It does, yes. And that’s a frustrating and crappy way of dealing with the public.
But his failure to advise Ms. Bland why she was being arrested does absolutely nothing to make the arrest invalid. I keep beating this drum because there are posters here that seem unwilling to accept this distinction.
Suppose Encinia identifies the reason for his cigarette request as a safety concern – he didn’t want to hand her the citation while she was simultaneously exhibiting an upset demeanor and holding a lit ember?
Does his request then remain unreasonable?
I wanted it to be clarified by a lawyer because so many here seemed to think the significant factor was completing the stop before any extension time could kick in.
But I still doubt Rodriguez will apply in this case. As Bricker noted, a judge would find it reasonable for the cop to use the possible danger of a lit cigarette as a reason for asking her to leave the vehicle. He could probably also say the refusal to extinguish the cigarette made him suspicious she was trying to disguise the smell of something else in the car (as happened in Rodriguez because of the strong air freshener smell in his car).
And even though there is no set time limit, Rodriguez was held for 29 minutes total, with an extra 8 minutes extension included to wait for the dogs (and the dissenters still thought that reasonable); compare that to the time elapsed in this incident.
BTW, Thomas mentioned Atwater in his dissent:
This is what I wrote in Post #797essentially. It’s a pretty easy claim to make that he demured from handing her the ticket to sign while she was holding a lit cigarette. So he asked her to put it out, she refused so he had to remove her from the vehicle. It’s pure conjecture on my part but it could defeat the Rodriguez violation claim.
I’ve seen one theory that she developed a subdural hematoma from having her head smacked to the pavement and subsequently died from that; such injuries can easily go unnoticed and take up to a few days to result in death (see Natasha Richardson’s death, for example). I have no idea if that’s true, but it’s more plausible than the murder theory.
Does that seem like a reasonable reaction to you?
From what I’ve read, she wasn’t holding a lit cigarette. It was sitting in the holder.
What reason did he have for thinking she’d burn him with it? In theory, any object within arm’s reach could be used as a weapon against him. Like her car keys. Since she had only been calm and cooperative with him up until the point that he asked would she mind putting it out, being concerned that she was going to him burn him out of the blue doesn’t seem reasonable at all. He was about to issue her a warning, right? So what would provoke that kind of bizarre fit of violence? Just because he might have an active imagination doesn’t mean he should have acted on it.
Yes it does. Noticeably absent in his report is the claim he was concerned she would burn him with her smoke.
So what? A drum beat doesn’t negate the fact that it was against the departments protocol and just another way to escalate the tension.
For the “law” to constantly rail against what most would consider at the very least having a modicum of respect for the driver does nothing to endear the public to the people who profess to be servants of the public. At the very least, Sandra didn’t die in vain, a change to the law needs to happen so that people regardless of circumstance are treated with dignity and respect.
And again, Bricker, by the officer’s own words, Bland was more concerned about signing the ticket than anything else. Even though his account is riddled with lies and exaggerations, he never says she threatened him with violence or made menancing moves with the cigarette. If she made him feel unsafe, it’s a mystery why he doesn’t say that.
Bricker, I appreciate your clarification of the law in these posts. I’d like to ask a slightly different question.
You’ve agreed with folks that the cop’s behavior here was egregious. When folks have suggested possible legal remedies, you’ve been careful to explain why all the suggested remedies are unworkable.
So what do you suggest? What changes to the law or to legal precedent would you suggest in order to discourage such egregious police behavior going forward?
Not sure what you mean by murder that isn’t violent.
That would show up in one of the autopsies.
Here are the results of the first autopsy. Note that it says specifically that the scalp is not contused, the skull is not fractured, and that there are no epidural, subdural, or arachnoid hemmorhages.
In other words, no, what you are JAQing about didn’t happen.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, the officer wanted to make sure that when she signed the ticket she wasn’t holding anything that could be used as an improvised weapon. A pen, for example.
No, a cigarette.
Regards,
Shodan
Poison. Just sayin’
Was she one of those women with fashionable fingernail embellishments? About an inch or so of highly lacquered nail would make a perfectly serviceable spear, slam it through the eye socket into the brain, instant death!
And there’s no telling what a weed deranged person might think to do! I, myself, once beat a man to death with a bowling ball in a weed induced psychosis…no, wait, I thought about it, giggled, and then went and bought some cookies. Never mind.
And when questioned, she herself admitted that she was seething with rage and a murderous fury. Such a state of pot-induced derangement, she might at any moment paint her butt blue and move to the country! No, wait, that was me again.
And the phone? Was it one of those cast-iron industrial strength phones that Nokia makes, she might well have been planning to savage the officer! Or worse, she might actually have been calling a lawyer! She already had the right to remain silent, what further treachery was afoot?
Anyone who had ever seen an inflamed pot addict savage the contents of a refrigerator would feel threatened, as would any reasonable…reasonable?..slowly I turned…step by step…
Fire the cop. DPS can do that based on his violation of their internal policy.
No changes are needed, in other words, beyond a commitment to enforcing existing policy.
Do you believe that an officer not only has to identify a weapon, but also identify a reason that a motorist must yes it, before the law entitles him to separate the motorist from the weapon?
Sure.
I don’t agree that her demeanor could be described as calm.
Do you believe that he is somehow limited to advancing only what is in his report?
This feels like a reasonable response to getting served a burger with a dead bee mashed in it. It doesn’t feel sufficiently proscriptive from the standpoint of increasing a reliable respect for civil rights.
Or indeed a reliable respect for the police.
(post shortened)
I read that also. It was written by you with the face in post 1306 of the Sandra Bland video thread. It must be true?
Does the year and model of car Bland was driving even have a “holder” for cigarettes? Or an ashtray?
Does your statement imply that you are done posting about this subject until a case is filed with a court?