tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post785483048661723466..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: A suggestion for 'The Sandra Bland Drivers' Rights Act'Gritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-90747917418147246972015-12-22T09:21:01.890-06:002015-12-22T09:21:01.890-06:00So she deserves to die bc she didn't put out a...So she deserves to die bc she didn't put out a cigarette? Smoking should be labeled a capital crime? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18277887701886958539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-30797880256231788272015-08-10T15:17:19.822-05:002015-08-10T15:17:19.822-05:00@ 2:26, the failure to signal did not cause her de...@ 2:26, the failure to signal did not cause her death. Her committing suicide caused her death. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-27365811209779673862015-08-10T14:26:56.380-05:002015-08-10T14:26:56.380-05:00TAKE FAILURE TO SIGNAL OUT OF THE TRAFFIC CODE AND...TAKE FAILURE TO SIGNAL OUT OF THE TRAFFIC CODE AND PUT IT IN A BOOK: COURTEOUS DRIVING TECHNIQUES.<br /><br />Personally, it is very aggravating when a driver does not have the COURTESY to signal. I do not read turns of the head to be a signal. A signal should signify COURTESY AND SAFETY FOR ALL DRIVERS, passengers and police. <br /><br />Police and citizens would both benefit by doing away with the traffic code as it applies to "signals". It would be a protection to police officers NOT to approach a car and fear being shot in the face or shooting someone for allegedly failing to signal. If an accident is caused between vehicles as a result of failure to signal, the civil courts will take care of it. "SIGNALS": A SUBJECTIVE ALLEGATION with horrendous results to both police and citizens. <br /><br />Ticket fines raise money for entities BUT FINES DO NOT RAISE AWARENESS OF THE TRAFFIC CODE OR ASSIST WITH LEARNING WHEN ONE SHOULD SIGNAL. Do you get stopped when your signal blinks for miles? Maybe people cannot hear. Drivers are allowed hearing and sight impediments. Only one good eye is required by law.<br /><br />- IT IS NOT COMPREHENSIBLE THAT A PERSON'S ALLEGED FAILURE TO SIGNAL RESULTED IN ---DEATH-----. <br /><br />This officer had a control freak personality, as evidenced by his actions and words. Anyone, especially a woman, would be hesitant in getting out of a car with only a gun toting overbearing officer outside the car. <br /><br /> Donald Trump is no statesman, but even he observed: who gets out of the car for a traffic ticket? Just give her the ticket, walk away and let people live.<br /><br />The USA (land of the free) has more people in jail than any country in the world. We are wasting our major resource. - Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-88391558630038682482015-08-09T13:30:23.235-05:002015-08-09T13:30:23.235-05:00Anon 8/09/2015 10:24:00 AM,
I respectfully believ...Anon 8/09/2015 10:24:00 AM, <br />I respectfully believe you are mistaken. You can make any assumption about what you thought the officer's intentions were but lacking proof, you simply have no basis for claiming the arrest was illegal (and that is determined in court, not on the side of the roadway with a state trooper). Rodriguez is about TIME, as in, the extra time needed to obtain evidence for an additional offense when there is NO reasonable suspicion involved, in effect, a fishing expedition for an all new offense. I don't claim to be a cop or an attorney though I have some knowledge of each profession but Atwater v. City of Lago Vista clearly established that an officer could arrest for the moving violation alone just as Mimms before it (as well as Wilson) established the officer's authority to have someone step out of a vehicle. <br /><br />You can split hairs on minor issues but even being told to put out a cigarette is NOT a seizure as the officer isn't demanding the item, merely another of those small inconveniences that various court rulings have already held (including two I mentioned) we endure when stopped by the police. Had she complied, she could have picked it back up as she drove off happily to her new temporary job. Regardless, I'm not advocating the trooper was up for the Mr. Congeniality award, nor am I suggesting he deployed a best possible practices approach to the stop, merely that he was within his lawful authority there on the roadside. If Ms. Bland took exception to his orders, at least the orders given, she would have ample time to address them in court later where any legal issues could be resolved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-76944414250268310492015-08-09T11:00:51.875-05:002015-08-09T11:00:51.875-05:00The stupid woman got herself arrested and took her...The stupid woman got herself arrested and took her own life.<br />End of story. Kelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173684611275668044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68612560266942118252015-08-09T10:48:29.254-05:002015-08-09T10:48:29.254-05:00Furthermore, @ 1:07, if you are an officer or pros...Furthermore, @ 1:07, if you are an officer or prosecutor, please go back and read Rodriguez as you clearly missed something there. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-19126058735460658172015-08-09T10:47:20.686-05:002015-08-09T10:47:20.686-05:00Okay, I know some are not going to get these conc...Okay, I know some are not going to get these concepts still so I feel the need to elaborate. Let's think about reasonableness. Yes, there have been court decisions that say an officer may order someone out of a car on a traffic stop. The important point here is that does not give the officer the authority to arrest someone for failing to comply. There must be a crime committed and those court decisions do not make it a crime. THey merely address whether such an action is permissible under the 4th amendment's reasonableness standard. Now, why have courts found such an order to be reasonable? The answer is officer safety. So, in this instance if the officer was ordering Ms. Bland out of the vehicle for his or her safety, the order would be reasonable. It is clear from the video