VIDEO: Couple Claims Brutality After Fight With Cops, Then Bodycam Shows Truth

Lindsay McLean drove the wrong way into the ER entrance, refused a sobriety test, and resisted arrest.

Coeur d’Alene, ID – Police have released several bodycam and surveillance videos of an altercation that took place in a hospital after a woman refused to be arrested (video below).

Police were called to Kootenai Health after Lindsay McLean drove into the emergency room entrance the wrong way on Aug. 27, 2017, the Spokesman-Review reported.

Lindsay had brought her 29-year-old Army veteran husband, Harrison McLean, to the emergency room suffering from an allergic stomach reaction after attending an anniversary party.

Hospital staff reported that she appeared drunk, and they took away her keys and notified police.

Upon arrival, Coeur d’Alene Police Officer Jacob Proctor spoke to the reporting receptionist and several witnesses about their suspicions, the Spokesman-Review reported.

He then approached Lindsay, who was already talking to Officer Emily Taylor.

Officer Proctor reported smelling alcohol on Lindsay’s breath and reported that she showed other signs of intoxication.

The videos showed her husband Harrison sitting beside her in a chair when the incident began.

“We’ll be back here tomorrow to get my keys; we haven’t done anything wrong. I’m looking out for my husband’s well-being,” Lindsay told Officer Proctor in the video.

Lindsay got up to retrieve her ID from the officer and then found her path blocked by Officer Proctor.

“OK, here’s the deal, because you’ve already driven here and you’ve been drinking, I need to make sure you’re OK to drive,” Officer Proctor told explained in the video.

“Nope,” Lindsay replied. She claimed she had a friend driving her home.

“Are you going to refuse … or perform …” Officer Proctor said.

In the video, Lindsay continued to insist that a friend was there to pick them up and that she wasn’t driving. She turned away from the police officer in a dismissive manner.

At that point, Officer Proctor and Officer Taylor each grabbed one of the woman’s arms and began to take her into custody, the video showed.

“What are you doing? No!” Lindsay screamed.

“You’re under arrest,” Officer Proctor replied as the woman began thrashing and trying to escape the officers’ grasp.

Suddenly, her husband Harrison launched himself out of his chair and attacked Officer Proctor, the video showed.

He grabbed onto Officer Proctor’s legs and attempted to bring the officer to the ground with him.

“Let go of my legs,” Officer Proctor ordered. “Stop resisting!”

Police said Harrison threw a punch while cursing at Officer Proctor and tore off Officer Taylor’s radio in the scuffle, the Spokesman-Review reported.

The video showed two security guards jumping in to help subdue Harrison.

Officer Proctor said that Harrison stayed latched onto his upper legs and just inches from his police belt, according to his police captain. So he punched Harrison multiple times in the ribs so he’d let go, the Spokesman-Review reported.

Lindsay was arrested and charged with battery of an officer, resisting police, and refusing a sobriety test, according to the Spokesman-Review.

Her husband is facing charges of assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

Lindsay, who claimed to have had four beers over an eight-hour period, showed impairment on sobriety tests while being questioned at the Kootenai County Jail, police said.

Coeur d’Alene Police Captain Dave Hagar said the department had reviewed the incident, as per protocol, to make sure the use of force was not excessive.

Captain Hagar told KHQ that the officers had acted appropriately in this case, and that Officer Proctor had only punched Harrison until he let go so that they could put him in handcuffs.

“It was reported within 24 hours through our use of force board and reviewed the video and based on the aggressive, assault, battery behavior against our officers,” Captain Hagar said, “You simply just can't batter an officer."

He also said the officer had probable cause to arrest Lindsay.

“He’d already established probable cause. The last confirmation was whether she’d do a sobriety test,” Captain Hagar told the Spokesman-Review. “Based on witness statements, what he saw, he already knew he’d place her under arrest. She said she was walking out of there, and we can’t allow that to happen.”

The trial was scheduled for June.

The McLeans were offered a plea deal which would have knocked their felony charges to misdemeanors, and only required they pay a fine and year on probation, according to the Spokesman-Review.

They refused the light plea deal, claiming that they were actually the victims.

"I understand the severity of getting physical with law enforcement officer but at the same time, there's two sides to every scenario,” Harrison told KHQ.

“We thought that this would have been relieved once the prosecutors saw the videos and read the police reports and saw the discrepancies in the police reports,” Lindsay told the Spokesman-Review. “But there was never any movement.”

Please share this video on social media to help show the truth of what happened.

You can see the incident in the video below:

Comments (29)
No. 1-29
JBo
JBo

SSDD.

mauiisl
mauiisl

And all her neighbors are praying she can't make bail.

webleedblue
webleedblue

I see stupid people. They're everywhere.

Giddyupgal
Giddyupgal

Yet another victim, smh!

fatdad
fatdad

What is wrong with these stupid people. Do what they ask you to do. That's all.

LEO0301
LEO0301

If it wasn't for alcohol we would only need half the number of officers.

MorrisStarkey
MorrisStarkey

I'm filing charges against that woman! At one point in that altercation, I was subjected to a horrific " mooning". I feared for my life. I may go blind

LegalGenius1965
LegalGenius1965

Critical confuckingdition? LMAO.

LegalGenius1965
LegalGenius1965

Oh my God her voice is so annoying I want to hit her myself.

Pat1978
Pat1978

If she was black, it would be national news with cries for justice.

kufan01
kufan01

I wondered and then thought that "critical confuckingdition" was an alcohol related condition, then I read further that the couple has refused a plea deal letting them off lightly and determined that it is either a STUPID condition or they are both alcoholics and that it is in fact an alcohol condition. smdh

b1rd
b1rd

Pat, Just goes to show stupidity is inherent to all colors. Like your comment.

