I just saw the video on the police stop on the TX driver who committed suicide

Now they are saying the officer fudged on his police report....oh my.  The arrest was suppose to not occur until she was out of the car, yet he lied in his report.  No lawful arrest.  Total escalation and lack of training.   The experts on the show....."This arrest was unlawful".   One expert says the officer has committed a crime.....oh my Dreams.....how did Seaoat get this and the Mays case right from the git go.......is it because he is an arrogant dick......is it because he wears special glasses which allow him to see things others cannot see(Victoria Secret Dreams.....really), or is it because he has seen these situations a thousand times, and understands what you do not understand......I personally would vote on the glasses......that would really be cool for a dirty old man....oh I forgot.....a dirty mentally handicapped drugged out dirty old man.

Defective autopsy.....oh my....on live TV now they are stating they are F'ing up everything.......get the feds into this now.   Waller County sounds like they are over their heads.....what a mess.....but at least Dreams told us everything was good here and the Mays case.......hop in the Car and get to Texas and set these folks straight.

Where has Ghost gone?  I think he tried to convince me that this was a good arrest from the git go.....something like this....

If an Officer asks you to step out of the car .... you need to step out of the car, not cuss the Officer & pitch a fit.   S/he is under no obligation to tell you why right then & there.

So fricking wrong that it is scary.  The Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and it is not what you have posted.  I posted the correct standard under the Supreme Court case.....see if you can figure out what that is and why I have been right from the git go.......a lot of experts try to call me a crazy person, a drugged person, because I simply state the obvious to anybody who has a threshold of knowledge on the subject.....yet it is entertaining, that the sheep just make stuff up, and get indignant that citizens have rights which our forefathers risked hanging from a tree because of tyrants, yet the acceptance of the same by our expert sheep is entertaining, but there is nothing funny about the trend over the last thrity years.  This human being is dead because of an unlawful arrest.....shame on all the apologists.

Oh now it's a different story when you quote the paper. Remember when I quoted the paper in the May case and you said I was a liar? Furthermore, I never said anything about the arrest being bad. I said she kicked him. And furthermore than that you are FOS about the May case. You made it a race case and said the guy was appropriate when he friggin apologized. You are really are a nutcase and you make up stuff.

2seaoat wrote:Now they are saying the officer fudged on his police report....oh my.  The arrest was suppose to not occur until she was out of the car, yet he lied in his report.  No lawful arrest.  Total escalation and lack of training.   The experts on the show....."This arrest was unlawful".   One expert says the officer has committed a crime.....oh my Dreams.....how did Seaoat get this and the Mays case right from the git go.......is it because he is an arrogant dick......is it because he wears special glasses which allow him to see things others cannot see(Victoria Secret Dreams.....really), or is it because he has seen these situations a thousand times, and understands what you do not understand......I personally would vote on the glasses......that would really be cool for a dirty old man....oh I forgot.....a dirty mentally handicapped drugged out dirty old man.

You didn't get it, Oatie. You're friggin delusional.

I tried to bring race into it? Man, you are one twisted mother! You called everybody a racist who thought this guy was out of line. Don't post when you're high on your meds. You get everything twisted up.

2seaoat wrote:I am now watching the Last Word on MSNBC and the host said no legal authority in the entire United States called this a lawful arrest.....not me Dreams.....Everybody but one lone Alabama meter maid.......yes I am messing with you a bit, but do you ever stop and think that I called this a bad arrest from the git go, and you said it was a good arrest.......you are consistently wrong on these issues and you just start getting angry when concepts are explained, but you fail to understand our constitution and the rights which are protected under our constitution.......Again this has NOTHING to do with the race of citizens, and everything to do with unlawful arrests and violations of citizen's constitutional rights.   Like the host said....he makes a lane change like this lady made three or four times a day, and he has never heard of anything like this horror.

I never said it was a good arrest, Oatie. You made that up. Now here is where one of the times you made the May case racial and then you accused me of it. LOL!


