These same types also do a lot of big talk about unfettered access to guns. To protect themselves from what? The government, that’s who.
Makes you wonder, though, what they would do if a cop kicked down the door and demanded them to turn over all their firearms. Would they submit meekly, as they admonish the Sandra Blands of the world to do? Or will they give them a piece of their mind? You know, like Sandra Bland did. And suffered for.
Sure, it’s wrong, but good luck proving it in traffic court (or at least being a schlub like me and proving it). But if an officer tells me that I’m getting a warning, does that constitute some sort of contract where he has to give me a warning and can’t change his mind and give me a ticket later in the exchange? If so, that might be good to know for the future. 
[QUOTE=you with the face]
These same types also do a lot of big talk about unfettered access to guns. To protect themselves from what? The government, that’s who.
[/QUOTE]
Um…you know, most of the folks who want ‘unfettered access to guns’ don’t really like or trust the government, including the police…right? I don’t know who you think your target audience for this rant is, but I know some of these types of people and they don’t like the police any more than you seemingly do…and don’t trust them or the government. That’s kind of why they WANT ‘unfettered access to guns’ in the first place.
Are you under the impression that a cop having his door kicked in by other cops is going to be all shoot out the OK Corral™ and that this would be perfectly fine?? They would submit meekly or they would be dead, cop or no cop.
Why do you always have to go into these ridiculous rants in these discussions?? 
Does it have to be both purpose and identity? It’s obvious she knew his identity, but is it reasonable to think she should have known the purpose for him ordering her out of the car after the exchange they had? She obviously didn’t know she was under arrest right away, because she said, “Why do I have to get out of my car? I’m not under arrest.” When he said, “You are under arrest.”, she asked why, so how is it reasonable to believe she knew?
Yet if there is a valid basis for arrest (as there was in Bland’s case, since in Texas a traffic violation is a valid basis for arrest) and the police officer is exercising his discretion not to arrest, vulgar language directed at the officer may change his mind. Quite legally.
Actually, I think I’m interpreting this incorrectly. That statute says:
The purpose and identity above refers to the intent to arrest and that the person is a police officer, respectivley. No where does it describe the reason for the arrest, just that an arrest is happening. This is to prevent police officers from apprehending people silently without informing them they are under arrest. Still not seeing anything regarding police being required to state a reason for arrest. In a later section the code describes this necessity if the person arresting is not a police officer. That part specifically states “reason”, delineating from purpose. Purpose in this case is ‘to affect an arrest’.
No, I do not think the provisional decision to let you off with a warning is binding. Certainly not as a matter of contract law (since you neither relied on the decision nor offered consideration for it), and not as a matter of constitutional law. State law, maybe, but I’d be surprised if that were true.
No, that’s not correct. If he would not have arrested in the absence of the constitutionally protected conduct, then it is unconstitutional to arrest as a result of that conduct.
The arrest is not as a result of that contact. The arrest is as a result of the prior conduct. With the “constitutionally protected conduct” being a contributing factor to the decision to arrest.
As for the above scenario being unconstitutional - cite?
I’m a schlub too. That’s why I have a problem with people saying that citizens who feel they are being dicked over by a cop should just suck it up and deal with it later, once they are standing in front of the judge. How would you go about proving you were dicked over? The cop has control over all the evidence (including the dashcam). His word is always going to carry more weight than yours. if you are an average person of average means, it is practically a fantasy to believe you will be made whole after a cop tramples all over your constitutional rights. The only reason we even know about Bland’s situation is because she killed herself.
I don’t think citizens should go out of their way to give police officers a hard time. But I also don’t think citizens should have to put up with mistreatment at the hands of any public servant…in hopes that another public servant will smooth things over later. That requires having way too much faith in the system. I want the system to work right from the very beginning.
I’m amazed that you think there is no middle ground between meek submission and death.
Actually, no I’m not amazed. This binary thinking accounts for many of your comments in this thread. Anything other than meek submission must justify force, right? Like, it’s the most we should expect, huh?
I should hope that if a cop barges into anyone’s home without a warrant, they feel empowered enough to tell the cop to step outside until they can furnish one. I should also hope if a cop demands that anyone’s property (guns or otherwise) be turned over, they feel empowered enough to refuse until the cops can furnish a warrant.
If we as citizens don’t have the balls to even say “no” (for fucks sake you don’t even have to raise your voice when you do it either) when a cop blatantly does something unconsitutional, then God, can you put us out of our misery now? Send us that doomsday asteroid, please.
Sure, here’s a cite: “[It is] clearly established that a police action motivated by retaliatory animus was unlawful, even if probable cause existed for that action.” Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2013).
Okay, but it still stands that she didn’t know his purpose was “to affect an arrest” until the situation was out of control.
Interesting - but not relevant to Texas, is it?
Retaliatory arreset even in the pressence of probable cause to arrest is uncontitutional in the 9thand 10thcircuits. I can’t find anything in the 5th circuit (Texas)
From the 9th circuit:
We weren’t talking about Texas. We were talking about the hypothetical scenario in which we know the officer would not have issued a ticket but-for some vulgar insult. Neither of those facts are present in the Bland case.
It is absolutely relevant to Texas. Just because the first court of appeals opinion I pulled up from Google isn’t binding on Texas courts doesn’t make it irrelevant. When a matter is “clearly established” that generally means there isn’t a significant circuit split. For the purposes of a quick message board cite, it’s fine.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided this issue directly, though it has held in lots of other contexts that retaliatory conduct is impermissible if it was the but-for cause, regardless of any other legitimate basis. AFAIK, most circuits to have considered the issue agree, including at a minimum the second, ninth, and tenth. I’m not that interested in researching what the fifth has had to say unless you start paying me, though.
If retaliatory arrest (even with probable cause) is unconstitutional, why didn’t it apply in Atwater?
Why would it have applied there? Did the plaintiff even bring a First Amendment claim?
Any progress to report on that, Terr?
No, it was 4th amendment. But why wouldn’t the lawyer who represented them add that claim if it was possible? Wouldn’t it have been applicable?
Maybe I don’t know the facts of Atwater well enough. I remember that as the case saying that the police could arrest for a misdemeanor as long as they have PC, regardless of whether the misdemeanor constituted a breach of the peace. What was the retaliation issue?