IN police shatter car window, extract passenger after alleged seatbelt violation

[chipbennett]

There is the law of what we believe should be and then there is reality.

He wasn't being "forced" to exit because of a seatbelt ticket. It was because he was digging like a terrier through his man bag.

We really need an INGO traffic school thread.

If he was "digging like a terrier through his man bag," it was because the officer demanded ID - something the officer had no right to do. Even if the officer intended to cite him for a seatbelt violation, all he is legally required to do is to provide his name and address for the summons.

Regardless, reaching into his bag was in direct response to a demand for ID; therefore, it is unreasonable to believe that he was reaching for a weapon. Further, he found and produced the form of ID he was searching for - at which time, it was plainly obvious that he was not reaching for a weapon. Thus, the demand for him to exit the vehicle for "officer safety" was unreasonable. The officers were not at reasonable risk to their safety.

And that doesn't even get into the unnecessary escalation that the police officers engaged in, without provocation, including placing spike strips under the car's tires, and surrounding the vehicle with multiple officers, ostensibly for a seat belt violation.

And in the end, he was (apparently) only cited for "resisting law enforcement" - which, absent any other unlawful activity, sounds like a police-state, contempt-of-cop type of charge if ever I heard of one. Unless the officer has RAS that he has committed an unlawful act - and given that he was not cited for any such act, separate from the "resisting" charge, we can assume no such RAS existed - then he was under no legal obligation to do anything the officer told him to do (that pesky Fourth Amendment interfering again).

 

[chipbennett]

I haven't read all the pages so I'll go back and read Rookie's posts, who is also usually, well more often than not, contributing productively. I don't mind opposing viewpoints, but have something intelligent and based in the law to say. In all the years Richardson has been popping up this might be one of the first times it was used in the proper context. These things, to me, seem pretty well established: police ask passenger for ID based on the driver being stopped for a minor traffic infraction, he DOES NOT have to provide it, but they are free to ask. Police tell passenger to exit the vehicle he DOES have to. Once he refuses he is under arrest and will be ID'd. Maybe smashing the window and tasing him in front of the kids is bad form, but some people you just can't reach. So, you get what we had here.

So, I actually had to research this question, not being a lawyer, and not ever having dealt with the situation before.

Under Pennsylvania v. Mimms, under the guise of "officer safety", and having deemed that being forced to exit a vehicle during a traffic stop is not an undue burden upon the driver, SCOTUS held that it is not a violation of Fourth or Fourteenth amendment rights for a police officer to demand a driver exit the vehicle during a lawful traffic stop.

Further, under Maryland v. Wilson, SCOTUS held that Mimms applied not only to the driver, but also to any other passengers.

The reality, though, is that police officers are killed in about one out of every one million traffic stops, and are assaulted in about one out of every ten thousand traffic stops (based on some somewhat old statistics that Google turned up). So, I'm not sure what level of scrutiny would result in such meager probabilities being justifiable grounds for what would otherwise be a violation of fourth-amendment rights.

The obvious problem, of course, is that "officer safety" is ripe for abuse, in the same manner that the federal government have abused the Commerce and General Welfare clauses. Unlike an investigatory detention, which per Terry v. Ohio requires specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion of unlawful activity, neither of these two cases appear to place a similar restraint upon demands to exit a vehicle. If officers were similarly required to provide specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion that their safety was at risk, then I would be completely fine with considering a demand to exit a vehicle to be lawful and not a violation of the constitutional rights of the occupants of the vehicle.

 

[Dead Duck]

So, I actually had to research this question, not being ........words..........more words.........comma......then words........ demand to exit a vehicle to be lawful and not a violation of the constitutional rights of the occupants of the vehicle.

Meanwhile -
The street in not a courtroom. You want to object to an officers behavior during a stop, tell it to a judge.....in court. Not in the street.
The street is where we follow the commands of an officer or get tazed and taken out of the vehicle, forcibly. And then whine about it.

 

[chipbennett]

IC 9-19-10-3.1
Stopping, inspecting, or detaining vehicle; checkpoints
Sec. 3.1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a vehicle may
be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a
vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a
passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained
solely because of a violation of this chapter.

As this chapter is written, visual PC is not required to pull you over to check if you are complying.

It also does not stop further investigation.

It could make Richardson moot.

Okay, am I completely missing something here?

IC 9-19-10-3.1
Stopping, inspecting, or detaining vehicle; checkpoints
Sec. 3.1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a vehicle may
be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a
vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a
passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained
solely because of a violation of this chapter.

Parsed out: ...a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be detained solely because of a violation of this chapter.

Is there some case law that interprets this to mean anything other than that a seat belt violation cannot be the sole cause for a traffic stop?

 

[chipbennett]

Believe it or not, some people actually refrain from doing certain things simply for the fact that they are illegal.

Actually, people with character and self-respect refrain from doing certain things regardless of the legality of doing those things. I don't smoke tobacco even though it is legal. I don't get drunk, even though it's legal. Nor would I take illicit drugs, even if they were legal.