"f you had said the PNJ had reported that Mr. Mays said he was out of line.......that would be the truth......and I am sure conceptually you will be unable to comprehend the difference.......it must be my drug stupor that allows me to see these visions, or maybe it is my shock therapy for being a nut......or maybe words matter, the truth matters, and you are simply wrong on this. I have no problem if people would have simply said that a citizen can protect their constitutional rights but do it politely, that is your opinion. My opinion is that the citizen showed restraint in light of this bad stop. So we disagree, but this whole racial thing and letters to Grover....hell the whole thread's title reeks of racism.....and the mob did react accordingly." Pg 12

Oh now it's a different story when you quote the paper. Remember when I quoted the paper in the May case and you said I was a liar? Furthermore, I never said anything about the arrest being bad. I said she kicked him. And furthermore than that you are FOS about the May case. You made it a race case and said the guy was appropriate when he friggin apologized. You are really are a nutcase and you make up stuff.

You need to revisit the video and become familiar when he arrested the driver.  My goodness.....I hate to keep doing this.....but it is appropriate......

I tried to bring race into it? Man, you are one twisted mother! You called everybody a racist who thought this guy was out of line. Don't post when you're high on your meds. You get everything twisted up.

I suppose you would be confused.  I understand completely why everything is all twisted up for you.  I did not create the racial thread.....Ghost did.  I from my very first post said this was about the constitution, but the mob proceeded to attack the commissioner in a racial manner as they participated in the lynch mob.......Now I am going to have to hurry back to the nuthouse, and get some more drugs......(have not taken a prescription pain pill in two months only IBUP because of the damage to my liver), and the best yet I must stop calling out blatant ignorance........I have EXPLAINED, but sadly some concepts are beyond the grasp of some......I think I got your meter maid cart all fired up.....Mr. Mays spoke the truth once......."It was a bad stop"........the lynch mob is something he is very familiar with......keep up the good work supporting tyranny.   Again tyrants are color blind.....your constitutional rights were fought for but meter maids across America are gathering and asking PLEASE take them back.

Uh... May never said "it was a bad stop". Still making up stuff but at least you admitted you were the one who was calling people racists. Not me,Oatie. Are we done now? Or are you going to keep dancing around trying to prove you were right when you weren't? Ad nauseum!

Dreams do you understand the concept of admission by omission?

He doesn't have to breath her cigarette smoke. He asked her to put it out. She refused. He asked her to get out of the car. She refused. She was not cooperative and then he ordered her out of the car. She then started calling him a pussy and fighting w/ him after he was handcuffing her and kicked him. And you say he escalated it?

Let's take your wrong conclusions one sentence at a time.   He does not have to breathe her cigarette smoke.....you are correct.  He can step back and talk to her without breathing the smoke.  She broke no law smoking in her car.  She had the right to refuse.  He asked her to get out of the car.(he has already admitted that he did this for her to sign the citation and not officer safety....this also was a lie)  With his admission he did not have a legal basis to ask her to get out of the car without her consent, and she was not under arrest at that point, and had not committed a criminal act but only an alleged minor traffic violation......so again, you neither understand the parameters of the Supreme court, but most important is your consistent omission that when she refused to put her cig out he placed her under arrest.......not as he put in his police report after he had removed her from the car and she allegedly kicked him.  He made an unlawful arrest.  By omission you have attempted to make this a lawful arrest, and then attack my sanity, misquote me, claim I am on drugs, but in the end it is simply an intelligence thing.......like the guy who wanted to take a selfie with a rattlesnake.....some cannot see all the consequences of their position, and when others see the consequences they must be crazy....yep.....same story, new chapter.

Seaoat, I know you're not a moron but sometimes I wonder about your ability to logically interpret things. There is no admission by omission. I referred to the escalation of the incident. Nothing more. I addressed the woman's behavior as I did in the May case. I never said anything about the legality of the arrest. Do you understand that?

2seaoat wrote:Dreams do you understand the concept of admission by omission?

He doesn't have to breath her cigarette smoke. He asked her to put it out. She refused. He asked her to get out of the car. She refused. She was not cooperative and then he ordered her out of the car. She then started calling him a pussy and fighting w/ him after he was handcuffing her and kicked him. And you say he escalated it?

