SOP for a traffic stop. She didn't mention anywhere in that quote he turned around to do all that...curious isn't it?
Using this as evidence
So based on what Sandra saw cop sped up to get close to her not to get somewhere else.
SOP for a traffic stop. She didn't mention anywhere in that quote he turned around to do all that...curious isn't it?
Nothing was confirmed to be illegal. The sheriff's office said procedures weren't followed correctly but that doesn't equate to illegal activity.
PSA: comply with police orders and complain about them later on after you have been sent on your merry way.
Evil flourishes where good people do nothing. Why you on the side of evil?
So if a cops is walking back to a vehicle after writing up a ticket, he can't do anything about any illegal activity that he thinks might be occurring? The traffic stop is concluded after all. The cop no longer has authority to seizure because he was done writing the warning ticket.
Sounds like you are misinterpreting that ruling.
Held:
1. Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop
in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield
against unreasonable seizures.
A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio,
392 U. S. 1, than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S.
323, 330. Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,”
which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the
stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407 and attend to related
safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to
the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—
completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated
investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson,
555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408
(dog sniff), but a traffic stop “becomeunlawful if it is prolonged beyond
the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing
a warning ticket, id., at 407.
Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s
mission during a traffic stop typically includes checking the driver’s
license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against
the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of
insurance. These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of
the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely
and responsibly. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 658–659.
Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary
inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s
traffic mission.
In concluding that the de minimis intrusion here could be offset by
the Government’s interest in stopping the flow of illegal drugs, the
Eighth Circuit relied on Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106. The
Court reasoned in Mimms that the government’s “legitimate and
weighty” interest in officer safety outweighed the “de minimis” additional
intrusion of requiring a driver, lawfully stopped, to exit a vehicle,
id., at 110–111. The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms,
however, stemmed from the danger to the officer associated with the
traffic stop itself. On-scene investigation into other crimes, in contrast,
detours from the officer’s traffic-control mission and therefore
gains no support from Mimms.
The Government’s argument that an officer who completes all traffic-related
tasks expeditiously should earn extra time to pursue an
unrelated criminal investigation is unpersuasive, for a traffic stop
“prolonged beyond” the time in fact needed for the officer to complete
his traffic-based inquiries is “unlawful,” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407.
The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after
the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
As for the traffic stop the speed up to get close happened before the reason of the stop
Provides an indication of her attitude regarding interactions with LEO.
there is positive attitudes, neutral attitudes and negative attitudes.
When previous interactions have had negative results, one is more likely to have a negative attitude.
That attitude can be overtly hostile to LEO or just willingness to be a PITA
There was no illegal activity.
Cops cannot detain anyone to continue an investigation once a traffic stop should have been reasonably conducted.
Asking her to leave her vehicle once the traffic stop should have been concluded was an unreasonable seizure and thus unconstituional.
I watched that video last night.
Her color had nothing to do with her arrest.
Anyone who behaved like she did in the video would have been arrested.
Why was she pulled over? Illegal lane change
Was the officer's behavior unusual? No. No surprises in behavior or initial questioning. All appearances indicate an everyday interaction.
Why was she given a ticket? Surprise surprise. She wasn't. She was only going to get a warning.
She broke a law and she takes it out on the cop who is enforcing the law. Her agitation is not uncommon and cops are used to dealing with people who have trouble being adults.
So the big "Refusing to put out a cigarette" issue.
He asked her to put out her cigarette and she turns on full idiot mode.
That right there is reason enough to ask someone to step out of the vehicle after that person has clearly broken the law. Asking someone to step out of the vehicle does not mean "You are getting arrested". The officer may have wanted her to exit the vehicle to discuss the issue, to either de-escalate the encounter (Calm her down first before letting her go so she doesn't end up driving like she acted) or, since turning full idiot during a police encounter could mean something fishy is going on. It could have been to be a dick right back to her prior to sending her on her way (I was just going to give you a warning but now you are going to sit here while I give you a ticket)
Getting her out of the vehicle allows a quick check of the inside of the car and also a check of her person for any signs of illegal crap.
She already broke one law. She's already passed the point of reasonable behavior.
When it gets to the point where you are fighting with a cop, or resisting a cop removing you from a vehicle you have crossed the line. If he has to pull you out of the car then yeah, you fucked up. If the whitest man in America acted the way Brown did, they'd be in jail waiting to post bond as well.
