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."
Dear monday,
"If signing a ticket is so important, however do they prosecute traffic infringements that are caught on camera and where the tickets are sent in the mail?"
At least in jurisdictions in this region, camera-generated tickets only generate fines, not points on one's license. This is precisely because of identification problems.
That being said, the Polaroid solution sounds like the right one, here. The law should not be written in a way that takes a minor issue - failure to sign a ticket for a very minor offense - into a major issue.
sitetest
"she refused to sign it"
sinse when you need to sign the ticket?
See Post 30
Agreed. If I were pregnant, and the police said get out of the car or I'll taser you...I'd get my ass out of the car to protect my baby. I didn't like the way she called her baby an unborn fetus. That's creepy.
That's a school zone. You'd be whistling a different tune if she had ran over little kids. NO ONE speeds in a school zone.
The government (state in this case) has the power to make and enforce laws. They decide who gets to drive (age limit, legal status, etc.), how often you have to qualify (take tests, eye exams), and what the penalties are for breaking the laws. Absolutely - they have the power and responsibility to take a driver's privileges away if the driver demonstrates his inability to respect the laws. People lose their licenses all the time. When you apply for and receive a license, you agree to abide by the laws. It's simple.
That said, we have the right to elect our officials and change the laws we don't agree with. The people wrote the State Constitution and the laws and the people can change it, so yes, "We can take it away at any time."
Even so - does this warrant tazing a preganant women who refused to sign a ticket?
So while youre right.....and it may be my kid - It might also be your dear wife thats yanked, tazed and spontaneously aborts your child -
Keep it in perspective - and remember the severity of the "crime"
I hope you don't have children with that attitude. I do. If someone was speeding and ran over my daughter...
No ! - they just reserve the right to knock your door in and taze you while your sucking a Dr. Pepper on your recliner watching Law and Order
I'm a she. I wouldn't have refused to get out of the car. Being eight months pregnant, my baby would mean more to me than a ticket or making a political statement.
Sign X. Legally making your mark. Cop must accept it.
They should charge her with tax evasion and try to get her in the federal pen! Yay for police state!
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.