Posted on 12/08/2005 12:01:42 PM PST by JTN
NOBLESVILLE, Ind. (AP) - A Hamilton County sheriff's deputy faces a lawsuit for using a Taser on a woman who refused to put down her cell phone after she was stopped on suspicion of drunken driving.
Jennifer Marshall says she was trying to phone her lawyer when Deputy Greg Lockhart pressed the stun gun to her arm as another deputy held her.
Police contend Marshall refused to drop the cell phone after Lockhart warned her she would have to go to jail if she did not submit to a blood test.
Hamilton County Sheriff Doug Carter says Lockhart followed department policy and the lawsuit is without merit.
A video camera in the police car recorded the arrest outside a convenience store in Fishers.
1. Jennifer Marshall was supposedly stopped for running a stoplight.
2. She was given a series of roadside sobriety tests which she passed.
3. She was then given a series of breath tests which were inconclusive (meaning she passed).
4. The police then tell her that she must submit to a blood draw (right then and there) or go to jail.
Here she says she is going to call her lawyer. Both officers tell her no. Again she says she wants to call her lawyer and tries to get her cell phone from her car. At this point, one of the cops, who had just gotten his taser and had not had an opportunity to use it, announces that it's "Taser time!" The hold her against the back of the car, and although she is under complete control, tase her several times.
The infuriating video is at the Indystar link.
Ping
sounds like an episode of "My Name is Earl"
I didn't find a video but I did find another article that said she was convicted on all 7 counts of DUI and resisting arrest in a jury trial.
I assume the jury saw the video.
It's next to the third paragraph under "Related links." Whether she was guilty or not is irrelevant.
I think would choose to obey the police officer and not get Tazed. But different strokes for different folks. Perhaps she prefers getting Tazed and then winning a lawsuit against the police.
Absolutely! The taser was "sold" on police departments to deal with people cranked up on PCP and immune to baton blows, not to zap anyone who doesn't snap his heels together fast enough. There was no reason the cops could not simply have taken the cell phone away from her. If she resisted, then there are various techniques they could have used to deal with her, none involving the use of batons, guns or tasers.
That conclusion isn't supported by the Indystar story to which you linked. It says that she 'cooperated' in the field sobriety tests, not that she passed.
She's really lucky that she got the cops that she did. Some cops would have blown her away when she leaned back into her car to grab for a metal object which they would only discover after the shooting was a phone, not a weapon. Doing that rather than reaching for the Taser to make her drop the object would certainly have avoided the lawsuit.
And yes, there are .22 cal. pistols disguized as cell phones http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_cell_phone_guns.htm or there is always the trusty stun gun version. http://www.tbotech.com/cellphonestungun.htm
So the next time a cop tells you to drop your cell phone and back away slowly, you better do what you are told.
They played the tape on BBC in the UK with clear disgust. Personally I thought the cop was reasonable and patient. What's the fuss about?
Sounds like what they tell rape victims: "Just do what he says, so you can survive to bring him to trial."
ping for later
I would think that in the United States of America you would have the right to call a lawyer before a cop gets to play doctor on you in a gas station parking lot.
So are you saying that if a cop told you that you had to submit to having blood drawn without any probable cause that you have committed a crime, that you would just roll up your sleeve with a smile on your face?
What is relavant is that the jury heard the whole story and convicted her on all counts.
You appear to consider her lawyer's version of the event to be more credible than the police's version. The jury disagreed and they would likely have had much more information to base their opinions on and would have been able to listen to the people involved explain their sides of the event.
To me, that's a lot more relavant than what the person who is trying to sue the police department's lawyer says.
Agreed. But given the choice, I would still choose not to get tazed.
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.