To: ansel12
The officer never said he pulled him over for flipping him off. Chances are he will be able to dig up some other obscure Distracted Driver law or something like that to justify the stop. He only got the OC spray after refusing to provide his info twice, and then refusing to get out of the car. Of course providing the officer with his license and such wouldn't have gotten him the response he wanted.
I think his best legal angle would be a Graham v. Connor challenge of the OC deployment as not being necessary.
25 posted on
05/22/2015 8:26:56 AM PDT by
USNBandit
(sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: USNBandit
Chances are he will be able to dig up some other obscure Distracted Driver law or something like that to justify the stop.They're going with "obstructed view."
47 posted on
05/22/2015 9:42:58 AM PDT by
Bubba Ho-Tep
("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels." --Tom Waits)
To: USNBandit
The officer never said he pulled him over for flipping him off. Chances are he will be able to dig up some other obscure Distracted Driver law or something like that to justify the stop. He only got the OC spray after refusing to provide his info twice, and then refusing to get out of the car. Of course providing the officer with his license and such wouldn’t have gotten him the response he wanted.
...
Yep. This could hinge on whether the threshold was met for a Terry stop, and whether the officer was being reasonable even if he did make a mistake. A jury may not be that sympathetic either should he choose to sue.
51 posted on
05/22/2015 10:00:21 AM PDT by
Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson