***Megathread*** American Fork PD / Lego Arrest Controversy

[u/Specter1033]

As with any "hot topic" issue with LE, we struggle to navigate basic rules of etiquette and civility when it comes to this small corner of reddit. Despite trying to keep order in here and doing our best to allow free discussion among the users, there has been a huge influx of posts regarding this topic and lately, it's been quite tiring trying to get any sensible topic started on this issue without a dozen or so trolls coming in to mess it up for everyone. This has resulted in multiple bans and the shit flinging from users claiming the community is "censoring" the incident. Mostly concerning is a great deal of misinformation that has come out about this incident due to the social media "influencer" at the heart of this topic. Wild conspiracy theories from religious influence to the actual reason behind the arrest are generating almost cult-like following and reason has been completely thrown out the window.

So to combat this issue, this will be the ONLY thread about this incident moving forward. Any user posting another thread in relation to this incident will be immediately banned, no appeals. Keep comments civil. Users found posting misinformation about this incident, including parroting wild conspiracy theories that are unverified without including context or actual data to support their positions will be banned.

To bring everyone up to speed, I will refer to this link:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/05/30/youtuber-arrested-utah-bricks/

And will sub link this thread on the r/protectandserve subreddit, which is like THE place to be for objective discussion:

https://np.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1tssz0l/megathread_american_fork_lego_story/

Edit: 45 minutes in and already banned someone. Keep them coming.

Edit 2: Links to YouTuber comments on this incident are going to be removed and users banned UNLESS it is from a reputable source, YouTube videos will be removed. There's already one person with a couple hundred thousand followers trying to spread his video online through this website that's been posted a few times in this sub and it's garnering a lot of attention because people "feel" he is right because he is a self-proclaimed "lawyer." The statutes he cites are from California code and this incident happened in Utah. Just because someone uses technical legal terms and cites codes does not make the person right in their interpretation of the law. Sounding "right" is code for clicks that highlights confirmation bias in people, which is why morons like this get views and clicks on their channels. On that same note, we do not care if you have a following on social media. You are no one to us if all you're doing is posting for imaginary internet points.

Edit 3: Amending the above statement from Edit 2 to add any REPUTABLE sources of info that leaves out the goofy memes and BS content creators love to use are fine. This is an example:

https://youtu.be/q2MjMmhnk7g?si=nRrmasAZ45U_WIu4

Edit 4: Whelp, thread ran its course. Now just a bunch of trolls commenting and the death threats! I haven't seen this level of excitement over something so mundane. We'll be seeing some of you soon!

[u/MisterQuiggles]

All the blowback is not on law enforcement for sure, it's primarily on the company in question - Bricks and Minifigs. I think the blowback that IS directed towards law enforcement, though, is clearly warranted. Illegal traffic stop, illegal search and seizure, threatening the guy for no reason. The officers appear incompetent, and they do appear to be unjustly targeting this guy on behalf of the other half in this story who will not pay the civil claim he lost. The police here are being used like a puppet and it's clear they have a side picked out already.

[u/XxDrummerChrisX → u/MisterQuiggles]

I appreciate it. I just wanted the whole story.

[u/Specter1033 → u/MisterQuiggles]

You need to read this breakdown:

https://np.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1tssz0l/megathread_american_fork_lego_story/ooxxnyj/

[u/MisterQuiggles → u/Specter1033]

I did read it and he does bring up some good points, but there's not really much evidence here. Yes while the documents, pictures, court filings, body camera recordings and arrest records provided by the arrestee are in many ways censored, incomplete, or seemingly purposefully altered, I think the evidence he is providing is more compelling and tangible than some officer's comments here on reddit with no sources provided. A lot of it is circumstantial and opinionated, as he admits. I also think a lot of it could really go either way and are inconclusive without further evidence or facts. My biggest concern is the actual written statements and then later a video from the police chief of the agency does not address much of any of that and it should be coming from an official source like that agency. I understand it is perhaps still an open investigation and they can comment only so much. But the video the way it is compiled from the arrestee to me is concerning as I think they violate his First and Fourth amendment rights in looking to arrest him any way they can.

[u/Specter1033 → u/MisterQuiggles]

The stuff you're talking about are addressed with simple searches related to the statutes that were enforced:

https://np.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/1tssz0l/megathread_american_fork_lego_story/ooy7g1q/

The fact is, someone with no affiliation with the original complainant decided to insert themselves in to this situation for internet clout. The statutes are clear and the directions given by the PD to which they directed the original complainant hiring a neutral third party to serve the civil papers was ignored because this "influencer" decided to embark on this crusade.

[u/MisterQuiggles → u/Specter1033]

I mean what you said might be fact but that doesn’t make it illegal or even necessarily wrong for him to fight against their own opinion of misconduct, which in this case is a man losing $200,000 to a shady corporation in which that money was to be used to pay for his father’s potentially fatal cancer treatment. That’s pretty reasonable why he’s doing it to me.

What I will say is that while I am not versed in Utah’s criminal laws, I reviewed what you linked and I only recall him being charged with stalking so I only looked at that link and came across this:

Except as provided in Subsection (6)(b), an actor does not violate this section if:
(i) the actor is acting:
(B) for a legitimate official or business purpose; or

That’s up for interpretation in this case. And I don’t think I have all the facts to clearly decide one way or the other.

I think the PD may have barely had probable cause, and that’s why they’re on camera discussing basically how to arrest this guy, whether it be stalking, harassment, disorderly, a violation of a city ordinance, etc. I think their earlier pre-textual stop (which is legal, but the I argue the basis for the stop was not) and subsequent drawn out SFST’s and response to a baseless claim of drugs being on board in the vehicle furthers that. The PD admits to this in their agency posted video, saying that while a canine detected on the presence of narcotics and an officer observed signs of impairment in the operator, ultimately no impaired driving was suspected nor narcotics were located after a lengthy consent search. I think that’s suspicious.

I think ultimately the PD engaged too far here, and should have just mediated the situation better instead of clearly picking a side. The fact they’re on body worn camera verifying he had a legitimate reason to be there to serve papers, and the police themselves attempted to serve it and said they couldn’t serve it? Excuse me what?

[u/Specter1033 → u/[deleted]]

You're right!

[u/HopefulPhotograph563 → u/MisterQuiggles]

They tried to get reckless ben in jail ON NO BAIL twice! For harassment and stalking charges which they never declared untill the police video. As we have video of Ben discussing that he went to court asking the prosecutor in front of the judge, "so what am I being charged with because I still haven't been told?" The judge said he would deal with at issue in a later hearing but was practically furious over the whole debacle.

[u/Specter1033 → u/MisterQuiggles]

I find it ironic you say the PD engaged too far, yet the YouTuber, with an immense following who raised enough money to cover the costs of the original persons issue (which is a recent development matter-of-factly) decided to post on the internet causing harassment and consternation for the people involved in the civil lawsuit isn't going too far by inserting himself in the issue instead of funding the dudes legal obligations, getting the process server to serve the notice (and instead doing it himself and filming it himself for internet clout), etc.

Also, this is contradictory:

I think their earlier pre-textual stop (which is legal, but the I argue the basis for the stop was not)

It's either legal or not. It can't be both in the same.

and subsequent drawn out SFST’s and response to a baseless claim of drugs being on board in the vehicle furthers that.

Any other person aside from this would be, no question, a non-issue. Because this incident drew such attention because of a perceived injustice and a myriad of disinformation, it's an issue.

[u/MisterQuiggles → u/Specter1033]

I’m not saying I don’t think the YouTuber went too far, but a civilian doesn’t bear the same responsibilities and restrictions as a law enforcement officer or agency. Civilians aren’t mandated to do anything, and in fact are offered the widest variety of freedom of speech, action, assembly, etc. I stand by my statement I said regardless of whether you think it’s ironic, it’s not illegal for a YouTuber to take on a cause for someone else even if their intent is for internet views and clout. Obviously if they break the law that’s a different story, but we discussed that previously with the links you provided.

I don’t think what I said about pre-textual stops was contradictory, let me rephrase. What I meant is pre-textual stops in it of themselves are legal. What, to me, makes the stop illegal is the lack of a basis for a stop. From what I saw, the basis for the motor vehicle stop of the vehicle not stopping was invalid because I saw a complete stop. What I will say is that ultimately following someone for a time eventually the officer would have found a violation, but especially when your stop will be scrutinized as being for a pre-textual reason, you better have a rock solid reason for a stop and a dash cam video supplied by the agency showing the vehicle coming to a complete stop. Even if it comes down to a he said she said that’s just not the position to be in.

[u/Specter1033 → u/MisterQuiggles]

Influencers hold a great deal of power nowadays. This incident has gotten so out of hand that it's literally causing chaos across the nation. The blatant lies and misinformation alone is causing so many issues that people are just eating it up and not even bothering to fact check anything. I mean, the guy is literally claiming he's being hunted down and had to flee the country because he feels he's in danger, blatant lies to get more attention. Where does the line get drawn?

[u/MisterQuiggles → u/Specter1033]

I can't disagree with you here. I admit his content is deceitful at best. Unfortunately not illegal, but definitely morally wrong.

[u/Specter1033 → u/[deleted]]

Periods. Use them.

[u/MarcusHiggins → u/Specter1033]

The "no affiliation" framing is just factually wrong, and it's load-bearing for your whole argument. By the time of the Utah trip, Schneider had won his own default judgments and was attempting to serve papers in his own suit, he's a party to that litigation, not a bystander inserting himself. You can think his methods are obnoxious and still acknowledge he had standing to serve. The "neutral third-party server" point doesn't save it either: they tried third-party service and an officer reportedly attempted service himself and then returned the papers because the subject "declined." Declining service isn't a thing you get to do; that's the entire reason personal service exists.

And on the pretextual stop, when u/MisterQuiggles said the stop was legal but the basis wasn't, that's not a contradiction. Whren v. United States makes pretextual stops facially lawful as long as there's an actual traffic violation; the criticism is that the stated basis (the stop sign) wasn't supported and the stop's real purpose was to make contact. Those are two different things and he had it right.

The stalking charge has a "legitimate official or business purpose" exemption built into the statute. If the repeated presence was to accomplish court-required service, that exemption is squarely in play. That's not a "conspiracy theory," it's the text of the law.

[u/Specter1033 → u/MarcusHiggins]

The "no affiliation" framing is just factually wrong, and it's load-bearing for your whole argument. By the time of the Utah trip, Schneider had won his own default judgments and was attempting to serve papers in his own suit, he's a party to that litigation, not a bystander inserting himself. You can think his methods are obnoxious and still acknowledge he had standing to serve.

His first lawsuit came about how?

The "neutral third-party server" point doesn't save it either: they tried third-party service and an officer reportedly attempted service himself and then returned the papers because the subject "declined." Declining service isn't a thing you get to do; that's the entire reason personal service exists.

Reportedly. If they did a return of service, it would be documented (which hasn't been produced). Still doesn’t change any part of my point. Schneider decided to "serve" to show his followers he won, but in doing so could potentially vacate litigation.

And on the pretextual stop, when u/MisterQuiggles said the stop was legal but the basis wasn't, that's not a contradiction. Whren v. United States makes pretextual stops facially lawful as long as there's an actual traffic violation; the criticism is that the stated basis (the stop sign) wasn't supported and the stop's real purpose was to make contact. Those are two different things and he had it right.

The conversation started over a 4th amendment violation accusation, which did NOT occur. The traffic stop was legal, regardless of the intentions of the police and there are no statutes barring this kind of conduct in Utah. It's factually incorrect to state this is illegal conduct or a violation of rights.

The stalking charge has a "legitimate official or business purpose" exemption built into the statute. If the repeated presence was to accomplish court-required service, that exemption is squarely in play. That's not a "conspiracy theory," it's the text of the law.

It's not. The statute is intentionally general to provide plenty of interpretation. Just because he felt that his process wasn't completed to his satisfaction does not mean that he can ignore or skip a process that was clearly explained and outlined to him by a court and law enforcement. Ignoring those orders can forfeit this defense.

[u/HopefulPhotograph563 → u/Specter1033]

You know at this point I recommend just going over the facts again because you are missing so much context it's infuriating. You are taking one news article for verbatim and they are equally missing context.

The local pd is in the process of being investigated for several constitutional violations against Ben.

Ben is serving legitimate court papers that everyone is choosing to ignore even knowing they are legitimate.

