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
Duh:
You have clearly demonstrated, by your arguments and demeanor, that you have no business living in a free republic of your peers.
This country managed to get along perfectly well for over 150 years until tax-feeding parasites co-opted the legal process to make their pensions guaranteed by the revenue forcibly extracted from the sweat of the productive classes in a state-sanctioned rent-seeking scam.
Law is a paradox: good people don’t need it, bad people won’t follow it. This is well known by those who rule us .. so, since they create, fund, and militarize “public safety” organizations it follows that the real purpose of “law enforcement” must be a lie, its true purpose being to dictate behavior, enforce compliance, and condition the mundanes to tolerate mandatory compliance to totalitarian control.
Your vaunted “public servants” are allowed to exist for one reason only: they represent a very profitable revenue engine … justice has nothing whatsoever to do with what cops do, day-to-day.
remember: the nuremberg tribunal held a very dim view of the nazi who defended his actions by saying: “I was just following orders.”
Tasers should be outlawed. Are these cops and the court actually telling us that the cops would have shot the woman instead?
Because this is the story we get from law enforcement about why the taser is justified (it is supposed to lesson the use of guns).
It seems to me that if American soldiers don’t have to obey immoral or illegal orders, cops shouldn’t have to either.
Obviously, they have to be told they don’t have to, or else they will continue to act like cops in communist countries. I.E.: barbarians
By the way, the appropriate way to refuse to sign is to review the document and to say that you cannot understand what it means and that you cannot determine whether it is the document the law requires you to sign. If this is true, then there will not be mens rea for the crime of refusal to sign.
Or better yet, take a piece of paper and write down:
Date
I promise to appear and/or respond to any tickets from this traffic stop.
/signature/
Then hand that to the popo. That way it will be clear that you were willing to sign the document except for the fact that you did not understand it.
You may end up being arrested, but you can then sue the police department for false arrest and get the law overturned in your jurisdiction as being an unConstitutional infringement of the right not to testify against yourself. It can never be Constitutional to legally require a person to sign a document that they do not understand. A lot of states have unConstitutional law like this (thanks, FOP!) which screams out the need for overturning, but you have to do it correctly.
Thanks Buddy. Here’s a link to the synopsis of that Bill as enacted.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/library/1650-S.FBR.pdf
It wasn’t even the officer who made the stop who made the call to place her under arrest. It was the sergeant, Sergeant SDaman
Way to go Duh, thanks a lot 🙂
Bdaman
Nothing in ANY OF THE REPORTS indicates that she informed the officers that she was pregnant.
I don’t know whether you mean police reports or media accounts, but she did inform the police that she was pregnant.
Next thing you know, nobody gets arrested. If you don’t like the law that permits an officer to arrest someone for not signing their traffic ticket, change the law.
As noted in the opinion (and/or dissent):
1. the law was changed in 2006 and you no longer have to sign.
2. Even when the facts of this case happened, not signing was not an arrestable offense. The prosecution’s (convoluted) theory was that: (i) refusal to sign was a non-arrestable misdemeanor; (ii) so the policemen did* a promise to appear form for the misdemeanor failure to sign; (iii) refusing to sign the promise to appear was an arrestable offense. The majority rejected this theory, but then said that refusal to sign was obstruction which was arrestable. As the dissent points out, the majority’s understanding of obstruction is incorrect and flies in the face of precedent.
3. The woman’s position was that the car in front of her was doing 32 and she was not.
4. MY COMMENTS: Generally people should follow police commands (and then sue later if the commands were bad. However, there are some exceptions to this. One exception is a police order to provide information (other than id type info) or sign something or consent to something. Generally, these police commands should be refused. And the police should expect them to be refused. And it is not obstruction (which is where the majority opinion messes up bad). Another police command that should be refused is an order to stop recording or stop taking pictures. I don’t think the woman should have signed anything she did not understand, and she clearly did not understand the form (or forms) being presented to her. Police are allowed to lie when they investigate. I know that the woman was not being tricked into signing a confession because I am a fairly sophisticated guy. The woman who refused to sign really had no way of knowing that and was correct to refuse to sign a form she did not and could not understand. As police keep electroshocking people for refusal to sign, look for this “crime” to go away in other states, just like it did in Washington.
