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.
known to be responsible or irresponsible?
known to be a safe driver or unknown?
If you don't want to answer just say so
"stranger to me or long well known friend or relative?"
I'll make it simple for you. Your son or daughter is going on a camping trip with a group of friends. There are so many kids that two vehicles are needed. Two parents show up at your house. They happen to be identical twin brothers who you feel are both responsible. You know both of them equally and they are both driving brand new explorers. You check both explorers and find that both have no mechanical problems. The one brother has had nothing to drink. The other brother just came from a bar and has a bac of .08. To the best of your ability the only difference between the two that you can see is the BAC. Which veh would you want your child to ride in.
"If you don't want to answer just say so"
What do you want? Blanket policy zero tolerance? The are many variables that intelligent and reasonable people are able to consider.
If you don't want those variables considered, just say so Mr. zero tolerance.
"stranger to me or long well known friend or relative?"
I'll make it simple for you. Your son or daughter is going on a camping trip with a group of friends. There are so many kids that two vehicles are needed. Two parents show up at your house. They happen to be identical twin brothers who you feel are both responsible. You know both of them equally and they are both driving brand new explorers. You check both explorers and find that both have no mechanical problems. The one brother has had nothing to drink. The other brother just came from a bar and has a bac of .08. To the best of your ability the only difference between the two that you can see is the BAC. Which veh would you want your child to ride in.
"What do you want? Blanket policy zero tolerance? The are many variables that intelligent and reasonable people are able to consider"
.08 is not zero tolerance
"What do you want? Blanket policy zero tolerance? The are many variables that intelligent and reasonable people are able to consider.
If you don't want those variables considered, just say so Mr. zero tolerance."
Whether the legal limit should be .08 is a matter of opinion. I don't have a problem with it and I wouldn't have had a problem with them leaving the limit at .10, but the fact is .08 is the law and if somebody chooses to disobey the law, whether it is fair or unfair, then they have to suffer the consequences. Just because they don't agree with the law or feel they are not violating it doesn't give them the right to interfere with the police officers who are enforcing it. The woman violated the law, she disobeyed the ofc's, she resisted and she was tasered, what's the big deal.
That certainly seems like a reasonable assumption given the circumstances.
"That certainly seems like a reasonable assumption given the circumstances"
I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. If she was really calling her attorney I think she would have said so. Not that it really matters because the ofc's are not obligated to let her call anybody, lawyer or not. Even if she said I'm want to call my attorney, why should the ofc's let her.
Alright, let's hear your theory. It's not reasonable to assume she was calling an attorney because she also might have been calling ________. I want to hear your theory.
Even if she said I'm want to call my attorney, why should the ofc's let her.
Because these are the United States of America and you have the right to legal representation. Are you suggesting that no one has the right to legal counsel before having blood forcibly withdrawn?
Anyone mention that taser happy cop on Meet The Fockers yet?
Stop Resisting, Stop Resisting.
"Alright, let's hear your theory. It's not reasonable to assume she was calling an attorney because she also might have been calling ________. I want to hear your theory."
She was probably going to call her husband, or boyfriend, or father, of friend or whoever. I would bet anything she wasn't calling her attorney, since she probably don't have one in the first place. Why didn't she say I'm calling my attorney if that was her intent, maybe she was too drunk and couldn't think straight.
"Because these are the United States of America and you have the right to legal representation. Are you suggesting that no one has the right to legal counsel before having blood forcibly withdrawn?"
There you go with the "they were trying to forcibly take blood". If those ofc's were trying to take her blood why didn't they. She was handcuffed, they had a taser and there was two of them. Maybe because they weren't trying to take her blood.
As for the second part of your question. A person doesn't have the right to counsel before their blood is forcibly taken because the only way you can forcibly take blood is with a search warrant. What is an attorney gonna do if they have a search warrant? They can't stop you from taking it. Just because somebody wants an attorney doesn't mean the police have to stop their investigation.
Because she is not sure if what the police are demanding of her is legal. Remember, the cops are allowed to use deception. In most cases a person can just wait remain silent and then wait for the lawyer to show up.
In DUI cases though, it is not always clear what is a lawful order and what is not. Also, states have implemented "administrative" penalties to drivers that don't submit to tests. The repercussions can be severe and unless a driver happens to be a DUI lawyer, it is not clear what is a lawful order and what is not. The police use this as a way to intimidate and bully people that they encounter which should bother everyone that is not a fan of a police state.
For example, I have always heard that a person should always refuse the roadside sobriety tests. Now even after much research, I cannot discern if refusing a roadside breath analysis test is advisable or not.
The word "force" doesn't have to mean holding a person a down. To most the ultimatum of "submit to a blood test or you're going to jail" would be considered "being forced".
Sure, she was given a choice, but by that reasoning, a person that is mugged and told "give me your wallet or I'll hurt you" really wasn't "forced" to do anything.
Cops know that the threat of being arrested is very forceful and controlling. No one wants to be handcuffed, processed and treated like an animal. Even if the charges are later dropped, the cop still knows that he got to you. There's a saying among cops, "you can beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".
"Because she is not sure if what the police are demanding of her is legal. Remember, the cops are allowed to use deception. In most cases a person can just wait remain silent and then wait for the lawyer to show up."
She's not sure if what the police are demanding of her is legal so that gives her the right to disobey them? Why should the ofc's wait around for her attorney, this was a dui case where time is somewhat important.
Being guilty of one crime has nothing to do with being guilty of another.
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.