Viral Arrest of Innocent Driver Lawsuit | Cops Get Deposed

.

.

Viral Arrest of Innocent Driver Leads to Federal Lawsuit After Explosive Police Depositions

In September 2022, what began as a routine traffic stop in Cleveland Heights escalated into a viral civil rights controversy—one that now sits at the center of a federal lawsuit. The incident involved a local resident, Demetrius Kern, and two police officers whose sworn depositions have since drawn national attention.

Nearly four years later, the case continues to raise fundamental questions about police authority, constitutional limits, supervisory accountability, and the consequences of retaliatory enforcement.

The Incident

On September 22, 2022, Officer Carly Lewis of the Cleveland Heights Police Department was patrolling Mayfield Road when she observed a silver Infiniti that generally matched the description of a vehicle involved in a prior incident. Mayfield Road consists of five lanes—two in each direction and a center turn lane.

Officer Lewis was traveling in the left lane. Demetrius Kern was in the right curb lane behind the Infiniti.

According to dashboard and body camera footage later released publicly, Officer Lewis abruptly crossed from the left lane into the right lane, cutting in front of traffic as she attempted to initiate a stop of the Infiniti. Kern, who was driving behind the Infiniti, was forced to slam on his brakes to avoid a collision.

Lewis later testified under oath that she activated her emergency lights and siren as she transitioned into the right lane. However, she admitted she did not use a turn signal. More significantly, she conceded during her deposition that she was focused solely on the Infiniti and did not see Kern’s vehicle behind her when she made the lane change.

When asked how she knew whether the near-collision occurred during or after the lane change, Lewis responded, “I don’t know that. I can’t see behind my head.”

After stopping the Infiniti, Lewis approached Kern, who had exited his vehicle and was visibly shaken. Body camera footage captured Lewis apologizing for the abrupt stop and acknowledging the near accident.

“I apologize,” she said. “He stopped abruptly, causing me to stop, causing you to stop abruptly.”

Kern, meanwhile, recorded the interaction on his phone and requested Lewis’s name and badge number.

At this point, what could have remained a tense but resolved exchange began to escalate.

The Arrival of a Supervisor

Lewis radioed for backup, stating that another party “does not know how to yield to lights and sirens” and was recording her.

Moments later, her supervisor, Sergeant Neftali Wolf, arrived on scene.

Rather than de-escalating the situation, Wolf immediately confronted Kern and accused him of improperly pulling up behind a traffic stop. Body camera footage shows Wolf asserting that Kern had failed to yield and was interfering with police business.

However, Lewis had already testified that Kern complied with her instructions to remain on the sidewalk and did not prevent her from completing the traffic stop of the Infiniti driver, Mr. Goodman.

Under oath, Lewis admitted:

Kern complied with every directive she gave him.

He never prevented her from speaking with Goodman.

He was standing well behind her vehicle on a public sidewalk.

The traffic stop of Goodman had concluded before Kern was arrested.

When pressed about whether Kern had committed a crime, Lewis acknowledged that she told him at the scene there was “no crime.”

Later in the deposition, she conceded that statement was not legally accurate.

“If legally it would be a lie,” she said, “then yes.”

The Obstruction Charge

Sergeant Wolf demanded that Kern identify himself, asserting that failure to do so constituted obstruction.

Ohio law does require individuals to identify themselves during a lawful investigative detention. However, courts have consistently held that such a requirement only applies when officers possess reasonable, articulable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime.

Kern repeatedly asked what crime he was suspected of committing.

No clear answer was given.

Nevertheless, Wolf arrested him for obstruction, handcuffing him while telling him to “stop resisting.” Lewis later testified that Kern was not resisting in any way.

After Kern was placed in handcuffs, body camera footage captured a revealing exchange between the officers. Wolf and Lewis discussed whether they needed to charge him with something.

“I’m cool with letting him go,” Lewis said at one point.

Wolf responded that Kern had obstructed and refused to identify himself.

Ultimately, Lewis issued a citation at Wolf’s direction. In her deposition, she admitted she did not want to write the citation but did so because Wolf ordered her to.

“Sergeant Wolf ordered me to write the citation,” she testified. “Body camera doesn’t lie. So your sense of it was, I’m going to write this and let the court figure it out? … Yes.”

Three or four days later, the city prosecutor dismissed the charge, determining there was no probable cause.

