B
Baked Alaskan
I'm a clean cut middle aged white guy, so that cop would more than likely treat me different than her. But if I was treated like that, be it a turn signal or stop sign violation, there would be a lawsuit.
-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Anonymous gives the cops an ultimatum
- Thread starter StoneyK
- Start date
Now this I agree completely with, if you are carrying something that will likely put you in prison then you best do everything right and have everything working on your vehicle to void getting stopped. If you do get stopped definitely don't instantly pull out the Miranda rights card right off the bat unless you're charged with something first. Otherwise you will come across as hiding something and likely put yourself in a worse position.
In Mimms, the Court held that “once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures.” 434 U.S., at 111, n. 6.
Wilson held that the Mimms rule applied to passengers as well as to drivers. Specifically, the Court instructed that “an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.” 519 U.S. at 415.
It is true, the Court acknowledged, that in a lawful traffic stop, “[t]here is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense,” but “there is no such reason to stop or detain the passengers.” Id. On the other hand, the Court emphasized, the risk of a violent encounter in a traffic-stop setting “stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop.” Id., at 414. “[T]he motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime,” the Court stated, “is every bit as great as that of the driver.” Ibid. Moreover, the Court noted, “as a practical matter, the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle,” id., at 413-414, so “the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal,” id., at 415.
There is no need to explain, anyone can go to 2:44 on the video you offer as proof and hear the cop clearly say he stopped her for failure to signal. I mean what's the explanation? Is there some point on that video which is the raw uncut footage from the dash cam where the cop can be heard saying he meant to say "running a stop sign" when he actually said "failing to signal"?
Yes he does.... but he can pick and choose which probable cause he wants to use.....
I have to hand it to this cop he outsmarted her....
and would have outsmarted you too......
great trick that turn signal thing......lol
The reason the cops released this video....
is because it shows the first time he sees her.....
then she runs the stop sign 3 seconds later.....
In the original..... it only shows him behind her.....
I can guarantee you this.....
The cops know about that sign....
No the stop itself can't be probable cause as that is an act made by the police officer. You can't say their actions are probable cause to search someone else., it has to be that the cop saw something out in the open or smelled something or someone in the car matched the description of someone wanted for a crime. Of course again that's not what happened here. In this case the car was searched because the driver was arrested and the car was being impounded and therefore the police are obligated to make sure the vehicle is safe and the property inside has been accounted for.
No the cops released the video because they felt it would support the claim that he made in the report that he pulled her over for failure to change lanes. Which it did. It also showed that Ms. Bland brought the arrest on herself by trying to be defiant about what she felt was unjust.
“[t]here is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense,”There were at least 2 elements of probable cause....
running the stop sign and the turn signal
“[t]here is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense,”
I think where your confusion is....
Is the cop asking you outside your vehicle....for example to sign the ticket.....
and searching you......... different situation entirely......
afaik.... he was going to ask her out to sign her warning.....
No he wouldn't have outsmarted me because when I get pulled over which has been less then 10 times in almost 40 years of driving, I'm all yes, sir...no sir...thank you sir(when he hands you your license and registration back). Thanks to being polite and cooperative and having a fairly clean driving record I usually get warnings. I even had a cop just dump out a half oz. bag of weed a friend in the car had left out in the open, and let me go with a warning for that too.
Yes but that's not probable cause to search the vehicle, just probable cause to pull someone over. If they pull you over for a traffic violation they have to have some other probable cause to search the car. If they don't have that they can get you to waive your rights by asking you if they can search your car. Again though that is not relevant to this case. In this case they search the car only after she has been arrested and that's to secure it for impounding.
Now you better get running, remember you don't have time for this.
Im sorry I edited that post.....
he appeared to me asking her out of her car to sign the warning.....
nothing about searching the vehicle.....
he appeared to me asking her out of her car to sign the warning.....
nothing about searching the vehicle.....
Hempkat just explained it to you as clear as day what constitutes probable cause.minor traffic offenses do not constitute probable cause to search a vehicle.
