the following might prove interesting, worrysome too

Can't believe I'm coming down on this side of this issue.

This event happened in my neighborhood; my zip; less than 2 miles from my office and home. The department is not one of my favorites.

However, let's look at it.
- It was a righteous stop. She was speeding and had a broken tail light.
- The officer was patient and courteous, while she was unnecessarily over the top.
- A radio call found that she was driving under a suspended license....Lady, SHUT UP!
- Nothing she had done to this point would indicate that she'd be willing to finish her phone call any time soon. She'd been stalling for time and changing the subject from jump.
- She physically rebuked an attempt by the cop to cuff her....a wrestling match would have resulted in charges of excessive force.
- She was warned three times to get out of the car, including the consequences of refusal.
- She was tased.

Did she need to be tased...perhaps; perhaps not. He might have waited for the backup which was already arriving; but then we can always second guess like that.

Was the officer well within accepted protocol? I think so.

Did she need to be tased a second time? In my non-official opinion, that was excessive. Anyone who has ever been an observer or a participant in such an event knows that the subject, after receiving a 5 second burst, is pretty damned compliant...and pretty damned disoriented. She was on the ground. She was (apparently) making no effort to get up or resist. Her only infraction at that point was not rolling over. The second hit was way over the top for my tastes.

TFL Staffer, Rob Pincus' Reaction to a 3 Second Hit
Rich
 
If the police just stopped you

you have been detained......so my guess is that the officers orders are lawful

I would guess that most states have a statute on the use of force.

The officer ususally starts out on the end of the no force of use spectrum...if you choose to escalate the situation you are probably giving the officer the legal right to escalate the force he can use also in order to get you to comply.

i.e... verbal..you dont comply then you have hust escalated the level of force the officer can use such as grabbing you by the arm to get you out of the car...you dont comply and resist..then the officer could probably escalate to using force to place handcuffs on you to keep you from hurting him and yourself or even tasering you then handcuffing you.

The person who has a role in that escalation of force is you the detainee..by your actions you can choose whether force gets escalated or descalated. Most departments probably dont let officers out on the road without some type of use of force training and usually mandantory refresher courses. Usually that training has been reviewed by the DA in order to ensure compliance with the law..So if the officer goes by SOP and stays within the law....he is in FTW

so if you choose escalation you are going to come out on the short end of the stick legally.....you might get some sympathy..but thats not going to help with your legal problems in most cases

Not to say there are not officers who go overboard...but most officers probably comply with the SOP and the law.

I guess the next step would be sending officers to ettiqutee school...lol. Is it proper to taser using your pinkie finger or not..lol

I am not a Law enforcment officer so please feel free to correct me if I have erred in my opinion.

In my military career I have heard so many times its not my fault its your fault...

the time I have spent educating young soldiers on the subject of choice, responsibility, consequences.....

hooey...you as an individual make choices that determines what happens. sometimes people choose poorly.

even I choose poorly sometimes :o and have to pay the piper :(
 
So what you're saying then is that the police can order someone to do something before they place him under arrest? Since when?
Click to expand...

Since they started police departments. What gave you the impression that the police can not compel you to do something unless you're under arrest? They can order you to pull over when you commit a traffic violation, they can order you out of the car without reasonable suspicion that you're armed, they can compel you to stop creating a disturbance in a public area, they can compel you to identify yourself under certain circumstances, they can compel you to submit to a search under certain circumstances, all without being arrested....
 
No... In Texas you can be arrested for any traffic violation except for speeding. Probably much the same in other states.
Click to expand...
No; in Texas you'll be arrested if you fail to show up in court.

You can also be arrested if a peace officer has reason to believe you do not intend to show up in court ... but you can not be arrested for a minor traffic offense itself.
 
No; in Texas you'll be arrested if you fail to show up in court.

You can also be arrested if a peace officer has reason to believe you do not intend to show up in court ... but you can not be arrested for a minor traffic offense itself.
Click to expand...