The Federal Lawsuit

Following dismissal of the criminal case, Kern filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, including unlawful detention, retaliatory arrest, and false charges.

The case gained renewed public interest when civil rights attorney Chris Wuest and legal commentator John H. Bryan released full deposition footage of the officers online. The videos, widely shared across social media platforms, revealed inconsistencies, admissions, and striking testimony under oath.

In her deposition, Lewis acknowledged that:

She believed Kern’s frustration was justified.

He had not been stopped for a traffic violation.

She had the opportunity to contact a shift lieutenant if she believed the arrest was improper but did not.

She did not disagree with the prosecutor’s decision to dismiss the charge.

When asked whether Kern’s rights were violated, however, she answered “No.”

Sergeant Wolf’s deposition was reportedly far more combative. According to testimony excerpts, Wolf stated that he disagreed with the prosecutor’s dismissal of the case and believed probable cause existed.

When asked, “Do you know the law better than the prosecutor?” Wolf responded by defending his decision to arrest Kern.

The depositions also referenced a post-incident meeting held off the record, an internal affairs investigation, and disciplinary proceedings against Wolf. Details surrounding those proceedings remain contested.

Constitutional Questions

At the heart of the case lies a fundamental constitutional issue: When can police demand identification from a bystander?

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts have long held that police must possess reasonable suspicion before detaining someone and compelling identification.

Here, Lewis admitted that Kern was not the subject of the traffic stop and had not committed a traffic violation. She further acknowledged she did not know what his “purpose” was in speaking to her and had no evidence that he intended to obstruct her duties.

Yet he was arrested.

Civil rights advocates argue the arrest was retaliatory—punishment for challenging an officer’s conduct and recording the interaction.

The Supreme Court has recognized a First Amendment right to record police performing their duties in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Kern’s lawsuit alleges that the arrest was intended to silence and intimidate him for exercising that right.

Supervisory Authority vs. Constitutional Duty

Perhaps the most striking theme in the depositions is the tension between obedience to supervisory authority and an officer’s independent constitutional oath.

Body camera footage captured Kern telling Lewis:

“You swore oath to the Constitution… Sometimes you got to stand up to people.”

In her deposition, Lewis was asked whether she could have contacted a shift lieutenant if she believed Wolf’s order was unlawful.

She answered that she could have—but did not think to do so.

Legal experts note that officers are not shielded from liability simply because they followed orders. Under federal civil rights law, individual officers may be held personally liable if they knowingly participate in constitutional violations.

Whether Lewis’s admissions rise to that level remains a central issue in the lawsuit.

The Broader Impact

The case reflects a broader national conversation about accountability in policing. Incidents captured on body camera and cell phone footage increasingly shape public perception and judicial outcomes.

What once might have been a routine citation resolved quietly in municipal court is now the subject of a federal civil rights claim with national visibility.

The viral nature of the footage has amplified scrutiny not only of the officers involved but also of departmental culture, training, and supervision within Cleveland Heights.

Public reaction has been sharply divided. Some argue officers must maintain authority during volatile roadside encounters. Others contend the Constitution places firm limits on that authority—limits that cannot yield to irritation or ego.

Current Status

As of early 2026, the federal lawsuit remains pending. Discovery proceedings have included the depositions of both officers, internal communications, and body camera evidence.

Key legal questions before the court include:

Whether probable cause existed to arrest Kern.

Whether the arrest was retaliatory.

Whether qualified immunity shields the officers.

Whether supervisory liability extends to the city.

If the case proceeds to trial, a jury may ultimately determine whether Kern’s constitutional rights were violated and whether damages are warranted.

A Case About Power and Accountability

The Kern case illustrates how quickly a roadside encounter can transform into a constitutional battle. It underscores the importance of clear legal standards governing police-citizen interactions—and the role of courts in enforcing those standards.

Officer Lewis admitted she understood Kern’s frustration. She admitted she did not want to cite him. She admitted body camera footage would be reviewed by a court.

Sergeant Wolf, by contrast, maintained his position even after the prosecutor dismissed the case.

At stake is more than one traffic stop. The lawsuit raises enduring questions about authority, discretion, and the obligation of public officials to respect constitutional boundaries.

In the words captured on video that day: “Our rights don’t end where your fear begins.”

Whether a federal court agrees remains to be seen.