Utah: Another Quick draw Mc'Taser, or...

[JGIORD]

Bill,

While you make some good arguments, I personally have to disagree with a few of your points.

Q: Was the subject motorist making any threats or displaying any hostility while in the vehicle?
A: None is apparent. The motorist only questions the signage and at what speed the officer thinks he was moving.

Define hostility, the motorist was clearly agitated and refusing to cooperate.

Q: When the motorist refused to sign the ticket, did he make any threats or use hostile actions or words?
A: No. Q: Did the officer act as if a threat was present when he ordered the motorist out of the vehicle?
A: No.

I believe in that state refusing to sign the ticket, requires the officer to place him under arrest.

Q: Outside of the vehicle, did the motorist make any threatening or hostile statements, gestures or actions?
A: No

I personally disagree with this point. The moving back and forth and grabbing at his pocket appeared threatening to me, especially when there is another party screaming still within the truck.

Q: Did the officer have any reason to believe the motorist was a threat to his safety?
A: No. Based on the video evidence, the officer turned his back on the motorist, approached the front of his vehicle to put down his citation book, then turned back to the motorist before telling him to put his hands behind his back.

Q: Did the motorist do anything that would cause the officer to fear for his safety?
A: No overt actions were displayed by the motorist, although he had what appeared to be his right thumb hooked into a low pocket on his pants. But the officer never instructed him to keep his hands away from there.

The lack of cooperation and these movements constituted a threat in my book. Remember the officer is outnumbered.

As for the officer showing a feeling of being threatened, I would think that would be the last thing he would want to do?

Just my 2 cents.

 

[JGIORD]

F-pig:

It is cops like this that give all cops a bad reputation. Any LEO that stands up for this guy is doing all LEOs a disservice. People that defend this officer definitely have blinders on and cannot be reasoned with.

Sorry, but I disagree. If this ahole just followed instructions, took his ticket and fought it in court like he should have, nothing would have happened and the whole ordeal would have been over in 5 minutes. But no, he took it upon himself to be defiant, disrrespectful and uncooperative with a person that is trying to uphold and enforce the law. Where does this guy come off getting the attitude that he can do what ever the hell he wants to whoever he wants. You don't give cops orders, its the other way around.

Cops jobs are hard enough, without having aholes like this numbnuts causing them more grief. He should have gotten zapped a second time

 

[divemedic]

Except this: Officers, unlike citizens, are not limited in the use of force to self defense. From the Utah Department of Public Safety web page:

If you don't sign, state law does give the trooper the authority to place you under arrest and transport you to jail or to the court to post bail.

Utah State Law says:

53-3-705
(1) When issuing a citation for a traffic violation, a peace officer shall issue the citation to a motorist who possesses a driver license issued by a party jurisdiction and shall not, subject to the exceptions noted in Subsection (2), require the motorist to post collateral to secure appearance if the officer receives the motorist's personal recognizance that he or she will comply with the terms of the citation.

It then defines Recognizance as:

53-3-702
(9) "Personal recognizance" means an agreement by a motorist made at the time of issuance of the traffic citation that he will comply with the terms of that traffic citation.

Since we have established that refusing to sign is a failure to agree to comply with the citation, and such failure does allow the officer to take the motorist into custody, then the question becomes 1- whether or not the officer attempted to do so, 2- whether and to what extent the motorist resisted those efforts, 3- whether or to what extent the officer can use force to take a resisting driver into custody, and 4- if the officer's actions were within those limits.

1- Now, the officer instructed the driver to exit the vehicle, and instructed the driver to place his hands behind his back.
2- the motorist attempted to walk away from the officer after being ordered to place his hands behind his back. This is a Class B misdemeanor "Resisting arrest"

76-8-305. Interference with arresting officer.

A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have knowledge, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another and interferes with the arrest or detention by:
(1) use of force or any weapon;
(2) the arrested person's refusal to perform any act required by lawful order:

3- Since the officer is attempting to make an arrest which is being resisted, the question move into whether or not the officer is justified in using force. That question is answered here:

77-7-7. Force in making arrest.

