Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Sandra Bland Arrest: Another Lesson in Non-Compliance

    Sandra Bland Arrest: Another Lesson in Non-Compliance

    Arguments about legal rights are best conducted in court, not at roadside

    So there’s another notable arrest in the news, that of black woman Sandra Bland by white Texas patrol officer, and thus we have yet another “teachable moment” in non-compliance to lawful police orders. (Note that I address here only Bland’s arrest–I’ve no particular insight into her death three days later while in custody.  Also, I limit my points to the issue of legality, as opposed to procedure or policy.)

    Thanks to the officer’s dash-cam, almost all of the interaction between him and Bland is captured on video.  If you haven’t seen it, here it is:

    Now that is a free lesson in how not to act during a traffic stop if you don’t want to get yourself arrested.

    As usual, there’s a considerable amount of outrage being expressed by people who possess a very limited practical and theoretical understanding of the laws and dynamics governing arrest.

    First, there’s the stop.  As discussed at length in the context of the Freddie Gray arrest, as well as the McKinney pool arrest, an officer requires some reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct in order to stop someone.

    In the case of Bland, the “reasonable suspicion” is actually a certainty–she committed a moving violation while driving, and never herself contests this violation.  Thus there is no question that the officer had the authority to stop Bland. The relevant US Supreme Court decision on this issue is Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (US Supreme Court 1968).

    Second, there’s the request (order?) for Bland to put out her cigarette and (after she refused to do so) order to her to step out of the vehicle.  I’ve read many objections to both of these, including many claims that they were unlawful conduct by the officer.

    Nonsense.

    Once the officer has made a lawful stop he is permitted to take whatever steps may be reasonably necessary to ensure the safety of himself, the suspect, and the general public while the stop is taking place.  This includes asking the driver of a stopped vehicle to step out of the vehicle, and would even authorize the officer to handcuff the suspect during the duration of the stop. The relevant US Supreme Court decision on this issue is Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (US Supreme Court 1977).

    The fact that officers making a traffic stop rarely take these additional cumbersome steps does not change the fact that they have the authority to do so.

    In the case of the request (order?) that Bland extinguish her cigarette, the request (order?) was consistent with officer safety, as a lit cigarette is a potential weapon.  (If you don’t believe me, go ahead and light one up and press it against your skin.  If that’s an unattractive option, ask to see my cigarette burn scar should we ever meet up.)

    In the case of asking Bland to exit the vehicle, that again was consistent with officer safety, and perfectly acceptable law enforcement doctrine, as it separates the suspect from any weapons they may have concealed in an immediately accessible place inside the vehicle. Indeed, the officer is also permitted to search those easily accessible areas of the car for a prospective weapon, with no requirement for a search warrant.

    The moment Bland refused to comply with the officer’s lawful order to exit the vehicle, the officer had the legal authority to use reasonable force to compel her compliance.

    In this case, the officer moved incrementally up the use-of-force continuum, consistent with the duration and intensity of Bland’s non-compliance, from simple verbal commands, to increasingly strident verbal commands, to warning of imminent non-deadly force, to threatening non-deadly force, to use of non-deadly force, to handcuffing and restraining the violently non-compliant suspect, and then (I’m speculating based on audio) using routine (albeit definitely painful) handcuff-control techniques on Bland as she continues to be non-compliant.

    Bland, in turn, engages in explicitly criminal conduct in resisting the lawful arrest and committing a simple assault/battery on a law enforcement officer (e.g., kicking him).

    It’s worth keeping in mind that at any instant the use of force against Bland would have discontinued had she simply complied with the officer’s lawful orders. However much force was used on her ,on these facts that’s on her.  Once Bland became violently non-compliant there was no scenario under which she was simply going to be sent on about her day with a warning.

    There has already been some learned pondering on when and whether various statements by a police officer constitute a mere request, a lawful order, or an unlawful order–one such I’ve seen is a very good blog post by law professor Orin Kerr over at the always excellent Volokh Conspiracy:  The law of the Sandra Bland traffic stop.

    The legal issues Professor Kerr explores are important ones, and he approaches them with a very high degree of insight and knowledge.

    Nevertheless, as a simple practical matter such questions of law are best decided in a court room, after the stop is long over, not on the side of the road while the stop is taking place.

    Few police are themselves lawyers, much less expert law professors steeped in Constitutional law and criminal procedure.  Those they pull over are likely to know even less about the actual laws governing stops and arrests than does the officer, and in any case the officer did not pull them over to receive a law lecture from them.

    If you find yourself struggling to choose whether to politely comply with an officer’s requests/orders at a traffic stop and perhaps pursue legal action afterwards on the one hand, or alternatively to be violently non-compliant with those requests/orders while the stop is taking place on the other, I humbly suggest that the former option will prove the less painful and disruptive.

