Posted on 12/08/2005 12:01:42 PM PST by JTN
NOBLESVILLE, Ind. (AP) - A Hamilton County sheriff's deputy faces a lawsuit for using a Taser on a woman who refused to put down her cell phone after she was stopped on suspicion of drunken driving.
Jennifer Marshall says she was trying to phone her lawyer when Deputy Greg Lockhart pressed the stun gun to her arm as another deputy held her.
Police contend Marshall refused to drop the cell phone after Lockhart warned her she would have to go to jail if she did not submit to a blood test.
Hamilton County Sheriff Doug Carter says Lockhart followed department policy and the lawsuit is without merit.
A video camera in the police car recorded the arrest outside a convenience store in Fishers.
I am an officer (part time) in a small, rural GA town. I have not yet seen the video, but I will. From what I have read here, if the officer used a taser AFTER the subject was cuffed, he should be subject to diciplinary action.
I am an LEO who has, in the past, filed charges against other officers for various crimes and infractions, and will do so again in the future if necessary.
One bad cop gives all of us a black eye.
Hmmmm.....
After viewing the little piece of video available at Indystar, and unable to determine when the subject was cuffed vs when the subject was tased, I am willing to leave the determination of appropriateness of the action for the civil jury to decide.
However, in this situation, with two large officers and one little female subject, I can see no reason for her to be tased. I have had numerous suspects curse me, threaten me, make an arrest difficult for me, etc. The lady was NOT fighting or stuggling much at all - the two officers should have been able to restrain her w/o resorting to the use of a taser.
However, having said THAT, I'd rather be tased than hit with a nightstick.
Just to note. While the officers had Marshall pinned against her car, they had not yet placed her in cuffs.
Thanks for your response. For some reason, that last comment you made hadn't come up yet when I made my last post.
It's under more control than hererunning around completely unconstrained. It's not under control.
It's the officers job to derermine if she is intoxicated and if necessary arrest her.
The had determined that they had probable cause to require a blood test. The syspect was being uncooperative and had already wasted a considerable amount of the time they have from when they pull her over to when she must be tested.
They have to put her in cuffs and put her in the car.
When she was "pinned" against the trunk, she was still struggling, she was still resisting arrest, she was still not cooperating.
The situation was NOT under control. You're blinding yourself to the fact because you want to haing on to you're image of these cops as thugs.
So how do you suggest they go from the situation where she is pinned against the car and still resisting to the state where she is in the back of the cruiser and on her way to the hospital for a blood test?
Tell me what you would have the officers do, but keep in mind that just keeping her pinned there until she calms down and sobers up is letting her get away with a crime by being uncooperative.
How is your way safer for the woman than a short shock that while it's painful, does no real and lasting harm?
Such actions have been held to be unreasonable under the law over and over and over again.
She can refuse to take the blood test, but she is basically admitting guilt at that point. She can go along with the officers and take the tests and have her lawyer try and get the test thrown out after the fact.
She cannot disobey the lawful orders of a police officer. The police officers do not have the luxury of stopping and letting every suspect have a chat with someone they claim is their lawyer before proceeding.
Requiring that officers stop and wait while suspect call their lawyers to determine if they should comply with officers makes law enforcement unworkable.
She was physically fighting with officers performing their official duties in a legal manner. She was preventing them from performing their investigation into if she was legally intoxicated.
You don't have a right to disobey lawful orders of police officers just because you're drunk and you don't want to comply.
1. You don't know that, as pointed out in earlier posts.
The blood test showed her blood alcahol level to be 0.10%. SHe was changed and convicted of being over the legal limit of 0.08%.
We do know that. The evidence shows that, and she was convicted of it by a jury.
The officers were not sure of that at the time, however they felt they had probable cause to require a test, and the judge apparantly agreed because the evidence wasn't thrown out.
2. This is irrelevant. A police officer's job is not to punish, it is to apprehend.
I completely agree that a police officer's job is to apprehend and not punish.
These officers only used force when she resisted their lawful orders. They stopped using force when the suspect was no longer resisting or at lease when force was no longer resisting. Sounds like apprehending to me so far.
