IN police shatter car window, extract passenger after alleged seatbelt violation

[dusty88]

For what? If they saw her without a seatbelt (which she admitted) they can stop her. They did. If the police knew of her conviction, that would have explained why they reacted so seriously to a seatbelt violation case. I am not trying to justify the window breaking, tasering, etc....I don't know enough to evaluate that.

I'm just putting additional information out there that may have contributed to the situation.

And again, we put armed law enforcement officers in conflict with civilians over things that should be personal business.

Whether it is about the buckling of a seatbelt or substances they put in their body, it's not about them doing harm to others, wreckless driving, etc.

The legislators created the potential for the scenario. Probably both cops and civilians made some mistakes, as people will do. It is a much larger mistake to set these situations up through laws that control every aspect of people's behavior.

 

[HoughMade]

...HM,
What I meant was that their past history is nothing but prejudicial to this discussion and has no bearing on the present incident.

If the police knew nothing about it, it is irrelevant. If they did, that likely affected how they approached the situation.

I will agree that just because she ran drugs in the past, does not mean she was this time....but investigation is a percentage game sometimes. Do you really think that a known drug mule is not more likely than the population at large to do it again?

Again, admissibility is admissibility (and as Kirk pointed out, sometimes history is admissible), but this is not a court of law. Neither do the rules of evidence apply in investigation.

 

[HoughMade]

...The legislators created the potential for the scenario. Probably both cops and civilians made some mistakes, as people will do. It is a much larger mistake to set these situations up through laws that control every aspect of people's behavior.

I don't disagree, but the law being what it is, the police seem to have had a legitimate reason for the initial stop.

 

[2A_Tom]

IC 9-19-10-3.1
Stopping, inspecting, or detaining vehicle; checkpoints
Sec. 3.1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a vehicle may
be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a
vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a
passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained
solely because of a violation of this chapter.

As this chapter is written, visual PC is not required to pull you over to check if you are complying.

It also does not stop further investigation.

It could make Richardson moot.

 

[ModernGunner]

OR Mahone and Jones COULD have simply provided their ID's, been ticketed for the seatbelt violations, been on their way, then pleaded their 'justification' (allegedly due to Mahone's Mother 'dying', which IS verifiable) with the Judge. Apparently, it's 'better' to roll up your windows, lock the doors and refuse to do anything because the Police will just get tired and go away.
This has been a 'joyous' read for 23 pages!
More to come?

 

[AA&E]

Well I guess that makes it justified.

Not at all, but someone asked what these officers did that lead to their being shot. I responded. Sorry if details weigh down your cognitive abilites.

 

[AA&E]

Where did you hear this? I had not heard this before. I was wondering where the ticket was from. I know that if you get a ticket in IL, you keep your license. I thought maybe it was an IL ticket and the police were calling BS on him for not having an ID. He did passively aggressively challenge them to get him out of the car. Not that I'm advocating for the way in which it was done.

Fox news interview with the man that was assaulted by the police.

 

[7urtle]

OR Mahone and Jones COULD have simply provided their ID's, been ticketed for the seatbelt violations, been on their way, then pleaded their 'justification' (allegedly due to Mahone's Mother 'dying', which IS verifiable) with the Judge. Apparently, it's 'better' to roll up your windows, lock the doors and refuse to do anything because the Police will just get tired and go away.
This has been a 'joyous' read for 23 pages!
More to come?

they did give id

Where did you hear this? I had not heard this before. I was wondering where the ticket was from. I know that if you get a ticket in IL, you keep your license. I thought maybe it was an IL ticket and the police were calling BS on him for not having an ID. He did passively aggressively challenge them to get him out of the car. Not that I'm advocating for the way in which it was done.

IL residents give up their id in a ticket

 

[Ericpwp]

It was that officer that cited him and took his photo ID away.

The only hammond ticket I have ever seen was white thermal printed paper.

IL residents give up their id in a ticket

Indiana residents do not when cited by IL. I don't remember if they took mine in hammond.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

IL residents give up their id in a ticket

Maybe it depends on the department.

