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

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

You will probably not be able to comprehend why T did such a good job citing Gant, but start by reading the case in its entirety.  I did immediately when the Supreme Court made the ruling and have read it since as it has become the centerpiece of the attack on warrantless arrests and searches under the fourth amendment.   If you want me to extend to you the respect I do any other areas, please read it and then post why you do not understand the trend to limit exceptions to the fourth amendment.   An intelligent conversation cannot be between those who have read and understand Supreme Court cases, and those who have not read the case and seek to cut and paste.  Read all the dissents, and then when you are done we might actually have an intelligent informed conversation, but I have little use for ignorance and foolishness.  Read the case.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sandra-bland-arrest-experts-20150722-story.html#page=1


"Ed Obayashi, a sheriff's deputy in Northern California and attorney who advises several sheriff's departments, said the initial stop and interaction comply with case law dealing with police powers to detain a person. But, he said, events take a negative turn after Encinia comments to Bland that she seems irritated because she was pulled over and then asked her to put out her cigarette.

“The officer here acts very appropriately up until the time he says can you put out that cigarette and she asks why she cannot smoke in her car,” Obayashi said. “He then says, ‘I need you to step out of your car.’ Under Supreme Court doctrine he has the right to tell her to step out of the car. But then, as she refuses and he struggles to get her out of the vehicle, he threatens her with a Taser."



If you listen to Seaoat he'll get you arrested. He had the right to tell her to step out of the car. Now he could have handled it better by not yelling at her, no doubt but all this BS Oatie is saying just goes to show he knows squat about what's legal and not legal. Posting case law that has nothing to to w/ this case is absurd.

2seaoat wrote:How in the hell is Gant related to this case? We're not talking about an illegal search and seizure.

You will probably not be able to comprehend why T did such a good job citing Gant, but start by reading the case in its entirety.  I did immediately when the Supreme Court made the ruling and have read it since as it has become the centerpiece of the attack on warrantless arrests and searches under the fourth amendment.   If you want me to extend to you the respect I do any other areas, please read it and then post why you do not understand the trend to limit exceptions to the fourth amendment.   An intelligent conversation cannot be between those who have read and understand Supreme Court cases, and those who have not read the case and seek to cut and paste.  Read all the dissents, and then when you are done we might actually have an intelligent informed conversation, but I have little use for ignorance and foolishness.  Read the case.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html

I'm not going to read the case because it had nothing to do w/ what happened.It's not about searches and seizures. It's about a lawful command and asking the defendant to get out of the car.

Retired Los Angeles Police Capt. Greg Meyer said Bland's behavior led to the result.

“Officers have complete discretion to control the movements of the violator, including making them get out the car,” he said.

Meyer said it is standard practice to have someone put out their cigarette.
Jail video points to why Sandra Bland's family says her death is a mystery
Jail video points to why Sandra Bland's family says her death is a mystery

“No one, including a police officer, wants to get a burning cigarette jammed into their face or eye; it’s basic procedure,” he said. “The officer asked politely if she would mind putting out her cigarette. The violator then raised her voice, actively resisted multiple lawful directions to get out of the car. The officer requested a backup officer to respond. The officer raised his voice several times in what turned out to be a futile effort to overcome that resistance.”

In hindsight, Meyer said, it may have been better to wait for backup. “The lady seemed committed to her resistance to lawful detention and arrest, so the presence of a backup unit might not have made much difference,” he said.

“This is yet another case of someone who chooses to illegally resist the directions of a police officer, thus escalating the situation, “ he said.

Under Supreme Court doctrine he has the right to tell her to step out of the car.


If he meets the criteria of a warrantless seizure under the Supreme Court guidelines, which clearly by the officer's own admissions it does not meet that standard.  Now if you read Gant.......I realize you are limited in your ability to understand concepts, but try this simple dicta from Gant.....

Although it appears that the State’s reading of Belton has been widely taught in police academies and that law enforcement officers have relied on the rule in conducting vehicle searches during the past 28 years,¹¹ many of these searches were not justified by the reasons underlying the Chimel exception. Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated as a result. The fact that the law enforcement community may view the State’s version of the Belton rule as an entitlement does not establish the sort of reliance interest that could outweigh the countervailing interest that all individuals share in having their constitutional rights fully protected. If it is clear that a practice is unlawful, individuals’ interest in its discontinuance clearly outweighs any law enforcement “entitlement” to its persistence.

You are foolish talking about things you simply do not have the training or experience to voice an informed opinion.  Your desperate attempts to not look foolish by cutting and pasting so called authorities is good entertainment, but it is so bone chilling stupid, that I get sad you are unable to distinguish your limitations from this fantasy that you understand principles of law and the constitution in America......it reminds me of what the officer said in Gant.....

When asked at the suppression hearing why the search was conducted, Officer Griffith responded: “Because the law says we can do it.”
Meter maids and police officers telling the Supreme Court what the law is.....too much fun.  You are clueless as usual.

Meyer said it is standard practice to have someone put out their cigarette.

There is no violation of any law to smoke in your car.   An officer can ask you to leave a vehicle where probable cause is present for an arrest and the officers physical safety gives an exception under the fourth amendment warrant requirement.   Those were not the facts in this case by the officers own admissions, and somebody saying that they can seize a person and tell them to stop doing a lawful act in their vehicle is laughable.......sorry try again with something relevant to this case.  It was an unlawful arrest because she refused to put out her cigarette.....and having one department say they will violate a person's constitutional rights because they are going to be attacked by a cigarette......the exception for officer safety fortunately has been clearly outlined in Gant, and the reasonableness test controls.......too funny you have not even read Gant......it is hard to discuss something with a fool who cuts and pastes the very things which confirm this was an unlawful arrest.

WTF are you talking about? You keep posting shit about searches and seizures when the issue was telling her to get out of the car. It was a lawful order. No search and seizure shit. Jesus Christ!

Vikingwoman wrote:WTF are you talking about? You keep posting shit about searches and seizures when the issue was telling her to get out of the car. It was a lawful order.

No. It wasn't. That is sorta the point here.

No. It wasn't. That is sorta the point here.

I would copy and paste the fourth amendment, but why bother.....she has proven she is incapable of high level conceptualization and trying to explain a case she has not read, is incapable of understanding, and is at a mental roadblock to understand that the protections given under a search under the fourth amendment equally apply to a seizure of a person.  I get sad sometimes about the difficulties she has and how angry she gets when she is intelligent and insightful on other subjects.  She lacks education and training in this area, but refuses to read or try to understand what without a doubt are difficult concepts for average intelligent people to comprehend, and they need it to be boiled down to black letter law with well defined parameters, but that is not how constitutional law works.   She just gets angry like a frustrated petulant child who thinks someone is being unfair with them.

boards of FL wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:WTF are you talking about? You keep posting shit about searches and seizures when the issue was telling her to get out of the car. It was a lawful order.

No.  It wasn't.  That is sorta the point here.

“The officer here acts very appropriately up until the time he says can you put out that cigarette and she asks why she cannot smoke in her car,” Obayashi said. “He then says, ‘I need you to step out of your car.’ Under Supreme Court doctrine he has the right to tell her to step out of the car. But then, as she refuses and he struggles to get her out of the vehicle, he threatens her with a Taser."

From a California lawyer.I guess you'll all know better than he.

From a California lawyer.I guess you'll all know better than he.

No, but the Supreme Court does.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the vehicle pending completion of the stop. Already, under a 1977 Supreme Court ruling (Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106), you had the right to arbitrarily order a driver out of a vehicle, in the interest of officer safety.

The same "weighty" concern for your safety is present regarding passengers, the Court declared. "Indeed, the danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car."

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1287043-Supreme-Court-say-officers-can-control-passengers-on-traffic-stops/

Why do you persist in being stupid.  Do you agree the officer verbally told his supervisor that he was asking the driver to leave the vehicle to sign the citation?  Do you understand that this explanation forecloses your irrelevant attempts to make this about officer safety which can be a reasonable exception to the fourth amendment protections.  Do you understand that the very purpose of Gant was to tell this so called scholars that officers no longer have carte blanche use of officer safety exception to avoid citizen protections under the fourth amendment and goes so far as to explicitly state what is being taught by law enforcement is incorrect and they were correcting these misconceptions.   Apply the facts and the law in a logical and correct manner and you might be able to carry on an intelligent conversation, but you simply are not well read, and I think the petulant child who is having a tantrum is exactly what happens when your misconceptions are corrected.

