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

[Frank_N_Stein]

nice .gif but he won't be back.

Sure he will, goobs like that can't stay away.

 

[chipbennett]

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?

If the officer is citing him with an offense, then he can demand that he disclose his name, address, and DOB. He can't demand production of a particular form of ID. Refer to the Hiibel decision, as well as Indiana statute IC 34-28-5-3(a)(2).

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?

As noted in a later comment, during a traffic stop, under current SCOTUS rulings, an officer does have authority to demand passengers exit the vehicle. As also stated in that later comment, I think that such blanket authority is ripe for abuse, and should be required to be accompanied by specific RAS regarding the risk to the officer's safety.

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.

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

Unless I missed something from the related articles, he wasn't cited for a seat belt violation. If so, then he was arrested for what amounts to contempt of cop, because he wasn't doing anything otherwise unlawful.

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.

I remember when the seat belt law first went into effect. I was in high school or college. Lawmakers insisted that seat belt violations would not be a primary offense, and would only be included as a secondary offense. Now a seat belt violation is a primary offense, which in itself is problematic. So we have a case where a car was detained for a victimless offense, that was then escalated by the overly aggressive police officers who ended up screwing the pooch.

This sort of situation is exactly what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent, regardless of how SCOTUS has ruled. SCOTUS is wrong. Seat belt violations for adults are wrong. Because of both of those things, we end up with what happened.

 

[Drail]

The other night I was watching some Youtube videos about checkpoints. Every single cop had one line - "I need you to roll your window down". Over and over - right up to the point where they broke it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I remember when the seat belt law first went into effect. I was in high school or college. Lawmakers insisted that seat belt violations would not be a primary offense, and would only be included as a secondary offense. Now a seat belt violation is a primary offense, which in itself is problematic. So we have a case where a car was detained for a victimless offense, that was then escalated by the overly aggressive police officers who ended up screwing the pooch.

This sort of situation is exactly what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent, regardless of how SCOTUS has ruled. SCOTUS is wrong. Seat belt violations for adults are wrong. Because of both of those things, we end up with what happened.

I agree with you. I strongly urge you, if you haven't already, to contact your state legislator and request that they propose legislation to reverse this seat belt crap.

 

[actaeon277]

nice .gif but he won't be back.

Except that it's Sarah "gun owners are psychos and have small junks" Silverman.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If the officer is citing him with an offense, then he can demand that he disclose his name, address, and DOB. He can't demand production of a particular form of ID. Refer to the Hiibel decision, as well as Indiana statute IC 34-28-5-3(a)(2).

Not an offense, but an infraction or ordinance violation.

The police can demand whatever they want but all that we are required to give is name, address and DOB.

As noted in a later comment, during a traffic stop, under current SCOTUS rulings, an officer does have authority to demand passengers exit the vehicle.

Right, the police can have the passenger step out of the vehicle. If the passenger does not step out of the vehicle then it is interfering with law enforcement.

Unless I missed something from the related articles, he wasn't cited for a seat belt violation. If so, then he was arrested for what amounts to contempt of cop, because he wasn't doing anything otherwise unlawful.

It is not controlling that Jamal did not receive a ticket or the Prosecuting Attorney did not file seat belt. The RLE is predicated upon interfering with the officer's investigation of the infraction, regardless of whether a ticket was written or filed.

I remember when the seat belt law first went into effect.

Me too and people fell for the lies that politicians tell to bind the future. People want lies because they are less work.

There is what ought to be and what is. I am dealing with what is.

 

[MikeDVB]

I just have to say Chip - it's refreshing to read your posts. While you could be right or wrong you seem to put time and effort into being as accurate as you can be without spouting a lot of opinion as fact. Rep has been sent.

 

[Dead Duck]

I just have to say Chip - it's refreshing to read your posts. While you could be right or wrong you seem to put time and effort into being as accurate as you can be without spouting a lot of opinion as fact. Rep has been sent.

I still don't know - I think he could be making a run for the classifieds.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Actually, *here*, we're in an internet forum, discussing issues and ideas. So that seems like a rather odd dismissal.

Would I comply with an officer's demand to exit my vehicle if I were actually on the street and being detained? Unless there were some pretty extreme circumstances, yeah I would. You win more flies with honey, and all that.

 

[chipbennett]

I just have to say Chip - it's refreshing to read your posts. While you could be right or wrong you seem to put time and effort into being as accurate as you can be without spouting a lot of opinion as fact. Rep has been sent.

Hey, I'm wrong a lot (just ask my wife - and as soon as my girls hit puberty, I'm sure I'll be wrong exponentially more often!). I enjoy discussing/debating - especially important issues such as these. I'd rather be right than win an internet argument being wrong. Sometimes that means admitting I'm wrong.

I'm new here, but so far I like the atmosphere. Discussion seems to be civil, and people don't appear to take themselves so seriously all the time.

 

[chipbennett]

I agree with you. I strongly urge you, if you haven't already, to contact your state legislator and request that they propose legislation to reverse this seat belt crap.