Let's take your wrong conclusions one sentence at a time.   He does not have to breathe her cigarette smoke.....you are correct.  He can step back and talk to her without breathing the smoke.  She broke no law smoking in her car.  She had the right to refuse.  He asked her to get out of the car.(he has already admitted that he did this for her to sign the citation and not officer safety....this also was a lie)  With his admission he did not have a legal basis to ask her to get out of the car without her consent, and she was not under arrest at that point, and had not committed a criminal act but only an alleged minor traffic violation......so again, you neither understand the parameters of the Supreme court, but most important is your consistent omission that when she refused to put her cig out he placed her under arrest.......not as he put in his police report after he had removed her from the car and she allegedly kicked him.  He made an unlawful arrest.  By omission you have attempted to make this a lawful arrest, and then attack my sanity, misquote me, claim I am on drugs, but in the end it is simply an intelligence thing.......like the guy who wanted to take a selfie with a rattlesnake.....some cannot see all the consequences of their position, and when others see the consequences they must be crazy....yep.....same story, new chapter.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000003815285/what-was-legal-in-sandra-blands-arrest.html?rref=us&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&pgtype=article


Uh huh Seaoat. In the end you just simply FOS as usual.

http://www.mahaneylaw.com/files/the_law_of_traffic_stops.pdf



The core concept to any Terry based police-citizen encounter is that of objective reasonableness. More specifically, when dealing with automobiles on the highways, the analysis must be based on whether “the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.”

Without the key factor of “probable cause” that a traffic violation has occurred, police action to stop a vehicle is an invalid exercise of police authority and clearly falls into the area of an unlawful detention.


F. Vehicle stop – police initiated contactEx parte Betterton, 527 So.2d 747 (Ala. 1988)
A police officer’s approach and questioning of persons seated within a parked car does not constitute a seizure and requires neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause, and the officer may request but not order occupant to open door or roll down window. Without at least reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, officer may not order suspect out of car



Abner v. State 741 So. 2d 440 (Ala. Cr. App. 1998): Where the defendant was approached by a police officer and the officer later testified that he observed clear plastic bag sticking partly out of defendant’s right front pants pocket, and the sole reason for the subsequent search of the
defendant was the officer’s observing the plastic bag on the person of the
defendant, the Court held the police did not have probable cause to arrest him or to search him, and therefore, the subsequent seizure of controlled substances was illegal and must be suppressed. Analyzing the of Ex parte
Tucker
,
the Court held where there was no evidence of any prior illegal activity in the area; there was no evidence of any attempt to flee the police upon the officer’s approach; and the defendant made no attempt to secrete the plastic bag; taken together made the police officer’s intrusion into defendant’s pocket illegal and the subsequent seizure the product of an illegal search


While an officer may require a motorist to sit in a patrol car while the officer completes a ticket for a traffic offense, once the traffic offender signs the UTTC, the arresting officer must forthwith release him from custody. See,
§ 32 1-4(a). The officer may further detain the driver only if he has probable cause to arrest the driver for some other non-traffic offense, or as a reasonable suspicion of the driver’s involvement in some other criminal activity justifying further detention for investigatory purposes under Terry v.
Ohio. A reasonable suspicion exists only if the officer has specific, particularized, and articulable reasons indicating that the person stopped may be involved in criminal activity.

Gant was arrested
by Tucson, Arizona police
for driving with a suspended license. Gant was
handcuffed and secured in the back of a patrol car. With several officers at the scene, officers
searched Gantt’s vehicle and found cocaine in Gant’s car during the “search incident to arrest.” Gant filed a motion tosuppress in the state court which was granted, and the state appealed.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle following an arrest is permitted: “only if
[1] the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or [2] it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.”

Hagood v. Town of Town Creek, 628 So.2d 1057 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993)--
[Improperly Conducted Roadblock]
While license checks, sobriety checkpoints, and roadblocks are not on their face unconstitutional, a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when the vehicle is stopped in connection with such an operation.A roadblock is a warrantless seizure and is presumed invalid. Therefore, the prosecution has the burden of proving its overall reasonableness and validity

In Tx according to the law you can arrest on a failure to use a turn signal. At least that's what the video said and you can request them to get out of the car.

T.......I am honestly impressed.  You actually have cited the correct Supreme Court cases and are dead cinch correct.  Absent the officers own admissions and lies in his police report, this might be more difficult to analyze.  How many times do you remember a traffic stop resulting in an officer being put on administrative leave for his conduct?  There is a dead woman about to be buried, if the comedy of errors in Texas ever stops, and the apologists for bad police behavior in the end are incapable of understanding those Supreme Court Cases which recognize the erosion of our fourth amendment rights under the constitution.

