For some dang reason, just because I watched one stinkin’ video on the YouTube, I’m being flooded with sidebars to “watch the Police State,” “watch this wacko cop,” or “watch a defender of their rights!” To wit, I chalk up to very rare events where people had their cameras rolling with their encounters with police. I support the police–rough job, dealing with unknown people. But it begs a question. . .
I saw one video where there was a random checkpoint on the highway. The driver, with a camera rolling, rolled his window down just an inch. When the officer asked him to roll the window down further, the driver said “No thanks, I can hear you just fine. . .” Hilarity ensues when the officer asks him to step out of the car to talk (but the camera keeps rolling).
So, my question is this: Why would an officer ask a person to step out of a vehicle? Is it an order, and could I refuse it? Under what circumstances–taking the random checkpoint into account–could I say, ‘No thank you.’?
I would ask pkbites or other police to jump in here for the rationale or reasonable answer on this one.
Tripler
Just curious, and do not need an answer fast.
For one thing, border patrol stops are different than vehicle stops.
For vehicle stops, officers can order you out of the car for a variety of reasons, or none at all depending on the state. SCOTUS cases Mimms is controlling for the driver, and Wilson v. Maryland is controlling for passengers. They both say that it is permissible to order the driver and passengers, respectively, out of the vehicle during traffic stops. Some states have enacted broader protections that require a reason to be present.
If it is a lawful order, you can not decline to obey.
That circles right back to the question here: “What’s a lawful order?” Is it up to the citizen to be in possession of the requisite acumen to determine that? If the police officer declares it to be lawful, does that by itself make it lawful, and if so, this is a tautology.
There was a huge thread on this in GD when the Sandra Bland incident was being discussed. You can probably find the thread…it went back and forth for pages, but to me it seemed the consensus was that the police can order you from your car, legally. I found this cite on a quick Google search but there are tons:
The courts tend to hold that the citizen must obey the officer, and if the officer’s instructions are unlawful they can seek a remedy in court after the fact.
The logic behind this is pretty straightforward. Nobody wants a world where an individual citizen has the right to resist a police officer just because they think the officer might be wrong. It’s one of those ideas that sounds good at first (Well, of course you should be allowed to resist an unlawful order) but if everybody actually did so it would be anarchy.
The courts also give WIIIIIIDE latitude to the officer when it comes to his own safety. Traffic stops are actually very dangerous for a police officer, and no jury in America would find it unreasonable for a cop to request you roll down your window so he can see whether you have a weapon. There have been many, many cases in which a person refused to remove their hands from their pockets, refused to turn around to face the officer, etc etc and the citizen ALWAYS loses.
The court decides if it is a lawful order. If you think it’s an unlawful order you’d best follow the instructions of the officer provided the order posses no immediate threat and settle your dispute in court.
We don’t have any kind of check points here so I’m not going to address them.
As far as other stops involved, as answered, yes, you do have to get out if I order you out. As do all other occupants of your vehicle.
I typically don’t have people get out of a vehicle unless I have reason to. During a stop there is liability attached. You’re safer in your car than out. If I get you out of your vehicle and you fall down and crack your head or are struck by a vehicle that just makes things difficult for me. This is one reason I don’t let people get out and see the reading on a radar/laser gun (no, you do not have a right to see it!:rolleyes:).
Also, it’s harder for someone to assault me if they are sitting in a vehicle. All in all it’s a control position for me and I’m not giving it up if I don’t have to. But sometimes I do need people to get out of their vehicle.
And if I want you out, yes, legally you have to get out. You can get out like a man when I tell you to, or come out like a baby when I spray OC into the cars intake vents.
So, the bottom line, in practice, appears to be that the police can, at any time and any place and for any reason, order you do to anything they please, and you have no immediate recourse but to meekly obey their order. If you are right, and defending your right is of any value, tell it to the judge, after retaining an attorney and filing a suit.
Well if the officer behaved criminally you don’t have to retain an attorney nor file a suit. The state is more than capable of charging the officer with a crime and providing prosecution for criminal acts.
If you want to sue the state for violating your rights and receive compensation for it, that’s on you. You won’t have much of a problem finding legal support if the officer behaved criminally.
You have to listen to law enforcement if they tell you to do something. What alternative do you think there should be?
You have to be lawfully detained and it has to be legal for the officer to be where he’s at. I can’t just go up to a guy sitting in a legally parked car and tell him to get out unless I’m detaining him for something. I can’t just walk into someones back yard and order them to grill me a burger. I suppose I could but I’d have no legal authority to do anything about it if they refuse, whereas if a person in a vehicle is being detained and refuses my order to get out I can do something about it.
*Freedom only applies to individuals of the right skin color, who are appealing to potential jury members, and who can afford competent legal representation. For everyone else, watch your ass, buddy, you live in the largest police state that has ever existed.
You might be looking for the pit thread, this is general questions.
Your above quote is certainly not true. There are hundreds of incidents. where police officers have been prosecuted. where there has been no video evidence and no shots were even fired.
Your statement ignores the literally hundreds of thousands of incidents, probably millions, where police officers were taken at their word despite the video and witnesses showing something else. Certainly, whenever there is a questionable shooting, it is more than 90% likely that the internal investigation will find the officer did nothing wrong.
Even if this is true, the officer is not being treated the same as private citizens are treated.
It’s basically true. English is vague. “Their gun still smoking” can also mean evidence that is so definitive it’s called “the smoking gun”. I’m standing by it as it is essentially a factual statement - it is vanishingly rare for police officers to be prosecuted for crimes committed while on duty. No officer has been convicted of murder in decades, despite the cops gunning down hundreds of people a year, many times what other nations feel they need to shoot on the streets.