Cop With 27 Years Had No Idea About the Law He Was Enforcing. Judge Said Not Guilty.

A 27-year veteran sergeant arrested a cyclist for refusing to use a bike lane — then couldn't name a single statute he was enforcing when he got to court. David Pletz was riding his bicycle on Fort Street in Detroit, Michigan at 2:32 in the morning on March 4th, 2026, when Sergeant Brian Tersak pulled up behind him and ordered him into the bike lane. Pletz refused three times. What Tersak did not yet know — because he hadn't seen it in the dark — was that the bike lane was blocked by a construction detour sign flanked by sandbags. Pletz had already encountered the obstruction, moved into the traffic lane as allowed by Michigan law, and kept riding. He was arrested anyway, cuffed, and spent the next twenty minutes being lectured on the roadside about internet legal jargon while Tersak called backup and dismissed everything Pletz said. Pletz was charged with two misdemeanors: disobeying a lawful order of a police officer and interfering with traffic. This was a bench trial — no jury, just a judge evaluating the law, the body cam footage, and the testimony directly. The prosecution had a veteran officer on the stand and video evidence. The defense had the Michigan Vehicle Code. Specifically, MCL 257.660A, the statute that explicitly allows a cyclist to leave the right edge of the road when conditions make it unsafe or impractical to remain there. During cross-examination, attorney Darnell Barton asked Sergeant Tersak whether he was familiar with that statute. Or with MCL 257.657, which establishes that cyclists have the same roadway rights as motor vehicle operators. Tersak's answer, on the record, was no to both. The man who had spent twenty minutes mocking Pletz for quoting law could not name a single statute he had been enforcing. The judge had already ruled that an officer's knowledge of the applicable law is directly relevant to whether an order can be called lawful. And the body cam footage delivered one more blow the prosecution never recovered from: at the 17-minute and 5-second mark, while police vehicles were blocking the lane and officers stood in the road, a large oil tanker truck passed through without obstruction. The judge said directly from the bench that if a tanker could pass through that interference, it was difficult to understand how one cyclist constituted a traffic obstruction. The interference charge collapsed on the prosecution's own video. The verdict was not guilty on both counts. The judge then placed something on the permanent court record that went further than the verdict itself: knowing your rights is not the same as being difficult, and an officer's confidence, experience, or backup does not make an order lawful if the law does not support it. What You Will Learn In This Video: • What Michigan Vehicle Code MCL 257.660A actually says — and why the word "practicable" is the legal standard that determined this entire case • Why an officer's knowledge of the statute they are enforcing is legally relevant to whether the order they gave was lawful • How body cam footage became the prosecution's own undoing, and what the oil tanker moment meant for the interference charge • What a bench trial is, how it differs from a jury trial, and why it mattered here • Why an unlawful order breaks the entire chain of legal demands that follow — including the demand to identify yourself --- This channel covers real courtroom cases and legal proceedings for educational and informational purposes only. . This content is not intended as legal advice. Viewer discretion is advised. If this case moved you, share this video. Justice deserves to be heard. Subscribe for more real courtroom cases, legal verdicts, and rights-based justice content every week. #courtroomjustice #judgeverdict #legalrights #BenchTrial #truecrimejustice #NotGuiltyVerdict #criminalcourt #LegalCaseOutcome #DavidPletz #detroitmichigan #BikeLaneLaw #MichiganVehicleCode #UnlawfulOrder #SergeantTersak #CyclistRights #knowyourrights #justiceserved #realcourtroom #courtroomdrama #CopsInCourt Disclaimer This video contains copyrighted material from third-party sources, used under the Fair Use doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107) for purposes of criticism, commentary, news reporting, education, and legal analysis. The material is used in a transformative manner — to educate viewers about courtroom procedure, legal ethics, and constitutional rights. We do not claim ownership of any third-party audio or video clips. All rights remain with the respective copyright holders. Our use is limited to the minimum amount necessary to serve educational and analytical goals, and does not substitute for the original work. If you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used beyond Fair Use, please contact us directly at [your email] before initiating any formal action. We are committed to resolving disputes in good faith.