While I have no dog in the "war on drugs" hunt, I do know that making something legal (or not) really has little bearing on people using those things to commit offenses against themselves or others. Prohibiting possession of hand guns in DC and Chicago failed to stop gun homicides. Gun Free Zones failed to stop mass shootings in Columbine, Aurora, and Newtown.

In the end, criminals are going to commit crimes, regardless of any laws that are (or are not) on the books. If we focused on dealing with criminals, and keeping them away from law-abiding people, our law enforcement efforts would be much more effective.

 

[chipbennett]

Agreed. So maybe LEOs need to change their protocols so more Major's aren't created.

What on earth did LEO have to do with creating Major Davis Jr.? I would hazard a guess that being indoctrinated by his family's false accusations that the police were responsible for Davis Sr's death had more to do with how Junior turned out.

 

[chipbennett]

(Note to self: next time, use multi-quote.)

 

[CathyInBlue]

Meanwhile -
The street in not a courtroom. You want to object to an officers behavior during a stop, tell it to a judge.....in court. Not in the street.
The street is where we follow the commands of an officer or get tazed and taken out of the vehicle, forcibly. And then whine about it.

Meanwhile, what the courts say in deciding cases is enforceable law, and any officer who chooses to act in a manner contrary to court decided limits upon their freedom of action are acting just as unlawfully whether they have chosen to act unlawfully or have simply not chosen to maintain their knowledge of the law in a current and up to date state.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Okay, am I completely missing something here?

IC 9-19-10-3.1
Stopping, inspecting, or detaining vehicle; checkpoints
Sec. 3.1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a vehicle may
be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a
vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a
passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained
solely because of a violation of this chapter.

Parsed out: ...a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be detained solely because of a violation of this chapter.

Is there some case law that interprets this to mean anything other than that a seat belt violation cannot be the sole cause for a traffic stop?

The seatbelt violation can be the sole reason for a stop and has been since July 1, 1999. It cannot be the sole reason for the search of a vehicle or the occupants, but other independent probable cause can be developed during the stop that would allow a search of the vehicle or occupants.

 

[actaeon277]

Didn't work that way for Major Davis Jr.

Agreed. So maybe LEOs need to change their protocols so more Major's aren't created.

WTF????
Were you dropped at birth?

Major can burn in hell while he sits on a cactus.

LEO's did not "create" that sack of ****. His sack of **** family created him and raised him to hate LEOs. As Major Jr. was growing up, dear ol' dad taught him to steal, rob, shoot, and be the antithesis of a productive member of society. To suggest that the cops had anything to do with making him what he is today is weak and weak minded.

QFT.
+1

 

[VUPDblue]

We also dont talk about killing cops here.

 

[actaeon277]

I didn't

 

[Dead Duck]

We also dont talk about killing cops here.

How do you expect them to have a healthy "Cop Bashing" without it?
















Can we PLEASE have a sub-thread just for the cop bashing.

 

[Dead Duck]

I didn't

Not you.

 

[VUPDblue]

No not you. I was talking to the banned guy.

 

[actaeon277]

No not you. I was talking to the banned guy.

Just makin sure.
In some other thread I had someone call me a holster sniffer, AND someone informed me I was being put on their ignore list for being anti-LEO.
Since then, I've been identity-confused.

 

[Dead Duck]

A Holster Sniffer?





I mean - that's just awful.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If he was "digging like a terrier through his man bag," it was because the officer demanded ID - something the officer had no right to do.

Yes, they do. Who is telling you this? The officer has every right to ask him for ID.

What authority are you citing for the proposition that the officer cannot ask him? Is this your opinion of how it should be?

Thus, the demand for him to exit the vehicle for "officer safety" was unreasonable.

What makes you believe that an officer must have a reason for the passenger to exit the vehicle? What authority do you have for this?

Again, is this how you think it should be? Or are you saying this is the law?

And in the end, he was (apparently) only cited for "resisting law enforcement"

Only? Yes, it is only a misdemeanor, 0 to 365 days in jail, where if convicted it is a disqualifier for a LTCH in Indiana.

Unless the officer has RAS that he has committed an unlawful act - and given that he was not cited for any such act, separate from the "resisting" charge, we can assume no such RAS existed - then he was under no legal obligation to do anything the officer told him to do (that pesky Fourth Amendment interfering again).

The unlawful act is not wearing his belt. If you obstruct law enforcement in the course of their duties that is resisting law enforcement.

The police do not decide charges, the Prosecuting Attorney does. You can have an infraction without a summons being written, that does not excuse a misdemeanor.

Jamal turned a silly $25 infraction into a misdemeanor. We'll see what happens with the civil suit and I agree the cops overreacted with the taser, but to think one can act like Jamal without legal consequences is incorrect.

 

[Denny347]

Agreed. So maybe LEOs need to change their protocols so more Major's aren't created.

 

[VUPDblue]

nice .gif but he won't be back.