The United States Court of Appeals has ruled that three Seattle police officers were justified when they tasered a pregnant mother three times when she refused to sign a traffic ticket. Malaika Brooks was driving her son to Seattle’s African American Academy in 2004 when she was stopped for doing 32 mph in a school zone. When she refused to get out of her car to be arrested, one officer tasered her repeatedly despite (she claims) knowing that she was pregnant.
The officers – Sgt. Steven Daman, Officer Juan Ornelas and Officer Donald Jones – hit her in the thigh, shoulder and neck and then hauled her out of the car and laid her face-down in the street.
While the baby was born two months later without injury, the mother has permanent scars from the taserings.
Judges Cynthia Holcomb Hall and Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain ruled that the officers were justified in making an arrest because Brooks was obstructing them and resisting arrest. The judges insisted that, while surrounded by police and the car turned off, she still was a danger: “It seems clear that Brooks was not going to be able to harm anyone with her car at a moment’s notice. Nonetheless, some threat she might retrieve the keys and drive off erratically remained, particularly given her refusal to leave the car and her state of agitation.”
Note, she was arrested after going 32 mph.
Judge Berzon wrote a lengthy and well-reasoned dissent, noting:
The stacked-up, unsubstantiated speculations that Brooks might have been able to retrieve the keys and might have decided to drive off (although she did not when she had the keys) and might have driven erratically if she did drive off and might have endangered people had she done so simply won’t do as a basis for believing Brooks posed a danger to someone. Indeed, if Officer Ornelas really believed she was going to take off and endanger people, all he had to do was hold on to the keys rather than drop them in the car.
Here is the opinion: Taser
Taser-ball, darlin’ …
Duh,
I appreciate your comments from the other story. I just can NEVER join you in your belief that it is okay to hurt another person because they won’t sign a piece of paper (even if that is the “law”), especially when NO ONE IS IN PHYSICAL JEOPARDY. If I were an officer, I would rather have faced a reprimand from my superior for not getting a signature on the ticket rather than Tasering a pregnant lady.
As far as lawful commands go, I hope one of your female family members never questions (or misunderstands) a command given to her by law enforcement. I suppose you have all women in your house suffiencelty “educated” in this regard and they simply fall into a fetal position when in the presence of an “offical” and wait for their command.
By the way, the officer’s accounts of incidents are always correct, right? I’m sure he and his sergeant didn’t discuss their stories or anything before filing the report, of which they both come of looking most reasonable, I’m sure.
” What would you suggest the officers do with a woman who refuses to comply with the law? (A law that requires her to sign the ticket. Of which she was later found guilty of.) It may be “your choice” in Canada, but in Seattle, you would be required to sign the ticket. “…DUH
I would certainly not suggest brute force, and not just if the offender is a pregnant woman but any citizin. I can’t imagine that this is a scenerio that police have not encountered before, perhaps the sargeant needs some training in problem solving.
*********
” Do you really think you could identify a 240 lb woman sitting in a car as being obviously pregnant? “….DUH
Better to be safe than sorry. If officers noticed a protruding belly on a woman of child bearing age( I have known many overweight women during their pregnancies, and yes there is definately a difference between fat and pregnant belly )better to err on the side of caution and at minimum suspect pregnancy as a possibility.
********
” And the actions by the woman should be considered irrelevant? They didn’t just pull her over and taser her. She ENDANGERED children by speeding in a school zone. SHE refused to sign the ticket. SHE would not exit the vehicle. SHE brought this on herself. “….DUH
Make no mistake Duh, I am not suggesting that this woman made the wisest choices in this scenerio, not at all. The wise choice would have been driving the spped limit in the first place, and if not accepting responsibility for her actions. What I am suggesting is that the actions that the police took were way way out of line. If they hadn’t had tasers available, would it have been ok to shoot the woman in front of her child who was sitting in the back seat?
*******
” No. But if the laws were such that unborn life was protected, a reckless endangerment charge could have been brought against the mother “…..DUH
My comment was very much tongue in cheek, I think you are well aware of my stance on this matter and I have no desire to engage in that issue on a thread of an entirely different topic.
“
Sorry Blouise. I don’t bite at every lure that passes before me. 🙂 You’ll need to be more specific.