The remaining question is if the level of force was appropriate. Was it needed to apprehend her, or was it punitive.
The suspect suffered no real damage from the incident. A TASER was used to force her compliance, but when she complied they quit using it. Could she have possible been restrained without using the TASER. Quite possibly, but she could have also possibly suffered more through those otehr methods.
The level of force was reasonable to get a resisting suspect to comply. Again, she wanted to call a lawyer before having blood forcibly taken from her. You have a pretty low standard for what qualifies as "uncooperative."
What are you basing your version of her being cooperative on?
When the video clip starts the situation has obviously already progressed to a confrontation. We don't know from the video exactly what happened before that. We do know that they had already performed physical sobriety tests. We know that they had attempted to give her a breath tests.
This was obviously not the beginning of the confrontation.
However, since you seem to be big on claiming that the officers can't assume things, why would they assume that she is trying to call her lawyer? She just says that she needs to make one phonecall first and that she deserves that.
She deserves to be treated with respect. However the officers seemed to be trying to do that, but were getting exasperated with her being uncooperative.
It's been determined by the courts time and time again that you don't have the right to disobey the officers orders in a situation like this and do what you want. You comply, and fight it out in court after the fact.
I don't see how two police officers, each of whom is twice the size of the suspect, would have to use "overwhelming force" to subdue her.
People get hurt resisting the police all the time. To force her to submit physically, they have to overwhelm her resistence. At the point where you say she was undercontrol, she still had her phone in her hand and was continuing to try and talk on it. That doesn't sound like a situation where they were going to be able to easily get her in the cuffs and in the cruiser.
You treat TASERs like some horrible torture device. The way they disable you is painful, but it doesn't cause harm or even pain that lasts beyone a few moments.
I wouldn't want to be tased. I wouldn't want to have my arms bruised, my muscles and tendons strained and get bounced off the pavement while they tried to cuff me either.
However, my solution is to not resist arrest. My solution to protect my rights is to obey the lawful orders of the officers, to comply with the test, to tell the officers nothing, and call my lawyer as soon as I can do so.
The fact that she was resisting arrest is irrelevant? That makes a lot of sense.
Yeah they could have used other techniques then she would be crying about that.
Cops don't draw blood on people in a parking lot. If they have probable cause they can get a search warrant for blood and have a physician do it.
Her flu medication would have nothing to do with her blood alcohol. Even if it did, if your son or daughter was killed by a drunk driver would it really make a difference what got her drunk.
Your blood alcohol content doesn't show your intoxicated? I heard it all now...
As the officer said in #102
However, in this situation, with two large officers and one little female subject, I can see no reason for her to be tased. I have had numerous suspects curse me, threaten me, make an arrest difficult for me, etc. The lady was NOT fighting or stuggling much at all - the two officers should have been able to restrain her w/o resorting to the use of a taser.Cops don't draw blood on people in a parking lot. If they have probable cause they can get a search warrant for blood and have a physician do it.
Forceful Blood Draws by Cops: Constitutional?Her flu medication would have nothing to do with her blood alcohol. Even if it did, if your son or daughter was killed by a drunk driver would it really make a difference what got her drunk.Some time ago I commented on the increasingly rough tactics used by police to incapacitate a nonconsenting DUI suspect while a nurse or blood technician draws a blood sample. More recently, I discussed the approach now being used in Utah: doing away with the doctor, nurse or medical technician and simply letting the officer stick a needle into the suspect himself out on the highway. (It takes little imagination to envision the scene: the struggling suspect thrown across the dirty hood of his car, his hands cuffed behind his back, the officer with a baton in one hand and a hypodermic needle in the other....)
I've received a number of inquiries from attorneys concerning that post, advising me that their own states are now planning to emulate Utah's new cost-effective approach and asking for any ideas on how to challenge it.
A citizen arrested for DUI usually has the right to choose between taking a breath test or a blood test. There is, of course, a third choice: refuse to take either. The individual can do this, but there are consequences: he will face an increased jail sentence or a longer driver’s license suspension -- or, in most states, both.
