foreign [Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers Miranda rights probable cause and self-defense and is brought To Us by ewu Body cams Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on March 28 2022 officers with the Sunrise Police Department responded to several 9-1-1 calls alleging that tick-tocker Wyatt Yeager more commonly known by his handle icy Wyatt had driven erratically and Pistol whipped another motorist in a Chick-fil-A parking lot the interactions that followed were captured on body camera so what happened the studio is parked in the middle of the road right at the light okay so get back in the car stop blocking traffic you're literally was that someone else's card talking to them banging on their window I think they called too yeah woman in the car go about your day I got a gun all this I'm like okay whatever threw the drink at me so I got out of the truck obviously I got out he walks back into his car he grabs his gun points it at me okay my face I'll turn around just to leave but right another turn around I saw everything after he hit him yes he was chasing them inside the parking lot he's like crazy while the officers questioned the alleged victims Mr Yeager also called 9-1-1 about the situation okay tell me exactly what happened this truck came up and tried to cut me off so I pulled over to the next Lane and again he's trying to work into my ring and tried to hit the car so I stopped the vehicle and he gets right in front of me and they stopped the car right in front of me dead stuff so that I almost hit them and they get out of the car and I think they're ready to fight and then I had four guys jumped out the car and say yeah they did not hurt because you still have it in your hand I just opened the glove box and I said do you guys really want to [ __ ] me right now now okay where are you can I come meet you the officers then obtained Mr Yeager's phone number and asked to meet with him but Mr Yeager refused to meet without a lawyer present the officers eventually found Mr Jaeger as he was leaving his home and approached him with guns drawn hey put the car in park I don't know who I am nope [Applause] do it now lay down on the ground get on the ground get on the ground get on the ground next time wow Mr Jaeger claims that the officers failed to read him as Miranda rights while placing him under arrest in the landmark 1966 case of Miranda vs Arizona the Supreme Court held that in a criminal trial quote the prosecution may not use statements whether exculpatory or inculpatory stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination the court outlined the required procedural safeguards which have become commonly known as Miranda rights as follows quote prior to any questioning the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney either retained or appointed if he indicates that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning likewise if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated the police may not question him however it is important to note that the Miranda case only mandates that an individual to be informed of his rights before custodial interrogation which the court defined as quote questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way and therefore it does not necessarily require the reading of Miranda rights at the time of an arrest rather as the Supreme Court concluded in the 1980 case of Rhode Island versus Innis quote Miranda safeguards come into play Whenever a person in custody is subjected to either Express questioning or its functional equivalent that is to say the term interrogation under Miranda refers not only to express questioning but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect additionally in the 1984 case of burkemer vs McCarty the Supreme Court held that although officers are not required to give Miranda to warnings before engaging in roadside questioning of motorists who have been detained pursuant to routine traffic stops an individual who was placed under arrest during a traffic stop was quote in custody at least as of the moment he was formally placed under arrest and instructed to get into the police car and accordingly his subsequent statements were not admissible in court because he was not read his Miranda rights before questioning therefore although the officers were not technically required to read Mr Yeager his Miranda rights at the same time as his arrest if they questioned him without reminding him of his rights any statements he made could most likely not be used against him in his criminal case would you mind if we just look through it real quick are you allowing us to to look through the car or not yes yes okay we're gonna do that then foreign that happened with the road rage thing because they said that there was a gun involved and they described the whole thing and the gun's there and it seems like that's what happened he said he got hit by a Gun there's a witness unless you have something else to say about the incident I don't hate nobody well they're saying otherwise and they described the gun and everything and there was somebody else can't be a witness too was she with you yes oh okay we can talk to her when she gets here I'm getting arrested because of those people that cut me off I pulled that I pulled the gun out to show them through the window and they all went back in their car and they're talking about it's just for tonight I can't go to jail tonight I have to work like including over there go right go right out of it I gotta call my mom goodbye you can't take my phone you don't see the problem by somebody with a bright pink car who is famous online gets with on the on the freeways all the time and that's why I carry a gun show me the video proof where I hit him with a gun we don't need video proof yes you do because I have several witnesses that will testify against okay then then the court case should get dropped pretty quickly you have no proof okay you don't even know what gun is the same gun that I hit [ __ ] with if I did but you want to sit here and act like I'm the criminal Mr Yeager argues that the officers cannot confiscate his phone and later contends that they need video proof to arrest him because he has several witnesses that will testify to his side of the story as the Supreme Court noted in the 2001 case of Atwater versus city of Lago Vista during a custodial arrest quote the arrestee is subject to a full search of her person and confiscation of her possessions likewise in the 2014 case of Riley versus California the Supreme Court concluded that although officers May lawfully seize an individual cell phone incident to arrest they cannot search the contents of the phone without a warrant therefore a court would almost certainly determine that the officers were within their authority to take Mr Yeager's phone after he was placed under arrest further it is also likely that a court would conclude that the officers had sufficient probable cause to arrest Mr Yeager even without video evidence of the alleged pistol whipping and despite the fact that Mr Jaeger's version of events differs from the alleged victim stories in the 1963 case of care versus California the Supreme Court explained that quote the lawfulness of the arrest without warrant must be based upon probable cause which exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to Warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed similarly in the 2018 case of District of Columbia versus Westby the Supreme Court stated that quote probable cause is not a high bar and that now quoting again because probable cause deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances it is a fluid concept that is not readily or even usefully reduced to a neat set of legal rules it requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity not an actual showing of such activity in the Westby case the court also clarified that quote probable cause does not require officers to rule out a suspect's innocent explanation for suspicious facts and that the relevant inquiry when confronted with a conflicting story from a suspect is quote