If a person is being arrested and flees or forcibly resists after being informed of the intention to make the arrest, the person arresting may use reasonable force to effect the arrest. Deadly force may be used only as provided in Section 76-2-404.

4- Since the force used was not deadly, the law gives no answer. The last question would be a question of fact, to be decided in court. However, the action appear legal.

As far as the officer not telling him why he was pulled over, or any other questions, the driver wold have had his answer if he had JUST SIGNED AND READ THE TICKET. (That link is a sample)

 

[JuanCarlos]

Note that the officer did at least continue to glance back at the guy as he walked to the cruiser (decided to go re-watch it). Still, this is not exactly a defensive posture.

As far as other officers defending these kinds of things go, I was actually surprised when I read about this incident (similar to OP, though a bit more extreme), where apparently now other officers are coming out calling for an apology and condemning the officer's actions and the video is being used used for training in specifically what not to do. I read a couple articles on the subject, but I'm too lazy to go find them again and didn't bookmark them. I'll leave the googling to you guys.

Sorry, but I disagree. If this ahole just followed instructions, took his ticket and fought it in court like he should have, nothing would have happened and the whole ordeal would have been over in 5 minutes. But no, he took it upon himself to be defiant, disrrespectful and uncooperative with a person that is trying to uphold and enforce the law. Where does this guy come off getting the attitude that he can do what ever the hell he wants to whoever he wants. You don't give cops orders, its the other way around.

Cops jobs are hard enough, without having aholes like this numbnuts causing them more grief. He should have gotten zapped a second time

Last I checked, being "disrespectful" to a police officer is not a crime, and being "defiant" isn't necessarily a crime either. Being uncooperative is also only a crime in limited circumstances (though by the end this may well have been one of them).

Point being that the first two are not relevant, and the last isn't necessarily either.

"Causing officers grief" is also not generally a crime.

All I'm hearing here is a lot of "officers have it rough abloo bloo bloo." If you can't handle a little grief without needlessly escalating a situation, I'd say it's time to look for another job.

2- the motorist attempted to walk away from the officer after being ordered to place his hands behind his back. This is a Class B misdemeanor "Resisting arrest"

Do you need to be notified that you're being placed under arrest for this to qualify? I mean, sure hearing "place your hands behind your back" certainly implies that you're being arrested, but at no point did the officer inform the driver that he was being placed under arrest.

As far as the officer not telling him why he was pulled over, or any other questions, the driver wold have had his answer if he had JUST SIGNED AND READ THE TICKET. (That link is a sample)

This is true. I still don't see why the officer couldn't have just taken the 12 seconds to explain the infraction and inform him that signing wasn't an admission of guilt. Other than him just being a...every word I want to use here will just be starred out here.


EDIT: Also, after hearing an officer talk the other night about rushing to the scene of an incident in the hopes that they'd get to tase somebody, and how they were disappointed that after a year or two of carrying it they haven't got to tase anybody yet, I'm starting to wonder just how common that attitude is. I guess these are the kinds of things you learn about (individual) officers when you go out drinking with them. I will say that at least this officer didn't go looking to make their own opportunities, which probably wouldn't be too hard if you really just wanted to zap somebody. So that's a plus. But the eagerness to use a weapon on somebody was just a bit disconcerting.


EDIT: Also, almost forgot:

I believe in that state refusing to sign the ticket, requires the officer to place him under arrest.

To my knowledge it allows the officer to place him under arrest, but does not require it. I could very well be wrong, though. The wording when I looked it up seemed to suggest it was an officer discretion thing.

 

[Musketeer]

Although a speed trap and it could have been handled better Divemedic is right on the money.

1- Now, the officer instructed the driver to exit the vehicle, and instructed the driver to place his hands behind his back.
2- the motorist attempted to walk away from the officer after being ordered to place his hands behind his back. This is a Class B misdemeanor "Resisting arrest"

The citizen ignored repeated orders with regards to how to place his hands. This is directly related to officer safety and controlling the situation. Lethal force at that time was not justified but the taser was. The alternative is going mano y mano with this guy so that his passenger can come out behind you. NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Taser, Cuff & Stuff. The officer should be in the clear.

Are tasers being used more than in the past?