that he decided to arrest her and ordered her out of the car because she was being obstinate. There are no court decisions holding that the 4th amendment allows an officer to order a person out of a car because she has an attitude. Therefore, the order was not reasonable, not lawful, and was not a basis for arrest. I am also not aware of any court decision addressing the cigarette issue. However, those who have posted here have made arguments regarding officer safety. I tend to think these are mere excuses but, let's assume they may have some legitimacy. What is an officer permitted to do in such a situation? Well, assuming there is a legitimate safety concern, which I doubt, the courts have said the officer may make such an order. But, what happens when the person doesn't comply. THen I think we go to the use of force continuum. First, is the danger such that use of force is reasonable? Second, what level of force is reasonable? THose are questions I dont' want to debate here. The big point is, there is no authority to arrest in such a situation. Therefore, when the trooper told her she was under arrest while he was trying to pull her out of the car, he had no lawful reason to arrest her. He was making an illegal arrest. Now, you will have those who lack the intellectual ability to grasp these concepts who will go to the alleged assault. The point is he made the decision to arrest before she had committed any crime other than a minor traffic violation. Now, lets talk about the arrest for a traffic violation. Is that permissible? Yes. However, again, an arrest is a seizure under the 4th amendment and must be reasonable. Prior to her being mouthy, the trooper obviously felt there was no need to arrest her for the traffic violation. So, did her attitude change the reasonableness of arresting her? I don't think so. It is clear that, in the officers opinion, there was no need to arrest her for the traffic violation. He was arresting her based solely on her attitude and using the traffic violation as an excuse. I think that fails the reasonableness test. <br /><br />I sincerely hope that those posting on here claiming to be officers who think it is permissible to arrest someone for "disobeying a lawful order" are really not officers. If they are, they are out there making illegal arrest (that is unless they are directing traffic). <br /><br />Now, I will concede that, in some circumstances, the failure to obey an order could be construed as resisting arrest. However, none of the genius alleged officers posting on here have argued that. It appears to be the belief of some posting here that the failure to obey alone is justification for an arrest. That is simply not a legal or constitutional position. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-14662939330097151562015-08-09T10:24:49.104-05:002015-08-09T10:24:49.104-05:00Unfortunately, 1:07, you illustrate my point. You...Unfortunately, 1:07, you illustrate my point. You claim that the officer had a "legal right" to have her extinguish the cigarette and get her out of the car. The officer only has a "legal right" to do what the Constitution allows. A traffic stop is a seizure under the 4th amendment which means it must be conducted in a reasonable manner. You can't say this case or that case said this or that so that action is always permissible. Each and every action must comply with the 4th amendment reasonableness standard. If it doesn't it is illegal and unconstitutional, period. The view that you put forth misses the forest for the trees. <br /><br />Second, you need to take another look at Rodriguez. It says the opposite of what you claim.<br />Held: <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />2 RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES<br />Syllabus<br />1. Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop<br />in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield<br />against unreasonable seizures.<br />A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio,<br />392 U. S. 1, than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S.<br />323, 330. Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,”<br />which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the<br />stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407 and attend to related<br />safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to<br />the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—<br />completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated<br />investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson,<br />555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408<br />(dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond<br />the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing<br />a warning ticket, id., at 407. <br /><br />I think, in the future, because of the attitude by many officers that they can do whatever they want during a traffic stop, we will see more court decisions like Rodiguez limiting the scope of an officers actions. Again, it comes down to 4th amendment reasonableness. If you are extrapolating particular decisions to say an officer can take an action that is unreasonable under the circumstances, you are asking for trouble. <br /><br />The issue of the cigarette being a danger to the officer is an excuse that doesn't really hold water. There are many things that you COULD argue COULD present some remote chance of doing something. But, even assuming you're correct, where is the officer's authority to arrest either for refusing to put out the cigarette or refusing to get out of the car. I suppose you could say that, assuming the orders are reasonable under the 4th amendment, the officer may be justified in using force to gain compliance with the orders, but I still am not aware of any statute that permits an arrest for refusing to comply with an officers orders. So, the officer in this incident was making an unlawful arrest. Assuming the lady did assault him, which I think is questionable, prior to that he was making an unlawful arrest. THere is no authority which permits an officer to arrest a person for refusing to put out a cigarette or for refusing get out of a vehicle. If you beleive there is, please let me know. And, no, just because there may be case law that says an officer may take order a person to do something does not, by itself, provide authority to arrest a person for refusal. THere has to be a statute making that particular act or omission a criminal offense. Where is such a statute in this case?