ProGODProUSA
ProGODProUSA

@MorrisStarkey - You know, I thought Mom told us to wear clean underwear when we left the house - how about just wearing underwear, clean or not?

mouse24emt
mouse24emt

critical confuckindition....that’s a new one for me!

NTPD935Ret
NTPD935Ret

She is in trouble so she want to call the police!!! Lmao!! Stupid should be painful.

Outlaw_Stupidity
Outlaw_Stupidity

"Call the cops. Call the cops"

I think we have a real contender for dumbass of the year award..

61mouse
61mouse

Can someone help me out if she wasn't going to drive she didn't have her keys and a friend was coming to pick her up why a soberity test then ?? Did I miss something ? Be nice I'm asking sincerely

John.Brown
John.Brown

Jesus Christ, that screaming. Someone make it stop! Couldn't even watch the whole thing. @61mouse, my best guess is that they had enough witnesses that saw her drive in that condition that they might have been thinking about charging her with DUI. It would have been an uphill battle, but they had the probable cause if they chose to go that route. They probably should have just asked her to leave with her imaginary friend, as she was destined to be a problem at some point, but I wasn't there.

61mouse
61mouse

Think she was there for a Valium cocktail

mistydcollins
mistydcollins

dear lawd! that screeching!

Heezels
Heezels

This is worse than I thought. They have no legal case to stand on. Should have taken the plea deal.

Truth-Teller
Truth-Teller

People do not have to follow an unlawful order

Truth-Teller
Truth-Teller

In what would seem to be the original test of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment 5, specifically “..deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” we have the case of Plummer v. State 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893). The Indiana Supreme Court after considering the original case, overturned a manslaughter conviction against Plummer and issued the following opinion: “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.”

Several years later, the Plummer decision was used as precedent during the appeals trial of one, John Bad Elk. Bad Elk, a tribal police officer in South Dakota, had killed another tribal policeman. Three policemen had attempted to arrest Bad Elk without a warrant or charges.

Bad Elk was originally convicted of murder, however, his conviction was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court who issued this opinion:

“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

To the modern, enlightened man these legal opinions would seem to be taken straight out of the pages of the Anarchists Cookbook. Some readers may be shocked to see them for the first time and consider that the old courts were sanctioning lawful murder of policemen.

More than two decades ago when I attended the police academy, I recall one of our instructors advising us that a citizen had the right to resist an unlawful arrest. The purpose of that lesson was to impress upon we young bucks the seriousness of the act of arresting a person and that our actions would indeed be put under scrutiny. We cadets were warned about the career ending perils of a “false arrest” charge and advised against the tendency to resort to handcuffs just because we could.

During my time behind the badge there were definitely times when handcuffs and detention were absolutely the order of the day. Nonetheless, there were also times during a non-violent confrontation that the introduction of cuffs would have only exacerbated the situation.

John.Brown
John.Brown
Truth-Teller
Truth-Teller said: In what would seem to be the original test of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment 5, specifically “..deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” we have the case of Plummer v. State 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893). The Indiana Supreme Court after considering the original case, overturned a manslaughter conviction against Plummer and issued the following opinion: “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Several years later, the Plummer decision was used as precedent during the appeals trial of one, John Bad Elk. Bad Elk, a tribal police officer in South Dakota, had killed another tribal policeman. Three policemen had attempted to arrest Bad Elk without a warrant or charges. Bad Elk was originally convicted of murder, however, his conviction was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court who issued this opinion: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.” To the modern, enlightened man these legal opinions would seem to be taken straight out of the pages of the Anarchists Cookbook. Some readers may be shocked to see them for the first time and consider that the old courts were sanctioning lawful murder of policemen. More than two decades ago when I attended the police academy, I recall one of our instructors advising us that a citizen had the right to resist an unlawful arrest. The purpose of that lesson was to impress upon we young bucks the seriousness of the act of arresting a person and that our actions would indeed be put under scrutiny. We cadets were warned about the career ending perils of a “false arrest” charge and advised against the tendency to resort to handcuffs just because we could. During my time behind the badge there were definitely times when handcuffs and detention were absolutely the order of the day. Nonetheless, there were also times during a non-violent confrontation that the introduction of cuffs would have only exacerbated the situation.

Very good lesson on case law, but there was no unlawful arrest here, so I don't really get your point.

Jack17
Jack17

Showed her ass!

Montecore
Montecore

Truth Teller .We know your soverign,and have never been a Cop with the vermen you spew. Can't commit a crime or something ? Your not actually drving your traveling in a car I suppose as this movement goes. You should have taken the rocket just lauched to Mars. Ground comtrol to Major Truth Teller. You are not of this earth. Do all you can to avoid Police contact.Either you had a Lobotomy or Great drugs have killed a lot of brain cells. No point in trying to diagree.This is your law. Some of the sentences make no sense. They are just words put together. God forbid you were ever a Cop for more than 1 minute. Get PTSD HELP PLEASE. A Confrontation wont end well for you.

foriz
foriz

Now this is good policing, these people deserved to be arrested. You notice no punching in the head occurred!. Compare this to the wildwood beach brutality on the 20 year old peanut of a woman, thats the shit I'm talking about. These are fine officers. The Wildwood cop, not so fine, and will be a menace to society, especially young beautiful women if allowed to return to duty!

Fbc28277
Fbc28277

She drove to the hospital after drinking too much. If she would have not showed her ass been cool the nurses probably would not have alerted the police.