Posted on 05/10/2005 1:51:41 AM PDT by Stoat
|
Tuesday, May 10, 2005 Police used Taser on pregnant driver She was rushing her son to school. She was eight months pregnant. And she was about to get a speeding ticket she didn't think she deserved. So when a Seattle police officer presented the ticket to Malaika Brooks, she refused to sign it. In the ensuing confrontation, she suffered burns from a police Taser, an electric stun device that delivers 50,000 volts. "Probably the worst thing that ever happened to me," Brooks said, in describing that morning during her criminal trial last week on charges of refusing to obey an officer and resisting arrest. She was found guilty of the first charge because she never signed the ticket, but the Seattle Municipal Court jury could not decide whether she resisted arrest, the reason the Taser was applied. To her attorneys and critics of police use of Tasers, Brooks' case is an example of police overreaction. "It's pretty extraordinary that they should have used a Taser in this case," said Lisa Daugaard, a public defender familiar with the case. Law enforcement officers have said they see Tasers as a tool that can benefit the public by reducing injuries to police and the citizens they arrest. Seattle police officials declined to comment on this case, citing concerns that Brooks might file a civil lawsuit. But King County sheriff's Sgt. Donald Davis, who works on the county's Taser policy, said the use of force is a balancing act for law enforcement.
|
Brooks' run-in with police Nov. 23 came six months before Seattle adopted a new policy on Taser use that guides officers on how to deal with pregnant women, the very young, the very old and the infirm. When used on such subjects, the policy states, "the need to stop the behavior should clearly justify the potential for additional risks."
"Obviously, (law enforcement agencies) don't want to use a Taser on young children, pregnant woman or elderly people," Davis said. "But if in your policy you deliberately exclude a segment of the population, then you have potentially closed off a tool that could have ended a confrontation."
Brooks was stopped in the 8300 block of Beacon Avenue South, just outside the African American Academy, while dropping her son off for school.
In a two-day trial that ended Friday, the officer involved, Officer Juan Ornelas, testified he clocked Brooks' Dodge Intrepid doing 32 mph in a 20-mph school zone.
He motioned her over and tried to write her a ticket, but she wouldn't sign it, even when he explained that signing it didn't mean she was admitting guilt.
Brooks, in her testimony, said she believed she could accept a ticket without signing for it, which she had done once before.
"I said, 'Well, I'll take the ticket, but I won't sign it,' " Brooks testified.
Officer Donald Jones joined Ornelas in trying to persuade Brooks to sign the ticket. They then called on their supervisor, Sgt. Steve Daman.
He authorized them to arrest her when she continued to refuse.
The officers testified they struggled to get Brooks out of her car but could not because she kept a grip on her steering wheel.
And that's when Jones brought out the Taser.
Brooks testified she didn't even know what it was when Jones showed it to her and pulled the trigger, allowing her to hear the crackle of 50,000 volts of electricity.
The officers testified that was meant as a final warning, as a way to demonstrate the device was painful and that Brooks should comply with their orders.
When she still did not exit her car, Jones applied the Taser.
In his testimony, the Taser officer said he pressed the prongs of the muzzle against Brooks' thigh to no effect. So he applied it twice to her exposed neck.
Afterward, he and the others testified, Ornelas pushed Brooks out of the car while Jones pulled.
She was taken to the ground, handcuffed and placed in a patrol car, the officers testified.
She told jurors the officer also used the device on her arm, and showed them a dark, brown burn to her thigh, a large, red welt on her arm and a lump on her neck, all marks she said came from the Taser application.
At the South Precinct, Seattle fire medics examined Brooks, confirmed she was pregnant and recommended she be evaluated at Harborview Medical Center.
Brooks said she was worried about the effect the trauma and the Taser might have on her baby, but she delivered a healthy girl Jan. 31.
Still, she said, she remains shocked that a simple traffic stop could result in her arrest.
"As police officers, they could have hurt me seriously. They could have hurt my unborn fetus," she said.
"All because of a traffic ticket. Is this what it's come down to?"
Davis said Tasers remain a valuable tool, and that situations like Brooks' are avoidable.