<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-21311586213467268722015-08-09T01:07:12.329-05:002015-08-09T01:07:12.329-05:00Anon 8/08/2015 01:38:00 PM, many have focused sole...Anon 8/08/2015 01:38:00 PM, many have focused solely on the lit cigarette, claiming it is not addressed as such, that the trooper had no right in regards to it, and that it was not a threat to his safety. Some of those making that claim are even credentialed lawyers, though I suspect they work with wills and probate or corporate law. SCOTUS effectively rendered the officer as the one in control of a traffic stop in cases such as Mimms, Hill, McCarthy, or Robinette, among others while cases like newly minted Rodriguez provide protections for the extension of a stop based on a complete lack of suspicion to get a drug dog out. <br /><br />Based on her behavior and the total circumstances, the trooper could easily articulate a belief to remove her from the car and remove the cigarette from her reach as a safety measure. If you've never been burned by one, you might not understand but the trooper has to hand her his citation to sign and get up close to her as a result. As such, it is reasonable to assume his control extends to the issue, or at very least makes it an issue for a later court to decide, not a self proclaimed activist on the side of the roadway who also did not think the trooper had a legal right to have her step out of the car. This doesn't mean DPS cannot implement a policy limiting either practice but as a legal matter, had he found a gun or something else as a result, I doubt very much a court would have excluded the evidence based on historical precedent. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-32419499056851852132015-08-08T16:32:03.971-05:002015-08-08T16:32:03.971-05:00Exactly because Sandra Bland lived for it. She abs...Exactly because Sandra Bland lived for it. She absolutely loved it.<br />About $7500.00 worth. Kelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173684611275668044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58429426431476894902015-08-08T15:16:14.043-05:002015-08-08T15:16:14.043-05:00When you fight with a pig you both get dirty - but...When you fight with a pig you both get dirty - but the pig likes it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-83438722619744728692015-08-08T14:41:19.770-05:002015-08-08T14:41:19.770-05:00Stop trying to be a wannabe internet lawyer.
She b...Stop trying to be a wannabe internet lawyer.<br />She broke the law so many times that she owed over $7500.00 in unpaid fines.<br />She regularly antagonized police because she thrived on turmoil.<br />She was a drama queen who wanted to be an activist but successfully FAILED at that too.<br />She's dead because her family wanted nothing to do with her and now the greedy bunch us trying to cash in on her death. The whole family are whacks. Kelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173684611275668044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-77954522809929061842015-08-08T14:36:12.305-05:002015-08-08T14:36:12.305-05:00You're an idiot.You're an idiot.<br />Kelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173684611275668044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-35403089204002243592015-08-08T14:06:35.345-05:002015-08-08T14:06:35.345-05:00Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701d (Vernon 1977) is ...Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701d (Vernon 1977) is an act entitled "Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways". Id. § 154. It is a comprehensive statute comprised of many sections having as its overall object or purpose the safety and regulation of traffic upon Texas highways. Section 21 of said statute provides that, except as otherwise specifically provided, this statute relates to the operation of vehicles upon highways. Section 23(a) of said statute provides:<br /><br />Below is the only statute I can find that makes it a crime to fail to obey a police officer and this one clearly applies to directing traffic. So, it appears to me that by refusing to put out her cigarette, Ms. Bland did not commit a crime.<br /><br />"No person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any peace officer invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic."<br />An offense under § 23(a) is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $1.00 nor more than $200.00. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 6701d, § 143 (Vernon 1977). The elements of the offense proscribed by § 23(a) are as follows:<br /><br />(1) A person<br />(2) willfully<br />741*741 (3) fails or refuses to comply with any lawful order or direction<br />(4) issued by any police officer who has authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-79830944383872203772015-08-08T14:05:21.107-05:002015-08-08T14:05:21.107-05:00A traffic stop is a seizure for the purposes of th...A traffic stop is a seizure for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment and article one, section nine of the Texas Constitution. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809 (1996); Johnson v. State, 912 S.W.2d 227, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Like all investigative detentions, a traffic stop must be justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified it in the first place. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1968). The detention must be temporary and last no longer than necessary to effectuate the purposes of the stop. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983); Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available. Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 245.