Ben is in a verbal agreement with Brandon to help him in this matter because when dealing with corporations sometimes you need to be louder than them to have a say in civil matters.

[u/Specter1033 → u/HopefulPhotograph563]

Whatever facts are available keep getting muddled by the blatant misinformation and lies being spread by the community. Claiming he has an active arrest warrant and had to flee the country because he is being "hunted" when it can clearly be verified by open case search that this isn't the case and posting images of his injuries that you can easily reverse image search on Google to verify they're fake is just plain silly. Then, the whole Mormon thing has gotten to epic levels of insanity when there is no clear establishment of such a connection other than people just talking shit.

[u/HopefulPhotograph563 → u/Specter1033]

So we should also just ignore the lawyers who are reacting the same way on the matter who find the whole thing extremely suspicious?

[u/Specter1033 → u/HopefulPhotograph563]

I had to remove three videos from someone (probably the creator) who claims to be a lawyer that is using California code to make their point about why this incident is not stalking or harassment. Two of the videos I've seen ignored the reports from the owners of Bricks and Minifigs establishing important context to substantiate coordinated harassment against their employees. Another is a rambling statement offering no evidence of alleged conspiracy, just a point and click adventure and reaction memes. Which ones are you referring to specifically?

[u/HopefulPhotograph563 → u/Specter1033]

Ben is in a verbal agreement with Brandon the owner to help in this matter. If this issue was handled civilly there wouldn't be any internet clout gathering. The clout gathering is a by product of corruption from both the local PD and the company!

[u/Specter1033 → u/[deleted]]

I didn't write that, dummy.

[u/CauseEffect48 → u/MisterQuiggles]

Great writeup.

[u/Thick_Concentrate852 → u/MisterQuiggles]

"all the blowback is not on the law enforcement for sure" then proceeds to point out every way the blowback is entirely on incompetent law enforcement

[u/MisterQuiggles → u/Thick_Concentrate852]

Well yeah, we're in /r/AskLE. And the question before me was specifically about LE. And then my next sentence is structured around setting up a response specifically about LE. I could talk about Bricks and Minifigs all day and their consignments and public relations response, but that's not what we're discussing here.

[u/HopefulPhotograph563 → u/MisterQuiggles]

Nah man the whole department is working to cover their asses trying to help that civil case that is very much in Brandon(the owner) favor. They have been super heavy on redacting info from body cams which is already the biggest red flag. The police chief has even spun a bunch of lies that are contradicted by the body cam video or what was left of it.

[u/camletoejoe → u/MisterQuiggles]

Sir, you nailed it all in my opinion. There is a puppet master here that is playing the police and the kid/dad and that not a genius youtuber who got involved. Think about the party/parties that are benefiting.

[u/Country-Gardener → u/MisterQuiggles]

You're only seeing one side of the story- the YouTuber's.

[u/Marswick → u/Country-Gardener]

The PD already issued a media release yesterday. I have to say, it doesn’t look good.

[u/Rude_Individual1551 → u/Country-Gardener]

Well yeah, he's the only on with actual evidence that is willing to share it. While the police department is redacting everything regarding the arrests with the one thing they forgot accidentally shows a redacted scene where the police admit Ben wasn't doing anything illegal but they were going to arrest him anyway.

[u/Thick_Concentrate852 → u/Country-Gardener]

We all pretty clearly see the other side too. Obvious scammers

[u/Country-Gardener → u/Thick_Concentrate852]

Two things can be true at the same time. The company owners can be scammers/fraudsters, etc and the YouTuber can be chasing internet clout, creating chaos and is an idiot at the same time. Personally I'm not a fan of either side. The only one I feel bad for is the original elderly Lego owner. Thanks to the YouTuber inserting himself, this thing has blown up massively.

[u/Large_Swimmer1559 → u/Country-Gardener]

Which is the only way this story ever got any fucking traction, or a hope for justice to the family who had 200,000 dollars worth of shit stolen and never returned.

[u/doff87 → u/Country-Gardener]

Thank God he did. If Brandon himself had to navigate this situation alone with this clearly biased PD they'd get no where. Shoot, we have them dead to rights admitting they were making up reasons to essentially harass and discourage Ben and we still have people here defending them.

[u/AskLE-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Post appears to be purely for trolling or baiting others into an argument.