He asked her to get out of the car which he can do and she refused.

Poor Dreams......I will let T explain, he actually has found the relevant cases, and like a petulant child melting down, I seem to only encourage you to say dumber things.  I am most impressed with T referencing Gant which is not about seizure of the person under the fourth amendment, but about a search under the  fourth amendment in regard to a minor traffic stop.  The Dicta however in Gant is dead cinch relevant to this stop in TX.  Gant has changed the landscape of traffic stops as the Supreme Court has for years now been clamping down on warrantless abuses by police on minor traffic stops.   Again, I am honestly impressed T.

He's not on admin.leave according to another article. He is on desk duty. They are handling the investigation like a murder investigation. One of T's cases has absolutely nothing to do w/ this case and the others are questionable.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.mahaneylaw.com/files/the_law_of_traffic_stops.pdf



The core concept to any Terry based police-citizen encounter is that of objective reasonableness. More specifically, when dealing with automobiles on the highways, the analysis must be based on whether “the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.”

Without the key factor of “probable cause” that a traffic violation has occurred, police action to stop a vehicle is an invalid exercise of police authority and clearly falls into the area of an unlawful detention.


F. Vehicle stop – police initiated contactEx parte Betterton, 527 So.2d 747 (Ala. 1988)
A police officer’s approach and questioning of persons seated within a parked car does not constitute a seizure and requires neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause, and the officer may request but not order occupant to open door or roll down window. Without at least reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, officer may not order suspect out of car



Abner v. State 741 So. 2d 440 (Ala. Cr. App. 1998): Where the defendant was approached by a police officer and the officer later testified that he observed clear plastic bag sticking partly out of defendant’s right front pants pocket, and the sole reason for the subsequent search of the
defendant was the officer’s observing the plastic bag on the person of the
defendant, the Court held the police did not have probable cause to arrest him or to search him, and therefore, the subsequent seizure of controlled substances was illegal and must be suppressed. Analyzing the of Ex parte
Tucker
,
the Court held where there was no evidence of any prior illegal activity in the area; there was no evidence of any attempt to flee the police upon the officer’s approach; and the defendant made no attempt to secrete the plastic bag; taken together made the police officer’s intrusion into defendant’s pocket illegal and the subsequent seizure the product of an illegal search


While an officer may require a motorist to sit in a patrol car while the officer completes a ticket for a traffic offense, once the traffic offender signs the UTTC, the arresting officer must forthwith release him from custody. See,
§ 32 1-4(a). The officer may further detain the driver only if he has probable cause to arrest the driver for some other non-traffic offense, or as a reasonable suspicion of the driver’s involvement in some other criminal activity justifying further detention for investigatory purposes under Terry v.
Ohio. A reasonable suspicion exists only if the officer has specific, particularized, and articulable reasons indicating that the person stopped may be involved in criminal activity.

This has nothing to do w/ the incident except confirm the officer had probable cause to pull her over and it says he may require the motorist to sit in the police car. She refused.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Hagood v. Town of Town Creek, 628 So.2d 1057 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993)--
[Improperly Conducted Roadblock]
While license checks, sobriety checkpoints, and roadblocks are not on their face unconstitutional, a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when the vehicle is stopped in connection with such an operation.A roadblock is a warrantless seizure and is presumed invalid. Therefore, the prosecution has the burden of proving its overall reasonableness and validity

Totally unrelated.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Gant was arrested
by Tucson, Arizona police
for driving with a suspended license. Gant was
handcuffed and secured in the back of a patrol car. With several officers at the scene, officers
searched Gantt’s vehicle and found cocaine in Gant’s car during the “search incident to arrest.” Gant filed a motion tosuppress in the state court which was granted, and the state appealed.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle following an arrest is permitted: “only if
[1] the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or [2] it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.”

This was totally a waste of time.

This was totally a waste of time.

So Gant was a total waste of time.  You make me *****CREEPY GRIN*****, your ignorance is only matched by your determination to open your mouth and prove you are a fool........Gant a waste of time....

How in the hell is Gant related to this case? We're not talking about an illegal search and seizure.