Yes.

Is there anything wrong with tasers being used more?

Not that I see.

Why is it considerred preferable for officers to get into wrestling matches on pavement as opposed to a taser? Plenty of people have died from being beaten into compliance. I see the taser as an alternative that is safer for both the officer and the citizen. Note that this citizen chose to continue to ignore the officer even after the taser was pointed at him. Congratulation, he got what he was asking for.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Why is it considerred preferable for officers to get into wrestling matches on pavement as opposed to a taser? Plenty of people have died from being beaten into compliance. I see the taser as an alternative that is safer for both the officer and the citizen. Note that this citizen chose to continue to ignore the officer even after the taser was pointed at him. Congratulation, he got what he was asking for.

In situations where force is warranted, I think the taser is almost universally preferable to "traditional" methods of force: grappling, baton, just shooting the guy, what have you.

I think the concern of many over the taser specifically is that it may be lowering the bar for the use of force, as well as the possibility that it might be influencing officer attitudes regarding escalation/de-escalation. Basically that by providing an easy "win-button" that is perceived as harmless, officers who might otherwise have de-escalated a situation such that force wouldn't have been necessary now have little incentive to...and thus are more willing to escalate a situation knowing they aren't likely to have to kill/beat-down anybody.

I think this is probably an example of that; in this situation the officer had the option of explaining both the infraction involved and that signing wasn't an admission of guilt. He didn't. He also seems to have had the option (I could be wrong) to simply note the driver's refusal to sign and give him his copy, then send him on his way. He didn't. The question is whether he would have made both of these choices if pulling the guy out of the car would have required either wrestling with the guy at roadside or other forms of traditional force, or whether the addition of a taser to the situation made him more likely to escalate the situation (or at least not worry about de-escalating).

Are tasers being used more than in the past?

Yes.

Is there anything wrong with tasers being used more?

Not that I see.

See I see two different questions: Is force being used more than in the past? Seems to be. Is force being used in situations where in the past it would not have been? This also seems to be the case.

And I don't think this is preferable.

 

[hammer4nc]

BillCa, excellent post!

Framing this incident from the point of view of the DA...as I understand it, all charges against the motorist have been dropped, except for the speeding charge. I suppose some would take issue with this, too? Undeniably an indication of a shaky arrest.

Also, arresting the motorist was entirely discretionary on the trooper's part. He could have simply written "refuse to sign" and ended the contact. So far as I have heard, NO ONE has advanced a defensible reason for ordering the motorist out of the vehicle, thus increasing the danger for all parties. Except for trooper Gardner's bravado in describing the incident to his fellow officer..."he's in complete control"..."we're not going to play that game"...(these descriptions existed only in Gardner's mind, not voiced to the motorist in real time).

The UHP spokesman was exceedingly kind, in describing this as a case of large ego dictating the outcome of this traffic stop.

 

[Josh70]

I am from utah and I am embarrassed by the troopers actions. It's a pretty big problem here in utah with cops abusing their power. I think it stems down to we have a lot of cops and not that much crime to need that many so they somewhat get bored. Now I am not just pulling BS facts one of the guys I used to work with was also a provo city cop and he told me this. I was talking to him about this incdent and he said the trooper could have just wrote refused to sign on the ticket and they guy could have just been on his way. My buddy also said though the cop should have told him what he did wrong and what was going on a lot better.

 

[BillCA]

JGiord,

Here's your $0.02 back and why I disagree with you.

Define hostility, the motorist was clearly agitated and refusing to cooperate.

I don't know many people who are happy to get pulled over for an infraction. This is especially true if the driver doesn't believe he actually violated the law.

I believe in that state refusing to sign the ticket, requires the officer to place him under arrest.

Incorrect. As others have pointed out, the officer [I[may[/I] arrest, but is not required to. Futher, the state allows the officer to write "refused to sign" on the ticket. In this case, arrest was descretionary and the officer's choice.

Q: Outside of the vehicle, did the motorist make any threatening or hostile statements, gestures or actions?
A: No

I personally disagree with this point. The moving back and forth and grabbing at his pocket appeared threatening to me, especially when there is another party screaming still within the truck.

