Post by: iryan on May 05, 2016, 03:32:26 PM
This story is getting some good press in NJ. I often read Jbirds race threads and I am curious what he and others think about this case. It's more the comments on the page that make me shake my head and realize we have the government we deserve. My brother who is a cop called me and couldn't believe the troopers got reprimanded. Me as a lawyer couldn't believe they tried and will probably get away with this without any sanctions.
Thoughts?
Post by: JeffDG on May 05, 2016, 03:45:39 PM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 05, 2016, 04:04:41 PM
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/05/video_troopers_arrest_woman_for_remaining_silent_d.html
This story is getting some good press in NJ. I often read Jbirds race threads and I am curious what he and others think about this case. It's more the comments on the page that make me shake my head and realize we have the government we deserve. My brother who is a cop called me and couldn't believe the troopers got reprimanded. Me as a lawyer couldn't believe they tried and will probably get away with this without any sanctions.
Thoughts?
Your brother should find different work. Just like the other two morons.
Post by: Kristin on May 05, 2016, 04:05:08 PM
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/05/video_troopers_arrest_woman_for_remaining_silent_d.html
This story is getting some good press in NJ. I often read Jbirds race threads and I am curious what he and others think about this case. It's more the comments on the page that make me shake my head and realize we have the government we deserve. My brother who is a cop called me and couldn't believe the troopers got reprimanded. Me as a lawyer couldn't believe they tried and will probably get away with this without any sanctions.
Thoughts?
I will be interested to see how far the "good faith" defense to a civil rights violation flies. I expect to hear a judicial thud.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 05, 2016, 04:10:14 PM
I will be interested to see how far the "good faith" defense to a civil rights violation flies. I expect to hear a judicial thud.
Counselor, is it legal to resist an unlawful arrest with violence?
Post by: iryan on May 05, 2016, 04:20:34 PM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 05, 2016, 04:22:47 PM
I'm sure this happens often. I know the last time I had an encounter with a cop was when my car died and he was theatining to tow the car b/c it was on the wrong side of the street. Alternator died and I lost control. Of course he threatened arrest since I said he can speak to my lawyer at my firm since he was going down that road. Since this happens to middle class whites, I doubt it's a race issue rather it's a policing issue.In many cases a black guy thinks bad treatment by a cop is racially motivated; as the whitest man in america I can tell you it ain't necessarily so.
Post by: JeffDG on May 05, 2016, 05:28:40 PM
I will be interested to see how far the "good faith" defense to a civil rights violation flies. I expect to hear a judicial thud.The good faith defense, and our attorney friend will correct me, applies in "gray areas" of Constitutional law that have not been settled by the courts.
So...out and out saying they were arresting her because she refused to answer questions, and then them specifically advising her that she has the right to remain silent, they're cooked.
Post by: LevelWing on May 05, 2016, 05:50:07 PM
The good faith defense, and our attorney friend will correct me, applies in "gray areas" of Constitutional law that have not been settled by the courts.I'm not sure the "good faith" referenced in the article and what you and Kristin are referencing are the same thing. It sounds more like the supervisor was saying they were not acting out of malice.
So...out and out saying they were arresting her because she refused to answer questions, and then them specifically advising her that she has the right to remain silent, they're cooked.
Post by: FastEddieB on May 05, 2016, 06:04:32 PM
We did scenarios exactly like this at the police academy.
By law, a driver must show driver's license, registration and proof of insurance, if appropriate.
No need to say anything, and remaining silent is in no way obstructing an officer and is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
One exception is accident investigation - in FL a driver was obligated to tell an investigator what happened in an accident. The catch is, because it's compelled, it's inadmissible in a criminal proceeding. If an infraction is indicated, the investigator "changes hats", reads Miranda and then the driver can again remain silent.
As an aside, we were discouraged from the "Do you know why I stopped you?" game. It just sets the stage for an argument and attempted negotiation.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 05, 2016, 06:19:29 PM
I'm not sure the "good faith" referenced in the article and what you and Kristin are referencing are the same thing. It sounds more like the supervisor was saying they were not acting out of malice.
"qualified immunity"
I think there was a recent SCOTUS case where it was shown that police can be "wrong" but not be held accountable if they "thought" they were "right"
If only the rest of us had such privilege
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 05, 2016, 06:20:53 PM
"Do you know why I stopped you?"
"Because you were a "C" student?"
Post by: nddons on May 05, 2016, 07:13:08 PM
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/05/video_troopers_arrest_woman_for_remaining_silent_d.htmlAre you saying your brother thought that the cops were in the right to arrest her?
This story is getting some good press in NJ. I often read Jbirds race threads and I am curious what he and others think about this case. It's more the comments on the page that make me shake my head and realize we have the government we deserve. My brother who is a cop called me and couldn't believe the troopers got reprimanded. Me as a lawyer couldn't believe they tried and will probably get away with this without any sanctions.
Thoughts?
