It was in the video. The driver said that the cops were arresting his passenger while they were pulling things out of the passenger's pocket and putting the contents on the seat next to the driver. @2:20 he pans over to passenger seat, the door is open and you can see the cops searching the passenger and there's stuff on the seat they pulled from the passenger's pockets.  @3:17 the cops ask him about the contents they got off the passenger. @1:02 the driver says the passenger is getting arrested.

  The video was cut and edited because it jumps about. The vid never shows the K-9 search at all but the unit probably did show up and the car was searched because the drugs I assume that were on the seat. A K-9 unit searching your car still counts as being searched. Personally, I just let cops search my car because it's quicker that way and it defuses cops suspicions quickly. I've been with friends who wanted to a pain in the ass with cops and we spent couple of hours going through this routine.

When the driver said that at about a minute into the video, he was simply reporting what appeared to be happening at the time.  The driver never confirmed that the passenger HAD past-tense confirmed been arrested.  Additionally, that was before they searched his car.  When you said "They did search it and they ended up arresting his passenger", I figured you had heard something about him getting arrested after the search took place, subsequent to the search of the car. 

In point of fact, in a follow-up video the driver said that the search turned up nothing, the stuff on the seat wasn't "drugs", and the passenger was not arrested, but got back into the car with the driver and continued his trip home.  (He said the dog never showed signs visible to an untrained person that he was indicating a finding, and the K-9 officer never said that the dog had so indicated, but a different police officer entered the car and perfomed a search immediately after the dog started sniffing around without consulting the K-9 officer.) 

As a side note, I would personally distinguish between an "outside search" (i.e. visual inspection, dog sniffing, etc.) and an "inside search" (i.e. cop enters the vehicle and digs around), but I don't know exactly what the law has to say on that subject, although I am moderately confident that there's an important legal distinction. 

I didn't watch any extra vids. I just watched one the op put in there. So you're saying that he was being hyperbolic or lying about the situation? ugh. I really hate it click baity vids. 

I am saying that when he said "my passenger's getting arrested" he meant to say "they stopped me and got my passenger out of the vehicle and are accusing him of getting drugs from the place we were at and it looks to me like they are about to arrest him at any moment".  Perhaps he shouldn't, strictly speaking, have jumped to the conclusion that an arrest was definitely going to be made but I don't think it's totally unreasonable to the point of hyperbole (even though he turned out, in the future, to be wrong) and it certainly isn't lying, which is in fact hyperbole but yours instead of his. 

And the POINT of the video, which is that the police falsely tell people that it's illegal to film police officers on duty and illegitimately order them to stop it and threaten to jail them for not stopping, is only "click bait" in the sense that the police behavior in question is outrageous—not in the sense that the person making the video is exaggerating their behavior to get extra clicks, which (along with a misleadingly outrageous title to an otherwise reasonable main story) is what I would call the definition of "click bait". 

For an attorney, he seem to lack communicating skill while talking to a cop. If he was an attorney, I wouldn't want him on my side. He may only lack experience though.

Ot: Always a power-trip with almost anybody that's why there's conflict all throughout the world. It just so happens, it's, in specific cases, a race issue.

My problem with that is that the cop new he was in the wrong.  When another officer asked him why he would not get a court order he clearly stated he did not have proable cause.  In other words he was using his authority to bullie the situation instead of standing behind the law.  That is like this video where the cop said he was going to search the guys car, and the guy said no you will not.  Just like a home, cops need proable cause and a court order to do that or your permission.

I have a lot of cop firends and I know how very hard it is to do their job, my only real beaf is when they try to protect the bad cops.  Every cop does not need protection by their peers and if someone is doing something shady they have to weed them out.

Yeah, soldiers get bigger guns, right?