FOOTNOTE:
* Plaintiff disputed this “fact.”
Duh, it seems to me like you’re saying, “The police were within the law when they tazed and arrested her, so it’s not their fault. It’s the fault of the law that allows them to taze and arrest people for not signing tickets.”
Sure, the officers are supposed to follow the orders of their sergeant, but if the sergeant’s orders are unreasonable (like using force to immediately arrest someone who poses no danger to anyone) and the force used is excessive (which it was), then it makes sense to criticize the actions of the sergeant and the officers.
Republicans Send Out a ‘Census’ Form—That’s Really a Fundraiser
The faux Census form [1] doesn’t appear to be illegal. The United States Postal Inspection Service’s general counsel reviewed the survey in January and determined that it did not violate the Deceptive Mailings Prevention Act of 1990 [5] (PDF).
http://www.propublica.org/article/republicans-send-out-a-census-form-thats-really-a-fundraiser-210
I attempted posting a detailed reply thrice (only 1 link in the post) and it would not post. I will simply try this abbreviated version to explain my position without the attributions.
References to the 4th Amendment and/or relevant statutes are found within the opinion and in the linked articles already posted.
Duh,
I cannot expend more time countering your claims because your ignorance of the very basis of the lawsuit is even outstripping your biases.
___________________________________________
Quote from Duh:
“How, if I may ask, do you consider them to have violated the 4th Amendment, by issuing a traffic ticket, or for making a lawfull arrest. I think you must be referring to something else. The 4th Amendment is not applicable to this situation.”
End Quote
____________________________________________
Duh,
I admire your perseverance and sincerely appreciate your defense of the LEOs’ actions in this case. It is also very refreshing to debate an issue with someone without the over emotionalism that so often rears its ugly head.
One of the most effective LEOs I’ve ever met is a sergeant in the Ohio State Highway Patrol. His arrest record is mammoth resulting in a great number of convictions and no citizen complaints. His appearance is “poster perfect” yet he is soft spoken … even quiet. He told me that his success stems from his ability to lie. In other words, he continually agrees with everything the perp is telling him, even expresses sympathy until the cuffs are on and the guy/gal is safely stowed in the backseat of his cruiser. I suspect FFLEO would like him … “An important part of LE is displaying the ability to use one’s verbal skills in gaining a subject’s compliance.”(FFLEO)
So … once again, I appreciate your argument but I disagree with your defense of these particular LEOs.
I hope next time we meet in debate, it will be a subject on which we agree.
Buddha,
Then I suggest that the law be changed. Currently Wash. Rev. Code § 10.31.100. Failure to sign the Notice is a misdemeanor. See Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.022 (making failure to comply with Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.021(3), which includes a requirement to sign the Notice, a misdemeanor).
It wasn’t even the officer who made the stop who made the call to place her under arrest. It was the sergeant.
BIL,
I’ve already tried that logic, better luck to you 🙂
Her not signing the ticket?
Should simple result in an unsigned ticket that is still going to be processed like any other ticket.
Any other policy is simply an escalation BY law enforcement that is simply unmerited.
Buddha,
If you wouldn’t have left out the sentence that preceded “I can’t buy that”, it would have made much more sense. I didn’t question the value of verbal judo, I said that I couldn’t buy that it works every time. In this case, we weren’t there. When there is a judgment call to be made, and we know that the woman kept repeating “I’m not signing, I’m not signing” over and over, and the officer got backup, and called the sergeant before any physical force was used; I’m going to side with ther officers.
If the woman would have just refused to sign, and the officer would have then immediately tazed her; I’d have a problem with that.
Duh,
FFLEO said “An important part of LE is displaying the ability to use one’s verbal skills in gaining a subject’s compliance. “Verbal Judo” is an important tool that perhaps they do not teach LEOs to the extent that they should.”
