The nation was stunned when videos surfaced on social media depicting Tyreek Hill, the star wide receiver for the Miami Dolphins—in handcuffs—outside the Hard Rock Stadium just hours before the Dolphins’ opening game on September 8, 2024. A routine traffic stop escalated into a tense confrontation.[i] When the Miami Police Department decided to release the body-worn camera (“BWC”) footage from the arresting officer, a heated debate sparked on whether proper procedure was followed and whether the situation should have been handled differently.
Police BWC footage from September 8 showed Mr. Hill’s black McLaren 720S moving at a speed that outpaced the vehicles around him.[ii] The onlooking officers promptly gave chase and hailed Mr. Hill down on their motorcycles.[iii] Mr. Hill pulled over, and Officer Batista approached the vehicle to issue a ticket. Officer Batista tapped on the McLaren’s heavily tinted window, and Mr. Hill did two things: he told the officer, “Hey, don’t knock on my window like that,” and simultaneously handed the officer his driver’s license.[iv] After an exchange of words, Officer Batista said, “I have to knock to let you know I’m here, that way I can talk to you,” to which Mr. Hill replied, “Do what you gotta [sic] do.”[v] Officer Batista, with Mr. Hill’s driver’s license in hand, appeared to turn away–as if he was returning to his vehicle–Mr. Hill then raised his window up—business as usual.[vi]
Unfortunately, this routine traffic stop escalated into something worse. Things took a turn when Officer Batista tapped on the window a second time and instructed Mr. Hill to keep the window down. Mr. Hill rolled it down partially, and Batista ordered him to keep the window down, or Mr. Hill would be forcibly removed from the car. Mr. Hill, annoyed, exclaimed that the officer should not tell him what to do.[vii] As the window was still partially down, the officer remarked, “As a matter of fact, get out of the car . . . get out of the car right now.[viii] We are not playing this game.”[ix] A separate police officer standing to the side, Officer Torres, then ordered Mr. Hill to exit the vehicle adding, “I am going to break that . . . window,” using an expletive.[x] Officer Torres then forcibly pulled Mr. Hill out of his vehicle. Mr. Hill was on a phone call and can be heard telling someone, “I am getting arrested,” as he is being handcuffed.[xi] Officer Batista yelled, “When we tell you to do something, you do it.”[xii] Ultimately, the BWC shows three officers pinning a handcuffed Mr. Hill down on the ground, and one of those officers pressing his knee against Mr. Hill’s back.[xiii]
Officers conducting a traffic stop should be able to properly see an individual’s hands for the officer’s own safety. This likely prompted Officer Batista to tap on the window initially, and although this seemingly annoyed Mr. Hill, he complied by promptly handing the officer his driver’s license. But when Officer Batista turned, he was seemingly ready to return to his vehicle to issue a ticket. Thus, in rolling the window up, Mr. Hill arguably did not obstruct a legal duty. Given the warm weather in South Florida during early September, it’s reasonable for someone to raise a window up during a traffic stop when they are merely waiting for their ticket—no longer interacting with an officer.
Nonetheless, Mr. Hill complied when Officer Batista demanded that the window be lowered a second time. Yet, Officer Batista was unsatisfied because Mr. Hill only partially lowered his window. No Florida statute requires drivers to lower their windows during a traffic stop, let alone specify how much it should be lowered. But case law indicates that compliance with reasonable requests from law enforcement officers during a traffic stop is expected.[xiv] Under Florida Statute §843.02, “resisting, obstructing, or opposing any officer in the lawful execution of any legal duty without offering or doing violence to the officer is considered a misdemeanor.”[xv] Therefore, raising a window during a traffic stop could constitute obstruction if it impedes the officer’s lawful duties. Here, Mr. Hill’s decision to partially lower the window is unlikely to constitute obstruction because by that point, Officer Batista had everything required to complete the stop: he lawfully detained the vehicle; and was in possession of Mr. Hill’s driver’s license. In fact, Officer Batista turned around and appeared ready to go back to his vehicle to process the ticket. Thus, Mr. Hill likely did not obstruct Officer Batista’s legal duty.
