He was um, I guess like flip- like sticking his middle finger up at me for like an extended period of time as if he was like beating me to like stop him. I don't know if it's a coffee thing but it was a video of me on YouTube. Welcome back to the Whistleblower Channel. In January of 2023, I published a video featuring a viewer named Nate who had been pulled over after flipping off a rookie cop. You drove by and you it looked like you needed assistance. I don't know if you was with me or you was taking your finger up. do you need? was taking your finger up. I don't know what you was doing. After claiming he didn't know what Nate was doing, lifting his finger up, the officer claimed that he pulled him over to check if he needed assistance. In what appears to be retaliation, Nate was issued a citation during the stop for a medallion hanging from his rearview mirror that was only noticed as a result of the officer inspecting the cab of Nate's vehicle. But because the traffic stop itself appeared to be conducted on unlawful grounds and in violation of Nate's civil rights, he took the citation to trial a few months later. Officer Freeman joined the Zoom call while holding his phone and driving. Officer Freeman, how are you employed? I'm employed by the Cranford Police Department. For how long? It's been about uh 4 months. Note that this trial was in March and the incident occurred in January, which means that at the time of this incident, I owned pencils that had more time in service than Officer Freeman and he was still patrolling solo. I was positioned stationary uh at the gas station on uh Centennial Ave. At which time I saw uh Nathan uh drive by I mean it appeared that he was doing uh like some type of hand gesture. At the time I was unsure of what it was. So I followed uh proceeded to follow behind him uh believing that he was in distress. I did a check of the uh license plate and it showed that his uh license was um his license was expired in New Jersey. Nathan's dashcam shows that the officer sat behind him for nearly 20 seconds without attempting to make contact, not once but at two red lights, which is enough time to determine Nathan was not in distress or in the need of assistance. Furthermore, the officer claims that during the time he spent following Nathan, he ran the vehicle's tags and found the owner's license in New Jersey was expired because Nathan was now licensed in California. However, the CAD report and body cam footage confirmed that the license plate was not ran until after the officer had pulled Nathan over. Audio on the motor vehicle stop on North Avenue with MJ Rage 21. It's connected to a Honda Accord and one more. Showing that it was highly likely that he initiated the stop for the middle finger. As I approached the vehicle, I could see well, as when I saw that he had items hanging from his window like a like a necklace. I don't want to say it was beaded, but it was like a like a necklace hanging from his window. As I began to talk to him, it was evident that he was not in distress. It was evident that he was I guess like flipped like sticking his middle finger up at me for like an extended period of time. But due to the way that I was parked, like I couldn't see it. So it was as if he was like baiting me to like stop him. And then in the future, probably like a week or two later, um it was I I don't know if it's a coffee thing, but it was a video of me on YouTube. Um to you know, of my inaction. At which time I you know, I didn't know that I was being recorded, which I'm fine with. Everybody has the right to record, but you know. We know, but I am curious what Officer Freeman thought it could count as or what it might have done for his case, considering that I was the one that personally requested the footage and published the video. Bringing it up during Nathan's trial appears to be an attempt to poison the well. Just after attempting to discredit Nathan, it was now his turn to question the officer. Notice the officer's demeanor changes as he answers Nate's questions. Mr. Freeman, let me ask you this. Uh is flipping off a cop a crime? No, it's not a crime. It is a First Amendment uh, protected activity, correct? Yes. Okay, and you swore to uphold the Constitution when you took your job, right? Yes, I did. Okay, so let me ask you this. Um, you claimed that my license was expired and that you ran the license plate number. Did you run that before or after you pulled me over? Excuse me? Did you run the license plate number before or after you pulled me over? Before I pulled you over, sir. Are you sure? I have your body cam footage which shows you stopping me at 2:16 a.m. and then on the CAD report it shows that you ran the license plate number at 2:18 a.m. And that that's also confirmed on your body cam. So, are you telling us the truth? Yes, I am. Okay, uh, Your Honor, is there any way for me to share to show the body cam footage uh, for us to see it? Judge, if I may, if the witness or the defendant rather can proffer the um, line of questioning because I'm not sure it relates to the violation. It does because there is no probable cause for pulling me over. Fortunately, the judge took Nathan at his word that the officer was lying or mistaken. But without being able to play the video and because the prosecutor didn't submit the body cam into evidence, Officer Freeman's credibility as a witness remains unchallenged. Both parties now rest and move to closing arguments. Prosecutor, uh, Mr. Marinowski, if you want to make a closing argument. My argument is simple, Your Honor. Um, there was no probable cause. Uh, this officer followed me for 0.3 miles. He did not observe me committing any uh, moving violation. Uh, and so I believe that uh, the initial stop was unlawful. The prosecutor brings up the expired license during his closing, which again would not have been a factor if the judge had allowed Nathan to present the state's evidence and play the body cam footage for the court, proving that the license plate was ran after the traffic stop was initiated, and that after pulling to the side of the road, the officer never even offered assistance. All of which points to this being a retaliatory stop by the officer and a violation of Nathan's first and fourth amendment rights. In the end, the judge only blinded himself by refusing to look at the evidence. I find that there was a basis to pull the vehicle over. There's no constitutional violation. Police officers clearly, unequivocally, had the authority under our constitution and under our case law here in New Jersey and federally to pull the vehicle over. As for the citation for the medallion hanging from the rearview mirror, when he pulled the vehicle over, he then, for the first time, noticed that there was this medallion or this bracelet or a necklace, I should say, hanging from the window. And we look for guidance then to our statute. Paragraph two of that statute says, "No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster, sticker, or other non-transparent material upon the front windshield, wings, deflectors, side shields, corner lights, adjoining windshield, or front side window of such vehicle other than a certificate or other article required to be so displayed by statute or by regulation." Uh But the the crux of the statute is that it has to be there. You can't have anything there that might obstruct vision. The statute uh is itself uh uh captioned, "Windshields must be unobstructed and equipped with cleaners." Uh And it's clear to me that the police officer didn't notice that until he got a very close examination of the vehicle. I can't give advice, but I'll make a suggestion or I'll give you some food for thought. Uh if you want to attract the attention of police, have stuff dangling from your rearview mirror. you know, uh and uh and that certainly uh will uh in some instances attract the attention of the police. I don't think that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that item, whatever it was, bracelet, medallion, necklace, whatever it was, obstructed uh your vision. So, I find you not guilty of the charge of having an obstructed windshield, but I will reiterate that I do find there was no police misconduct. The police had the authority under our case law and under our Constitution to pull your vehicle over, and he did so lawfully. The best part is the prosecutor's face. I don't think that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that item, whatever it was, bracelet, medallion, necklace, whatever it was, obstructed uh your vision. The amount of surprise by the court's decision is priceless, but I still imagine the judge would have felt differently had he watched the video. Perhaps he didn't watch it on purpose. Let me know what you think. Was this traffic stop reasonable, or was it done in retaliation? Nate does not have a channel of his own, so let him know what you think in the comments down below. Thanks for watching. If you have a video, use the submit link in the description or pinned comment. If you enjoyed this one, subscribe and hit the bell for future content, and check out our other channels, Lady Luckluster and The Odd Side. Remember to like, share, and leave a comment about what you think of this interaction. It's the easiest way for you to help expose corruption and misconduct. Merchandise is available using the links below. Join the Luckluster family for just a buck. If you'd like to further support the channel, get a luck logo next to your name, custom emotes, and early access to videos. I look forward to seeing you in the next one. All links are down below. Hey.