If you don’t buy that, what blog exactly have you been reading again? Certainly, there are some situations that no amount of talking can defuse. That does not make “verbal judo” an invaluable skill. A precept of those martial arts you are suggesting the officers need more training in is to use the minimum amount of force possible to bring peaceful resolution to a conflict. Sometimes that requires someone dies. However, there is no tool less harmful physically than words. Different tools for different but overlapping jobs, conflict resolution and combat skills both geared to bring a peaceful solution with minimal force. Because remember: when force, from either “side” is in play, that is when people get hurt, including officers.
You want to keep officers safe?
Knowing how to psychologically manage the situation with words can only help.
LJM said “Was it imperative that she be arrested at that very moment?”
That’s a call made by the sergeant.
Here’s a quote from the Ninth Circuit if it helps.
“First, the Officers had clear authority for their initial arrest and detention of Brooks. Brooks does not dispute that her initial traffic violation permitted the Officers to arrest and to detain her until they issued her a Notice. See Wash. Rev. Code § 46.64.015 (2004) (“The arrested person, in order to secure release, and when permitted by the arresting officer, must give his or her written promise to appear in court as required by the citation and notice by singing in the appropriate place . . .”).9 In addition, Brooks’s refusal to sign the Notice gave the Officers probable cause to continue to detain her. Under Washington law, a police officer may arrest an individual for committing a misdemeanor in his presence. Wash. Rev. Code § 10.31.100. Failure to sign the Notice is a misdemeanor. See Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.022 (making failure to comply with Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.021(3), which includes a requirement to sign the Notice, a misdemeanor).
As there is no dispute that Brooks’s refusal to sign the Notice took place in the presence of the Officers, there can be no question that Washington law authorized her arrest.
[5] The Officers’ authority to arrest Brooks for these misdemeanors would ordinarily last no longer than necessary to issue her a Citation. See Wash. Rev. Code § 46.64.015 (2004). 9In 2006, the Washington legislature amended this statute to omit the authorization to effect a custodial arrest for failure to sign the Citation to Appear. See Wash. Rev. Code § 46.64.015. However, the earlier version was applicable to the events of this case.
However, her conduct during this initial detention gave the Officers probable cause to place her under custodial arrest for other violations of state law—a point that Brooks does not dispute. For instance, we find that probable cause existed to arrest Brooks for obstructing an officer. See Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.020. “A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.” Id.; see Lassiter, 556 F.3d at 1051, 1053 (listing the crime’s elements as “1) an action or inaction that hinders, delays, or obstructs the officers; 2) while the officers are in the midst of their official duties; 3) the defendant knows the officers are discharging a public duty; [and] 4) the action or inaction is done knowingly”). That violation is a gross misdemeanor for which custodial arrest is appropriate. See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.76.020(3),”
Duh, I see your point about the lawfulness of arresting the woman, but there are very, very simple techniques which could be used to make a person let go of a steering wheel. And there are a variety of ways to defuse situations like this, but they require patience. Was it imperative that she be arrested at that very moment?
The main problem here is that too few officers are trained (or are, frankly, interested) in how to restrain people without using excessive force.
FFLEO said “An important part of LE is displaying the ability to use one’s verbal skills in gaining a subject’s compliance. “Verbal Judo” is an important tool that perhaps they do not teach LEOs to the extent that they should.”
And every subject can be handled by the proper application of verbal judo. Sorry, I can’t by that. It’s easy to say “I could have done a better job” when you weren’t there.
“A traffic stop is never routine and there are heightened stress levels for the driver and the officer(s). In this case, neither the trained officers nor the untrained subject comported themselves properly.”
Is that because they used a taser? If not, other than using a taser, what did they do wrong?
“However, the LEOs had every advantage to avoid a confrontation”
For the most part, the usually do. Many times a LEO can chose not to enforce a law. However, I don’t think it’s right to chastize them for doing their job, when you weren’t there to assess the situation.
“they were more blameworthy based on their assumed skill levels, which should have included an understanding of the 4th Amendment”
How, if I may ask, do you consider them to have violated the 4th Amendment, by issuing a traffic ticket, or for making a lawfull arrest. I think you must be referring to something else. The 4th Amendment is not applicable to this situation.