What The Supreme Court Has To Say About Sandra Bland’s Arrest

[beevul]

What The Supreme Court Has To Say About Sandra Bland’s Arrest

by Ian Millhiser Jul 22, 2015 10:54am

After watching the video, Texas state Sen. Royce West (D) commented that “once you see what occurred, you will probably agree with me she did not deserve to be placed in custody.” It is likely that the United States Supreme Court would also agree. Indeed, Trooper Encinia’s conduct probably violates a decision the Supreme Court handed down just last April.

Rodriguez v. United States held that police could not extend the length of a routine traffic stop, even for just a few minutes, absent a safety related concern or reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver may have committed an additional crime. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in the opinion of the Court, “[t]he tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’ — to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, and attend to related safety concerns.” A police stop “may ‘last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose.’ Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed.”

By the time Encinia asks Bland to put out her cigarette, the “mission” of his encounter with Bland is almost at completion. He has already written the citation and brought it to Bland. While she is being handcuffed, Bland even indicates that she was “trying to sign the fucking ticket” before Encinia tried to pull her out of her car. Had the officer not decided to extend the length of the stop over the argument about the cigarette, it is likely that Bland would have been sent on her way very shortly after she declined to extinguish her cigarette.

Snip

The first is just how rapidly Encinia escalated this confrontation. The officer never gives Bland a direct order to extinguish the cigarette — his exact words to her are “you mind putting out your cigarette, please, if you don’t mind?” So, even if Encinia did have the lawful authority to demand that she put out the cigarette, Bland reasonably could have viewed this as a request that she could refuse. When Bland did refuse, Encinia immediately orders her out of the car without taking the intermediate step of actually ordering her to put out the cigarette. This rapid escalation extended the length of the stop without a clear justification for doing so.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/22/3683281/supreme-court-say-sandra-blands-arrest/

Pretty damning stuff.

[JDPriestly]

1. My unprofessional and hasty and overemotional and irresponsible opinion:

Bland's family should sue the officer, the town, the blue sky above the town, the officer's uniform and holster and everything associated with all of the above until there is nothing left but a lonely dirt road headed out to nowhere.

[beevul]

2. If I understand correctly the piece I cited...

If I understand correctly the piece I cited, and the info is correct, they haven't a leg to stand on.

My equally unprofessional opinion.

When it comes time for lawsuits, how quickly they all rush to the table offering settlements should be quite telling.

[Solomon]

8. "haven't a leg to stand on"

is why they killed her.

[GoneFishin]

4. +1. But there should be a Bland family owned toll booth on the dirt road.

[silenttigersong]

3. No Justice No Peace

SANDRA BLAND

[KT2000]

5. why did the judge

not release her? Why was she still there for three days and how much longer were they going to hold her?

[CBGLuthier]

6. Yep. Once he wrote her the ticket he was done.

I was hoping someone would remember this ruling and all the copologists on DU should print out a copy of this decision, fold it five ways, and stick it where the dun don;t shine.

Maybe then they will understand what it means to have rights. It is useless to have rights if some out-of-control, proven racist cop, can take them away from you under the guise of so-called lawful orders.

[JustAnotherGen]

7. Can't c/p TP on my iPad but

First - this IS really good stuff.

Second - as the article indicates near the end -

He never gave a direct order.
And if the burning cigarette posed a threat - why wasn't information surrounding it in the initial police report.

[beevul]

9. More tellingly I think, if the burning cigarette posed a threat...

More tellingly I think, if the burning cigarette posed a threat, he'd have said something about it right off the bat, first words out of his mouth.

What he actually did, he did more or less as an afterthought power trip.

Theres no 'officer safety' to lean on here, and no room to make it up after the fact, as a response to criticism.

[Lee-Lee]

10. Whoever wrote this doesn't understand the case they cite or the way a traffic cone stop works

That case was about police making the process of a stop take longer to allow a K9 to show up.