Post by: nddons on May 05, 2016, 07:17:36 PM
I'm not sure the "good faith" referenced in the article and what you and Kristin are referencing are the same thing. It sounds more like the supervisor was saying they were not acting out of malice.Isn't the bar higher for law enforcement officers than acting "without malice?"
Post by: LevelWing on May 05, 2016, 07:23:27 PM
Isn't the bar higher for law enforcement officers than acting "without malice?"I was citing the legal reference of "good faith" versus how the supervisor used it. In other words, I'm not sure he was using "good faith" in the Constitutional or legal sense. I think he was just using it as an expression.
To your point, I agree that law enforcement is held to a higher standard. Even a simple mistake can lead to depriving someone of their civil liberties. That being said, law enforcement are humans too and sometimes they make mistakes. The agency they work for is still responsible for their actions despite that, though, and there should be some sort of corrective action, be it additional training or whatever the agency feels is appropriate. The lady does have a right to sue if she so chooses as well.
Post by: nddons on May 05, 2016, 07:24:35 PM
Horrible abuse of police power.Thanks Eddie.
We did scenarios exactly like this at the police academy.
By law, a driver must show driver's license, registration and proof of insurance, if appropriate.
No need to say anything, and remaining silent is in no way obstructing an officer and is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
One exception is accident investigation - in FL a driver was obligated to tell an investigator what happened in an accident. The catch is, because it's compelled, it's inadmissible in a criminal proceeding. If an infraction is indicated, the investigator "changes hats", reads Miranda and then the driver can again remain silent.
As an aside, we were discouraged from the "Do you know why I stopped you?" game. It just sets the stage for an argument and attempted negotiation.
Post by: nddons on May 05, 2016, 07:27:04 PM
"Because you were a "C" student?"Winning!
And payor of a $250 fine.
Post by: Kristin on May 06, 2016, 12:52:25 AM
The good faith defense, and our attorney friend will correct me, applies in "gray areas" of Constitutional law that have not been settled by the courts.
So...out and out saying they were arresting her because she refused to answer questions, and then them specifically advising her that she has the right to remain silent, they're cooked.
I am out of my depth in criminal law and procedure as I have never practiced in that area, but I do think that they are going to have a difficult time weaseling out of false arrest claim. I doubt she gets millions, but they will end up writing her a check, IMO.
Post by: iryan on May 06, 2016, 04:17:37 AM
sorry I was responding to stans post re: asking if my brother agrees with the arrest
Post by: FastEddieB on May 06, 2016, 04:37:53 AM
During a traffic stop I had reason to do a "wingspan" search of the area in reach of the driver. Those have been ruled legal in the interest of officer safety.
I found a gun under the driver's seat and arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. The arrest form needed a supervisor's signature. My sergeant looked at the gun, which was snapped into a holster, and pointed out that that qualified as "securely encased" in FL, so the concealed weapon charge was inappropriate. I don't recall whether we "unarrested" - which does happen - or if the driver was going in on a warrant or an arrestable traffic charge.
We had a nine month academy, that covered a lot of law, constitutional and state. Even then officers are way short of being legal scholars, and will make mistakes. Sometimes their acrions will be so egregious as to merit discipline and/or legal repercussions. Other times, not so much if there's no malice, as in the example I just gave.
The example given in this thread seems pretty bad, and at least calls for discipline and/or training, IMHO. Whether it should lead to legal action against them is another matter, and a State Attorney would have to prove they had the intent to unlawfully deprive the driver of their rights, and we're not just being dumb. I can see that decision going either way, depending on a lot of factors.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 06, 2016, 10:10:46 AM
Example...
During a traffic stop I had reason to do a "wingspan" search of the area in reach of the driver. Those have been ruled legal in the interest of officer safety.
I found a gun under the driver's seat and arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. The arrest form needed a supervisor's signature. My sergeant looked at the gun, which was snapped into a holster, and pointed out that that qualified as "securely encased" in FL, so the concealed weapon charge was inappropriate. I don't recall whether we "unarrested" - which does happen - or if the driver was going in on a warrant or an arrestable traffic charge.
We had a nine month academy, that covered a lot of law, constitutional and state. Even then officers are way short of being legal scholars, and will make mistakes. Sometimes their acrions will be so egregious as to merit discipline and/or legal repercussions. Other times, not so much if there's no malice, as in the example I just gave.
The example given in this thread seems pretty bad, and at least calls for discipline and/or training, IMHO. Whether it should lead to legal action against them is another matter, and a State Attorney would have to prove they had the intent to unlawfully deprive the driver of their rights, and we're not just being dumb. I can see that decision going either way, depending on a lot of factors.
Funny, for the rest of us proles, ignorance of the law or absence of malice in some stupid traffic infraction is not a defense.
Most traffic stops are just pretext to justify fishing expeditions anyway.
Post by: FastEddieB on May 06, 2016, 10:50:45 AM
Funny, for the rest of us proles, ignorance of the law or absence of malice in some stupid traffic infraction is not a defense.
