Home / Badge Abuse / This Traffic Stop Video Epitomizes Everything that is Wrong With Police Today

This Traffic Stop Video Epitomizes Everything that is Wrong With Police Today

“We’ll get CPS to take your baby!”

Sandusky, OH — A mother and father were on their way home with their 2 week old baby when they were stopped by Sandusky police officers.

Andre Stockett, the father and the passenger in the vehicle, and the man who took the video, has a good understanding of his rights when dealing with police.

Despite the police pulling over the vehicle, for an alleged “traffic violation,” they do nothing to the driver. Her license is run and it comes back valid so they have nothing on them, yet like bullies on the playground they begin ganging up on Stockett.

Stockett has committed no crime and has not been suspected of committing a crime, so he lawfully refuses to identify himself. This assertion of his rights does not go over well with the bullies on the playground, so Officer Denny throws a temper tantrum.

The K-9 unit is brought in.

As several media outlets have reported, K-9’s are not only often poorly trained, they are frequently wrong. They can also be taught to alert on cue. 

Stockett says that he does not consent to any searches, which is well within his rights. However, Officer Denny knows how to avert these rights; bring in the drug dog.

Unfortunately in Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court ruled that police do not need reasonable suspicion to use drug dogs to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop and that a drug dog alerting to a vehicle allows them to search it.

Stockett could have contended that this was no longer a “legitimate traffic stop” but it seems that nothing was going to stop these jackboots from arresting someone.

After the dog allegedly ‘alerted’ to the vehicle, Stockett and his wife are told to get out of the vehicle. When they refuse, because they have a 2 week old infant in the back seat, these thugs threaten to take their baby!

“We’ll get CPS to take your baby!”

At this point in the video, if your blood is not boiling you are not a human being. The police continue to make up new reasons why they were pulled over and why they are being detained/arrested. It is absolutely infuriating.

The asininity peaks when officer Denny backtracks and tells the family that he originally pulled them over because their lights weren’t on, but it is clearly daylight outside.

Eventually under duress and the threat of violence, the family is forced to exit the vehicle. Stockett was arrest for, wait for it….wait for it, obstruction of justice. These harassing tyrants have the audacity to claim that it was this family who was obstructing justice and not their jackbooted thuggery. Unbelievable.

No drugs were found.

The only thing absent from this video is the Sandusky police tasering and beating the family, however the threat of stealing someone’s child stings way more than a baton every could.

Stockett, for good reason, says he plans to fight the charges of obstruction. Please share this article to let other police officers know that when they violate people’s rights they will be exposed.


  • Patrick Henry

    The articles cites Illinois v Caballes. Here is a new one that trumps that. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/supreme-court-limits-drug-sniffing-dog-use-in-traffic-stops.html?_r=0

  • Lala

    I don’t understand why he wouldn’t identify himself. What a dumbass! His poor child is in for a fun ride through life.

    • Xbot

      Headlights can get you killed! Typical lying thugs, no ID required!

  • Dave Stewart

    I don’t believe that this guy is so obstructive to the police. He asked the Policeman why the police stopped the car, the officer told him he looked like someone who has a warrant out for him. He tells the police its not him and he doesnt have to provide proof. The whole incident could have stopped right there if he provided ID.

    Just listen to the guy in the car – totally obstructive when a the whole thing did not need to happen. He asked the police officer over and over again question after question and each time the officer gives answers to which he would not listen

    • Winchester

      You missed the part when the officer said that he stopped her because she didn’t have her headlights on.. Then the officer said later that he stopped them because they ran her plates and it came up invalid (but them they did it again and it turned out in fact, valid).. The officer also claimed that the drug-sniffing dog got a hit… So, which one was the truth?

      I would identify myself, but I certainly would not exit the car…

      • Dave Stewart

        All completely unnecessary if the passenger had identified himself as requested by the officer at the very start. The officer was asked why have I been stopped. The officer told him that he looked like someone with a warrant. Provide ID, clarify the situation and move on.

        As I explained the obstructive behaviour by the passenger put the officer in a difficult position, the tension in the car and the use of a 2 week old baby let to the officer having to think on his feet to defuse the situation.

        The officer was asked why and gave a reason why. The passenger would not accept this and continued to be obstructive and film the matter. The officer had to determine many factors, was this a hostage situation? Was the woman being held against her will? Why was the passenger not allowing the officer to check his ID? Was he a criminal on the run? Was he indeed the person who had the warrant issued? Were there drugs in the car? Did the passenger have a weapon and was trying to keep it away from the police?

        What was the REAL REASON the passenger would not allow his ID to be shown and why was he being obstructive and filming the whole thing?

        After the initial and lawful question and reason for being stopped, the rest was caused by the drivers actions.

        Totally unnecessary

  • Dave Stewart

    Matt Agorist your title “This Traffic Stop Video Epitomizes Everything that is Wrong With Police Today” is rather misleading.

    Lets clear a few things up, the man in the car asked the officer why they had been pulled over. The officer told him he looked like someone who has a warrant out on him. He told him, the officer told him. Quite clearly and had just cause to pull the vehicle over and ascertain whether the passenger was in fact the person with the warrant.

    From this moment on, the man in the passenger seat twisted and turned everything that the Police were trying to say, trying to catch them off guard and use their words against them. The officer wanted to confirm the identification of the passenger, that’s it. The officer acted within the law and I am sure that if this was a criminal, who needed to be detained, we would all want him off the street.

    He would not produce ID – Could the passenger not see that by NOT providing the officers with clarity on his identification, it would only heighten the tension of a situation that he himself created. The driver just wanted to go but he would not let her, telling her not to get out, to lock the doors. How did he think these action were to be interpreted by the police? Was he trying to abduct the woman and the child? Were they in fact being kidnapped? The police could not know that and have to make a judgement on the actions of others.

    Throughout this whole episode the passenger was at fault and trying to show off in front of the camera he was using.

    So the author of this obviously sided with the passenger I assume because he has had a similar incident with the law. These types of events are growing more and more as people feel that they must question authority. Why? Why not just comply with authority? If a police officer asked me for ID, do you know what, I would just give it to him. If he told me to put my hands on the wall so that he could search me. I would put my hands on the wall.

    Stop trying to make out that the Police are bad

  • coro

    I’m wondering if the Sandusky police department is proud to employ cowards?