    –-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


    Attorney Andrew Branca and his firm Law of Self Defense have been providing internationally-recognized expertise in American self-defense law for almost 20 years in the form of blogging, books, live seminars & online training (both accredited for CLE), public speaking engagements, and individualized legal consultation.
    “Law of Self Defense, 2nd Ed.” / Seminars / Seminar Slides / Twitter / Facebook / Youtube

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    I’m sorry folks, but my grandfather was a cop – and then Chief of Police – in a small town in the rural midwest and I cannot watch this video without being absolutely outraged by the behavior of this cop. This policeman’s behavior is utterly and completely disgraceful.

    For starters…Yes it is true that this woman didn’t make a complete stop at the stop sign. And yes, she failed to signal when she was moving over so the officer (or any slower traffic) could pass her. Neither of those offenses should have – under these circumstances – led to her arrest.

    Having said that, this cop’s decision to pull her over is ridiculous and is a textbook example of a cop looking to exercise his petty authority over someone weaker than him to stroke his own ego.

    This cop should have either followed for a few blocks and then driven away or written her a simple ticket for failing to stop at the sign. But pulling her over for failure to signal is the prototypical “pretext” stop. This kind of thing happens ALL THE TIME and has happened to me more times than I can count. In this case, the streets were practically empty. She represented absolutely no threat or danger to anyone around her. Even while following her the cop could see she was obeying the speed limit and that she was stopped at the light.

    And once he pull her over and gets her license, etc., *HE* is the one who asks her what’s wrong. He starts the conversation and she has the guts to tell him that she thinks it’s BS that’s she’s getting a ticket for failure to signal. And you know what, SHE’S RIGHT. And not only that, it’s her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to express her opinion. And, the cop ASKED HER. And what the cop does next doesn’t “smack of” or “seem like” a retaliatory move, it is a DELIBERATELY PROVOCATIVE move designed to escalate the situation so the cop can maneuver the driver into a position where he can then exercise physical authority over her. PERIOD. END OF STORY. He has no right or authority to ask her to put out her cigarette. She presents no threat to him, she’s in her car, she’s made no threatening moves.

    Once she tells him no, the cop knows he’s got her exactly where he wants her – and he starts his endgame to physically dominate her. She is ABSOLUTELY right that she hasn’t committed an offense for which she can be arrested and that she’s done nothing else to merit an arrest. She is ABSOLUTELY right that the cop can’t ask her to get out of the car because HE HAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ASK HER TO GET OUT OF HER CAR. Everything that follows his unlawful demand to exit the vehicle is a violation of her Constitutional rights as an American citizen. PERIOD.

    I sincerely hope this woman’s family sues the ever-living hell out of the city and that this cop is never allowed to join a police force ever again. Cops have tough jobs – and most cops are fine, upstanding people – but their jobs are made ever harder by egotistical thugs like this jackhole.


       
       0 
       
       0
      bvw in reply to LCP. | July 30, 2015 at 9:03 pm

      The great majority of people and that includes cops are fine upstanding people. But it’s not fine for people to be trained to be sheep by those who advocate not stating what you believe your rights to be to another citizen. By indemnifying cops, just like indemnifying administrative bureaucrats, and elected politicians — we assure that the most corrupt and brutal will join their ranks, and once established in those indemnified and sometimes even vainly glorified ranks — their bully dispositions overtake the peaceable and humble.

      In time the whole institution is a institutional bully, and so to every cog and spindle in it. It’s not different than the IRS, the EPA and their state equivalents.

      How does one stay a good citizen is such a time? It ain’t easy. If the TSA’s daily sexual molestation of millions each week tells us anything, is that there are FEW good citizens willing to stand up to institutionalized bullying. The vigilance our founders said would be needed, the eternal vigilance against threats foreign and domestic has been horridly and wholly breached.

      Still, as Justice Thomas said in the the dissent to the awful homosexual marriage dicta —
      “Human dignity can not be taken away by government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. … The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

      Remember your dignity! It is from our Creator, no one less than He can take it away. Let no man try to take another’s away, and do not stand by while the dignity of others is assaulted. Guard you own!

      That is what being a “sovereign citizen” means to me.

      It is why I loathe the indignity too many automobile age policing habits have assaulted us all with. From stops for broken taillights, lack of front plate, whatever we have gotten, sadly, to the abuses suffered by the TSA when we fly, or the IRS should we donate to a Tea Party group. or in some states in their modern vicious temper — when we refuse to bake a cake for a “wedding” that celebrates a human perversion.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend