Case Story: Getting Assault on Officer Charge Dismissed due to police misconduct

So many times, in life, things are not what they seem. What looks like something to Person A is often viewed differently by Person B. And usually, reasonable minds can differ.

But not in the law. And not in police work. There, certain rules and requirements exist so that people are policed in fair and equitable ways.

That’s what this case is about.

Our client and his friend were walking along the Red River one night in Moorhead, carrying a flashlight to guide them and minding their business. Our client was also pushing his bike. Not riding it. Pushing it. 

For some reason, the police viewed this activity as wrong or suspicious and decided to interrogate our client and his friend. Things escalated and our client ended up being charged with four crimes.

We got involved and quickly realized the thing every dogged criminal defense lawyer does–there are always two sides to a story. Here, we thought our client’s version was the truth. And through a series of motions, we got the judge to agree.

Here’s how we did it.

The Incident

On a cold November evening in Moorhead, Minnesota, two individuals— a black man and a white woman— were walking their bicycles along a grassy strip near the Red River. It was dark, but one of them held a flashlight, its beam cutting through the night. Moments earlier, police had observed the pair riding the bikes, and something as minor as the lack of a headlight became the catalyst for what followed.

An officer called out, ordering them to stop.

What began as a routine encounter quickly escalated. The officer informed our client and his companion they were being stopped for not having bicycle lights. The female pointed to the light on her bicycle, telling the officer her light was broken. Our client held out his illuminated flashlight in protest.

The police were undeterred, demanded identification, and then detained the two. Their names were run through the police database, and doubt crept in when our client’s name didn’t appear in the system. Officers suspected he was someone else entirely, a man with an outstanding warrant. 

The officer told the female she was free to leave. No citation was issued for having an inoperable bicycle light; not even a verbal warning. She was just told to leave. Our client, on the other hand, was then confronted regarding his true identity. Once the officers confirmed our client’s identity and the outstanding warrant, they moved to arrest him, and he ran.

He didn’t get far, almost immediately tripping and falling to the ground.

Moments later, he was handcuffed and placed in a squad car. Our client was angry. He had been stopped while walking his bicycle with a flashlight in hand. Heated words were exchanged, but our client had been compliant. Officers claimed he tried to kick one of them while getting into the squad car. But the cameras—silent witnesses—told a different story.

The Charges

From this brief encounter, the state charged our client with four crimes.

Two stemmed from what happened before the arrest: giving a false name and fleeing on foot. The remaining two were more serious: charges alleging that our client attempted to assault a police officer.

On paper, it looked like a straightforward prosecution. A suspect fled, resisted, and attacked an officer. But cases are not decided on paper—they are decided on evidence.

And here, the evidence did not support the officers’ narrative.

The Legal Challenge

We attacked the case at its foundation.

First, we challenged the stop itself. Police claimed the encounter was justified by a bicycle light violation. But again, the actual facts—as shown by the officer’s own body camera—told a different story. 

Our client was no longer riding his bike when officers approached him. Nor was our client on the roadway or sidewalk. Instead, he was simply walking his bike in a grassy area, holding a functioning flashlight.

The law requires more than such a vague suspicion to initiate a police encounter; it requires specific, articulable facts. Such facts were missing here.

From there, our defense followed a powerful causal chain reaction:

• If the stop was unlawful, then the seizure was unconstitutional.

• If the seizure was unconstitutional, then everything that followed—the statements, the identification, and the flight—was tainted.

• And if that evidence was tainted, the state’s case was over.

At the same time, we took aim at the assault charges. The allegation was a kick at an officer. But the video evidence showed no such act. No lunge, no strike, no movement consistent with an attempt to cause harm. In fact, when this alleged kick occurred, the officer was many feet away from our client, making it impossible for him to even make contact in the first place.

Words alone, even angry ones, are not enough. Angry words do not constitute an assault, and our client’s actions did not amount to an assault either.

The defense argument was simple but devastating: the stop was unconstitutional and there simply had been no assault.

The Decision

The court agreed with us on every critical point.

First, it ruled that the stop itself was unconstitutional because the state had failed to show reasonable suspicion that our client had committed any bicycle violation. Because again, walking a bike while holding a flashlight is not a violation.

That finding triggered the exclusionary rule, a defense lawyer’s best friend. 

This meant all the evidence flowing from the unlawful seizure—including our client’s identification, his flight, and related conduct—was suppressed.

With that evidence gone, the first two counts had nothing left to stand on, so they were dismissed.

Then came the assault charges.

The court turned to the video recordings and interpreted them as any reasonable non-police officer would: they did not show a kick; they did not show an attempt to strike; they did not show any physical conduct that could support an assault charge.

Simply put, they did not show at all what the police and the prosecutor were claiming. It just wasn’t true.

Without evidence of intent or action, probable cause did not exist.

Those counts were therefore dismissed, too.

In the end, every one of the state’s charges failed. Our motion to suppress was granted. Our motion to dismiss was granted. The state’s case was over.

The Takeaway

This case was not about a bicycle light. It was about constitutional limits. It was about overbearing police and prosecutors. And it was about police exaggerations and straight-up lies. 

The ruling reaffirmed a fundamental principle: police must justify a stop with real, objective facts; not assumptions, not hunches, not after-the-fact explanations.

It also underscored the power of evidence, especially video. When reports and recordings diverge, courts follow what they can see.

A 21st century version of “trust, but verify.”

And perhaps most importantly, it demonstrated the cascading effect of an unlawful act by police officers. One unconstitutional stop erased an entire prosecution. Every piece of evidence and the narrative built on that stop fell with it.

In the end, our client didn’t just win on a technicality.

He won on the Constitution, and for that, we are grateful.