I refuse to classify her arrest as racial. Especially since she was only going to get a warning for an illegal lane change.
The narrative being pushed is that a Black woman was asked to exit the vehicle because she made an illegal lane change.
100% Wrong.
She was asked to leave the vehicle because her behavior was beyond that of a reasonable person.
Using this as evidence
Bland: I am. I really am. I feel like it's crap what I'm getting a ticket for. I was getting out of your way. You were speeding up, tailing me, so I move over and you stop me. So yeah, I am a little irritated, but that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket, so [inaudible] ticket.
So based on what Sandra saw cop sped up to get close to her not to get somewhere else.
You know that for a fact?
They can if its to investigate something else.
Nope. Looks like I didn't twist anything. You literally are trying to say that once a traffic stop has been concluded, a person can no longer be detained. Ridiculous.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated
investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson,
555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408
(dog sniff), but a traffic stop “becomeunlawful if it is prolonged beyond
the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing
a warning ticket, id., at 407.
They can't. I just gave you the ruling. Try reading it.
One more time.
Btw, it's not me saying that. It's the US Supreme Court saying that.
I am a lawyer and my advice these days for family members about interactions with police is similar to the advice for those confronted with wild animals. When confronted with a bear, the advice is to play dead and do nothing to provoke. The same goes for the police - do not provoke and remain silent. The police have been emboldened by lax oversight and those who believe the police are always right, to do whatever the police want to do whenever they want to do it. The police can figure out ways to break the law, sidestep cameras and avoid consequences. Citizens cannot. Until our broken policing system is fixed (if it ever is) and if you want to live, interact with the police as you would with wild animals - comply and do not provoke. The law of the jungle is now the law of the land.
You are misinterpreting the ruling. Not my problem. The conclusion of a traffic stop does not prevent police from further investigating and/or detaining someone for other criminal behavior. It merely means they are done with the traffic stop/investigation.
Trooper Encinia did not mention the argument over the cigarette (or the fact that he pulled his stun gun) in his official incident report. If Encinia truly believed that the lit cigarette was a danger to his safety that offered a legal justification for his actions, then it is unlikely that he would not have mentioned it in the report.
Waller Co. Judge: Bland had 'high level of marijuana in her system'
HEMPSTEAD, Texas The Waller County judge released some new details on Facebook Thursday as it pertains to the death investigation of Sandra Bland.
The Harris County Medical Examiner ruled Bland's death a suicide by hanging, though friends and family dispute those findings. Texas Rangers and the FBI are investigating her death. Bland's body is in Chicago with her family as they prepare for her funeral.
In the Facebook post, Waller County Judge Trey Duhon explained that he wanted to clear up some of what he calls "misinformation" that is out there.
The county judge said Bland's toxicology tests showed what Duhon calls "a very high level of marijuana in her system." He added that's relevant to Bland's physical and mental state at the time of her death.
Also, from the autopsy, Duhon said Bland had scars on her forearms some old and some new. The county judge says those scars are indicative of someone that engages in self-mutilation.
He also says Bland's autopsy report could be released later Thursday or on Friday
Yet another cowboy escalating a routine traffic stop into a demonstration of force/authority, and wasting taxpayer dollars in the process. Disgusting.
From the NY Times comments section...
...The police have been emboldened by lax oversight and those who believe the police are always right, to do whatever the police want to do whenever they want to do it.
Amen.
March of 2013 Bland was stopped in Crestwood Township while driving a 2013 Cadillac DeVille and received two citations for speeding 21-25 mph above the limit, and for operating an uninsured motor vehicle. She was fined $200, which according to Cook County Court records has not been paid.
November of 2013 A report in a suburban newspaper says that Bland was arrested in Naperville; charged on a warrant, and transported to DuPage County Jail. The news report does not say what the warrant was for.
February of 2014 Bland was stopped by Lombard Police and charged with operating an uninsured motor vehicle and driving with expired license plates. She was convicted in both charges and fined, but by May of 2014 court records show that she still owed $2,769.00 in fines, and the judge ordered that the Illinois Secretary of State be notified of her failure to pay.