In ordering Mr. Hill out of his vehicle, and forcibly removing him, the officers likely abused their discretion and violated Mr. Hill’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures by the government. A “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes is defined as a meaningful interference with an individual’s liberty. Here, before forcibly removing Mr. Hill from his vehicle, a seizure occurred. It has long been held in Florida that an order to exit a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.[xvi] Such seizures must be constitutionally validated by “a founded suspicion of criminal activity” if an officer fails to claim a valid safety concern.[xvii]
Assessing the reasonableness of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment calls for an objective inquiry; whether the circumstances reasonably justified the officers’ conduct. Here, Officer Batista told Mr. Hill that the window needed to be down for him to speak to Mr. Hill; he never mentioned safety. An argument could be made that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Mr. Hill was obstructing justice or resisting without violence when he raised his window. But this argument would likely fail. Given the facts, a reasonable person in Mr. Hill’s situation would likely assume Officer Batista no longer intended to interact with Mr. Hill, so he was justified in raising his window. Furthermore, Mr. Hill was not given enough time to comply with the second order to lower the window.[xviii] Viewing the totality of the circumstances, forcibly removing Mr. Hill from his vehicle arguably constituted an unreasonable seizure.
In R.H. v. State, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal found that the officer in that case ordered R.H. out of his vehicle because of R.H.’s apparent “hostile attitude” and not for the officer’s own safety.[xix] The court reasoned, “R.H.’s verbal abuse, however obnoxious, was not only not unlawful, but was affirmatively protected by the First Amendment.”[xx] Similarly, Officer Batista opted to assert his authority in response to Mr. Hill’s comments. Neither Officer Batista nor Officer Torres made an effort to de-escalate the situation. Arguably, no one party is morally “right” in this unfortunate encounter. But between the Miami-Dade Police officers and the NFL wide receiver involved in this traffic stop, only the officers had prior de-escalation training. Thus, the onus to de-escalate the encounter rested solely on the officers. Even if both Mr. Hill and the officers equally contributed to this routine stop spiraling out of control, it is not a crime to have an attitude. However, it is unlawful for an officer to pull someone out of their car without the constitutional validation required by the Fourth Amendment.
[i] See Becky Sullivan, Bodycam Footage Shows Miami-Dade Police Forcibly Handling Dolphins Star Tyreek Hill, NPR (Sep. 9, 2024), https://www.npr.org/2024/09/09/nx-s1-5106872/tyreek-hill-police-bodycam-videos-miami-dolphins.
[ii] See WFAA, Body Camera Footage Released, Tyreek Hill Detained by Miami Police Ahead of Game, YouTube (Sep. 2024), https://youtu.be/oPsmpug-ovE?si=QvEEKdCYN7BPIm8n&t=32 (showing the first time Mr. Hill’s McLaren is seen at the 00:32 minute mark).
[iii] See id.
[iv] See id. (depicting this interaction at the 01:30 minute mark).
[v] See id. (reveals the exchange of words at the 01:47 minute mark).
[vi] See id. (demonstrating Batista turning around at the 01:52 minute mark).
[vii] See Mike Wendling, Miami Officers Pull Tyreek Hill from Car, Bodycam Video Shows, BBC (Sep. 10, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gqnvj1v8lo.
[viii] Id.
[ix] See id.
[x] See id.
[xi] See id.
[xii] See id.
[xiii] See WFAA, supra note ii (showing Mr. Hill’s pinned to the ground at the 02:43 minute mark).
[xiv] See State v. Diaz, 850 So.2d 435,442–43 (Fla. 2003) (“[E]very operator of a motor vehicle must expect that the State, in enforcing its regulations, will intrude to some extent upon that operator’s privacy.”).
[xv] Fla. Stat. § 843.02 (2014).
[xvi] See Sullivan, supra note i (“Hill objects to the officer knocking on the glass. The officer asks why Hill was not wearing a seatbelt. ‘Give me my ticket, bro, so I can go. I’m going to be late,’ Hill says. ‘Do what you gotta do.’”).
[xvii] See R.H. v. State, 671 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
[xviii] See Wendling, supra note vii (“[O]fficer [Batista] knocks on the window again and orders [Mr. Hill] to put it down again. ‘Keep your window down (or) I’m going to get you out of the car,’ the officer says. ‘As a matter of fact, get out of the car.’”)
[xix] See R.H. v. State, 671 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (noting how the hostile attitude shown by R.H. did not offer enough constitutional validation).
[xx] Id.
