Ok, but is this your own interpretation of the relevant case law and how this will play out or is this the current prevalent theory from lawyer types talking about this? Because this is the first I’ve heard about using Rodiguez in this particular case and you are making these claims in a definitive way asserting that this is pretty solid, while most of what I am still reading is saying that he could indeed require her to leave the car in this situation.
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!”
Not saying he can or cannot do this, but I would never think of doing anything untoward once I heard the words “I’m going to give you a warning” for fear that I would get a ticket instead, and I wouldn’t want to ruin it. I thought that was common knowledge. Anyone know any REAL legal status on this?
In other words, the stop wasn’t over.
Skipping, just for a moment, the particulars of this case, what is the alternative (in Texas) to signing the warning during the traffic stop?
Isn’t it being arrested, and going to jail, until you go before the court and enter a plea?
Ha, people change their minds all the time, but Smoking is not a legal reason for him to change his mind about the warning since he did not feel threatened or his safety compromised. He left her waiting in her own car for 6 minutes while he meandered to his cruiser to write her up. Calling someone a cocksucker is more than just disrespectful, it invites retaliation.
If he did feel he was threatened, he should have told her that safety was the reason for her to get out of the car. Instead he refused to give her a reason for putting her under arrest, apprehending her or drawing the taser on her.
Maybe the cop didn’t want to get burned by a lit cigarette when passing a clipboard and a pen back and forth through the window.
My interpretation but I am not the only one. Not sure which of these (if any) were written by actual lawyers but some interview lawyers who agree with this interpretation. You are of course free to provide your own interpretation or find some differing opinions.
-
Texas DPS Officer Mishandled Sandra Bland’s Traffic Stop in Violation of Recent SCOTUS Ruling
-
What The Supreme Court Has To Say About Sandra Bland’s Arrest
-
Texas Trooper Had No Right To Ask Sandra Bland To Put Out Her Cigarette
-
New Angle: What the Supreme Court Has To Say About Sandra Bland’s Arrest
He has to have probable cause to detain her.
At the point that he asked her to stop smoking, he had already checked her plates and license number and determined her violation only merited a warning. She had no other offenses he could nail her on, so he had no reason to continue detaining her.
By the logic your espousing, he could’ve held her another two or three hours, finding new and unusual things to grill her about until he grew bored and finally handed her the warning to sign. But of course that is wrong. Once he finished his investigation, he was required to release her without delay.
The video shows he had no valid reason to order her out of the car.
Not sure why you don’t get this. The officer can not extend the stop without good reason. He had no good reason here to extend the stop.
I think it’s helpful to draw a distinction between the observation that the trooper SHOULD have done something differently, and the conclusion that the trooper acted illegally.
So if he felt threatened, he should indeed have told her why he was getting her out of the car.
But he isn’t legally obligated to do so and his failure to do so doesn’t transform the arrest into an illegal one.
I persist in making this distinction because it’s clear to me that some participants don’t yet understand that. The trooper’s conduct was horrible, and a violation of his department policy. It wasn’t unconstitutional.
I could get behind the idea that the vehicle stop was extended in violation of Rodriguez. I think a finder of fact would have to make that determination.
It just seems to me that a cop has up to the moment he hands over the warning to change his mind and give the maximum penalty for whatever the stop was for. I don’t think he really needs a reason to do something he could have done from the very beginning. Again, I’m not a lawyer and don’t claim to know much about fine intricacies of traffic laws. I just can’t believe a cops legal actions can be curtailed by some magic words.
sorry but that is NOT my logic. My logic is: He could have arrested her immediately IAW what I’ve read in this thread about Texas law. He didn’t, and decided to give her a warning, until he decided to NOT just give a warning and arrest her instead. You make it seem like once he makes a mental decision to give a warning there are “No take backs!”
And again, as has been pointed out in this thread at least 8 times, and something I learned, he doesn’t need to say a reason or have a reason to order the driver out of the car during a traffic stop.
The officer cannot extend the stop to an unreasonable amount of time.
If the officer has written out the warning then at the last second pulls it back and says, “No, I think I will write a ticket” I think you have a case for being detained too long. Otherwise, as you have it, the officer could spend hours changing his mind just to mess with you and there’d be nothing to stop it.
You can be arrested in Texas for failure to signal a lane change? Really??
Wow.
A ticket sure but arrested and thrown in jail? Seems a little excessive.
And your persistence is noteworthy, except the question was why can’t an officer change their mind and arrest someone after the warning was completed. No doubt they can, but he’s was stretching to find probable cause until he invented a reason.
Sure an officer COULD do that. He could also sit in his cruiser watching movies on his IPhone for 4 hours and then claim his computer was slow in looking up the license plate information. so what?
Of course. Nothing said here means bupkis regardless of which side you are arguing. The only one that will matter will be a court (if it ever gets there).
I was asking you. But you are making assertions of this as if it’s resolved fact in this thread (such as your next post “The officer cannot extend the stop to an unreasonable amount of time”), while glancing at your links it’s speculation at this point. Like I said, this is the first I’ve seen this argument made, and I’m no lawyer nor do I pretend to be one. I suppose it will be interesting to see how it plays out with the REAL lawyers. Would be interesting to see what Bricker thinks of this, or some of the other board lawyers.
Jesus, did you read this thread? I was surprised too, but it has been mentioned at least once or 50 times.
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.
This is a better article. And in it, the author concedes that the stop was not over – it was “almost over.” And the author even speculates, although urging skepticism, that the trooper’s safety concerns may have been an issue. But that’s a determination of fact to be made by a court – the stopped motorist is not entitled to independently evaluate the officer’s reasoning. And once the trooper informs her she’s under arrest, and she refuses to exit the car, she’s violated Texas’ resisting arrest statute. And of course, in the course of resisting arrest, she injures the officer and violates another Texas law.
Same problems.
Do you have any cites which address those points?