In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the vehicle pending completion of the stop. Already, under a 1977 Supreme Court ruling (Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106), you had the right to arbitrarily order a driver out of a vehicle, in the interest of officer safety.
The same "weighty" concern for your safety is present regarding passengers, the Court declared. "Indeed, the danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car."
Yes, orders to passengers do intrude on their personal liberty, the Court observed, but "as a practical matter, passengers are already stopped...so the additional intrusion upon them is minimal."
Thus the Court officially extended the principle of Mimms to include passengers as well as drivers.
====================
I dont recall saying anything about a search.....
IMO this cop was asking this woman to exit her car to sign her warning.....
He never asked to search her car....
The same "weighty" concern for your safety is present regarding passengers, the Court declared. "Indeed, the danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car."
Yes, orders to passengers do intrude on their personal liberty, the Court observed, but "as a practical matter, passengers are already stopped...so the additional intrusion upon them is minimal."
Thus the Court officially extended the principle of Mimms to include passengers as well as drivers.
====================
I dont recall saying anything about a search.....
IMO this cop was asking this woman to exit her car to sign her warning.....
He never asked to search her car....
Actually the point he asked her out of the car was the point he had decided to arrest her. At first it was going to be for resisting arrest but somewhere after that, probably when she said he was breaking her wrists, she kicked him and so the charge actually filld was assaulting a police officer.
Yes but that doesn't give them reason to search. They can however ask you out of the car that is true. Typically though that is not done on minor traffic stops unless someone starts giving the cops attitude like this girl did. The bottom-line is that rather then asking if she's upset and setting himself up for a verbal rant he should have led with that he was going to let her off with a warning. I guarantee if he had done that this girl would have acted very differently. Likewise had the girl kept her mouth shut and not started calling him a "pussy" and assigning ulterior motives to his actions then he wouldn't have gotten so upset.
As for signing the warning, that's doubtful since he didn't ask the person to get out that he pulled over just before this girl, back where the video starts.
im glad you arent a lawyer you would certainly starve.....
He first said he was going to arrest her ....
for not exiting the vehicle.....
He said she was under arrest when she told him to bring it.....and refused to get out... not when he asked her out....
The cop could have charged her with a whole list of stuff......
normally all get dismissed execpt the most serious....
I believe the charge was resisting.....
Okay now you are splitting hairs. The whole stop can be defined as a technical arrest ad so when she became belligerent and didn't follow orders she was resisting arrest technically. Once he ordered her out and she refused all technicalities were removed because at that point he had already decided to arrest her, likely to teach her a lesson about acting respectfully.
Like I said though, he opened the door for the belligerence by asking her what was wrong. That's not in his purview, he's no psychologist or social worker there to help her sort out her feelings. If instead he said he was going to let her off with a warning I bet she would have been happy and perhaps thanked maybe even apologized and promise to be more careful.
I'm glad you're not a lawyer either, you'd probably be disbarred I'm also glad you're not someone in charge of keeping track of time. Since it been close to an hour since you said you didn't have time for this.
Like I said though, he opened the door for the belligerence by asking her what was wrong.
======================================================
That was his best move... brilliant
thats where she should have said nothing...
Instead she told him she didnt know she ran the stop sign.....
He outsmarted her..... thats all.... cops are sneaky bastards....
I have made that point....
The cop is playing chess....and you are playing checkers...
======================================================
That was his best move... brilliant
thats where she should have said nothing...
Instead she told him she didnt know she ran the stop sign.....
He outsmarted her..... thats all.... cops are sneaky bastards....
I have made that point....
The cop is playing chess....and you are playing checkers...
She never admitted to running a stop sign. That's when she was complaining about him pulling her over for not signaling the lane change she made to let him pass, essentially accusing him of being petty.
I'm really puzzled as to why you keep making claims that the video you offer as evidence clearly contradicts.
Also I'm not playing chess or checkers I'm debating someone in an internet forum who is so opinionated that he can't admit he's wrong even in the face of video and audio evidence that proves him wrong.