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-55146966213970687272015-08-08T13:54:00.996-05:002015-08-08T13:54:00.996-05:00BTW - where is the statute that makes it a crime i...BTW - where is the statute that makes it a crime in Texas to fail to follow a police officer's order?<br /><br /><br />The reasonableness 188*188 of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment is determined "by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate government interests." Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 654 (1979).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-22508390008868498662015-08-08T13:45:47.238-05:002015-08-08T13:45:47.238-05:00"The makers of our Constitution . . . sought ..."The makers of our Constitution . . . sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (dissenting opinion).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-47099722102712683442015-08-08T13:41:45.224-05:002015-08-08T13:41:45.224-05:00A quick search doesn't reveal a single case wh...A quick search doesn't reveal a single case where the supreme court addressed the issue of extinguishing a cigarette.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-38430970959919176092015-08-08T13:38:38.560-05:002015-08-08T13:38:38.560-05:001. Please tell me the case name or cite where the ...1. Please tell me the case name or cite where the Supreme Court addressed an order to extinguish a cigarette? <br />2. What proof is there that she assaulted the officer? If she were still alive it would be her word against his, wouldn't it? I don't see any reason to think he is more credible than she would be so, how can you say she is guilty of that beyond a reasonable doubt? Oh, wait, you've already assumed guilt as you probably always do. <br />3. If you really want to get into a legal debate, stop pointing to things you think may be in case law somewhere and lets get down to the real issue. Regardless of specific instances of where a court may have found a particular thing to be one way or the other, the 4th amendment forbids UNREASONABLE SEIZURES. So, was it reasonable for this officer to attempt to forcibly remove her from her car, taze her, and throw her to the ground for failing to put out her cigarette? If the answer is no, you can talk about all the cases and talk about lawful orders all you want, the officer still acted illegally and violated her rights. THe Constitution trumps everything. Although, some only like to talk about the Constitution when it is convenient and other times want to ignore it. This illustrates the problem with people discussing these things who lack the intellectual ability to analyze the real legal issues involved. Sure, in some case, somewhere, a court may have said something was okay. However, you would have to look at the circumstances of that case to see if it was the same and look at the court's analysis of the 4th amendment reasonableness issue. The bottom line is a police officer making a traffic stop and/or arrest must act reasonably. This officer didn't. Therefore his actions were illegal and in violation of Ms. Blands rights. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-17888767724117451382015-08-07T21:01:06.076-05:002015-08-07T21:01:06.076-05:00How often do class C offenders assault an Officer?...How often do class C offenders assault an Officer?Kelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173684611275668044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58451462827889891942015-08-07T20:57:51.785-05:002015-08-07T20:57:51.785-05:00No she wasn't. You internet wannabe police are...No she wasn't. You internet wannabe police are annoying.<br />She violated a lawful order which leads to resisting arrest but then had to assault the Officer.<br />She was going to receive a warning before she violated the lawful order to extinguish her cigarette.<br />Pay attentionKelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173684611275668044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-88364231744998863102015-08-07T20:54:53.685-05:002015-08-07T20:54:53.685-05:00Yes they do. It's called a lawful order.
If so...Yes they do. It's called a lawful order.<br />If someone violates it like she did, she has resisted arrest.<br />I'm sure if you Google it, you'll see.<br />My ex is an Officer. <br />The Supreme Court ruled that an officer can ask for your cigarette to be extinguished.<br />It is a potential weapon and can also be used to try to mask the odor of alcohol and/or marijuana.Kelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173684611275668044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-70881123282321566932015-08-07T20:51:21.078-05:002015-08-07T20:51:21.078-05:00Amen! She violated his lawful order.
How about edu...Amen! She violated his lawful order.<br />How about educating the general public that violating a lawful order leads to resisting arrest?<br /><br />Kelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173684611275668044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-79942107339509435782015-08-07T20:49:21.857-05:002015-08-07T20:49:21.857-05:00Put out your cigarette is a lawful order which she...Put out your cigarette is a lawful order which she violated.<br />Violation of a lawful order is resisting arrest.<br />She was rude and mouthy and had she complied with the officer, she would have gone on to her dream job instead of losing it.<br />Her family refused to bail her out and they could have so what law does this incident deserve? <br />Kelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173684611275668044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-50492695791623652892015-08-07T20:43:41.503-05:002015-08-07T20:43:41.503-05:00Sandra Bland violated a lawful order not once but ...Sandra Bland violated a lawful order not once but twice. Then she assaults an Officer, so lets name a law after her? Insane. She was a repeat violator of the law owing more than $7500.00 in past violations. <br />Her own family refused to bail her out to teach her a lesson. She was trouble, always antagonizing police. Watch her "Sandy Speaks" videos, especially the one from 3/28/15.<br />The woman was emotionally disturbed.Kelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07173684611275668044noreply@blogger.com