Sandra Bland video

That’s not what the law says, though. The law says that the officer can effect an arrest until the citation has been signed, not “…until he decided…” using his “professional judgement.”

Unless you have some case law cite to your claim?

That’s not a defense to an arrest, though. An arrested person is certainly entitled to claim that his arrest is a pretext and premised upon a desire to suppress a First Amendment right, but he cannot assert that claim to avoid the arrest.

Unless you have some cite to the contrary?

For the purposes of legal analysis of THIS situation, your wondering is utterly irrelevant.

So I’ve seen a photo circulating on social media that’s supposedly a picture of the cell, gotten from what seems to be a TV news story. Can anyone vouch for it?

nm

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/photos/f955cda39da041c883233b88b3238043/637574479647

somewhere in the middle of the photo gallery

You could game that if you knew what you were doing. Would you call off the inquest for your loved one based on that?

There is a real problem with this guy never saying what is happening that makes an arrest happen. She declined to put out the cigarette as is her right, and that means she is to be arrested? He was behaving irrationally.

Why is the PD saying the arrest was bad?

It *could *be. It’s not the only possible (or even plausible) explanation. That’s what I mean by absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

On TV, CNN showed what they reported as the cell she died in. One Hell of a nice cell for a jail!

Or I would assume. :rolleyes: Yeah. Just assuming. :wink: I mean, how would *I *know? :o

Sure. From Mythbusters episode 59:

An ultrasonic motion detector can be fooled by holding a bedsheet in front of you: confirmed

The bedsheet absorbed enough of the ultrasonic waves to mitigate any return signals.

An ultrasonic motion detector can be fooled by moving extremely slowly: confirmed

Although it took Kari 20 minutes to cross a relatively short hallway, she moved slow enough to stay below the detector’s sampling threshold.

Excuse me if I find the cops doing that implausible.

As for inquest: of course there is one and should be one. Medical exam, forensic examination of the video tape and video camera, and forensics of the cell all should be conducted. But the Occam’s razor points to suicide. I will be very surprised if it is found not to be.

Or they could have, yanno, deleted the film. Or shut off their camera. Sounds simpler.

Do you believe that in order for an arrest to be valid, the office must inform the suspect of the grounds for the arrest?

I doubt they’re saying the arrest was illegal.

I imagine they’re saying the arrest violated department policy. This is almost certainly true.

When you say “bad,” do you mean an illegal arrest, or an arrest that violated department policy?

Yes, he can effect an arrest. Has to have a reason, though. Don’t have the case law on that, I admit. What was that reason? He didn’t intend to arrest her when he was filling out his paperwork, so whatever the reason was, it happened after that. And he wasn’t arresting her for violent assault on his person, because that hadn’t happened yet, if ever it did.

So, a crime was committed? Or there was a valid suspicion of a crime? OK, what was it?

And no one wants to hazard a theory as to why he turned his car around to pursue her after spotting her car?

I believe those grounds must exist. Don’t have the case law for that, either.

Well, in this case, it was an arrest… for? …

Apparently for resisting arrest.
The stupid hurts.

… and moronic. Both actions would be easily found out.

Yes, that’s it.

Then the question I’ve seen asked is, do jail cells usually get unsecured garbage cans with two bags (the one currently in the can, and the one used in the hanging)?

(There’s also talk of the partition used being shorter than Bland, but movies and TV have taught me that people can hang themselves by kneeling, so that’s not necessarily probative.)

Yes, it would be. But there’s an incident mentioned in the law enforcement Pit thread where exactly this said to have happened, so stupid doesn’t necessarily stop people.

It was his job?

There was no order to extinguish her cigarrette; it was a request. She had every right to say no to his request, didn’t she?

Incidentally, this video shows that she drove straight through the stop sign immediately before the policeman went after her. And no, he didn’t mention it as the reason for stopping her.

The crime was improper lane change, read back the earlier part of the thread in Texas this is an arrestable offense.