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

[Denny347]

1. Police demand ID
2. Person says, "I don't have ID. It was taken for a ticket. I have the ticket."
3. Person reaches behind his seat into a backpack
4. Police take a collective dump at such an allegedly "suspicious" action
5. Person retrieves said ticket, and presents it
6. Police draw their firearms and point them at the car

Am I materially incorrect in how the situation played out? Even if 5 and 6 are transposed, at the moment he pulled a piece of paper out of the backpack and made no more more to reach into the backpack, the police were drawing their weapons over a piece of paper.

I realize that, under the law, they're allowed to do so. I have a problem with that.

I did not see any of that on the video. Sadly, the newscaster talked over the exchange prior to the glass breakage, it looked heated. I would have liked to have heard that. I did not see anyone on the video pointing a firearm. The officer on the left kept his holstered during the tasing. There is video missing if they caught the entire event. They did not show it all. I did see a piece a paper in the side window reflection that the passenger was holding but he was not making any movement to slip it through the crack in the window...again, audio would have been nice. As a victim of a 100% fictitious story about my use of force that was filed in Federal Court, I'd like to see more before I condemn the officers. Was the passenger not wearing his seat belt either? It does not say. If so, was the heated exchange about him refusing to identify himself? I cannot tell. If so, then he committed: IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

If they decided to arrest him for the refusal and he won't open the car door or roll the window down, glass will get broken. More questions than answers.

 

[chipbennett]

Indeed

IC 35-47-4-3 Version b
Pointing firearm at another person
Note: This version of section effective 7-1-2014. See also preceding version of this section, effective until 7-1-2014.
Sec. 3. (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 Level 6 felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
As added by P.L.296-1995, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.589

So, we were good at this point. It seems we're in agreement. I'm not sure why you went into unrelated types of offenses below.

I must act within the law as the legislature has written it or the courts have interpreted it. I cannot arrest based on anything else. What it "ought" to be or how you interpret it is irrelevant. I get this a lot at work. I get a run where one party says they are going to kick the other party's ass. I show up and they want me to arrest the threatening party for "assaulting" them verbally. They "created the apprehension of an imminent act that risks life or great bodily harm" so under your view and theirs, it's assault (a non existent charge in Indiana). However, since I have to go by what is written in law, this does not fit within the definition of BATTERY. Then they get mad because I refuse to enforce the law as they see it.

I appreciate you quoting the statute, but I'm not talking about battery. (And in the little I've seen, assault and battery are generally two different things - assault being the implied threat, and battery being the actual use of force. That seems to hold here as well?)

 

[chipbennett]

I did not see any of that on the video. Sadly, the newscaster talked over the exchange prior to the glass breakage, it looked heated. I would have liked to have heard that. I did not see anyone on the video pointing a firearm. The officer on the left kept his holstered during the tasing. There is video missing if they caught the entire event. They did not show it all. I did see a piece a paper in the side window reflection that the passenger was holding but he was not making any movement to slip it through the crack in the window...again, audio would have been nice. As a victim of a 100% fictitious story about my use of force that was filed in Federal Court, I'd like to see more before I condemn the officers. Was the passenger not wearing his seat belt either? It does not say. If so, was the heated exchange about him refusing to identify himself? I cannot tell...If they decided to arrest him for the refusal and he won't open the car door or roll the window down, glass will get broken. More questions than answers.

Note that I'm basing much of what I'm saying on a combination of the video, the news article, and the filed lawsuit. If any of the material facts prove to be different, I'm completely open to changing my evaluation of those facts.

 

[Drail]

And all because of an unConsitutional seat belt law. Rand was right - if the Govt. can't find enough "criminals"to prosecute - they will create them.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The point I have been trying to make, from the beginning, is that if you point a loaded gun at someone in a situation not justified in self-defense, you've committed a felony.

No, there are other exemptions other than self-defense, arrest for example.

 

[Denny347]

[/I]So, we were good at this point. It seems we're in agreement. I'm not sure why you went into unrelated types of offenses below.




I appreciate you quoting the statute, but I'm not talking about battery. (And in the little I've seen, assault and battery are generally two different things - assault being the implied threat, and battery being the actual use of force. That seems to hold here as well?)

People use "assault" and "battery" interchangeably.
We have no implied ANYTHING in Indiana code. We have crimes and attempted crimes...no implied crimes. We do have an "intimidation" code which is what you are referring to as a "threat".