Duh
Blouise,
Other than the risk of falling down and injuring the “unborn fetus” (which was nonexistent because she was sitting in a car), how was she so vulnerable?
Anyone who really cared for a woman would suggest that they comply with a lawful order and avoid the whole situation.
===============================================================
Oh brother! Care for a quick game?
“Does anyone here think that if those policemen worked in a municipality that did NOT use tasers, that the situation could not have been handled at least as well?”
Without tasers, the level of physical force would have escalated. The increased level of force could have presented an even greater chance of injury to the woman and her “unborn fetus”.
Comply with the lawful orders of a police officer, or you’re gonna end up hurtin’. That isn’t something new. My daddy taught me that a long time ago. If your daddy didn’t teach you the same thing, you’ll have to learn it on your own.
CE,
What would you suggest the officers do with a woman who refuses to comply with the law? (A law that requires her to sign the ticket. Of which she was later found guilty of.) It may be “your choice” in Canada, but in Seattle, you would be required to sign the ticket.
“Most women are very obviously pregnant by 7 months”
Do you really think you could identify a 240 lb woman sitting in a car as being obviously pregnant?
“and the actions by the police very well could have caused a miscarriage of the fetus”
And the actions by the woman should be considered irrelevant? They didn’t just pull her over and taser her. She ENDANGERED children by speeding in a school zone. SHE refused to sign the ticket. SHE would not exit the vehicle. SHE brought this on herself.
“I wonder if a miscarriage had been the result would pro-life groups be pushing for a murder charge against the officers?”
No. But if the laws were such that unborn life was protected, a reckless endangerment charge could have been brought against the mother.
I view this event as a predictable outcome of the ‘militarization’ of the police forces around the country. A spate of 9/11 funding was available and needed to be spent – and police departments around the country have spent it on ordnance. Some departments have equipment that rivals first-world army battalions.
When you are given a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Does anyone here think that if those policemen worked in a municipality that did NOT use tasers, that the situation could not have been handled at least as well?
What is next? Lobbing stun grenades in through the window – after all, the taser was initially unsuccessful? Waterboarding?
Tasers were initially rationalized as a defensive weapon of last resort to protect policemen. Here we have a situation where it was used aggressively as a convenience. Bad escalation and precedent.
George,
If you read my reaction to the Vitoria Police Department story from a few days ago, one could hardly walk away thinking that police officers are always right.
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/03/24/video-police-officer-stomps-on-man-on-ground-during-arrest/
Points 1 and 2 have nothing to do with lawful enforcement of the law, and a woman who by her own history (refusing to sign a ticket in 1986 and speeding thru a school zone) thinks that she can do whatever she damn-well pleases.
The officer DID explain to her that signing the ticket was not an admission of guilt. He even called the sergeant in to help convince her.
“When voice commands didn’t work, court documents show, they used a “pain compliance” hold on her arm.” When that didn’t work, they used the tazer. Unlike most use of a tazer, the officer pressed the trigger to show her what it would do. She still refused to cooperate.
Buddha,
Thanks for the comic relief, but I can assure you that is not how tequila shots are done here…lol
AY,
Whatever is so unfamily oriented about the proper way to serve tequila?
Duh,
While your arguments might make a great deal of sense in a crime where there is the potential of danger to the officers and by-standers it just doesn’t sit right in this type of case. I regulary drive 20 km over the posted limits in many areas, and if I were stopped and ticketed it would be my choice whether to sign or not. It would not really matter if I signed, the ticket would still need to be paid, unless I chose to fight it in court and win the case.
Most women are very obviously pregnant by 7 months, and the actions by the police very well could have caused a miscarriage of the fetus. I wonder if a miscarriage had been the result would pro-life groups be pushing for a murder charge against the officers?
Blouise,
Other than the risk of falling down and injuring the “unborn fetus” (which was nonexistent because she was sitting in a car), how was she so vulnerable?
Anyone who really cared for a woman would suggest that they comply with a lawful order and avoid the whole situation.
Duh,
Those who believe the law and its enforcers are always right are not persuadable.