Oh, no worries. My reps are usually no strangers to hearing from me. Not that I expect much more than the form letters my dad gets when he does the same thing...

Right, the police can have the passenger step out of the vehicle. If the passenger does not step out of the vehicle then it is interfering with law enforcement...
There is what ought to be and what is. I am dealing with what is.

Agreed. I think this story has a lot more to do with what *ought* to be, rather than what *is* - even though, even just based on what *is*, I think it's a clear case of misuse of force and reckless endangerment.

I still don't know - I think he could be making a run for the classifieds.

Hey look: I remembered to multi-quote this time!

I do have a Ruger LC380 I would like to trade in; but I'm finally going to get to visit the local gun shops later this week, so hopefully it will be out of my possession long before I hit 50 posts here.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Agreed. I think this story has a lot more to do with what *ought* to be, rather than what *is* - even though, even just based on what *is*, I think it's a clear case of misuse of force and reckless endangerment.

Yes, as long as we are speaking of "ought" I don't disagree.

I think the misuse of force here is the taser. I am still waiting for an explanation for its use here.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, as long as we are speaking of "ought" I don't disagree.

I think the misuse of force here is the taser. I am still waiting for an explanation for its use here.

The Taser was clearly unjustified. I think pointing guns* at the passengers was unjustified, and most certainly, endangering the children (er, youth; one is 14, I believe?) with the shards of shattered glass.

* I need to read up on Indiana law again now that I'm back, but I assume that pointing a gun at someone is considered inherent use of deadly force, whether a shot is fired or not? In which case, it would be a form of deadly-force assault if not justified as self-defense.

(I'm probably drifting into *ought to* territory here. I don't think police officers should be able to point their guns at whomever they choose without justification, any more than anyone else can. But in this case, the alleged reason was that the guy had reached into a backpack in the backseat - but he pulled a ticket out of that backpack, and turned back around, at which time, the fear that he was going for a handgun became inherently unreasonable. At that point, there was also no reasonable "officer safety" concern underlying the demand for passengers to exit the vehicle - but we've been over that one enough already.)

 

[Denny347]

Except that it's Sarah "gun owners are psychos and have small junks" Silverman.

It matters not as I find the .gif humorous.

 

[VUPDblue]

The Taser was clearly unjustified. I think pointing guns* at the passengers was unjustified, and most certainly, endangering the children (er, youth; one is 14, I believe?) with the shards of shattered glass.

* I need to read up on Indiana law again now that I'm back, but I assume that pointing a gun at someone is considered inherent use of deadly force, whether a shot is fired or not? In which case, it would be a form of deadly-force assault if not justified as self-defense.

(I'm probably drifting into *ought to* territory here. I don't think police officers should be able to point their guns at whomever they choose without justification, any more than anyone else can. But in this case, the alleged reason was that the guy had reached into a backpack in the backseat - but he pulled a ticket out of that backpack, and turned back around, at which time, the fear that he was going for a handgun became inherently unreasonable. At that point, there was also no reasonable "officer safety" concern underlying the demand for passengers to exit the vehicle - but we've been over that one enough already.)

It is NOT a use of deadly force any more than pointing a pencil at a piece of paper is writing a novel.

 

[chipbennett]

It is NOT a use of deadly force any more than pointing a pencil at a piece of paper is writing a novel.

Like I said: I need to look up Indiana law again. I've lived in several states since moving back here, and in the two previous that I had CCWs, pointing a gun at someone was treated statutorily equivalent as pulling the trigger, with respect to use of deadly force.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Like I said: I need to look up Indiana law again. I've lived in several states since moving back here, and in the two previous that I had CCWs, pointing a gun at someone was treated statutorily equivalent as pulling the trigger, with respect to use of deadly force.

I thought you were right for Indiana as well. Maybe it's not considered so for LEO though.

 

[VUPDblue]

In Indiana, pointing a firearm at someone would earn the charge of "pointing a firearm" or maybe "Criminal Recklessness" depending on additional circumstances. Not even remotely the same as actually shooting someone. I would be shocked to see any other state that treats pointing a firearm the same as shooting someone.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Pointing a gun is a felony, if it's loaded. A misdemeanor, if it's unloaded.

(a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.

 

[chipbennett]

In Indiana, pointing a firearm at someone would earn the charge of "pointing a firearm" or maybe "Criminal Recklessness" depending on additional circumstances. Not even remotely the same as actually shooting someone. I would be shocked to see any other state that treats pointing a firearm the same as shooting someone.

The Missouri statutory definition of "deadly force":

"Deadly force", physical force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he or she knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury;

The "create a substantial risk of causing..." clause *is* interpreted as pointing a gun at someone constituting an act of deadly force in Missouri.

The same is true in Ohio:

(4) "Deadly force" means any force that carries a substantial risk that it will proximately result in the death of any person. Examples of deadly force include, but are not limited to, the following:(a) Discharging a firearm in the immediate vicinity of or directed toward another person;

So, those were the two states I was referring to. But as far as I know, pointing a gun at someone is considered assault, and assault with a deadly weapon. In other words: it is considered use of deadly force.