The problem is that some police just won't take "no" for an answer. An increasing practice among law enforcement agencies is to simply ignore this third choice and forcefully take blood from the arrestee (although some states have banned this practice). By doing this, they can "have their cake and eat it, too": blood is obtained for testing-- and the suspect still suffers the heavier sentencing for having refused.
So, just how much "force" will the courts permit? Or looking at this from the legal view, drawing blood is considered a Search of the person and, therefore, must be "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which still leaves the question: What is "reasonable" force?
The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Rochin v. California (342 U.S. 165), where a drug suspect was unconscious and the police forced open his mouth and pumped his stomach to get drugs. Such conduct is not permissible, the Court said, if it "shocks the conscience". This vague "shocks the conscience" standard -- if it is a standard -- was later applied by the Supreme Court in a drunk driving case: The blood, the Court said, must be taken under "humane and medically acceptable" circumstances. Schmerber v. California (384 U.S. 757). [As anyone who has watched certain videotapes knows, California seems to have recurring problems with heavy-handed police.]
Humane and medically acceptable circumstances.....Shocks the conscience.....Well, let’s take a look at what police and courts in California have decided this all means. In Carleton v. Superior Court (216 Cal.Rptr. 890), the California Court of Appeals was confronted with a case where the arrested citizen was pinned down by six police officers, a needle jammed into him and blood forceably withdrawn. The Court saw nothing wrong with this: "Although this degree of force may approach the brink of excessiveness, it was not excessive. Carleton’s self-induced brief physical restraint before and during the withdrawal of a blood sample is not conscience shocking."
One wonders what it would take to go over that "brink".....
Many things affect the BAC without causing intoxication. You can register alcohol after being exposed to paint, gasoline, even Rolaids.
Further, alcohol affects different people differently. One person could be falling down drunk at .10; another might not show any impairment at all. In fact, there is research that indicates that 20% of drivers actually improve with alcohol.
Please do some research before posting to me again. Or if that is too much, at least read the links I post.
Never submit to a blood test of any sort at any time.
You have a right to not provide evidence against yourself and this is providing evidence against yourself.
Yeah, now it seems LEOs will Taser anybody who doesn't practically fall to the ground and handcuff themselves. So many of todays officers are way too concerned about "avoiding personal injury"; they'll use the Taser at the least sign of resistence, or less. Pathetic.
SCOTUS
The same people who gave us the Kelo decision.
Some of us would rather ignore that group of thugs in black robes and fight the Judicial Tyranny than to bend over and take it like many others do.
In MY Constitution, you have a right against self incrimmination and I will fight for that right, either directly or indirectly until my dying breath.
Screw the Supreme Court of the United States.
The ofc in #102 also said, "However, having said THAT, I'd rather be tased than hit with a nightstick". It's obvious you only read what you want.
More recently, I discussed the approach now being used in Utah:
This didn't happen in Utah so what's your point.
Many things affect the BAC without causing intoxication. You can register alcohol after being exposed to paint, gasoline, even Rolaids.
Further, alcohol affects different people differently. One person could be falling down drunk at .10; another might not show any impairment at all. In fact, there is research that indicates that 20% of drivers actually improve with alcohol.
Please do some research before posting to me again. Or if that is too much, at least read the links I post
____________________________________________________
I've heard about the above research but can't remember where. Now I remember it was from a defense attorney. I have to admit the first time I heard it I had a better laugh but it was pretty funny hearing it again.
This case has really nothing to do with drunk driving, that is just the reason the woman was stopped (she was also convicted so I guess she was drunk). It has to do with police brutality. Even if the woman had nothing to drink the ofc's believed she was intoxicated and when they gave her lawful orders she choose not to comply. The ofc's did not use excessive force and once she was taken into custody they stopped. If the ofc would have kept tasering her after she was handcuffed and after she had stopped resisting that would be different. The taser is not considered any more force than applying pressure points. She is lucky she got tasered for a few seconds which allowed the ofc's to take her gently to the ground rather than thrown to the ground and then had her hands forced behind her back which also would have been justified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.