No, in Texas, you can be arrested for a misdemeanor. Correct me with the case law if I'm wrong, but in Texas, all traffic offenses are class III misdemeanors, not civil infractions as in many other states. You can be arrested for a misdemeanor committed in the officers presence, I know for sure. In other states, you can even be arrested for a misdemeanor based solely on probable cause outside an officer's presence. Up to this point, I believe the court has sided with Texas in the "Soccer Mom" case.

A Texas Sized Case
Here in Texas, where conservatism reigns supreme, government intrusion is strongly frowned upon. We like our barbecue fatty, our summers scorching and our government weak. So it's surprising that Texas law allows citizens to be arrested for seat belt violations. In a state where we wouldn't dare require chemical companies to reduce their toxic emissions opting instead for the wildly unsuccessful "voluntary" reduction program we somehow permit ourselves to be carted off to prison for committing a victimless crime.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments in Atwater v. Lago Vista. The case involves Gail Atwater, wife and mother of two, who was pulled over, arrested, handcuffed and hauled off to jail in front of her children one day in 1997. Surely she was driving while intoxicated, or at least had some drugs on her. No, she was arrested in Lago Vista 30 minutes outside Austin for not wearing her seat belt. Perhaps it was a bad judgment call on her behalf, but it's clear she's no menace to society.

According to Atwater, she was driving her two children home from soccer practice, and a toy had fallen out of the pickup truck. The family unbuckled their seatbelts to look for the toy out the windows. They were driving about 15 miles per hour on a deserted rode when they were pulled over by Lago Vista police officer Bart Turek.

Turek had pulled over the family once before for a similar violation. But the officer let the family drive off without penalty after he discovered that Atwater's child actually was wearing his seatbelt. The citizens of Lago Vista can sleep better at night knowing that their police department is keeping a watchful eye on the Atwaters and keeping the desolate roads safe from soccer moms.

Originally, a federal judge dismissed Atwater's case. Then a three-judge panel sided with Atwater, only to be overturned by the full 17-member 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Atwater's lawyers contend that the arrest violates her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, guaranteed under the Constitution.

Even though it's not certain whether the court will even issue a ruling on this case, the justices have an opportunity to curtail the frequent overzealousness of many police officers.

This case has ramifications for a number of other unscrupulous activities, racial profiling in particular. Several reports to come out recently have shown distinct racial patterns in the people police pull over and arrest. In Texas, a report by The Dallas Morning News based on the DPS's own numbers, claimed blacks and Hispanics are twice as likely as their white counterparts to be pulled over. Although "Driving While Black" has long been a reality for the state's minorities, the DPS's own figures show that racial profiling does indeed exist.

The Supreme Court has said it will issue a verdict in June. We hope the Court votes to curtail the kind of legislation that allows police officers too much freedom to infringe on people's rights.
Click to expand...

....and the Supreme Court decision:

U.S. Supreme Court Review--Read All About It: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Soccer Moms


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Leonard M. Niehoff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





In March of 1997, Gail Atwater was driving her pickup truck in Lago Vista, Texas, with her three-year-old son and five-year-old daughter in the front seat. None of them was wearing a seatbelt, in violation of Texas law. Bart Turek, a Lago Vista police officer, noticed the seatbelt violation and pulled Atwater over. Turek confronted Atwater with her violation, which she acknowledged, and told her she was going to jail. Atwater asked if she could take her children to a friend's house down the street, but Turek refused this request and indicated that he would take the children into custody as well. Some neighborhood kids witnessed the scene and summoned one of Atwater's friends, who came and took charge of her children.

