Posted on 06/28/2011 1:39:35 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
The Rochester woman whose run in with the law with her iPhone and made national headlines, plans to file a lawsuit claiming Rochester police violated her civil rights.
Donald Thompson, attorney for Emily Good, told News 10NBC's Ray Levato Tuesday they may sue the individual police officer involved in her arrest, the Rochester Police Department, "any or all of the above and that's something to be discussed and considered."
Good was arrested in her bare feet and pajamas while standing in her own yard one night in May while taping a traffic stop that happened in front of her 19th Ward home. Good kept recording even after an officer asked her to stop and go inside. She was charged with obstructing government administration.
Monday, the District Attorney's office asked City Court Judge Jack Elliott to dismiss the charges because a review of the evidence showed there was no legal basis to prosecute.
Thompson says, "Her stated reason for video taping in the first place was that three white officers were stopping a young black male. And she's obviously attuned to social issues and concerns. There's nothing wrong with monitoring the course of those proceedings to make sure the correct procedures are being followed."
Thompson says says the lawsuit will claim a violation of Good's civil rights under the guarantees of the First Amendment. He said they will either file it in state or federal court.
"There was no crime that she committed here," says Thompson. "There was no basis to arrest her. There was no reason to forcibly take her from her property. It's a violation of her civil rights."
"It was pretty far over the line," says Thompson. "That's why it went national. "
(Excerpt) Read more at whec.com ...
Red herrings. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not apply to this case in any way, shape, or form. It was not unreasonable to request the woman leave the area of the police action. She refused, and argued with the officer, interfering with the performance of his job. Thus, she was arrested. She was not illegally “siezed”. Nor was there an illegal search. The Fifth doesn’t remotely enter in the discussion.
For police, it should be part of training that they are taught to never give an order which they know they cannot legitimately arrest a person for disobeying. Real simple: "Is what I'm about to order something I have authority to enforce with arrest?" If the answer is NO, then the officer should keep his mouth shut.
She was secure ON HER PROPERTY in HER YARD. The cops had NO REASON to enter her yard uninvited.
Where do you get this bizarre notion she was on the sidewalk?
Harcourt Fenton Mudd, have you been drinking again?
No, I’m not in LE. I served in the USAF in the mid to late 70’s in the Security Police field. If this is genetic, I proudly claim it. I’d rather be genetically able to use logic and reason, than to demonstrate the lack being shown on this thread.
Agreed.
Or as has been said “Don’t write checks with your mouth your body can’t cash.”
If the officers felt uncomfortable, there was nothing stopping them from moving their activity further from the woman's private property. Then they could have felt safer, and the woman's civil rights would not have been violated.
>>I’d rather be genetically able to use logic and reason, than to demonstrate the lack being shown on this thread.<<
You are delusional. Seriously, man. Get help.
>>Where do you get this bizarre notion she was on the sidewalk?<<
He is delusional.
You jump to conclusions (which is typical for a cop).
In post #183 you stated:
Let me go on the official record and say it as plainly and clearly as I possibly can:
As I rapidly approach my 60th birthday, I have NEVER EVER needed a cop to do ANYTHING for me... ...other than to use their rather poor clerical skills to fill out the paperwork I needed to file an insurance claim.
Other than that, I hate cops... I find them to be something a bit less than worthless...
Where did I jump to a conclusion not in evidence???
LOLOLOLOL - that’s your evidence for inadmissability? L&O? Wow! Not a rocket scientist nor brain surgeon either.
Repeal The 17th`—— not a brat pack cop hater just a senior citizen cop hater, he said so himself. We are dealing with flakes and libertarian pot heads. In my opinion
From the video evidence, and from the auditory evidence on the video after Emily Good had been placed in the patrol car - or, did YOU miss the conversation her friends had that is captured on the video? Really, you and your friends seriously have problems in keeping up.
What is “reasonable?”
He defined reasonable that reasonable is inside her house. Thus making him the boss of her property - even her yard.
And how would you concretely define “reasonable” within the confines of her yard - where she had a right to be. How? 5 feet away from him? 6? 7? 10? 20?
The yard (her property) is the standard. The only concrete standard. If she is in her yard, her property, that is a concrete standard. Otherwise, cops can arbitrarily decide when and where they want, how far - inside the house or out - etc... 5, 10, 20 feet. Cops then arbitrarily become the boss of the property, which both conservatives and libertarians eschew.
It all boils down to this: do you think that a cop can tell a lady - dressed as she was - to go into her home, and tell her what he did (go in the house) on her property?
And what comment did she make that threatened hi Provide proof of what she said that threatened him enough to cause him to act the way he did.
Oh, so only those with a law degree are capable of rendering any logical argument here! I wonder how many of your friends on this thread fit that requirement? You do realize you have excluded yourself as well, right?
“...a senior citizen cop hater...”
-
Just got no use for ‘em.
Never have had any use for ‘em.
(other than their rather poor clerical skills).
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.