaining a reasonable balance between challenging the conduct of the troopers and complying with their commands, as discussed earlier. Profanities are generally protected under the first amendment, especially when directed at police officers keep calling his apologist student earlier.

Some lady didn't have her plates. Her license drove like a dumbass in front of a cop right got arrested with a visible thc in a a thc illegal state then had cocaine, pills, right and wads of cash in the car, as her children were being misread in a hotel room holy you're gon Na defend that, and nothing that mr donor said constituted a violation of any legitimate statute, considering that he was being accused of following trooper wingo too closely immediately after being rear-ended by the trooper. Mr donner was reacting to the situation in a relatively reasonable manner. Mr donner also made a point to verbally invoke his right to remain silent and refused to waive that right, despite trooper wingo's insistence that remaining silent was not necessary.

I commend mr donner for effectively exercising his right to silence. That was good. I enjoyed that jesus. Look.

It you got, you got 34k for this update, um, interesting. Okay, give me you.