Police Arrest Man for Doing Nothing – Except Sitting in His Own Car

In Prior Creek, Oklahoma, what started as a peaceful moment of rest quickly escalated into a questionable arrest that drew nationwide attention. In a detailed breakdown hosted by investigative journalist John Lang on his YouTube channel Audit the Audit, Lang examined the legal missteps, officer conduct, and constitutional issues that unfolded when local police arrested a man named Andrew Martin for the apparent crime of relaxing in his own vehicle. The incident was also recorded on body cam footage and supported with statutory references and case law throughout Lang’s analysis.

A Nap Becomes a Police Matter

According to Audit the Audit, the encounter began when someone called in to report a man asleep in his truck in a private apartment complex parking lot. Officer Kenny Bennett arrived on the scene and approached Mr. Martin, who was reportedly drooling and unresponsive at first. After knocking on the window and waking him, Officer Bennett began questioning Mr. Martin about whether he was on any substances or had consumed alcohol, questions Mr. Martin calmly denied.

While napping in a car might seem harmless to most, Officer Bennett treated the situation as suspicious and possibly criminal. His reasoning: Martin’s vehicle was “partially obstructing the roadway” and parked on private property where he supposedly had “no business” being.

Loitering? Not So Fast

One of the main accusations made by Officer Bennett was that Mr. Martin was loitering. However, as Audit the Audit points out, this claim lacks any real legal grounding. Under Oklahoma law (Title 21, Section 1787), loitering in a vehicle is only prohibited when done without the consent of the vehicle’s owner. Martin was in his own truck, making that statute irrelevant.

Furthermore, Lang highlights that neither Oklahoma state law nor the city code of Prior Creek contains a general ban on loitering that would apply to someone resting in their own car on private property. No clear legal justification was presented for this accusation, making the officer’s claim extremely shaky at best.

Obstruction Without Obstructing

When Martin didn’t eagerly cooperate with every question, Officer Bennett claimed he was “obstructing” the investigation. Lang referenced Oklahoma’s obstruction statute (Title 21, Section 540), which criminalizes the willful delay or obstruction of a public officer performing their duties. However, Lang notes that simply refusing to answer questions is not legally considered obstruction – unless a person is under a statutory duty to provide that information.

Citing the 1984 Berkemer v. McCarty decision, Lang explains that while police may ask questions during a so-called “Terry stop,” the subject is not required to respond. So Martin’s reserved demeanor and limited replies were constitutionally protected.

The SFST Controversy

A key moment in the encounter came when the officers pressured Martin to take Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). As Audit the Audit explains, SFSTs are used to assess impairment, but they are voluntary in Oklahoma. Lang emphasized that refusal to participate in such tests is not obstruction under Oklahoma law.

What’s more, Lang referenced research by Steven Rubenzer, who questioned the reliability of SFSTs in his 2008 study. The tests rely heavily on an officer’s judgment and can be influenced by medical conditions, fatigue, or anxiety—none of which necessarily indicate intoxication. In Martin’s case, fatigue from driving was his own explanation for the nap, not impairment.

Unfounded Roadway Claims

The officers also claimed that Martin was obstructing the roadway. But Lang carefully debunks this too. According to Oklahoma law (Title 47, Section 11-1101), parking restrictions on highways apply only outside of business and residential areas. Martin was parked near an apartment complex – a residential zone.

Lang also reviewed Prior Creek’s own city ordinance, which bars parking on the “main traveled part of the street.” Even if Martin’s truck was slightly over the edge of a parking lot, it’s unlikely a court would view it as obstructing traffic under that code.

The Arrest and the Aftermath

After prolonged questioning and repeated refusals to perform sobriety tests, officers arrested Martin for obstruction. He was never charged with DUI. In fact, Lang reports that the only official charge – being in “actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence” – was ultimately dismissed on March 31, 2025, at the request of the state.

This dismissal underscores Lang’s primary conclusion: there was no strong legal foundation for the arrest. From the shaky obstruction claim to the invalid loitering accusation, the officers repeatedly acted on what Lang calls a “fundamental misunderstanding of Oklahoma law.”

A Failing Grade for the Officers

In his final verdict, Lang gives the Prior Creek police officers an “F” grade. He criticizes their overly aggressive approach, lack of legal justification, and confrontational behavior. Rather than de-escalate the situation, they appeared to create tension, escalating what could have been a brief welfare check into a full-blown arrest.

Lang also points out that the officers misunderstood, or outright ignored, basic Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections. Their frustration over Martin’s calm refusal to answer all questions became a justification to detain and arrest him, something Lang argues is deeply troubling in a constitutional democracy.

Martin’s Composure Under Pressure

While the officers faltered, Lang gives Andrew Martin an “A-” for his handling of the situation. Despite being threatened with arrest, questioned aggressively, and told he was obstructing justice, Martin largely remained calm and composed. He asserted his rights without yelling, fleeing, or becoming physically uncooperative.

Lang does suggest that Martin could have been more clear and deliberate in asserting his rights verbally. Still, his refusal to be bullied into complying with unlawful demands serves as a solid example of how to stand firm under pressure.

A Pattern That Needs Correction

From my own perspective, what makes this case particularly frustrating is how easily it could have been avoided. A man was tired and pulled over to rest – something we encourage drivers to do to avoid accidents. Instead, he ended up in handcuffs. This sends a chilling message: if you stop to take care of yourself, you might end up arrested if you’re unlucky enough to attract the wrong kind of attention.

Lang’s breakdown highlights not only the legal failures in this case, but the cultural problem of policing with suspicion rather than service. If the goal was public safety, these officers missed it completely.

The Danger of Over-Policing the Mundane

There’s something deeply wrong when sitting in your own car becomes probable cause. This case shows how even mundane behavior, like dozing off in a parking lot, can be interpreted as suspicious by police trained to escalate first and question legality later. Lang’s analysis reminds us that law enforcement should be grounded in law, not assumptions.

A Legal System That Sometimes Corrects Itself

Fortunately, the justice system in this case eventually worked: the charges were dropped, and Martin avoided long-term legal consequences. But the fact that he had to be arrested, taken to jail, and threatened with losing his license just for refusing a sobriety test after taking a nap is telling. It’s a win, yes, but a hollow one that never should’ve happened.

Know Your Rights and Stay Calm

John Lang’s Audit the Audit video offers a powerful reminder that knowledge of your rights is essential. Martin’s calm insistence on not complying with unjustified demands helped expose a serious issue in policing and protected him in the long run. Lang’s legal insight and detailed research turn what might seem like just another bad traffic stop into a learning opportunity for every citizen – and perhaps even for law enforcement officers themselves.

When we talk about police reform, it’s not just about changing policies – it’s about making sure everyone, from citizens to cops, understands what the law truly says. Because in America, taking a break shouldn’t be a crime.