Remember…
1. The law is MADE by politicians. As history has shown, they are always perfect and beyond moral reproach. The never cheat on their taxes or their spouse, they never lie to get what they want, they never spin us with white lies, they never speed or ever make any mistakes of any kind. They are, of course, perfect.
2. The laws are ENFORCED by men and women with guns and license to hurt you if you don’t do what they say. As anyone who reads this blog knows, their judgment is always correct, mistakes are never made and their directives should never be questioned.
Now, I know and you know, because we are fairly educated people, if you disagree with an officer, the place to disagree is in a court room, not on the roadside. Unfortunately, those who aren’t wise in the ways of the world or who haven’t had a decent education, don’t understand those complexities. The officer should have done everything in his power to EXPLAIN what her signature meant and that it did not convey admittance of guilt. But he was trained that she did not need to understand, just that she needed to comply by any means necessary. When the police went from “peace officers” to “officers of the law,” common sense and discretion went out the window.
The implications of this entire situation should be extremely frightening to any woman and anyone who cares for a woman.
A seven month pregnant woman is vulnerable in so many ways … especially if she belongs to the humanity herd in Seattle where a pregnant woman becomes part of the equipment in a pick up game of taser-ball.
Buddha,
The trial judge correctly interpreted the threat when he dismissed it.
“The judge pointed out, however, that one of the officers swore in a declaration that he had reached into the car and taken the keys from the ignition.
“In the face of this admission, Defendants’ repeated insistence that Ms. Brooks might have hurt someone with her car is wholly unconvincing, at best, and a misrepresentation to the court at worst,” the judge wrote in an order issued late Thursday. “The facts before this court show that Ms. Brooks posed no threat to anyone.”
It was the appellate court who got it wrong.
As for the potential dangers of applying a taser to the neck; can you provide any document that would support your claim? Your’s is the first time I have heard of such potential danger.
“It seems clear that Brooks was not going to be able to harm anyone with her car at a moment’s notice. Nonetheless, some threat she might retrieve the keys and drive off erratically remained, particularly given her refusal to leave the car and her state of agitation.”
Might is an interesting word, “Judges”.
might \ˈmīt\. v.a.,
past of may
—used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past (the president might do nothing without the board’s consent) or a present condition contrary to fact (if you were older you might understand) or less probability or possibility than may (might get there before it rains) or as a polite alternative to may (might I ask who is calling) or to ought or should (you might at least apologize)
Monkeys might have flown out of her butt and attacked the officers too.
And duh? Depending upon where she was struck in the neck, the current could have caused esophageal or tracheal spasms or even worse if it crossed her spine. Not that breathing and swallowing are important.
I will say it again. Tasering anyone, let alone a pregnant woman, for having the audacity to refuse to sign a ticket is preposterous. There is absolutely no societal reason to require a driver to sign a ticket. And to require an arrest for not signing a speeding ticket is a waste of the police department’s and the court system’s time. The Taser is a deadly weapon and should not be used for enforcing misdemeanors or traffic tickets.
OK George; I’ll play along. How would you suggest the officer “diffuse the sitiuation”? In addition, when the taser was applied to the thigh (a likely fatty area on a 240 lb woman; making it ineffective) should he have just given up so as to avoid a claim of “again and again”?
You then said “It makes me wonder what he fantasized about that night before he went to sleep?”
Wondering about what someone might have fantasized about is “common sense”?
If this dingbat woman really cared about her “unborn fetus” she would have avoided ANY confrontation. Common sense dictates that refusing to comply with the lawful order of a police officer is going to result in such a confrontation. Doesn’t it?
She was convicted for refusing to sign the ticket.
Using the taser directly on her neck does not present the same dangers as firing the taser and letting the separated barbed probes do the work. That’s because no electricity crosses the heart muscle.
I’m shocked that this decision came from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Sorry, Duh. No bias. Just common sense. 😉
When authorities were asked for help:Disturbing.
For Years, Deaf Boys Tried to Tell of Priest’s Abuse
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and DAVID CALLENDER
Published: March 26, 2010
They were deaf, but they were not silent. For decades, a group of men who were sexually abused as children by the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy at a school for the deaf in Wisconsin reported to every type of official they could think of that he was a danger, according to the victims and church documents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html?pagewanted=2&sq=deaf%20boys%20abused&st=cse&scp=1