Because, in this scenario, he’s the defendant, and so gets all the benefit of the doubt. His claim needs to be proven false.
This goes directly back to what I said in the other thread about people not wanting cops to get a fair trial.
Also, police should be able to arrest you at any time if your papers are not in order. And don’t give me that “freedom” crap.
And, cops should be able to arrest you if your cup holder is holding a hot beverage, or as I like to call them: liquid weapons. And don’t give me that “freedom” crap.
That’s true, of course this entire line is more of a philosophical hijack than a meaningful discussion of the facts and standards applicable to a traffic stop. I probably should have steered it to another thread if I were interested in a serious discussion of why police officers’ concern about second-hand smoke is not in the same category as a waiters’.
Undoubtedly true – a firearm is much more dangerous. But if the law says that an officer is entitled to ask a motorist to step out of the car when he can articulate a concern for his safety, and a lit cigarette can indeed inflict some, albeit minor, harm, then on what basis would you simply dismiss the claim?
I had a lit cigarette land – not even pushed, mind you, but simply land – on the back of my hand once. It hurt. I got a small burn mark that hurt for a time. Nothíng in any way severe, I grant you, but also not an experience I’d seek out for fun.
Put another way, if I were to put out my lit cigarette on the back of your hand, could I defend myself from consequences by pointing out how utterly harmless it was?
See previous post. It wasn’t an argument as much as a philosophical exploration of the view of safety concerns appropriate to waiters as opposed to police officers.
Yes. Cops are well-equipped to do this: they know the lines and the law.
It’s similar to the way cops trick people into “consenting” to searches, by exploiting the public’s ignorance of what the law actually requires.
I am not convinced of the truth of that claim in the least.
I believe that stronger enforcement of these guidelines would produce a much better result, and better training would have similar results.
But it isn’t. In this case, both the request and the order were permissible, and the arrest was legally permissible from the beginning of the stop.
“This is Officer Wilson, requesting backup. EVERYBODY DOWN, SHE’S GOT A LIT CIGARETTE!”
Nah. Doesn’t hold water.
A waiter is in an enclosed building surrounded by smokers for several consecutive hours, day after day (assuming smoking’ aloud).
A cop is outdoors, and would only ever get the briefest exposure, well under the harmful threshold, for any stop that might have a smoker.
Actually, a moment’s thought will demonstrate that it’s not a great point.
Suppose, instead of a lit cigarette, she was holding her right hand out of sight, even after the officer asked her to place her hands in view. “It’s my car, and I can put my hands where I want.”
What logic would motivate him to order her out of the car? Answer: the desire to get her away from potential weapons.
If she refused the order, then what would motivate him to physically remove her? Answer: the same. The concern was about a potential attack. Acting quickly, taking control of an uncertain situation, are at the core of police training.
Well, I find the question interesting, I admit, but it’s a hijack of this thread. And it’s my fault for creating and feeding it. 
The right to be free of second-hand cigarette smoke in one’s employment is a more philosophical one. As to this particular incident, there is no such clearly-established right for police officers. So the discussion of whether our society should recognize such a right isn’t one for this thread, in my opinion. Certainly the officer cannot, on his own, create such a right for himself.
Because I have no self-control: what is the “harmful threshold” for second-hand smoke?
To respond to this with equal fidelity to good-faith argument:
Ok, then, come by the house and let me put out my lit cigarette on your hand, since according to you it’s meaningless.
When can I expect you?
By that argument she shouldn’t have been allowed the pen she needed to sign the ticket, since she could have stabbed the officer with it. Or are you saying I can come stab you in the hand with my pen?
C’mon. I was being facetious because this entire argument is far too thin to convince most people. Like I was joking about above, if I was drinking hot coffee, is it reasonable for a trained cop to fear me? He has a better chance of getting a paper cut from handling registrations and insurance papers all day. He’s probably more at risk of carbon monoxide poisoning from exhaust than any real danger from SHS. When you’re a police officer, you’d be stupid to expect the free world conform to your individual concerns. It’s a risky job, and they know it. If he has a severe cat allergy, and she had her cat in the car, is it reasonable for him to ask her to remove the cat? How far do you want to take this, because it can go to even more absurd notions.
Besides, a cop afraid of getting a minor burn who seconds later threatens to taze someone’s face? Not buying it.
Precisely. There are hazards and acceptable risks that come with the job. One of them, for a LEO is getting shot to death. If you’re that much of a coward around cigarettes, perhaps law enforcement is not the line of work for you.
But a cop who sees a gun is credible if he threatens to blow someone’s head off if they don’t show him empty hands RIGHT NOW?
The point is this: the analytical process for police stops is well-litigated. The permissible process is not mysterious. I understand there are times it can produce results that can seem odd. But the fact of the matter is this: in my experience, an officer who testified that he had safety concerns under these circumstances would virtually always prevail. Anyone who has practiced criminal law will, I believe, agree that this is true.
You may not agree with the validity of this outcome. But it’s what happens in the actual process of hearings.
Or, perhaps your judgement about what hazards are acceptable is not the one that society should rely upon.
But he never expressed a safety concern during the stop. A normal person, that is one who isn’t an idiot, would instead say, “Ma’am, would you mind putting out your cigarette before signing? I want to avoid any accidental burns.”
My judgment is fine. That’s why I chose a low-risk job.
Working with hazardous and dangerous scenarios is pretty much the job description for cops. If society was free of these things, we wouldn’t need cops, now would we?