# 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:** 65
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1281 "2015-07-28T00:31:45Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Would you like to make a small bet? The sad thing? This is all a fucking game to you. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1282 "2015-07-28T00:32:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A motorist is not permitted to decide, on her own, that the police officer changed his mind because of her legally protected speech, conclude that the stop (or the time the stop has been extended) is invalid, and choose to resist arrest with impunity. > > The claims you have made as fact would undoubtedly be disputed by the officer. The place to settle those disputed claims would be the courtroom. Bricker, did you miss the bit I underlined in Learjeff’s post? > [@Learjeff](#): > > Except for violating Ramirez by extending the stop unrelated to the violation. He even lies about this in his explanation, saying it was to “investigate”. > > The moment he gets pissed off because of her obvious attitude and her refusal to comply with his _request_ to put out her cigarette, he’s off the reservation. > … > Now, once Bland resists, she’s culpable for resisting arrest, and if she did in fact kick him (which isn’t clear; I don’t believe the officer and it’s not clear from the video, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true), then she’s culpable for assault. > > But that doesn’t get the officer off the hook. It seems perfectly plausible to me that she broke the law by resisting arrest, and he violated the law by arresting her. Is that not how it looks to you? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1283 "2015-07-28T00:33:08Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > The sad thing? This is all a fucking game to you. I like to see if people can put their money where their mouths are. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1284 "2015-07-28T00:37:48Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I like to see if people can put their money where their mouths are. How 'bout we just wait and see how this all shakes out in a court of law, as intended. We aren’t racing horses here. Someone died. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1285 "2015-07-28T00:40:34Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > How 'bout we just wait and see how this all shakes out in a court of law, as intended. Has someone filed a lawsuit? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1286 "2015-07-28T00:50:53Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I like to see if people can put their money where their mouths are. Kinda depends whats most important to you: what you got in your wallet or between your ears. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1287 "2015-07-28T00:54:49Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Has someone filed a lawsuit? Time will tell. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1288 "2015-07-28T00:56:02Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > And the permissible duration question is not answered by observing that Texas law says the stop wasn’t over. It is answered by the objective question of whether she had been stopped long enough for a _reasonable_ officer to have completed all tasks related and attendant to the stop. > > I have seen precious little analysis of that question, but it really is key, isn’t it? Six minutes and thirty-three seconds elapses between the time Ms. Bland stopped at the side of the road and the time Trooper Encinia approached her car with the warning citation in hand, saying, “Okay, ma’am…” Less than forty-five seconds elapses between that point and the point at which Encinia says, “Well, you can step out now.” During that time, Encinia does not offer her the warning citation to sign, it’s true, but the time is taken up by his query about how she feels, her response to him, and his request the she extinguish the cigarette. It’s extremely difficult for me to picture that interaction being found to extend the stop impermissibly. _Rodriguez_ quoted with approval the observation in _Caballes_ that a permissible time portion of the traffic stop includes “…ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop.” Moreover, the remedy you suggest is not clear to me either. Nothing in _Rodriguez_ suggests that the remedy for violation extends to suppressing evidence of a completely new crime started and completed by the motorist during the putative unlawfully extended time period. This is distinct, of course, from any evidence uncovered of a completed crime that comes to light during the unlawful extension. In other words, the new crime is not the fruit of a poisoned tree, but a completely different tree’s fruit. Suppose that Officer Jenny stops Misty for failure to use headlights in rain. Instead of expeditiously writing the citation, the officer engages the motorist in a series of intrusive questions, suggests that she should consent to a search of the car or wait hours for a drug dog, and plays two or three minutes of Pokemon HeartGold in her cruiser before so much as beginning the citation. Furious with the delay, Misty calls the officer a bitch and the officer orders her out of the car. Misty lunges out of the car with a knife and stabs Jenny through the heart. Are you seriously suggesting that the remedy for Jenny’s _Rodriguez_ violation is suppression of any evidence of the stabbing as fruit of the poisonous tree? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1289 "2015-07-28T00:56:39Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The determinative question as to the propriety of the arrest is whether the stop had continued past it’s constitutionally permissible duration before she was ordered out of her car. If it did, then everything else is fruit of the poisonous tree, I would think. > > And the permissible duration question is not answered by observing that Texas law says the stop wasn’t over. It is answered by the objective question of whether she had been stopped long enough for a _reasonable_ officer to have completed all tasks related and attendant to the stop. > > I have seen precious little analysis of that question, but it really is key, isn’t it? Can I ask a related question? From this, in _[Rodriguez](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf)_: > [@](#): > > As we said in _Caballes_ and reiterate today, a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” that point is “unlawful.” _Ibid_. The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post, at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—_i.e_., adds time to—“the stop,” _supra_, at 6. (page 11) Does that mean it doesn’t matter if the ticket had been signed or not when the extension occurs? Because that is the argument I’ve read here so far: that the stop wasn’t completed so it’s not an extension. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1290 "2015-07-28T00:59:11Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Bricker, did you miss the bit I underlined in Learjeff’s post? > > It seems perfectly plausible to me that she broke the law by resisting arrest, and he violated the law by arresting her. Is that not how it looks to you? No. I don’t agree that the forty-five second delay between his approach and his ordering her out of the car is impermissible under _Rodriguez_. I don’t agree he broke the law by arresting her. I of course completely agree that he flouted both common sense and DPS policy with the arrest. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1291 "2015-07-28T01:00:35Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Kinda depends whats most important to you: what you got in your wallet or between your ears. Give **Terr** a break; maybe he needs fast money to bail out a family member. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1292 "2015-07-28T01:02:20Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Can I ask a related question? From this, in _[Rodriguez](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf)_: > > Does that mean it doesn’t matter if the ticket had been signed or not when the extension occurs? Because that is the argument I’ve read here so far: that the stop wasn’t completed so it’s not an extension. I know you asked **Richard** , but I think the argument is mine, so if I may: The signing is a necessary part of the process, so it’s permissible to count the time necessary to get it signed as accomplished by a reasonable officer. In other words, it;s not so much that the citation was not signed ever – it’s that the stop did not extend past the point at which a reasonable officer would have gotten it signed. The mere fact that the unreasonable Encinia took the stop in a different direction doesn’t erase that. ---
**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 28, 2015, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1293 "2015-07-28T01:12:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s extremely difficult for me to picture that interaction being found to extend the stop impermissibly. _Rodriguez_ quoted with approval the observation in _Caballes_ that a permissible time portion of the traffic stop includes “…ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop.” Are asking about the motorist’s feelings and quarreling with her over whether to put out a cigarette in her own car “ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop”? I agree with you that the cop has the better facts here. It would be very difficult to portray a delay of minutes as taking things into Rodriguez territory, almost regardless of how those minutes are spent. I’m just a little less blase about saying categorically that the stop was a permissible duration. I think there is some room for analysis and argument on what seems to me to be the legally determinative issue here. It is certainly not determinative that she did not sign the citation yet, right? The other point I would raise is just that I’m unclear as to whether the Mimms removal is justified once everything that had been completed here was completed. > [@Bricker](#): > > Moreover, the remedy you suggest is not clear to me either. Nothing in _Rodriguez_ suggests that the remedy for violation extends to suppressing evidence of a completely new crime started and completed by the motorist during the putative unlawfully extended time period. [. . .]Are you seriously suggesting that the remedy for Jenny’s _Rodriguez_ violation is suppression of any evidence of the stabbing as fruit of the poisonous tree? You make a fair point, and to be honest I wasn’t really thinking in terms of remedy. What was being thrown around was this notion of the arrest being “lawful.” Of course, that term might have different meanings. One fair meaning of that term is that the arrest was the result of some unconstitutional conduct on the officer’s part. If he extended the stop beyond it’s constitutionally permissible duration, and the rest is the but-for result of that, then it is in some sense unlawful. But you’re absolutely right that it’s unclear whether an exclusionary remedy would apply or whether she could bring a 1983 action for the subsequent arrest, etc. In reality, the officer is going to have qualified immunity in the Fifth Circuit (if it even made it that far), regardless of the constitutional merits. ---
**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 28, 2015, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1294 "2015-07-28T01:15:56Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] In reality, the officer is going to have qualified immunity in the Fifth Circuit (if it even made it that far), regardless of the constitutional merits. [/QUOTE] Why? What is ‘qualified immunity’? ETA: I looked it up and sort of understand the [explanation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity) but if you can take a shot at explaining the term for dummies I’d be obliged. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1295 "2015-07-28T01:18:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I know you asked **Richard** , but I think the argument is mine, so if I may: > > The signing is a necessary part of the process, so it’s permissible to count the time necessary to get it signed as accomplished by a reasonable officer. > > In other words, it;s not so much that the citation was not signed ever – it’s that the stop did not extend past the point at which a reasonable officer would have gotten it signed. > > The mere fact that the unreasonable Encinia took the stop in a different direction doesn’t erase that. Thank you for answering. But if there’s no set timing for what is reasonable for these type of stops, would the officer have to justify why he took it in a different direction at that point? Would he have to have a good reason to ask her to get out of the car ? Which would obviously extend the time to complete the stop, since he was about to hand it to her to sign. What danger to his safety occurred at that point? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1296 "2015-07-28T01:18:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I know you asked **Richard** , but I think the argument is mine, so if I may: > > The signing is a necessary part of the process, so it’s permissible to count the time necessary to get it signed as accomplished by a reasonable officer. > > In other words, it;s not so much that the citation was not signed ever – it’s that the stop did not extend past the point at which a reasonable officer would have gotten it signed. > > The mere fact that the unreasonable Encinia took the stop in a different direction doesn’t erase that. Okay. Let’s take that as granted. But she asked again, and again, and again what she was being arrested for, and he came up with nothing. Absolutely nothing. In his report to his superiors he dances around the fact he could’ve arrested her for resistance or assault. But by that time he had let the situation escalate (instead of attempting, at least once, to try and explain things and talk her down), to the point where it seemed unclear to even himself what he was really arresting her for. Simply telling her what she was arrested (or not) for, at the very beginning, would’ve gone a long way to put her at ease. It just defies all common sense. ---
**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 28, 2015, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1297 "2015-07-28T01:21:01Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Why? What is ‘qualified immunity’? Qualified immunity is a common law doctrine that protects state agents from liability unless it can be shown that they violated a clearly established right. The idea is to not make it prohibitively expensive or difficult to work for the government, since you’re constantly making decisions that will impact citizens, who might sue and win based on theories you couldn’t have anticipated. Ever since 2007, courts can now base their final ruling on qualified immunity before ever reaching the legal question of whether rights were violated at all. Consequently, many rights are much slower to become “clearly established” since courts–all the way up to and especially the Supreme Court–sometimes don’t bother saying what rights are anymore, especially in police cases. Pretty much everywhere a Rodriguez violation on novel facts is going to mean qualified immunity applies, because the case is so new. But even the other constitutional theories at play here, such as the First Amendment violation, are likely not “clearly established” in the Fifth Circuit (and never will be until the Supreme Court finally weighs in). ---
**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 28, 2015, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1298 "2015-07-28T01:21:19Z")
> [@Clu-Me-In](#): > > The family has a great attorney who will not divulge anything until he absolutely has to. He has some information many folks will not be happy to hear when all is laid out. How do you know that the family has a “great” attorney? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1299 "2015-07-28T01:37:56Z")
Do you guys ever feel like if you have to read the word “reasonable” ever again, you’ll paint your butt blue and move to the country? ---
**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 28, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1300 "2015-07-28T02:04:39Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Does that mean it doesn’t matter if the ticket had been signed or not when the extension occurs? Because that is the argument I’ve read here so far: that the stop wasn’t completed so it’s not an extension. On its face, it makes no sense that completion of the stop determines whether Rodriguez is violated. Because if that’s the case, all a cop would need to do is hold off on getting a person to sign a ticket and they’d be able to go on a fishing expedition for several hours. The ruling emphasizes the actions needed to perform a routine traffic stop. Beyond the time it takes to carry out these basics actions (informing the person why they were stopped, collecting and checking the license and registration, filling out the citation, issuing it, etc), there is no lawful reason for detaining someone. Nothing in the ruling specifies how much time must elapse before the detainment becomes unlawful, and there is nothing that suggests unlawfulness only applies after the stop is completed. I believe Encincia’s own words get him in trouble, because he tells his boss that Bland kept demanding to sign the ticket and he prevented her from doing so. This indicates she wasn’t the one holding things up, he was. By introducing a wholly unnecessary series of actions into the proceedings (asking her to extinguish her cigarette and then ordering her to exit her car), he extended the stop beyond the time needed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=64) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=66)