Turek called for backup, handcuffed Atwater, placed her in the squad car, and drove her to the local police station. (Ironically, Turek did not have Atwater put her seatbelt on.) At the station, booking officers had Atwater remove her shoes, jewelry, and eyeglasses, and empty her pockets; they took her "mug shot," and they placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about an hour, after which she was taken before a magistrate and released on a bond in an amount more than six times the fine she would eventually pay after pleading no contest to the misdemeanor seatbelt offense. When Atwater returned to the scene of her arrest, she discovered that her car had been towed.

Atwater subsequently filed suit against Turek, the city of Lago Vista, and the chief of police under 42 USC 1983, claiming that they had violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. The district court granted the defendant's summary judgment motion; the Fifth Circuit reversed; sitting en banc, the Fifth Circuit then reversed the panel's decision and affirmed the district court, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. Atwater v City of Lago Vista, 2001 US Lexis 3366 (2001).

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined. The court began with an extended response to Atwater's claim that the authority of peace officers to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanors was restricted at common law. The court concluded that, while the argument was not insubstantial and had some support, it ultimately failed. The court similarly concluded that neither the history of the framing era, nor subsequent legal developments, indicated that the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit such arrests. The court then addressed Atwater's most compelling argument: regardless of history and original intent, what happened to her cannot be squared with contemporary notions of reasonableness.

The majority showed some sympathy for Atwater’s complaint. The court noted that, "n her case, the physical incidents of arrest were merely gratuitous humiliations imposed by a police officer who was (at best) exercising extremely poor judgment." The court observed that "Atwater's claim to live free of pointless indignity and confinement clearly outweighs anything the city can raise against it specific to her case."

Nevertheless, the court decided that "a responsible Fourth Amendment balance is not well served by standards requiring sensitive, case-by-case determinations of government need, lest every discretionary judgment in the field be converted into an occasion for constitutional review." The court concluded that Atwater's arrest satisfied the constitutional requirements because there was no dispute that Turek had probable cause to believe that Atwater had committed a crime in his presence.

Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, filed a dissenting opinion. The thrust of that dissent is well-summarized in its opening paragraph, which states in part: "The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The court recognizes that the arrest of Gail Atwater was a 'pointless indignity' that served no discernable state interest...and yet holds that her arrest was constitutionally permissible. The court’s position is inconsistent with the explicit guarantees of the Fourth Amendment." Nor was the dissent persuaded by the majority's argument that Atwater had failed to suggest an acceptable bright-line rule governing such arrests; after all, the dissent noted, the ‘‘probable cause’’ standard is hardly a precision instrument. The dissent concluded, "The court neglects the Fourth Amendment's express command in the name of administrative ease. In so doing, it cloaks the pointless indignity that Gail Atwater suffered with the mantle of reasonableness."

This Supreme Court decision has generated significant discussion and controversy and will doubtless continue to do so. After all, two very different perspectives on this decision suggest themselves. Some might view this decision as a disciplined effort by the court to declare the proper rule of law, undeterred by the specific hard facts presented. If you take this perspective, then the decision is a shining hour for the court, in which it demonstrated that justice is indeed blind. Others might view this decision as a draconian mistake by a court pointlessly wedded to an inflexible principle, unmoved by considerations of fairness and decency. If you take this perspective, then the decision is a dark hour for the court, in which it demonstrated that justice is blind, and deaf, and dumb. Really dumb.
Click to expand...
 
Heist said:
I rate the good parts of the video four out of five baby's daddys.
Click to expand...

I had to stop reading the thread just to say how HILARIOUS that is.......... LMFAO!

Ok, now I'll continue reading the thread. :D

EDIT: OK, finished reading. All I can say is that bish is ig'nant.
 
LAK-
I got 10 bucks in my pocket that says you can be arrested in TX for driving without a valid license. I have't even looked at the law.

Wanna bet?
I'm more than willing to be wrong on this.

