# Sandra Bland video **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 22, 2015, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859 "2015-07-22T05:50:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 41
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/801 "2015-07-24T19:58:51Z")
> [@Andiethewestie](#): > > That’s a false argument. She only kept smoking and that act was legal, even if it was but horrible for her lungs. > > She didn’t call him a cocksucker she called him a pussy motherfucker \*\*after \*\*he slammed her head to the ground. Still, I’d be for trying to make a rule against changes of mind for reasons like that. If the only thing that made the officer decide to make an arrest after all was that he got his feelings hurt, then yes if possible the rules should disallow such an action on his part. Surely there are engineering difficulties in trying to actually hash out how such a rule could be written and enforced, but ideal world? Yes, there is a rule against police officers deciding to arrest someone because that person called them a bad name. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/802 "2015-07-24T20:00:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Agreed. He violated clearly established department policy – policy that exists to prevent situations like this. He’s unsuited to be an officer. Out of curiosity, where do we learn about the policies that were violated? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/803 "2015-07-24T20:10:35Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Surely there are engineering difficulties in trying to actually hash out how such a rule could be written and enforced, but ideal world? Yes, there is a rule against police officers deciding to arrest someone because that person called them a bad name. Even if there was already a reason for them to get arrested? ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/804 "2015-07-24T20:16:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In Texas, as discussed multiple times upthread, Mimms is controlling. Mimms says that for a lawful vehicle stop, an officer can order the driver out of the vehicle for many reasons, or no reason. Mimms is about US Constitution, and it does not prevent TX from having additional laws that confer additional rights. The cite I gave above is a TX lawyer who specializes in the area, who says that he has to state the reason. > [@](#): > > The officer is not required to state the reason for the arrest. In [DEVENPECK V. ALFORD](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-710.ZO.html), SCOTUS said: > Certain state laws may override of course. I believe NY is one state that does so. I do not believe TX has additional protections. Yet the TX lawyer I cited, who is directly involved with TX civil liberties, says otherwise. Your unawareness is not convincing. However, you might be right: my cite doesn’t give enough info for us to judge its merits, unfortunately. > [@](#): > > Post # 528 answers this question. The answer is no. No it doesn’t. Here’s the text from post 528: > [@](#): > > Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another **by using force against the peace officer or another.** > (b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful. Note the bolded part. If she kicked him, then she’s culpable, under that law. If she refuses to exit her car, she doesn’t. This law prevents the use of force. It doesn’t prevent staying put. > [@Terr](#): > > Why is it so hard for people to spend a couple of minutes[googling for an answer](http://www.isiahfactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/wpid-screenshot_2015-07-21-12-05-50-1.png) instead of asking questions repeatedly? Thanks! From that: > [@](#): > > I had Bland exit the vehicle to further conduct a safe traffic investigation Really? Um … just what kind of investigation were you planning, officer? This is a blatant lie. He had her get out of the vehicle because he was pissed off at her attitude. > [@Bricker](#): > > After she was told that she was under arrest, she continued to refuse to exit the car. > > That’s resisting arrest. Do you disagree? I disagree based on the text of the law, up until the point where she used force (if she in fact, did use force, which isn’t clear from the evidence but I wouldn’t be surprised.) > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > From the part you bolded. The officer wasn’t performing any sort of “on-scene investigation into other crimes”, he asked her to step out as part of the existing, and ongoing, lawful traffic stop. Oh really? > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Not sure why you don’t get this. The officer did not extend the stop for any reason, good or bad. He was trying to complete the initial stop. No he wasn’t. He prevented Bland from signing the warning by removing it and placing it on the hood of her car. At that point, he’s extending the stop without ANY valid reason relating to the initial stop. Even in his warrant he states that it was to investigate the traffic incident, which is clearly BS. > [@](#): > > Had she signed the thing, completing the stop, he couldn’t then extend it for another reason (sniffing for drugs, checking with ICE, secondhand smoke). How can she sign it when it’s on the hood of her car? She was apparently about to sign it when he asked her to put out her cigarette, and everything went pear-shaped. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/805 "2015-07-24T20:28:58Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Mimms is about US Constitution, and it does not prevent TX from having additional laws that confer additional rights. The cite I gave above is a TX lawyer who specializes in the area, who says that he has to state the reason. > > Yet the TX lawyer I cited, who is directly involved with TX civil liberties, says otherwise. Your unawareness is not convincing. However, you might be right: my cite doesn’t give enough info for us to judge its merits, unfortunately. Your cite is an interview of a civil rights lawyer. Based on the other answers provided, I do not find his responses credible. Certainly TX can have additional laws that prevent ordering people from their vehicles for no reason, like Vermont, Massachusettes, and Hawaii does. Do you have any actual evidence? My cite is from SCOTUS. It wasn’t just Mimms either. The person you quoted made multiple claims. Mimms refers to the order to exit the vehicle. But the person you quoted also stated that the officer was required to state the reason for the arrest. DEVENPECK V. ALFORD is from SCOTUS too. That says the reason for arrest is not constitutionally required. I can find nothing in TX that requires this. In NY, there is such a requirement, with certain exceptions. Do you have evidence that supports your position? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/806 "2015-07-24T20:34:39Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No he didn’t. Ah, brevity _and_ certainty! Always a reliable indicator of comprehensive information. So, then, outside of her signature, which she could not have provided without the officer’s cooperation, what remained to be done? Was he going to offer her an incomplete form, maybe fill in the blanks later? I would be reluctant to sign such a thing, how about you? Anyway, since you have all the fact right at your fingertips, what remained to be done? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/807 "2015-07-24T20:41:24Z")
Has Rodriguez ever been tested? Didn’t Thomas overturn the lower court decision in the Rodriguez case? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/808 "2015-07-24T20:42:30Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Oh really? Really. > [@](#): > > No he wasn’t. He prevented Bland from signing the warning by removing it and placing it on the hood of her car. At that point, he’s extending the stop without ANY valid reason relating to the initial stop. Even in his warrant he states that it was to investigate the traffic incident, which is clearly BS. The stop is not completed until the warrant is signed. Other posters have explained this upthread, with citations, and more clearly than I have. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/809 "2015-07-24T20:46:14Z")
I can’t watch that thing again right now. It’s painful. Even if she was not dead it would be painful. Can someone who watched closely describe the exact timeline regarding the warning? He tells her its a warning, He fills out something, he gives it to her, she doesnt sign it, he asks how are you feeling?, he places warning on hood, he asks her to extinguish, she says no, she wants to sign it. What is the exact order of these things? Did she have the ability to answer his request to extinguish with “May I just sign that please?” Was the warning in hand or was he holding it back? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/810 "2015-07-24T20:51:09Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > I can’t watch that thing again right now. It’s painful. Even if she was not dead it would be painful. Can someone who watched closely describe the exact timeline regarding the warning? > > He tells her its a warning, He fills out something, he gives it to her, she doesnt sign it, he asks how are you feeling?, he places warning on hood, he asks her to extinguish, she says no, she wants to sign it. What is the exact order of these things? > > Did she have the ability to answer his request to extinguish with “May I just sign that please?” Was the warning in hand or was he holding it back? From memory I think you have the order wrong. He asks if she is upset, she says yes and explains why, he asks if she is through, he then writes some stuff down, he asks if she will put out her cigarette, she declines, he asks her to exit the vehicle and she says no then he opens the door, asks again (she refuses again and says she is calling her lawyer) and then he attempts to remove her bodily from the vehicle. If you can’t stand to watch the video someone linked early in the thread to the transcript, in case my own memory is faulty. I agree with you that watching it is painful and I don’t want to do it again either. ETA from [here](http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/transcript-traffic-stop-sandra-bland-arrested-32617883): > [@](#): > > TROOPER: “You OK?” > > BLAND: “I’m waiting on you. This is your job. I’m waiting on you. What do you want me to do?” > > TROOPER: “You seem very irritated.” > > BLAND: “I am. I really am. Because of what I’ve been stopped and am getting a ticket for. I’ve been getting out of the way. You’ve been speeding up, so I move over and you stop me. So yeah, I am a little irritated. But that didn’t stop you from giving me a ticket.” > > TROOPER: “Are you done?” > > BLAND: “You asked me what was wrong and I told you. So now I’m done, yeah.” > > TROOPER: “OK, OK.” > > (Pause) > > TROOPER: “Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please?” > > BLAND: “I’m in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?” > > TROOPER: “Well, you can step out now.” > > BLAND: “I don’t have to step on out.” > > TROOPER: “Step out of the car.” > > (He opens the driver’s side door.) > > BLAND: “No, you don’t have the right.” > > TROOPER: “Step out of the car!” > > BLAND: “You don’t have the right to do that.” > > TROOPER: “I do have the right. Now step out or I’ll remove you.” > > BLAND: “I am getting removed for failure to signal?” > > TROOPER: “Step out or I’ll remove you. I’m giving you a lawful order. Get out of the car now or I’m going to remove you.” > > BLAND: “I’m calling my lawyer.” > > TROOPER: “I’m going to yank you out of here.” ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/811 "2015-07-24T20:55:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > AGAIN. > > That claim doesn’t apply here for several reasons, and has been discussed earlier in the thread. Whoever wrote that article did not appear to understand that Texas law requires the signing of the citation in order for the traffic stop to end. Why does this matter? According to _Rodriguez_, “…a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” Where in this language does it imply the clock for “excessive” starts ticking only when the traffic stop has officially come to an end? For something written by lawyers, the conclusion reads pretty simple: cops can’t detain anyone longer than it takes to resolve the issue at hand. Assuming (of course) reasonable suspicion for another violation hasn’t surfaced, the police are not allowed to just waste people’s time with capricious questioning and requests. It’s obvious on its face that this would violate the 4th amendment. If a judge determines that Encinia did in fact violate _Rodriguez_ with his unnecessary actions, will you continue to insist his order to exit the car was lawful? It’s seems safe to assume its lawfulness completely hinges upon whether it was a justified action, and since that is in dispute, you can’t be so confident that he was within his rights. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/812 "2015-07-24T21:08:54Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Did she have the ability to answer his request to extinguish with “May I just sign that please?” Was the warning in hand or was he holding it back? He had filled out the warning and presumably, was about to hand it to her to sign before he asked her to snub her smoke. When she declined, he never gave her the chance to sign the thing, because he decided the better course of action would be to yank her out of the car. To me, it doesn’t matter what _she_ knew or didn’t know. _We_l now that he had filled out a warning slip and didn’t have any reason to detain her any longer. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/813 "2015-07-24T21:11:37Z")
None of this is well-settled law. _Rodriguez_ was just decided three months ago. We don’t know how various state rules about the duration of stops will fare under _Rodriguez_. The legal argument advanced by **you with the face** is entirely reasonable. Texas may have whatever rule it has about a stop ending with the signing of a ticket, but that does not trump the constitutional rule about the permissible duration of a traffic stop. And that rule is about objective reasonableness. An officer may not extend the duration of the stop simply by not signing the ticket when he normally would have. The question here would be, presumably, whether the officer (a) had new reasonable suspicion of some crime; or (b) could use a Mimms-style justification even though the encounter could have been ended by handing over the ticket. I doubt whether (a) or (b) are true, but (b) is certainly not a matter of settled law. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/814 "2015-07-24T21:11:51Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > So in a traffic stop, as soon as the officer says the magic words “I’m going to give you a warning” I can say anything I possibly want, including a 5 verse song extolling his mother’s value as a whore, as long as it doesn’t involve me and criminal activity and if he tries to actually give me a ticket instead, I can just say “No you can’t! You already said you were just going to give me a warning. No take backs!” That is exactly what I’m arguing should happen. If you see a cop on the street and call him an asshole, he cannot legally arrest you. He might manufacture a reason and do so anyway, but legally, insulting a cop is not grounds for arrest. So he should also not be able to use an unrelated offense as a pretext to arrest you for calling him an asshole just because you happen to do so shortly after he decided not to arrest you for that offense. I would claim that the decision is clear at the point where he says “I’m going to give you a warning”. But maybe it’s not. So, if you get the warning, you sign for it, he says you’re free to go, and as he’s walking back to his car, you yell back at him “You’re an asshole”, is he justified in arresting you for the driving infraction? If you see him the next day on the street and you call him an asshole, is he justified in arresting you for the driving infraction? I’m under no illusions that I could call a cop an asshole and not get arrested. But I would argue that that arrest should not be legal. If I want to be pissy at the DMV, they can’t refuse to license my car. If I write nasty letters to the IRS, they don’t get to refuse to refund my money. Why do we accept that police officers get to arrest people un unrelated charges just because those people have a bad attitude? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/815 "2015-07-24T21:27:39Z")
> [@manson1972](#): > > So in a traffic stop, as soon as the officer says the magic words “I’m going to give you a warning” I can say anything I possibly want, including a 5 verse song extolling his mother’s value as a whore, as long as it doesn’t involve me and criminal activity and if he tries to actually give me a ticket instead, I can just say “No you can’t! You already said you were just going to give me a warning. No take backs!” Wait, are you asking this sincerely? Or are you just kidding around? Of course the cop should only issue a warning, regardless if you call him mean names. I don’t see how you could rationalize the opposite and still claim to support the 1st amendment (perhaps you don’t). For the same reason I don’t think murderers should be sentenced according to how posh and polite they are, I don’t think traffic offenders should be ticketed according to how effectively they mask their negative emotions. We have no business saying we live in a free society if merely having a “bad attitude” subjects you to prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/816 "2015-07-24T21:30:01Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I’m under no illusions that I could call a cop an asshole and not get arrested. But I would argue that that arrest should not be legal. And you would be correct. Vulgar language directed at an officer, especially in a way that is criticizing his official conduct toward you, is not on its own a valid basis for arrest. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/817 "2015-07-24T21:31:52Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > If I want to be pissy at the DMV, they can’t refuse to license my car. If I write nasty letters to the IRS, they don’t get to refuse to refund my money. Anti-big government types would scream bloody murder if other government executive agencies were granted such liberties. Everyone would be screaming “GOVERNMENT OVERREACH!!” But give such power to a police officer–someone who walks around with a gun and can kill with impunity 99% of the time–and suddenly folks don’t seem all that bothered. Folks who are normally full of conspiracies about the government don’t seem to have a problem with surrendering all their rights to any random guy in a blue uniform. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/818 "2015-07-24T21:32:59Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > And you would be correct. Vulgar language directed at an officer, especially in a way that is criticizing his official conduct toward you, is not on its own a valid basis for arrest. Might get you that ticket instead of a warning, though. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/819 "2015-07-24T21:37:39Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Might get you that ticket instead of a warning, though. 😛 If it did, it would be unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment allows an officer to issue the ticket if there is PC regardless of his subjective views. But the First Amendment forbids him from issuing it as a subjective result of your cursing at him. Obviously, in the real world of America in 2015, such disrespect might well get you killed. It will almost certainly get you arrested. It’s a terrible idea. But on the narrow question of the law, it is definitely constitutionally protected conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/820 "2015-07-24T21:38:37Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Yet the TX lawyer I cited, who is directly involved with TX civil liberties, says otherwise. Your unawareness is not convincing. However, you might be right: my cite doesn’t give enough info for us to judge its merits, unfortunately. So, I did a bit of reading and here is what I could find on duty to inform upon arrest (my bold in all of the below): [CA](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?file=833-851.90&group=00001-01000§ion=pen): > [@](#): > > 1. The person making the arrest must inform the person to be > arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest, > and the authority to make it, except when the person making the > arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested > is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an > offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after > its commission, or after an escape. > \*\* The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is > arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being > arrested.\*\* [North Carolina:](http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=15a-401) > [@](#): > > (c) How Arrest Made. - > (1) An arrest is complete when: > a. The person submits to the control of the arresting officer who has indicated his intention to arrest, or > b. The arresting officer, with intent to make an arrest, takes a person into custody by the use of physical force. > (2) Upon making an arrest, a law-enforcement officer must: > a. Identify himself as a law-enforcement officer unless his identity is otherwise apparent, > b. Inform the arrested person that he is under arrest, and > **c. As promptly as is reasonable under the circumstances, inform the arrested person of the cause of the arrest, unless the cause appears to be evident**. [Massachusetts](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter263/Section1): > [@](#): > > Section 1. **Whoever is arrested by virtue of process, or whoever is taken into custody by an officer, has a right to know from the officer who arrests or claims to detain him the true ground on which the arrest is made;** and an officer who refuses to answer a question relative to the reason for such arrest, or answers such question untruly, or assigns to the person arrested an untrue reason for the arrest, or neglects upon request to exhibit to the person arrested, or to any other person acting in his behalf, the precept by virtue of which such arrest has been made, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year. [New York](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CPL/TWO/H/140/140.15): > [@](#): > > 1. A police officer may arrest a person for an offense, pursuant to section 140.10, at any hour of any day or night. \*\*2. The arresting police officer must inform such person of his authority and purpose and of the reason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical. \*\*3. In order to effect such an arrest, such police officer may use such physical force as is justifiable pursuant to section 35.30 of the penal law. 4. In order to effect such an arrest, a police officer may enter premises in which he reasonably believes such person to be present, under the same circumstances and in the same manner as would be authorized, by the provisions of subdivisions four and five of section 120.80, if he were attempting to make such arrest pursuant to a warrant of arrest. And, I even found a [Texas city’s internal policy (not law, city of Texarkana):](http://ci.texarkana.tx.us/DocumentCenter/View/2616) > [@](#): > > J. DUTY TO INFORM ARRESTEE > > 1. The officer making the arrest will ensure that the person arrested knows that he is being placed > under arrest and the reason for the arrest, if circumstances permit. When I look at the [Texas code itself,](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/E/9.51) this is what I find: > [@](#): > > (a) A peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after arrest, if: > (1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and > (2) **before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer’s direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.** > (b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his direction) is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the arrest or reasonably believes his purpose and the reason are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested. If the officer reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person, then there is no requirement to announce the reason for arrest. I think it’s a wobbler whether or not the person you cited was correct. He certainly didn’t present his statement with the nuance it deserves. Obviously I didn’t do an exhaustive search of all 50 states, but it is not a federal constitutional requirement as laid out in Devenpeck. States may erect their own statutory or constitutional protections. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=42)