Had the officer actually completed the process and still held her, he would be wrong. Had he just sat in the car after finishing writing up the warning, it would be a violation.

He had not, however finished. He still had to explain to her the violation, explain he was only giving a written warning and how that works, get her signature, and then provide her copy of the warning.

Then the stop is completed.

And asking her to stop smoking is not a stall of delay tactic in the process- most notably because she could have extinguished the cigarette in about 2 seconds.

[beevul]

12. Texas law dictates this?

He had not, however finished. He still had to explain to her the violation, explain he was only giving a written warning and how that works, get her signature, and then provide her copy of the warning.

Texas law dictates this?

Because unless it does, that argument amounts to "even though he didn't follow department protocols in other areas, he would have when it came to explaining the ticket".

It may or may not carry legal water, but it fails the smell test.

And asking her to stop smoking is not a stall of delay tactic in the process- most notably because she could have extinguished the cigarette in about 2 seconds.

Asking an individual to stop smoking at the tail end of the stop kind of negates any 'officer safety' considerations.

And nobody is claiming that it was a 'delay tactic' per se. On the other hand, done right at the end of the stop, its a dick move, and everyone here knows it, including you. A dick move, at the end of the stop IS a tactic aimed at confrontation, and confrontations take time. Not to mention, dick moves aren't considered by most people, present interlocutor presumably excepted, as fitting in within the normal "explain to her the violation, explain he was only giving a written warning and how that works, get her signature" course of duties you described. As such, it WAS a delay.

What we have here is &quot oh, I almost forgot) would you mind putting that cigarette out"?

I do not personally believe any leo has the lawful authority to order an individual point blank to stop smoking in their own car. You can order them out of the car, and order them into the back of your car where they can't smoke (another dick move), but I believe that's the limit.

Did anyone ever tell you "No" when you pulled that stuff on them?

[Lee-Lee]

13. It could have come at the tail end of the stop

Because she may have lit the cigarette while he was writing up the warning back in his car. Smokers often do that out of habit under stress.

The authority an officer during the conduct of a traffic stop is much greater than before or after the stop- as long as it's a reasonable instruction that doesn't cause harm and can be articulated as a safety measure- and not having a lit cigarette certainly fits- it is going to be seen as lawful by the courts.

Sure, people told me no to lawful commands quite often. Many people with no clue as to what the law says or allows fancy themselves experts. It didn't turn out well for them, as I always made sure I acted within the scope of the law.

[beevul]

14. So you say.

She was already trying to sign the ticket.

This indicates that it was at the tail end of the stop, and that he would be leaving in moments.

I guarantee you, seeing that I'm a former very heavy smoker, that the first thing she did when pulled over was light a cig. There is NO WAY she waited until the end of the stop. The cravings don't work that way. Doesn't pass the smell test.

It wasn't done for 'officer safety'.

It was a dick move.


Frankly, anyone that wears a badge, or a robe, or...any clothing for that matter, and can't see that, has no business deciding whats 'reasonable' for anyone.

Even if you're right, which I don't believe, legalized abuse of power, is still abuse of power. In arguing that you can, you're arguing "I can be a dick".

And cops wonder why they have few to no non-leo friends...

I always made sure I acted within the scope of the law.

I've heard these sentiments before.

On edit, also from the article:

When Bland did refuse, Encinia immediately orders her out of the car without taking the intermediate step of actually ordering her to put out the cigarette. This rapid escalation extended the length of the stop without a clear justification for doing so.

Additionally, Trooper Encinia did not mention the argument over the cigarette (or the fact that he pulled his stun gun) in his official incident report. If Encinia truly believed that the lit cigarette was a danger to his safety that offered a legal justification for his actions, then it is unlikely that he would not have mentioned it in the report.

Kinda shoots down your arguments.

[fadedrose]

11. The Supremes earn their keep

every once in a while . . .

they agree with the public on this one . .

[Gothmog]

15. This was a bad arrest