whether a reasonable officer could conclude considering all of the surrounding circumstances including the plausibility of the explanation itself that there was a substantial chance of criminal activity in this situation as multiple Witnesses testified that Mr Yeager was the aggressor and the officers observed a knot on the back of the victim's head from the alleged pistol whipping it is likely that a court would determine that the officers had probable cause to arrest Mr Jaeger despite Mr Yeager's alternate explanation of the events that occurred no we can't call your mom where are the keys in the inside the vehicle yes step inside oh okay that is the situation that nobody someone he called 911 and then he went all the way back here instead of meeting with us after being attacked by two hillbilly crazy people in a truck but he pistol with them over the top of their head because they attacked him well that's why we're going to go back and take a seat okay and he wants to tell us the side of the story then we'll see where we go Mr Yeager's girlfriend mazing Usher who's also known by the handle more amazing argues that Mr Jaeger only pistol whipped the other driver to defend himself from being attacked under normal circumstances Mr Jaeger's alleged conduct and pointing his firearm at the other motorists would likely constitute aggravated assault in violation of section 784.021 of the Florida Statutes which states that quote an aggravated assault is an assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill as section 784.011 of the Florida Statutes Define an assault as quote an intentional unlawful Threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another coupled with an apparent ability to do so and doing some ACT which creates a well-founded fear in such other person the such violence is imminent likewise the alleged pistol whipping would likely be considered an aggravated battery in violation of section 784.045 of the Florida Statutes which states that quote a person commits aggravated battery who in committed battery uses a deadly weapon as section 784.03 of the Florida Statutes explains quote the offensive battery occurs when a person actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other or intentionally causes bodily harm to another person and in the 2013 case of omira versus State the fourth district court of appeal of Florida determined that quote when a person commits a battery by using a firearm as a bludgeon the person uses a deadly weapon within the meaning of the aggravated battery statute however if as Ms Usher contends Mr Yeager pointed his firearm or pistol whip the other motorists to thwart an Attack under Florida law he may potentially be able to avoid conviction or even prosecution by arguing that he was acting in self-defense section 776.012 of the Florida statute states that quote a person is Justified in using or threatening to use Force except deadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself against the other's imminent use of unlawful Force likewise the statute also establishes that quote a person is Justified in threatening to use deadly force if he reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the imminent Commission of a forcible felony in this situation it is challenging to predict whether Mr Yeager would be able to succeed in a self-defense claim as the application of Florida self-defense laws requires highly fact-specific and nuanced analysis and the circumstances surrounding the altercation between Mr Jaeger and the other motorists are disputed however Mr Jaeger's credibility is certainly questionable as he claimed in his 9-1-1 call that he merely opened his vehicle's glove box to show the other motorists the firearm then later claimed to have only pulled the gun out while Ms Usher seemed to admit that Mr Yeager had you use the firearm as a bludgeon during the encounter so what are you trying to do so far just like defend the hillbillies who got punched in the face of the gun well if they got pissed over their gun then they're victims yes we are going to end of being attacked while driving they were speeding in front of it you guys not aware like the whole story we heard that there was some some kind of a lower agency that started it but I was aware that like multiple people hung up on this call and trying to call for assistance myself actually yeah we heard you on the phone tried to like find his home to just like show up wonderful to talk to him about what happened okay okay so I'll just follow you guys and see you there thank you Mr Jaeger was held in jail overnight and was released on bond after a court hearing the next day Mr Yeager was charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill one count of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon one count of battery on an officer and one count of resisting or obstructing without violence Mr Jaeger pleaded not guilty to all five counts and as of the date of writing this episode the charges are still pending on March 31st 2022 Mr Jaeger claimed on Twitter that quote Sunrise County police and Broward County ambushed me in my neighborhood hours after I had called for help in road rage incident earlier in the day they didn't send anyone to help me but came to my house hours later and helped me at gunpoint this is not okay the same day Mr Jaeger claimed in another now deleted Twitter post that he did not batter a police officer alleging instead the officers quote ripped my phone out of my hand and called it battery Mr Yeager also posted several Tick-Tock videos about the incident but his Tick Tock account has since been removed from the platform overall the sunrise officers get a c plus because although there are instances where individual officers behaved professionally some of the officers engaged in antagonistic dialogue with Mr Jaeger such as the officer who referred to him as the Tiger King and other officers used levels of force which were unnecessary for the situation for instance one of the officers threw Mr Yeager into the ground when he had failed to lie down flat after being ordered to get on the ground causing visible injuries to his face later an officer slammed Mr Jaeger into the side of a police cruiser after he moved his arms during hand cupping and told the officer to quote unquote shut up although courts have found similar levels of force to be constitutional in each of these instances the officer's objectives could likely have been achieved through lower levels of force that were less painful to Mr Jaeger and the officers seemed to be at least partially motivated by retaliation against Mr Yeager for his disrespectful conduct additionally the officer who transported Mr Yeager asked him several questions about the altercation which absent the administration of Miranda warnings could have rendered his statements inadmissible in court while the Supreme Court has determined that the failure to read Miranda writes before an interrogation does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Constitution best practices would require the officers to have mirandized Mr Yeager before asking him any questions Mr Jaeger gets an F for engaging in volatile and disrespectful speech and conduct throughout the encounter failing to exercise his right to remain silent and seemingly implying that his status is a Tick-Tock person quality should have any bearing on the way he was treated by law enforcement further although there does not seem to be video evidence of the alleged altercation in the Chick-fil-A parking lot there is video footage showing Mr Yeager operating his vehicle at an excessive speed and driving around a pickup truck at a stop sign and while Mr Jaeger is certainly entitled to his day in court the fact that he changed his story multiple times and did not call 9-1-1 until the officers had already responded to the scene combined with his demeanor throughout his arrest and various other factors lead me to believe that there may be at least some Merit to allegations against him in the road rage incident let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music] thank you [Music]