So much for “Live Free or Die.”
And the officers involed lost their jobs there.
And, of course, moved on to law enforcement jobs elsewhere.
The only thing that might justify it is if they had probable cause that she operated a motor vehicle while under the influence.
Probably not, since most jurisdictions I’m aware of have to see the person actually operating the vehicle, or at a minimum behind the wheel. And the car that went into the bushes wasn’t even hers, it was someone else having a medical emergency. So this was flat-out unfounded abuse of authority.
The article says,
According to McCue, Johnson said if the test showed she was not capable of driving, they would take her into custody. McCue conceded to MRI investigators that Johnson’s reasoning did not make sense.
I guess they could make some kind of argument, as has been slippery sloped in threads about sleeping it off in cars, that if she had a car, and the keys were in the house, then she was “in control of a motor vehicle.” Does not make sense.
I know a guy who got a DUl for sleeping in the back seat (while drunk).
By that logic, you might as well station officers at the exit of every baseball and football game and grab everyone on their way out. "Sir, I know you took an Uber here, but you have car keys in your pocket, so you’re under arrest.
Also, while I’m sure they could make some kind of argument, checking the DUI laws in my state, says that it’s illegal to “drive” or “operate” a vehicle when intoxicated.
“Drive" means the exercise of physical control over the speed and direction of a motor vehicle while it is in motion
“Operate" means the physical manipulation or activation of any of the controls of a motor vehicle necessary to put it in motion.
I’m not sure either of these would apply if you’re not in the car at the time (and for this discussion, never having been in that car at all).
Having read the article, my assumption (which is entirely speculative) is that the woman, having had a couple of beers, was angry and combative with the police over their totally unreasonable response to her actions in her own private home, and when she said something belligerent (as I probably would have) they decided to charge her with Contempt of Cop.
My assumption is always that the police will write the story they want to tell, and if there is no video or other evidence, that becomes what happened, whether or not it accurately reflects what actually happened.
Well that goes without saying as a general principle. But in this specific case we have one cop who seems to have been leading the charge to persecute her, and another cop who was skeptical but went along at the time and now seems unhesitant to report that the first cop was full of shit. So this informs my speculation: the second cop is hanging the first cop out to dry because of errors in procedure on actual charges, because he doesn’t want to implicate himself on having gone along with something worse.
A hard of hearing police officer:
Judge rules Kansas Highway Patrol ‘waged war on motorists,’ violated constitutional rights:
I had trouble following this; maybe someone else can confirm or correct. I’m reading that they initiated a normal traffic stop for reasons that aren’t being called into question. After, they disengaged by taking a couple steps back to the police car, meaning the stopped driver was free to go, but nobody would because the police would immediately turn around and re-engage. But because the driver didn’t leave, the subsequent contact was considered voluntary. Including a search?
I took it to mean that the clock started anew, that they no longer ran afoul of conducting an unreasonably long stop, because this was an entirely new interaction since the driver was free to leave during those five seconds.
ETA: But that wouldn’t in itself justify a search. It just bought time.
This page provides more detail in how the “Kansas Two-Step” works.
When does the clock start and is there some specific amount of time they’re given to come up with a violation? Given what they’re attempting to do, finding people bringing marijuana into the area, why not just get the K9 Officer rolling as soon as they decide they’re going to pull someone over?
I found this, but haven’t read it. However, on a quick skimming of the first few pages, I do like that they mention things like “the ignorance and timidity of the motoring public” and “troopers are more than happy to exploit their [driver’s] lack of knowledge of their legal rights” and
Troopers occupy a position of power and authority during a traffic stop, and when a trooper quickly reapproaches a driver after a traffic stop and continues to ask questions, the authority that a trooper wields—combined with the fact that most motorists do not know that they are free to leave and KHP troopers deliberately decline to tell them that they are free to leave—communicates a strong message that the driver is not free to leave"
I’ll leave it to our legal experts to respond, but I am pretty certain that a stop without probable cause that is not voluntary is by definition “unreasonably long.” I think the amount of time waiting for the drug dog, again in the absence of some reasonable suspicion, would be too long. Even if called right in. There’s a reason they conducted this nonsense.
Some twenty years ago in NJ I was given the option of consenting to a search of my vehicle or waiting for the K9 unit.
That needing my consent should make it clear that there was no probable cause for the search shall not be noticed.
Correct. They deliberately create doubt in the mind of the driver about whether they are free to go. If you tried to drive off in the few seconds that in the imagination of the trooper you were “free to leave” you’d be treated as fleeing the initial stop.
It’s not really doubt. It’s entirely fictional that we’re were at any point between the notionally first, second or third stops you were free to leave.
Exactly. That’s why it’s important to ask the cop, “Am I being detained?” If the cop says something like, “No, but I’d still like to ask a few questions,” then you should immediately leave.