Rewatch the video. The officer says to put hands behind your back and immediately draws the taser before the subject could comply. Watching the subject, he is talking about signage up the road and not even looking at the officer.

The officer failed to instruct the driver to keep his hands out of his pockets. I don't consider the "put your hands behind your back" order a legitimate reason for the officer to claim that made the driver's hand position (suddenly) threatening. The officer never had much of a chance to observe the hand in the pocket area before drawing the taser, so claiming that the had-in-pocket was a "threat" doesn't fly either.

The screaming by the wife doesn't start until 3 seconds after the driver is tased.

Q: Did the officer have any reason to believe the motorist was a threat to his safety?
A: No. Based on the video evidence, the officer turned his back on the motorist, approached the front of his vehicle to put down his citation book, then turned back to the motorist before telling him to put his hands behind his back.

Q: Did the motorist do anything that would cause the officer to fear for his safety?
A: No overt actions were displayed by the motorist, although he had what appeared to be his right thumb hooked into a low pocket on his pants. But the officer never instructed him to keep his hands away from there.

The lack of cooperation and these movements constituted a threat in my book. Remember the officer is outnumbered.

As for the officer showing a feeling of being threatened, I would think that would be the last thing he would want to do?

So, because the subject did not comply with "put your hands behind your back" within 2 seconds you consider that threatening? As mentioned before, the officer's sloppy procedures indicate he didn't consider the driver a threat[1] nor could he have observed the hand-in-pocket before deploying the taser. The officer fails to announce that he's arresting the driver (as opposed to handcuffing him for the officer's safety or detaining him for another reason).
[1] The officer returns to his cruiser to write the ticket without checking his six at all. This indicates he doesn't really expect trouble from the driver after initial contact. Further, the officer turns his back on the driver while returning to the cruiser, but glances back to check the driver's position as he follows. Hardly what the officer would do if he truly felt threatened.

The officer's failure to properly communicate what he was doing, what the citation was for, that signing isn't an admission of guilt and that the motorist is free to go back and take pictures of the signage after signing the ticket means the officer needlessly caused the motorist to be argumentative. Further, the officer showed no signs of being concerned about a safety threat until after drawing the taser. Because he never told the driver to keep his hands out of his pockets, any threat the officer felt due to that action are his own fault. From telling him to put his hands behind his back to drawing the taser was less than 2 seconds , so the motorist's failure to comply cannot be used as a pretext for "threatening". The motorist's retreat from the officer, while ill-advised, was non-threatening in itself. The officer, IMO, only has himself to blame for losing control of the situation at this point.

Were I the D.A. in this county, I'd have hauled the officer into court on unlawful assault charges, mostly because there were multiple avenues available to him to avoid losing control of the situation.

Tasing him a second time? Great, now you'd be facing felony assault charges for excessive force, were I the D.A.

 

[BillCA]

Divemedic,

The decision to make an arrest for refusing to sign the ticket is a debateable one. Even so, the time between the officer telling him to put his hands behind his back and drawing the taser was less than 2 seconds. The driver's reaction is poorly chosen but not distinctly threatening. I can think of at least 3 ways the officer could have avoided the use of a taser.

I'm certain that the officer made the arrest decision because he thought the driver was a pompous little snot who thought he could dictate terms to the cop and/or he was questioning the officer's accusation of speeding.

As far as the officer not telling him why he was pulled over, or any other questions, the driver wold have had his answer if he had JUST SIGNED AND READ THE TICKET. (That link is a sample)

The ONLY time I've ever had a really rude, obnoxious, and condescending cop give me a ticket, I took my time reading the entire thing. His annoyance factor was approximately 5 seconds. When the cop asked if I was going to sign it, I simply told him I wanted to make sure what I was signing and what the violations were. He then told me I had "2 seconds" to sign it or go to jail. So I signed it and added "under threat" below my signature. He didn't notice until court time. The judge noticed though.