Do you understand that you're a friggin idiot who can't understand rulings? It doesn't have to be officer safety,duncehead.

"Dissenting justices said that the ruling takes away the privacy protections of tens of millions of innocent passengers. The 4th Amendment bans "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government, and in years past, the court regularly said that officers needed a "particularized suspicion" before invading a person's privacy.

But more recently, the court under Rehnquist has upheld broad and routine searches by police even in instances where officers have no reason to suspect that an individual did anything wrong.

Wednesday's ruling does not say that police officers must or should order passengers out of cars, only that the decision to do so lies entirely with them."

http://articles.latimes.com/1997-02-20/news/mn-30695_1_police-officers

Do you understand that you're a friggin idiot who can't understand rulings?

I cannot stop giggling.  I showed some of your posts to someone who is equally knowledgeable and got the response....."is she for real."  This is always so much fun for me.  You have admitted repeatedly on this thread you do not understand the relevancy of Gant, and then quote a case which preceded the Gant Supreme Court case by fifteen years and are qualified in Gant.  You are a hoot.  You think your ad hoc jambalaya is coherent.....it is not......and yes.....one of us is an idiot on these subjects.......but you are going to have one of those Chrissy inspired tantrums soon, but before you do....take a half day and read Gant very slowly.....get a dictionary to help you......and then tell me why this is so funny.

Who cares who you showed it to,Oatie. He had the right to order her out of the car. The Supreme Court said so and you are FOS. End of story. Stop giving people bad legal advice and trying to be a lawyer. You are far from it.

Turn on your TV Dreams.....the SA has just assigned a prosecutor to follow up on the prosecution of the officer.  I called this right from the git go not by luck or cutting and pasting nonsense.....I always leave that to you......but the SA just clearly said that the officer did not follow department rules, and he concurred, but he would not let the female prosecutor talk to the media.....by golly do you think you can figure that one out.....you are a hoot.  This woman died by a lying out of control unfit officer who might as well of taken a gun and shot her when she refused to put her cigarette out, but you are entertaining when you get worked up and as usual totally incoherent.

Oh bullshit,Oatie! Not following department rules is not a crime. Neither is not following the courtesy rules. I haven't even read the article but I can tell you now the prosecutor is not assigned because of the officer. he had nothing to do w/ her killing herself.

So now back to the issue. Did he have the right to order her out of the car?

Well here's another article from a CNN expert and lawyer. The officer was well within his right to order her out of the car.You have repeatedly made stupid statements and posted useless rulings to the contrary.Now whether he violated department rules is another story but you've been consistently wrong on this issue.You have no business interpreting court rulings. Her death was a suicide.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/cevallos-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/index.html

Expert lawyers.....random cases......not a clue.....The DA assigned an assistant DA to explore criminal charges on the arrest.   The officer lied and filed a false police report covering up the unlawful arrest.   It should not take longer than a week to get an answer, but when he introduced the two who were handling the suicide, he said they will talk with the media, but the one assigned to the arrest will NOT be talking to the media........MSNBC covered the DA's announcement live......you do not bring criminal charges against dead people Dreams.  The officer is done.  You do not assign a DA to a traffic stop unless the obvious is in play.....an unlawful arrest which sadly was not necessary, and then lying on a police report which is a felony in TX.

I don't know if he lied or not but this is typical Seaoat deflecting the original issue when wrong. He did have the right to ask her to step out of the car. Are you still disputing that?

"she was arrogant from the beginning"....whoops

You can't make someone get out of the car because she's smoking a cigarette...

Officer is trying to pick a fight with her....

Dreams is the bald white guy....

The officer baited her.....

I am the bald white guy but I also agree the officer could have handled it better regarding the yelling. She was out of line baiting the officer and calling him names. As I said before during a stop is not the time to get testy or challenge the officer. Seaoat immediately took the defense this was all illegal and the cop was at fault and encourages people to assert themselves. That's dumb for someone who prides themselves on legal procedures. They both share the responsibility in this case.