IC 35-45-2-1
Intimidation
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act; or
(3) of causing:
(A) a dwelling, a building, or another structure; or
(B) a vehicle;
to be evacuated;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the threat is to commit a forcible felony;
(B) the person to whom the threat is communicated:
(i) is a law enforcement officer;
(ii) is a judge or bailiff of any court;
(iii) is a witness (or the spouse or child of a witness) in any pending criminal proceeding against the person making the threat;
(iv) is an employee of a school corporation; or
(v) is a community policing volunteer;
(C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same victim; or
(D) the threat is communicated using property, including electronic equipment or systems, of a school corporation or other governmental entity; and
(2) Class C felony if, while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon.
(c) "Threat" means an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:
(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;
(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;
(3) commit a crime;
(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;
(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person's legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses;
(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;
(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person
threatened; or
(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.71; Acts 1981, P.L.300, SEC.3; P.L.183-1984, SEC.6; P.L.325-1985, SEC.1; P.L.242-1993, SEC.3; P.L.164-1993, SEC.12; P.L.1-1994, SEC.169; P.L.241-2001, SEC.3; P.L.175-2003, SEC.3.

 

[VUPDblue]

[/I]So, we were good at this point. It seems we're in agreement. I'm not sure why you went into unrelated types of offenses below.




I appreciate you quoting the statute, but I'm not talking about battery. (And in the little I've seen, assault and battery are generally two different things - assault being the implied threat, and battery being the actual use of force. That seems to hold here as well?)

If you make a credible and direct threat against a person, Indiana calls that 'intimidation'. If you continually annoy and harass someone, Indiana calls that 'harassment' and eventually 'stalking'. The 'assault' statutes that I have seen from other states generally define 'assault' as attacking someone (or other similar wording) without serious injury. They go on to define battery with a bunch of specific injuries for a 'battery' to have occurred. Indiana says that 'battery' is "...the unwanted touching of another person in a rude, angry or insolent manner..." It includes battery with or without injury...one does not have to be injured beyond a complaint of pain for a battery to have occurred. You need to forget about 'assault' however you can because it is serving no purpose but for to confuse the heck out of you.

 

[TaunTaun]

If you make a credible and direct threat against a person, Indiana calls that 'intimidation'. If you continually annoy and harass someone, Indiana calls that 'harassment' and eventually 'stalking'. The 'assault' statutes that I have seen from other states generally define 'assault' as attacking someone (or other similar wording) without serious injury. They go on to define battery with a bunch of specific injuries for a 'battery' to have occurred. Indiana says that 'battery' is "...the unwanted touching of another person in a rude, angry or insolent manner..." It includes battery with or without injury...one does not have to be injured beyond a complaint of pain for a battery to have occurred. You need to forget about 'assault' however you can because it is serving no purpose but for to confuse the heck out of you.

Insolent manner? So that is how officers can charge people when they back away from an officer and brush their hand aside when the officer reaches for them?

Not TRYING to be snarky, just an honest question.

 

[Denny347]

Insolent manner? So that is how officers can charge people when they back away from an officer and brush their hand aside when the officer reaches for them?

Not TRYING to be snarky, just an honest question.

Yes, A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery. However, without injury, we (police) have to witness it for an outright arrest to be made. If there is injury then we can outright arrest without witnessing it. Injury can include "complaint of pain" alone.

 

[lonehoosier]

FBI reviews Hammond traffic stop, unreasonable force allegations : Hammond Community News

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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

Per the IN supreme court it is. I can't find the case but perhaps someone can help me out. A guy pointed a gun at two guys that were on his property, they were there to get some piece of equipment and there was a dispute about whose it was. He told them to get off his property and they refused he then pointed a gun at them. The judge refused to allow him to use the defense of using reasonable force to prevent or terminate trespassing per IC 35-41-3-2/IC 35-47-43.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (c).

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (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.

Per the supreme court pointing a firearm is deadly force and he wouldn't have been covered under those provisions so his appeal was denied.

I did not see any of that on the video. Sadly, the newscaster talked over the exchange prior to the glass breakage, it looked heated. I would have liked to have heard that. I did not see anyone on the video pointing a firearm. The officer on the left kept his holstered during the tasing. There is video missing if they caught the entire event. They did not show it all. I did see a piece a paper in the side window reflection that the passenger was holding but he was not making any movement to slip it through the crack in the window...again, audio would have been nice. As a victim of a 100% fictitious story about my use of force that was filed in Federal Court, I'd like to see more before I condemn the officers. Was the passenger not wearing his seat belt either? It does not say. If so, was the heated exchange about him refusing to identify himself? I cannot tell. If so, then he committed: IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

If they decided to arrest him for the refusal and he won't open the car door or roll the window down, glass will get broken. More questions than answers.

Here is a copy of the video without the commentary. Doesn't appear to me to be heated, and during the conversation he states a couple of times that he gave his info to two of the officers. There was a longer one I viewed but I can't find it now that iirc it does show him putting the paper out the window.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbADyT4077E

 

[renauldo]

The whinin crybaby should have just got out of the van. But..He was afraid that as soon as he exited the vehicle he'd be arrested on an old warrant. He slipped the ticket with his I.D. info through a slit of about 1 inch in the rolled down window hoping the the cop would accept it and not pull his butt through a fully opened window. The woman has priors for drug use and possession with her kids in the vehicle. Both solid citizens.