On Tasing: One reason I think we're seeing more of these, besides the omnipresence of cameras, is that tasing leaves very little in the way of injury. The down side is that tasing someone alongside the roadway risks the person falling and striking the back of their skull on the pavement. Worse would be if they fall backwards into a curbing or similar raised hard surface, fracturing a vertebra which could lead to death. I suppose it could be riskier in a crowded home or apartment where furniture could cause similar injuries.

 

[divemedic]

I am the first to say when cops exceed their authority. (Remember the kid who filmed the cop threatening him?)

IMHO, the problem here is not the cops, it is the legislators that write these laws. What the cop did was completely legal. Instead of being angry with the cops, we should be angry with our legislators for traffic laws that are little more than revenue generators, Drug laws that allow forfeiture, and laws allowing the police to confiscate your cash if you can't prove why you have it.

You can also blame Rodney King. Police Departments were looking for a way to avoid the large lawsuits that using physical force brings. Along came the Tazer.

The Perfect Storm.

 

[BillCA]

Divemedic,

I think you're right about the legislative sloppiness when it comes to using the taser. They were probably oversold on the usefulness and lack of injury (trauma) offered by the devices. Tightening up the criteria for using a taser is probably not a bad thing.

You can also blame Rodney King. Police Departments were looking for a way to avoid the large lawsuits that using physical force brings. Along came the Tazer.

As a choice of phrasing, let's say we can blame the Rodney King incident and not Mr. King himself. I'm not apologizing for King's actions, behavior, etc. but let's be specific about where the blame lies. In this case it was the apparent "beating" that King too at the hands of the police that made tasers look more appealing.

And in the case of King, a taser probably would have been appropriate and less "nasty" looking on video. A taser would probably have gotten him into a position for handcuffing faster and with less drama.

By the way... does anyone know how a taser affects a heart pacemaker?

 

[Dust Monkey]

What the cop did was completely legal. Instead of being angry with the cops, we should be angry with our legislators for traffic laws that are little more than revenue generators, Drug laws that allow forfeiture, and laws allowing the police to confiscate your cash if you can't prove why you have it.

Getting tired of hearing that line of crap. There is completely legal and there is completely wrong, and both can be the same. Cops, I hope, are smart enough to know what laws are bogus revenue generators, forfeiture laws and so on. They can stand up against them as well. Remember, they are citizens as well, they just wear badges.

 

[divemedic]

I can tell you what effect a Tazer has on a pacemaker: None.

Pacemakers are designed to function, even after being subjected to the electrical current of a defibrillator, which can deliver shocks at a level more than 100 times higher than a Tazer.

As far as this:

There is completely legal and there is completely wrong, and both can be the same. Cops, I hope, are smart enough to know what laws are bogus revenue generators, forfeiture laws and so on. They can stand up against them as well. Remember, they are citizens as well, they just wear badges.

They are enforcing the laws which we and they have all decided we want (through our legislators). Bogus or not, they are the law (which the citizens asked for, and the courts verified) If they were to enforce only the laws with which they agree, the screams here would be deafening.

 

[dwc1973]

saw the clips. both parties made very poor choices.

the officer should not have brandished his taser so readily while commanding the driver to place his hands behind his back. it gave me the impression that the officer had already made up his mind at what was going to probably happen.

the driver should never have attempted to walk back to his vehicle after being instructed by the officer to place his hands behind his back. it gave me the impression that the driver was someone with the "you can't tell me what to do, i pay your salary" attitude.

the officer lacks in the people skills dept. and the driver was just plain whiney. they both suck.

2cents worth of my whatever....

oh yeah, a strong hand on the grip of the weapon of choice is an officer's true warning....you can always figure out whats next after that.

 

[hammer4nc]

Early returns are starting to come in...

As predicted in the OP:

LE's readiness to used the device as a primary resource, in situations where verbal de-escalation would suffice, will lead to yet more global restrictions on its use.

OK, one of the first high-profile incidents involving Tasers occurred at the UCLA library, where a student was tased for not showing ID...

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2007/dec/10/new-taser-policy-released/

New Taser policy released

* Anthony Pesce, News Editor (Contact)
* Published: Monday, December 10, 2007

More than a year after a university police officer used a Taser on a student in Powell Library, today the UCLA Police Department announced it has released its new policy regulating Taser use.