March 3, 2014 Naperville Police cited Bland for operating an uninsured motor vehicle. Court records show she was ordered to pay a fine, but was cited twice for failure to pay. In June of 2014 the court ordered that the Illinois Secretary of State be notified, and the docket lists a $1,313.00 balance still due.
March 8, 2014 Approximately five days after her stop in Naperville, Bland was stopped by police in Lombard and charged with two counts of driving under the influence; speeding 15-20 mph over the speed limit; improper lane usage; disobeying a traffic control signal; failing to signal when changing lanes; driving on a suspended license, and operating an uninsured motor vehicle. The court found her guilty of one DUI charge, and all the other charges were dismissed. She received court supervision and was fined, and court records show that she still owes $3,132.00 in this case. (A spokesman with the Illinois Secretary of States office says Blands drivers license was automatically suspended for six months until November of 2014 as a result of this DUI conviction.)
During that suspension in May of 2014 Naperville Police cited Bland for speeding 15-20 mph over the limit. According to the DuPage County court docket, Bland fail[ed] to comply in the case in June of 2014 and again in August of 2014, when the court ordered the Illinois Secretary of State to be notified. Records show a $45.00 balance due in this case, though a court spokesman says the actual amount owed is $165.00. The outcome in this case is not clear.
These notifications would have come up when Bland next tried to renew her license, according to the Illinois Secretary of State spokesman, and she would be required to pay all balances due.
NBC5 Investigates found five other police encounters involving Sandra Bland ranging from 2010 back to 2004:
May of 2010 Bland was charged in two separate court cases in Harris County, Texas, for misdemeanor possession of a small amount of marijuana and driving while intoxicated. Court records show that the DWI charge was dismissed, but Bland pled guilty in September of 2010 to the pot charge.
April of 2009 Bland was charged in Harris County with misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, but the charge was dismissed.
June of 2005 Bland was stopped by police in Oakbrook Terrace and charged with two traffic violations: Driving too fast for conditions or failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident, and operating an uninsured motor vehicle. She pled guilty to both charges; was given supervision, and paid a fine.
June of 2004 Bland was charged by Elmhurst police with one count of retail theft of less than $150. She pled guilty to that charge in August of 2004; paid a fine; and was sentenced to community service and supervision.
I am waiting and waiting for the land of the free and the home of the brave to retaliate swiftly against the pigs in blue.
I am continuously amazed at how much americans talk about freedumb and democrazy and yet allow their rights to be trampled daily by these thugs/Mafia
All based on what she said. What some consider tailing, others consider normal driving. Its been my experience that cops drive what many would probably call aggressive but others might call normal. Basically, you are using her version of events as gospel and running with it. Enjoy.
Yes, black people are arrested and jailed for drugs disproportionally, and unfairly often. That is part of the reason I favor decriminalization of drugs. That does not mean the laws themselves are discriminatory, however. Rather, it is a by-product of the fact that the police have disproportionately frequent interactions with black people relative to white people (which, in turn, in my view, results primarily from the fact that young black men are by far the group most likely to be involved in serious criminality). If I drive with an ounce of pot in the car, it is very unlikely I will ever be cited for it, whereas if I were a young black male, it would be far more likely, because I would be far likelier to be stopped. I do think that is unfair to the young black males of the world, but it doesn't mean that laws prohibiting drugs are inherently discriminatory.
No, I really can't. I have only practiced criminal defense while in the Air Force, and in handling one pro bono murder case since I became a civilian. I don't know what these things cost. I normally bill at $340 per hour, but I know many criminal lawyers handle cases on a project basis rather than hourly, and I really don't know how their rates compare to civil litigators.
I will say that public defenders tend to be skilled and experienced, so poor people don't necessarily suffer by virtue of not being able to afford counsel. That said, in many places PDs are overworked, and not given adequate resources, so other things being equal private counsel is preferable.
He did not order her.
He asked her politely.
When she replied to her the way she did. He then ordered out of the car.
His intentions on that first order to get out of the car are unknown.
At this point she is combative and uncooperative.
Legally, she has a right to smoke but on the other side of the coin the officer is allowed to ask her out of the car to finish conducting the business of the stop. Probably to explain that she is not getting a ticket and that she should calm down. Probably also to be a dick to her.
Legally that's allowed.
Latest information on toxicology and autopsy findings.
http://www.khou.com/story/news/loca...iler-about-previous-suicide-attempt/30533701/