"I know the Taser is controversial in all these situations where it seems so egregious," he said. "Why use a Taser in a simple traffic stop? Well, the citizen has made it more of a problem. It's no longer a traffic stop. This is now a confrontation."
I wonder if this were an 80 year old woman. Would they tazer her?
It doesn't really verify an identity as much as give someone the means to contest that they did not receive the ticket because it's not their signature.
She did. Read the story again.
Obviously, you have never looked deep into the eyes of a crazed, 8 month pregnant woman who has been denied Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia because she was 50 cents short...
(Hey, I am only kidding here!!!!!)
I actually have no idea-I don't have to deal with it, and haven't researched it. In TX the Code of Criminal Procedure says the violation (Minor) must occur in the officers presence or view (Felonies and other Misdemeanors are different, so I really don't klnow what provisions other states have made for the cameras
Nobody is arguing that she didn't technically deserve the ticket. We all agree on that!
My point is degree of violation. The cops pushed this way to far....proof is when she gets a huge (idiotic) settlement from the taxpaters.
If Napoloen Cop had been cooler (not saying I could've been) but had he handled it in scope, by finding a way not to arrest her, then SHE would be paying the fine and not the taxpayer.
Meanwhile, school zones are more for driver awareness and revenue enhancement, NOT for absolute child safety.
The law in Texas, for example, is that a school zone may be posted NO MORE than 15 MPH LESS than the existing speed limit.
Near my house there is a divided hwy with an elementary school facing it. 50 MPH. School zone, yup, 35MPH. (She was doing 32.)
Why do you think these 8 yr olds are less important than 20MPH 8 yr olds?
Oh, and that's on the lanes NEAREST the school. The lanes THREE FEET over the median in the other direction? 50 MPH.
School zones help grap driver's attention. Good for that. As for 32 MPH being a LETHAL EVIL SPEED, get over yourself.
Re #126.
How do you guys think pbrown would respond to 'perps' doing 32MPH in a 35MPH school zone like the one near my house?
You are speaking from what is an obvious anti-police bias. I do not consider myself or the officers I work with as a road tax collector.
If you knew anything about criminal or traffic law, you would know that taking offenders before the judge is so that the Judge can read the charge and further explain the violators rights. One of the those silly little Constitutional protections you seem so hot on.
Thank you for your input. I have given it the consideration it deserves
Tazering her was wrong. She should have gotten out of the car when asked. Everything from the time they asked her, to the time they took her in could have been avoided. The safty of her baby, and the safety of the children at school, should have been her utmost priority. It wasn't. Sorry, she called it her unborn fetus.
What would you have the officers do?
Why do you feel the need to interject yourself into the story? It isn't about you.
Your signature on the ticket is in lieu of going to jail and posting bond.
You're trying to switch the focus of the story. It isn't about 'perps', it's about a woman endangering children.
A traffic "infraction" is a misdemeanor. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. Striking your neighbor in the face with your fist is a misdemeanor.
For all you know, it is a crime for a police officer in that jurisdiction to release someone without their signature or an appearance bond.
Speeding through a school zone is a dangerous offense. Possibly in the reckless driving class.
Your question was not for me but, if I may offer up...maybe tickle her. When I'm holding onto something, a sure fire way to get me to let it go would be to tickle me. Less hazardous than a tazer. :-)
It would cut down on unnecessary tasering.
I wpuld have them NOT taser the pregnant lady.
>>You are speaking from what is an obvious anti-police bias. I do not consider myself or the officers I work with as a road tax collector.
When they start enforcing actual public safety laws instead of profitable but unjustified speed limits (while sitting at the roadside with a radar unit), then I may switch to your side. Speed tax collectors may even have an adverse effect on public safety. And there would be far less anti-cop bias in the world if cops refused to enforce ridiculous speed laws.
>>If you knew anything about criminal or traffic law, you would know that taking offenders before the judge is so that the Judge can read the charge and further explain the violators rights. One of the those silly little Constitutional protections you seem so hot on.
"Taser 'em to be sure that they get their rights"?
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.