 

[Denny347]

Per the IN supreme court it is. I can't find the case but perhaps someone can help me out. A guy pointed a gun at two guys that were on his property, they were there to get some piece of equipment and there was a dispute about whose it was. He told them to get off his property and they refused he then pointed a gun at them. The judge refused to allow him to use the defense of using reasonable force to prevent or terminate trespassing per IC 35-41-3-2/IC 35-47-43.



Per the supreme court pointing a firearm is deadly force and he wouldn't have been covered under those provisions so his appeal was denied.



Here is a copy of the video without the commentary. Doesn't appear to me to be heated, and during the conversation he states a couple of times that he gave his info to two of the officers. There was a longer one I viewed but I can't find it now that iirc it does show him putting the paper out the window.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbADyT4077E

Interesting, thanks for the link...that was a much better video. It "sounds" like he already gave them his info so "refusal to identify" is not likely relevant (unless they thought he was not giving the correct information). The only reason to break out a window would be to affect an arrest of a person who refuses to exit the vehicle. If they asked him out and cannot articulate ANY reason for the command, then I could not imagine a "resisting LE" charge making it through screening. While the occupants COULD have acted better, the officers seemed to have escalated this way more than needed. In my opinion (for whatever it is worth), based on the information at hand, the officers overreacted. I could be wrong.

 

[chipbennett]

Interesting, thanks for the link...that was a much better video. It "sounds" like he already gave them his info so "refusal to identify" is not likely relevant (unless they thought he was not giving the correct information). The only reason to break out a window would be to affect an arrest of a person who refuses to exit the vehicle. If they asked him out and cannot articulate ANY reason for the command, then I could not imagine a "resisting LE" charge making it through screening. While the occupants COULD have acted better, the officers seemed to have escalated this way more than needed. In my opinion (for whatever it is worth), based on the information at hand, the officers overreacted. I could be wrong.

Yet, under current SCOTUS opinion, the officers were fully justified in ordering the occupants out of the car, under the guise of "officer safety". Because SCOTUS says that's a lawful order (with no reasonable suspicion of risk to officer safety required), the "resisting LE" charge was valid.

In a sane world, police couldn't cite adults for not wearing seat belts, couldn't pull cars over solely to enforce seat belt violations, and couldn't order people out of cars for "officer safety" without specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion of risk to officer safety. But we don't live in that world, apparently. And it seems many posters here don't have a problem with it, because the guy was a "jerk", had a record, etc.

 

[HoughMade]

I think now that I'm paying for other people's healthcare by government mandate, seat belt laws are fair game.

(if you have the gall to point out that we've been paying for the uninsured's healthcare all along because treatment comes before any inquiry into the ability to pay so we all always paid in elevated healthcare costs, you are a mean-spirited anti fair-share rich guy).

 

[hornadylnl]

I think now that I'm paying for other people's healthcare by government mandate, seat belt laws are fair game.

(if you have the gall to point out that we've been paying for the uninsured's healthcare all along because treatment comes before any inquiry into the ability to pay so we all always paid in elevated healthcare costs, you are a mean-spirited anti fair-share rich guy).

Let's also include all the little Johnny's playing school sports. Sports injuries aren't cheap either.

 

[chipbennett]

I think now that I'm paying for other people's healthcare by government mandate, seat belt laws are fair game.

(if you have the gall to point out that we've been paying for the uninsured's healthcare all along because treatment comes before any inquiry into the ability to pay so we all always paid in elevated healthcare costs, you are a mean-spirited anti fair-share rich guy).

All true, except for the "rich" part. I probably won't ever be that.

 

[Denny347]

Yet, under current SCOTUS opinion, the officers were fully justified in ordering the occupants out of the car, under the guise of "officer safety". Because SCOTUS says that's a lawful order (with no reasonable suspicion of risk to officer safety required), the "resisting LE" charge was valid.

In a sane world, police couldn't cite adults for not wearing seat belts, couldn't pull cars over solely to enforce seat belt violations, and couldn't order people out of cars for "officer safety" without specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion of risk to officer safety. But we don't live in that world, apparently. And it seems many posters here don't have a problem with it, because the guy was a "jerk", had a record, etc.

Sadly, in my world I am more focused on what the prosecutor will file than I am on Supreme Court cases (the screener is usually much more strict as they generally file cases that they have a good chance winning). Again, I could be wrong, just my 2 cents.

 

[Timothy All Knowing]

I hope she collects a large settlement from the city. Everyone should remind the mayor and the taxpayers that their tax dollars are being spent because of heavy handed police actions. Also, this officer should be fired.

 

[lonehoosier]

Hammond official calls for investigation into police conduct : Hammond Community News