You think it's funny, sir? I guess I'll see you in court. All right, ticket still stands there. Special restrictions on lamps and signed registration card. All righty, sir. Be safe. >> Ultimately, man William was issued citations for two trumped-up charges, one of which was a law already abolished. And even more unbelievable was that local court judge actually found charges of light restrictions valid while dismissing charge for registration card not being signed, which no longer existed. And it was precisely based on this charge that William was placed in handcuffs. Months after incident, William cleared light charges by appealing to circuit court because he was using lights originally equipped by vehicle manufacturer rather than illegally modified lights. Subsequently, William retained lawyer to file federal civil rights lawsuit against local government and police department. In response, sheriff of police department specifically released video [music] to provide statement. >> During the stop, the individual began laughing and said, "Officer, because of flashing lights and trying to warn other drivers of what could have been a high-priority investigation." Examples: trying to locate missing child that had been abducted, murder suspect, someone bringing poison drugs into our area that possibly get into our child's hands, trying to find offender running the stop lights. We all know that's a current problem in our area. When someone acts erratically, it is not normal. It raises questions for further possible involvement of criminal activity. We'll say I believe the wheels of justice were served. And this, folks, is exactly why we have the best justice system in the world. Also says individuals, none of us are perfect. There was only one. Mistakes are made daily and addressed accordingly. >> As for involved officer Ellison, although he once talked tough, >> I guess I'll see you in court. >> But after learning he was being sued, he still cried like a child and begged court to grant him qualified immunity. This right itself is intended to protect officers so they can decisively enforce law without being hesitant during enforcement due to fear of being sued. However, there is one exception, which is when officer's behavior clearly violates clearly established constitutional [music] or legal rights. As for officer Ellison in this case, he first stopped William in absence of probable cause and then subjected him to pat down and prolonged retaliatory detention. This clearly violated multiple constitutional rights of William. Therefore, court rejected officer Ellison's claim of immunity in March 2025. Currently, case has entered stage of substantive trial and William has also proposed claims of hundreds of thousands of dollars through lawyer.