Table of Contents
An Oklahoma City police officer's attempt to silence a constitutional rights attorney backfired spectacularly when his own body camera captured the entire unlawful detention. The footage reveals not just a clear violation of civil rights, but an officer desperately trying to turn off his recording equipment as he realizes his mistake.
The Meeting That Sparked Constitutional Chaos
Attorney Ron Durbin arrived at a fire marshal meeting expecting to witness standard government proceedings. Instead, he found over 2,000 invited citizens being denied entry to a room with only 49-person capacity. Half of those seats were occupied by government employees, leaving just 24 spots for the public at what was supposed to be an open meeting under Oklahoma's transparency laws.
The violation was clear: when government bodies cannot accommodate expected attendance, they must provide alternative access like live streaming. No such accommodation was made. Durbin, recognizing the constitutional violation unfolding before him, began documenting the scene and requesting to file a formal complaint.
When Documentation Becomes "Disturbance"
The responding officer's body camera reveals a telling conversation with building officials. They wanted the citizens "off the property" simply for gathering in the lobby after being denied entry to the public meeting. The officer's own words expose the circular logic: if they won't leave, "we'll tell them if you're going to be disorderly then you're going to jail."
Durbin remained on the public sidewalk, clearly outside the building, exercising his First Amendment right to document government actions. The officer acknowledged this directly: "no one cares if you're sitting on the sidewalk standing on the sidewalk outside the building not causing problems."
The Moment Everything Changed
Despite admitting Durbin had every right to be on the sidewalk, the officer's tone shifted dramatically. Without any criminal activity or reasonable suspicion, he demanded to check Durbin for warrants. When the attorney correctly refused, citing the lack of reasonable articulable suspicion, the officer's response was swift and telling.
"All right, make good choices," the officer said, before immediately placing Durbin in handcuffs. The irony was lost on no one: the person making poor choices was the one with the badge and gun, not the attorney standing peacefully on public property.
Body Camera Betrayal
The most damaging evidence came from the officer's own equipment. Throughout the encounter, his body camera captured him saying "I think if I was you I would go oh hell yeah or heck yeah" as he struggled with the device. "I can't figure out how to turn this off," he mutters, clearly aware that his actions wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
Later, after releasing Durbin without charges, the officer can be heard discussing the camera malfunction with colleagues: "hey my camera won't turn off." The timing of these technical difficulties raises serious questions about whether officers routinely attempt to disable recording equipment during questionable encounters.
The Aftermath That Reveals Everything
After detaining Durbin, running his information, and finding no warrants or criminal history, the officer had no choice but to release him. Durbin's parting words proved prophetic: "you lost your qualified immunity when you put your hands on me, so I will see you in federal court." The attorney noted the money from any settlement would go to charity, turning the officer's misconduct into community benefit.
The officer's final recorded words sum up the entire encounter: "well hey everybody you just got to watch me have my constitutional violation." Whether he intended this admission or thought his camera was off remains unclear.
Questions That Demand Answers
The body camera footage raises disturbing questions about routine police practices. How often do officers attempt to disable their cameras during encounters? Was this technical incompetence or intentional obstruction? And why did supervisors allow an officer to detain a citizen he admitted had committed no crime?
The full video reveals additional concerning details about the interaction, the officer's knowledge of constitutional law, and the coordinated effort to silence citizens seeking government transparency. What happened next, and whether this officer faced any consequences for his admitted constitutional violation, can only be seen in the complete footage.
Watch the full body camera video to see exactly how this constitutional crisis unfolded and what the officer said when he thought the cameras were off.
