I would propose a law that requires the officer to answer any reasonable question the driver/passengers might have that are being asked of them.
Giving an order must have a reason behind that order. If the driver wants to know the reason, the officer should be required to explain.
In this case, I think if he would’ve just stated why he was ordering her out of the car and that this doesn’t mean she was being put under arrest, it probably would’ve gone a long was to diffuse her attitude and suspicion.
Notwithstanding the fact that she was already under arrest from the moment the officer turned his lights on, it’s pretty clear from her prior history and the way she was talking to him throughout the encounter that she was not willing to have her attitude diffused.
You said we should just wait and see how this all shakes out in a court of law. The term “just wait” implies that you intended to “just wait” and would no longer be involved with this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmyk
How 'bout we just wait and see how this all shakes out in a court of law, as intended.
With thanks to the legal analysts here, I’m trying to follow along. I believe I’m correctly understanding the differences between illegal actions and actions in contravention of department policies. But I have a question that I think also requires legal analysis.
Arguably, the arrest results from Bland’s refusal to obey the officer’s legal demand that she exit the vehicle. Compounded later by her “assault” upon the officer. And apparently the legitimacy of the demand to exit results from her refusing his command that she extinguish her cigarette. (No, I don’t want to argue the possible danger to the officer posed by a burning ember.) But….
He doesn’t command her to extinguish it. Instead, the transcript says
Again, I don’t wish to argue the legitimacy or not of his possible safety or other concern causing him to utter those words. Whatever the reason, he spoke as quoted. How is she supposed to know that these words, phrased as a question, constitute a command? She demurs from his apparent request.
This triggers his further command, that being the apparently legal demand that she exit her vehicle.
But again, this isn’t phrased as a command. Indeed, a command of such moment that failure to instantly obey justifies her arrest. It’s the kind of passive aggressive phrasing that invites a sarcastic reply of “Yeah, I can, but I might not.” And indeed, that is essentially what Bland did. And things went rapidly downhill from there.
So my question, the analysis I ask, goes to the form of a command. Is there any requirement in law that a statement issued by law enforcement that is intended as a command to a citizen must or should be phrased in a manner that leaves no ambiguity about its status as a command or a request? Or does “discretion” allow a LEO to utter passive aggressive questions that must be taken as commands? Because that strikes me as the problem, here and elsewhere. Cops using “discretion” to inflame an interaction with a citizen to the point that they can justify taking action such as making an arrest when otherwise the situation warrants either no such action or arrest for a trivial charge (like failure to signal a lane change).
I’m talking about being cuffed and incarcerated, here.
Maybe she still would’ve acted irritated or whatever, but according to his arrest affidavit, he wanted her out of the car to perform further investigation. I’m fairly certain she thought the officer planned on cuffing her and taking her in at that order.
All he had to do was tell her his intention. De-escalate.
He was simply making sure that she was aware of her right to step out of the car. Maybe it seems that the “now” part implies that she wasn’t already free to step out of her car, but the fact remains that she was free to do so at that point in time. As he advised.
As was his brandishing of the taser, strictly informative, a clear and unequivocal way of saying “Behold! I have a taser.” Given the immediate threat of bodily harm he was facing, he is to be commended for not demonstrating its utility.
She was on drugs, you know. Or had been. At some point. She was no angel, that’s for sure!
It’s the point where he says she can step out, that extends the stop impermissibly. Also, if it’s true that he can’t change his mind based on protected speech (which you haven’t addresses – is that valid?) then he goofed on that count.
Do you really think he intended to continue to investigate the lane change with her outside the car? Just what kind of investigation? Really? It’s pure BS and any jurist without blinders on would see that it’s pure BS.
His reason for asking her to step out is obvious: he’s pissed off.
You’re arguing a point I never made. I agree with you here, and I’ve stated that over and over.
You seem to be arguing my point here. The stop DID extend past the point at which a reasonable officer would have gotten it signed.
You have a point that he’d argue that he was concerned about use of the cigarette as a weapon. That claim would have been easy to maintain if he had done any of the following:
answered her question as to why she should put it out
ordered her to put it out, rather than merely requesting it
mentioned it in his report
As it is, it sounds like an ex-post-facto rationalization.
Regardless, I agree with you about the best resolution: remove him from the payroll.
The problem is, people are saying they want the police to be politer and more respectful to the public, and that is ultimately incompatible with issuing orders. If you expect the police to make polite requests of people, you should also expect people to do as requested in most situations. Putting out a cigarette when talking to someone, or getting out of your car so a cop doesn’t have to stand near the traffic, are not unreasonable requests. If (important word there) it is a reasonable cop making those requests, then doing as asked will make things easier for everybody.
Having the right to be a dick, or to not cooperate doesn’t mean you are required to do those things. Any more than the cop, who has the right to arrest you for making an illegal lane change, is required to do that. Frankly, if people are going to insist on being dicks, then the police have no reason not to do the same.
The point being made is that an officer must make unambiguous statements, not that he be polite. If he needs to do that he will be less likely to tool someone for spite. He didn’t want to verbalize why he was arresting her for instance.
And that is as idiotically ridiculous as the rest of your excluded-middle offerings.
And here, once again, you have foolishly ignored the difference between public employees sworn and paid to protect the citizenry from citizens exercising their first (and other) amendment rights. As has been explained to you upthread, retaliation by a LEO for protected statements made by a citizen is against the law.
Can you point out what indicates that Encinia had Bland get out of the car because of his concern about standing near the traffic?
I have not noticed any thing that would lead me to believe that was the case.
Being an LEO is a profession.
Police have powers and authority which regular people do not have.
Consequently, LEOs have obligations which regular people do not have esp when it comes to exercising that authority and those powers.
It makes no sense to hold the general public to the same behavioral standards as police.
Yep, they can’t arrest someone in retaliation. But if people are gonna be dicks, they should just arrest them straight away and forget about tickets and warnings.
Obviously, I’m not actually advocating that. But neither do I accept holding the cops to a higher moral standard than other people. Cops should be reasonably polite and respectful - but so should everyone else.
Of course it does - I’m not suggesting that there should be penalties on the public for not meeting those standards the way there should be for cops, but I can damn well say that people should be polite and respectful of the government and its agents. As well as everybody else they meet, really.
Being a dick to a cop who stops you is no different to being a dick to the checkout person at the shop. Both are doing their job, and a decent person would help them do it. No, neither is a crime, nor deserving of punishment, but you damn well don’t get to be a dick to someone and then expect them to treat you better than they absolutely have to.