The University of Chicago officer who ticketed me for wrong way did not take it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

they did give id
IL residents give up their id in a ticket

Indiana residents do not when cited by IL. I don't remember if they took mine in hammond.

Maybe it depends on the department.

The University of Chicago officer who ticketed me for wrong way did not take it.

Could it also depend on what the person is ticketed for? I read in one of the articles that he was ticketed for failure to provide proof of insurance, in IN that is an automatic 90 day suspension if found guilty. Could that be the reason that the officer seized the license? I've been told that if arrested for OWI that the police keep your license and give you a receipt for it.

 

[Ericpwp]

Well, I'm pleased to see we don't have any habitual offenders that could explain this to us.

 

[Expat]

I have lived in the same place for 23 years, also a registered voter the entire time. Never been called to jury duty. I think they don't like me or something...

 

[7urtle]

may depend on ticket. mine were all speeding violations

 

[Viper1973]

Wish the media would quit trying to attach 'race' to everything... While it looks like the officers did possibly go a tad overboard, It wasn't in the occupants best interest to refuse a lawful directive to exit the vehicle - for 13 minutes - which in itself looks suspicious, at least to me.

 

[Ericpwp]

Portage man charged after trying to flee traffic stop, dragging officer : Hobart Community News

Another case of a citizen getting tazed. This one ended up a bit different then the op.

 

[rambone]

Portage man charged after trying to flee traffic stop, dragging officer : Hobart Community News

Another case of a citizen getting tazed. This one ended up a bit different then the op.

"According to the affidavit, Garber saw Shannon was holding a plastic bag in one hand and refused to open his hand."

The search for contraband results in violence and injuries, once again. Shocker. These invasions of citizens' personal space directly cause so many dangerous, unnecessary confrontations.

 

[thebishopp]

So was the passenger wearing a seat belt? I can't quite tell from the video and didn't see it in the article.

 

[dusty88]

I remember giving up my license when I received a speeding ticket a long time ago, but I can't remember what state it was. It may have been Illinois as I lived there much of my life. I do remember the jokes also about people trying to use their "tickets" as identification to get into a bar, so it definitely happens.

 

[thebishopp]

Maybe. I've never understood the whole "get the driver out of the car because I am afraid" nonsense. If you order me out of the car, you are bringing the weapons closer to you and with fewer obstructions to use them around. Get result and work backwards.

As far as "not right", well, hit the books, study hard and get appointed to the Supreme Court because having the driver and passengers out of the car is lawful.

It is nonsense. While in the vehicle the attacker has limited options, the most "dangerous" is driving away or using the vehicle has a weapon. From inside the vehicle he has limited lanes of fire. The threat to the officer depends a lot on where the officer is standing in regards to those limited lanes of fire (for example next to the window). Obviously it is easier to take a subject into custody though if they are outside the vehicle.

Kirk, I thought they addressed the issue regarding ordering a driver out of the vehicle for searches (weapons pat down which would be the whole point of ordering them out if they are claiming to do it to be "safe") in cases like Pearson V INdiana. In that case they stated:

"653 N.E.2d 77, 79 (Ind. 1995). Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that “Hoosiers
regard their automobiles as private and cannot easily abide their uninvited intrusion.” Id.
at 80.
In deciding whether a pat-down search for weapons was proper, we consider
whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the search would warrant a
person of reasonable caution in believing the action taken was appropriate. Trigg, 725
N.E.2d at 449. An officer may conduct a limited search for weapons only when he has a
reasonable belief that the suspect is armed and dangerous. "

In that case they said having him exit the vehicle for a pat down was ok because the officer had prior experiences with him that justified it. By their wording it seems that they are saying that had the officer NOT had that prior knowledge about him (which gave him his reasonable suspicion) that the pat down as well as the order to exit the vehicle soley for that reasons on a seat belt stop would not of been appropriate. While SCOTUS says it's ok to order the occupants out, do we not also have to abide by the rulings of our state sc and appellate court?