Most traffic stops are just pretext to justify fishing expeditions anyway.
Actually, ignorance of the law can be an excuse.
To expect a road officer to know every nuance of every statute in a very thick law book is unreasonable. Doctors, lawyers, accountants and even pilots make mistakes all the time. Truly egregious mistakes - those with malice and aforethought - need to be punished. Those without those elements may need to be addressed in a less punitive manner to avoid repetition.
Funny that you can pontificate about what "most traffic stops" are.
Officers are enforcing traffic laws at the behest of society. To the extent of them being "fishing expeditions", that "fishing expedition" may turn up a warrant for DUI, let's say, getting a potentially dangerous driver off the road for at least a while, possibly preventing an accident that might involve you or yours. Or a more serious warrant, taking a robbery or sexual battery subject off the streets.
But from prior online debates, I know some are so blinded by their distaste for police that any arguments I make will fall on deaf ears. If you want to make them the enemy in your mind, that may just end up being what plays out as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Good luck with that, and we'll listen sympathetically to your tales of how unfairly you were treated.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 06, 2016, 11:06:24 AM
Actually, ignorance of the law can be an excuse.Drivers who make an innocent mistake that harms no one still get punished. Plenty of "violations" are purely admini$trative in nature. Pulling people over for traffic provides a convenient excuse to "run them" where stopping them walking around would be a civil rights issue.
To expect a road officer to know every nuance of every statute in a very thick law book is unreasonable. Doctors, lawyers, accountants and even pilots make mistakes all the time. Truly egregious mistakes - those with malice and aforethought - need to be punished. Those without those elements may need to be addressed in a less punitive manner to avoid repetition.
Funny that you can pontificate about what "most traffic stops" are.
Officers are enforcing traffic laws at the behest of society. To the extent of them being "fishing expeditions", that "fishing expedition" may turn up a warrant for DUI, let's say, getting a potentially dangerous driver off the road for at least a while, possibly preventing an accident that might involve you or yours. Or a more serious warrant, taking a robbery or sexual battery subject off the streets.
But from prior online debates, I know some are so blinded by their distaste for police that any arguments I make will fall on deaf ears. If you want to make them the enemy in your mind, that may just end up being what plays out as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Good luck with that, and we'll listen sympathetically to your tales of how unfairly you were treated.
As far as "distaste" is concerned, cops have that and more for us "scrots" and they act with impunity 99.9 % of the time.
Post by: pilot_dude on May 06, 2016, 11:31:54 AM
Post by: pilot_dude on May 06, 2016, 11:40:41 AM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 06, 2016, 01:07:50 PM
The cops in the case are in for some remedial training to say the least.
They should be federally prosecuted.
Post by: LevelWing on May 06, 2016, 01:08:53 PM
They should be federally prosecuted.Prosecuted for what?
Post by: JeffDG on May 06, 2016, 01:37:22 PM
Prosecuted for what?Deprivation of Civil Rights under Color of Law
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 06, 2016, 08:07:57 PM
Deprivation of Civil Rights under Color of Law
You will receive the Order of Lenin for this.
Post by: bflynn on May 06, 2016, 09:11:14 PM
If the police cannot act responsibly as I described above then I say fry them. That would appear to be the only language they're going to pay attention to.
Post by: Jaybird180 on May 07, 2016, 05:21:57 AM
I'm sure this happens often. I know the last time I had an encounter with a cop was when my car died and he was theatining to tow the car b/c it was on the wrong side of the street. Alternator died and I lost control. Of course he threatened arrest since I said he can speak to my lawyer at my firm since he was going down that road. Since this happens to middle class whites, I doubt it's a race issue rather it's a policing issue.If you're under the mistaken impression that I think it happens to Blacks only, well...you're mistaken. What I will say is that the bar is lower.
With that said, I've gotten out of my share of tickets by courtesy and a bit of luck. 2x comes to mind when I really could have gotten one - one was a legit mistake on my part, but I questioned my own choice before doing it. A third time, I was on my bike not observant of my speed, not willfully going fast and the cop told me that he was looking for an excuse (to escalate). I think he was on amphetamines- and he was Black. Fortunately, I have a clean record.
Nevertheless, it happens on both sides of the aisle, good and bad experiences. The stats are clear that Black citizens suffer more risk from LEO than criminal Whites.
As "proof":There was even a study done on cop shootings. There was a higher percentage (by far) of whites being shot who were truly scumbags than Blacks who were questionable. Good whites are statistically safe from assault by LEO.
Post by: Jaybird180 on May 07, 2016, 06:52:11 AM
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1185626718144009&id=100000900777468&from_close_friend=1
NSFW
Post by: JeffDG on May 07, 2016, 09:26:16 AM
Obviously the officer made a mistake. But I don't think an officer's mistake necessarily rises to a civil rights violation.If telling someone they will be arrested if they don't waive their Constitutional rights is not a civil rights violation, I don't know what is.