Snow gave an explanation for the body camera that involved ongoing problems with a neighbor. He suggested that having a camera protected him by documenting confrontations. On its own, a body camera was not proof of impersonation. But it was only one piece of a much larger presentation.
The badge attracted particular attention. It appeared to say something resembling “special sheriff.” Snow said he had owned it for a long time and described it as an old Elvis Presley-related item because he was a fan. He said he normally kept it clipped inside a pocket rather than displaying it openly.
The officers also asked Snow why he had chosen such a complete law-enforcement appearance in the first place. A body camera by itself could be explained as a way to document neighborhood disputes. A radio by itself could be a hobby item. A retired police vehicle could be a collector’s project. But the concern came from seeing those things combined with a badge, a handgun, handcuffs, a duty-style belt, and reports that people thought he was acting as an officer.
Snow insisted that he did not walk around announcing that he was police. He said the badge normally stayed clipped inside his pocket. He described it as an old novelty related to Elvis Presley rather than a real police credential. The officers did not simply accept or reject that explanation on the spot. They documented the badge and continued comparing his explanation with the reason they had been called.
The gun was more straightforward. Officers asked Snow whether it was real and then secured it. They learned that it was loaded and chambered. They also confirmed, according to the dialogue in the source, that Snow did not have a valid FOID card. That gave the officers a concrete legal issue independent of whether a prosecutor could later prove impersonation.
Snow had also been the subject of prior complaints. One officer said police had been looking for him the previous day because of reports from the area. The current call did not therefore exist in isolation. Police had a pattern of community concern that made the full setup more significant than a single unusual piece of clothing.
The family’s side conversations showed how neighborhood conflict had become part of Snow’s explanation for his gear. Relatives complained about neighbors yelling and about arguments involving a child practicing trumpet for school. One family member described threatening words exchanged with a neighbor after the child had allegedly been told to stop making noise. Snow and his relatives also talked about police having been in the area the day before.
The discussion wandered into marijuana use as well. A family member emphasized that he used it legally, did not smoke around children, and kept it outside the house. Officers repeatedly signaled that none of that was the reason for the encounter. They wanted to stay focused on the weapon, the impersonation complaint, and the law-enforcement-style equipment.
At one point, someone volunteered that a crossbow was stored in a bedroom because the boys had used it for target practice. The officers acknowledged the information but did not allow it to distract them from the main investigation. The scene already contained enough unrelated details, and they were trying to establish whether any additional firearms were present.
The old black-and-white cruiser then became another point of interest. It had the shape and color scheme of a former police vehicle and still had a spotlight. Family members said the car did not currently run or had not moved for some time. They described it as an old Bloomington police car that had been purchased after it left government service and later had mechanical work done on it.
The officers were especially interested in the light bar. When they asked whether the lights were red and blue, the answers were evasive. Someone first said the lights did not work. Another explanation was that the bar was simply sitting there. When the officers asked whether it plugged into the lighter, the answer became yes.
Rather than tear into the vehicle without permission, the officers asked if they could inspect the setup. Consent was given. They worked with the wiring and eventually got the bar to illuminate. The lights were red and blue.
That discovery made the old cruiser look even more like a functional police vehicle, but the officers openly discussed the evidentiary limitation. They did not know when Snow had last driven it. A relative said it had not moved in about two weeks. Without proof that he had taken it onto public roads and activated the emergency lights, the existence of the light bar did not automatically establish another offense.
The exchange is important because the source commentary was often sarcastic about Snow’s appearance, but the officers’ actual decisions were more measured. They documented what they saw, asked questions, obtained consent before testing the light bar, and talked among themselves about what they could and could not prove. Suspicion was not treated as a substitute for evidence.
The same was true of the badge. The source commentary noted that novelty or honorary-style badges can be obtained by civilians and that some organizations have historically distributed them to supporters. The question was not simply whether Snow possessed something shaped like a badge. The more important issue was whether he used the entire presentation to make others believe he had police authority.
Officers said the original caller believed that was happening. Snow’s prior history involving impersonation made them even more cautious. Combined with the gun, body camera, handcuffs, radio, and duty belt, the complaint was enough for them to investigate aggressively. Once the firearm issue was confirmed, they no longer needed the impersonation allegation alone to justify keeping him in custody.
Snow continued to deny that he had claimed to be a police officer. He said he carried the equipment only around the property. Officers responded that the public perception still mattered because the call had come from people who believed he was presenting himself as law enforcement. They would document that evidence and let the charging process determine what could ultimately be sustained.
Dicky, meanwhile, tried to keep distance from the case. He identified the property as belonging within the family and helped officers with questions about the vehicle and children, but repeatedly made clear that he did not want to be part of whatever Snow had created. His comments about the cruiser were useful because he could say when he had last seen it move and whether he had observed Snow driving it.
By the end of the roadside and property investigation, police had secured Snow, the firearm, and the relevant equipment. They had documented the old cruiser and functioning lights but recognized they lacked proof of recent use on the road. The strongest immediate facts remained the weapon, Snow’s legal status, his police-style gear, the community reports, and the alleged impersonation behavior.
The officers told him why the combination mattered.
“You understand where we’re coming from, though? You’ve got a body camera on. You’ve got a duty belt on. You’ve got a gun. You have a badge.”
They then raised an even more immediate issue. According to the officers, Snow did not have a valid Illinois FOID card, the state firearms owner identification required for lawful possession in the circumstances they were investigating. Snow acknowledged that he did not have a valid card.
That changed the encounter from a question about appearances into a direct firearms issue. Even if the impersonation allegation required more investigation, officers believed the weapon possession itself gave them grounds to act.