Besides, she wasn't in Texas. She was in Florida.
Rich
 
Frank and Rich,

OK; it's in the Texas Transportation Code Sec. 543.002 (under which argueably most of the violations on a State or Federal highway apply to commercial vehicles only :D )

Anyway, the underlying principle is that in Texas, a person is considered "under arrest" as soon as they are stopped for certain traffic violations. If a warning only is issued - off they go. If a citation is issued, and the person signs it (promise to appear in court) - off they go. If they refuse to sign (promise to appear), or demand to see a judge "right now" - away they go in cuffs.

Interesting, and a traffic stop being a de facto arrest is a new one on me. But unexplained - and evidently unchallenged in the courts - is how a person can be legally considered "under arrest" when stopped for an alleged offense - and then released without charge in the case of a warning. Since a person "under arrest" - be it an actual arrest - or a constructive arrest - can not be "unarrested" except by a judge.
 
We release people every now and then after a constructive arrest before they go before a judge. Same goes for the detectives after an "actual" arrest.
 
FrankDrebin,

It happens in Texas too; apparently if the DA decides he or she does not want to pursue a case. But the way the law reads here in Texas (IIRC) is quite specific in that a judge is the only person that can actually release someone (a dismissal) from arrest and custody.

I can see a peace officer either of his or her own choosing - or instruction from the DA - releasing a detained person without charge. But an arrest is an arrest if it is explicitly applied as it is spelled out in the Texas Transportation Code. In which case it seems to apply the moment one is stopped by a peace officer for a particular offense.

It would make more sense if the law viewed this as a detention - and an arrest when the citation is presented if the subject fails to sign the promise to appear or demands to see a judge right away.
 
In Texas the ONLY traffic violation you can not be arrested for is speeding. A police tactics course is required for the Homeland Security degree I am working towards. The instructors were LEOs and one was also a SWAT instructor. We discussed this in class. He said to keep that in mind when you are stopped by an officer.
 
But another great question is when does speeding become too excessive? I reside in the Left Coast State of California, and either take the I-5 or I-15 to Camp Pendleton where I am stationed. Now, I have seen people pulled over on these highways that were traveling in a pack going 80. The speed limit is 65. After talking to most highway patrolmen, they will allow you to go up to around 80 w/o pulling you over, as long as you are not weaving/drafting. Now, since I grew up in TX for 15 years, I have heard many times that if you are speeding 16+ over the speed limit, that it can be considered to be reckless endangerment. Don't know if that is a load of waste or not, but I know that my home town of Austin is cracking down on speeders in many ways. Also, having police pick out vehicles from packs is quite common. Most of the time, I see cops pull over Camaros (like mine), Mustangs, Trans-Ams and other performance vehicles that are going SLOWER than the flow of traffic. I have gotten a warning in this manner by a CHP. And he gave me a warning for following too close b/c a vehicle merged in front of me and I was not a few seconds back b/c of that. Now just because this happens does not mean that I hate the son of a gun that pulled me over. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for his job. He is protecting the general public to his greatest effect, and we as citizens give them that right. Now, they are also held accountable for their actions. Being a Marine, I understand that. I am given a great deal of responsibilty by the public to do my job, but I have guidlines that I must stay between (ROE). Now, I was not able to see the clip, but I am pretty sure that if the woman had cooperated with the officer from the very beginning, and had asked the officer if she could make a call (withing certain reasons) from her cell phone, he might have let her. Now, not all the time will this happen. It also depends on what we COULD NOT SEE from the video. we cannot see what she has in the seats of her car. Something there could have let him to believe that she might pose a threat. He has the right to protect himself. He has a judgement by which he must stand. He cannot tell her to hold off while he reads some manual telling him what he can and cannot do in a certain situation.
 
People like this lady always remind me of the old joke where the guy rolls thru the stop sign without completely stopping. The offender tells the officer again & again that slowing down & looking is just like stopping & looking. The officer then proceeds to whip out his baton & starts whaling away at the offender while asking him "Would you like me to stop your way, or my way?" :D

I know, I know, thats an evil LEO bashing joke. But thats what it reminds me of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top