Jesus fucking Christ....What bullshit.
He failed the field test after illegally parking on the freeway with dealer plates and admitting to drinking and driving, argued and stalled rather than complied, and then played games with the field test, failing it, and didn't submit to the breathalyzer as required by law (you can't delay the test by arguing about your rights as he did, by law, they clearly warned him so). That's automatic conviction in most places....white or black.

Totally cuffed for cause, then eventually had the charges dropped because they "lost" the footage, but by his own words he's guilty of the charge of refusing the test.
Every bad experience had by a person of color is not institutional racism, especially when they're actually breaking the law and being belligerent....which he was by parking on the shoulder and arguing instead of complying with lawful commands. Had they not "lost" the video, he should have been convicted and had his licence revoked....white or black.

Thanks @C-note, you've single handedly turned me from someone who exposed racism to someone who now actively debunks it. Congratulations.

At no point during his recollection of events did he say that he refused a breathalyzer test, nor was one offered. And it sounds like he more or less did the standard field sobriety test. And if he had failed the SFST or refused the breathalyzer I'm pretty sure that would have come up in court. Sorry, but this sounds like a cut and dry case of DWB to me.

4:26....at the station, what he's calling a "sobriety test" is, in most states, a breathalyzer test that you must agree to, or blood, and not saying yes and taking it is considered refusal because people do waste time arguing in an attempt to score lower, and ain't nobody got time for that. They told him clearly you must answer yes or no, or it's considered refusal, which is absolutely normal procedure from what I've seen. He answered "Listen, I was a US Marine, ....bla bla bla...let's take a minute....bla bla bla...explain my rights...bla bla." and never took it, which is refusal under the law.
5:33 confirms this, breathalyzer.

They must have claimed he failed the field test or why cuff him and require more tests at the station, something he omits, which makes sense since he said he joked around while taking it, marching left right instead of heel toeing. At first he insisted on making numerous phone calls first, like that's a right....he knows his rights....Then he wants to stop to set up his camera to record the stop...Then argues more about the test itself. The cops were clearly annoyed with him arguing and not complying before he got out of the car, but he persisted right into jail.

I wouldn't trust his biased recollection to include all the facts, especially since he is "conducting a study on racial profiling". Sounded to me like a case of arguing himself into a charge he was lucky to get out of because the cops stupidly didn't record the stop. From his own descriptions, in California at least, he's totally guilty....you have no right to discussions, and only an idiot would believe the cops will tell you your rights honestly anyway, so why keep asking except to waste time and annoy?

Well, looking it up on Google the "Sobriety Test" strictly speaking involves three tests that don't involve the breathalyzer, which usually comes after those first tests. But he does say breathalyzer at 5:33, but if it is really an open and shut case because he refused it then why did he get off?
From the sounds of it the cop had no reason to suspect he was drunk in the first place, which renders the tests moot because he probably wasn't drunk and they knew it. As for why waste time and annoy? From his perspective they were wasting his time and annoying him, so why the hell not.

No...he admitted to drinking at the dinner he was coming from, a legal reason to field test by itself. There's no question they can field test you for any suspicion, even no reason at all, and fail you for any tiny missteps they determine indicate impairment, then verify with a breathalyzer. Failure to submit to that impartial test is considered admission of guilt in most places.
He was let off most likely because he denied 'refusing' the test and they couldn't prove otherwise without recordings is my guess.

Why not intentionally waste their time and annoy them? Because defending yourself against charges that could be easily avoided is a pain, as he describes. The officers involved won't care if the charges stick, their point is made, they'll show you who can waste who's time and money more effectively, with little fear of consequences.
Edit: there's also the possibility that the police didn't show at the final trial appearance, which could also end up causing a dismissal of the case.

When you're illegally parked/stopped on a freeway shoulder you should expect to be looked at with suspicion, imo.

Sorry @newtboy, but at no point in any interaction with law enforcement should you ever be penalised for asking what your rights are in a given situation. It should automatically “pause” any other question until that is answered.

Now, I have no problem with a police officer stopping anyone and administering a sobriety test at any time, but this is clearly harassment and nothing more.

In a perfect world, yes, but in reality, no.
Police do not have to tell the truth, and if a lie gets them the upper hand, they'll often lie. Asking them to explain your rights, especially after annoying them by being obstinate and repeating to them that you know your rights, is just dumb imo. They have no obligation to teach you or to be honest about them and every incentive not to.....although it would be nice if they did.

Edit: asking for a lengthy explanation after being told 'any answer besides"yes" is considered refusal' is a point where you will be penalized for asking what your rights are....white, black, or purple.

Explain how it's ok to administer a test at any time but this time is harassment because he failed them, please, because that's contradictory.

He parked on the freeway causing suspicion,
admitted to drinking and driving requiring a field test,
didn't follow directions so failed the field test,
then obstinately repeated that with the breathalyzer by not answering yes and taking it. (After being told anything but yes legally means no).
Please, what's harassment there?....because there's definitely something more imo.

Remove race from the equation, and it's a good arrest. Adding race in does nothing to negate that imo.


Edit: I was a white punk with a long Mohawk. I got harassed far worse than this repeatedly, including being thrown to the ground at gunpoint because an officer read my plate wrong and accused me of being a car thief. Attitude usually has far more to do with the outcome than anything else in my experience. When I was polite and followed instructions I almost always walked, even when in the wrong. When I argued, I got slapped hard, like a vandalism charge for a 4" chalk line on a sidewalk or 2 hours of having my car searched in front of my friends house.

If I'm misunderstanding and you aren't claiming this was a dwb arrest, apologies. That's the part I'm debating, because it seems wrong.

Moving this video to C-note's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.