The policy, which should be implemented by the start of next quarter, was developed from recommendations made in an independent evaluation of the incident and in consultation with experts on Tasers and police use-of-force policy, said Police Chief Karl Ross.

Administrators, including Chancellor Gene Block and student leaders, were given the opportunity to review and comment on the policy before it was finalized, Ross said.

“After this process, I believe we have one of the best, if not the best, Taser policies in the country,” he said.

Though The Bruin could not obtain a copy of the policy before press time, Ross said it specifically states that a Taser cannot be used on a person defined as a “passive resister” – as was the case with the Powell incident according to an independent review.

Block said in a statement that the policy will help provide officers “with the guidelines they need to do a difficult job.”

“Clarifying and bolstering our policies governing the use of Tasers underscore UCLA’s commitment to ensuring the safety of the campus community,” he said in a statement.

The policy, growing from an original length of 3-4 pages to 14-15 pages for the new policy, includes very specific definitions for when a Taser can and cannot be used, Ross said.

Those definitions include all of the different levels of resistance, including “violent,” “active aggression,” and “active physical resistance,” according to a press release.

Ross added that all officers will have to be retrained on Taser use to make sure they are up to speed on the new policy.

The officers will be trained over the next few weeks, and the training will incorporate a review of the policy, practical application, judgement calls based on scenarios, and a written test that must be passed with a score of 100 percent, Ross said.

The training will also be an annual requirement for all officers.

Ross also said the state has improved its standards for Taser trainers. Previously, Taser International, which manufactures the device, provided the training, but now the state has taken on that role.

Ross said he believes the change could help dispel the perception of training bias.

Gabe Rose, Undergraduate Students Association Council president, said he met with police and reviewed the policy before it was finalized.

“I certainly commend UCPD for their thorough revisiting of the policy and their willingness to improve its shortcomings,” he said.

Rose said that though the new policy is thorough, the most important part of its implementation is the training process, which will “allow officers to better serve students.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comment: Look for similar rewrites on Taser use guidelines for places like Vancouver, and Utah Highway Patrol.

 

[Derius_T]

Both made some poor choices. But I believe the officer overreacted in this instance. And he did taze the guy not once, but twice. That said, I have a few questions.

1. Is the officer required by law to specifically state that you are under arrest? If so, just telling you to put your hands behind your back doesn't cut it.

2. Is the officer required to tell you WHY you are being ticketed, or WHY you are being arrested?

3. Once placed "under arrest", is the officer required by law to read you your rights? No one ever touched on this issue.

IMHO, the motorist wasn't using his head, but he was not threatening the officer in any way, and the officer way WAY too ready to use force, when there were clearly other viable options, BEFORE HE EVEN ORDERED THE GUY FROM HIS CAR, then turned his back and walked away.

I mean, you order the guy from his car, then don't mention he is under arrest, just turn your back and walk away? Hell, I probably would have followed him to the crusier too. His actions seemed to indicated thats what he wanted.....

 

[dwc1973]

an officer is not neccesarily placing you under arrest when he/she instructs you to place your hands behind your head or back or behind or whatever in order to place you into cuffs....as far as i know, they practice this in order to avoid a possible physical confrontation between them and you (hypothetically speaking).

i find nothing wrong with this practice except maybe that it would be a little uncomfortable to you, the detainee but realistically, both parties are safer and better off in the long run. the officer is more secure and unhindered in his or her duties and you are not apt to get tasered like that goofball in the clips.

and also as far as i know, you are not under arrest until you are told explicitly that you are under arrest. then it is a matter of reading you the miranda rights which do not have to be read at that very moment. i think they have to be stated to you by any officer in the dept./county involved before you are processed.

now, i only speak as a private citizen and not as someone who has had to endure this hardship and hopefully will never have to.

 

[Musketeer]

an officer is not neccesarily placing you under arrest when he/she instructs you to place your hands behind your head or back or behind or whatever in order to place you into cuffs....

While I understand this and believe it is the norm some part of my Libertarian soul cries out against the idea of government officials being allowed to chain me up at their will and based only on the word of the official performing the action...

 

[dwc1973]

completely understandable....