I agree promoting discussion is good and that's why I continue to comment on this thread. Normally I don't get involved in discussion regarding police because I generally find peoples emotions dictate the conversation. But so far this has been a civil discussion.
Lets talk about the in car camera for a second. If you notice in the video the first 30 seconds there is no sound. Thats normal the camera goes live with audio when the emergency equipment is activated but the video portion will be 30 seconds prior to that. The thought is that you may be able to observe the infraction which is why the officer hit the lights, thus an additional portion of video. The officers justification for the stop was speed. He never tells Roberts how he knew that he was speeding. I generally indicate to the driver by way of radar, lidar or pace. The timing of the emergency equipment is hard to explain. Did the officer have to catch up and at that point Roberts was going into a residential area which is general 25 mph and he was no longer speeding? Was the officer looking for a safe spot to conduct the stop? Maybe getting off a busy 45 mph road preferring a residential street. The officer may have been trying to confirm that the vehicle was not stolen and was having a check run before he activated his equipment, only the officer knows.
People keep mentioning the officer was trying to take control. Your right, he was as he is suppose to. A seizure is taking place during that traffic stop and the officer is in control of this stop not the driver. Roberts is not free to leave and if he does not comply with LAWFUL commands during this encounter the officer has the absolute right to place him in custody until the conclusion of the encounter. All of this is defined under the 4th amendment (search and seizure) and there is countless case law to support it.
The wife....she is on her own property. She does not have to go inside nor does she have to close the garage door as requested. But that doesn't give a green light to do as she pleases either. If she were to come up to the car and the officer asked her to step away from the vehicle until he concluded his business with Roberts and she refused she could be charged with an obstruction of justice. If the officer has to repeatedly stop conducting the investigation to deal with someone who is not involved you are looking at obstruction. Obstruction in this sense is officer safety, if some is distracting the officer he cannot monitor the person he has detained.
In the grand scheme of police to citizen contacts this isnt really much worth discussing. You could link other police videos and we all would be like holy $%#! and discuss for weeks. Again based on my own personal observations and experiences this officer doesn't seem bad. I just think he needs some constructive criticism from his supervisors and more experience. I have conducted probably over 15000 traffic stops during my 23 years and I know with 100% certainty that the way I conduct them today is different then when I had just a couple years on. Early on my stops probably looked a lot like this officers.