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.
It is not uncommon to be charged with manslaughter if your guest dies due to alcohol consumption. This has happened to bars many times and homeowners have also been held responsible for deaths caused by excessive drinking at parties.
What's wrong with telling somebody the truth. If you don't submit to this test your going to be arrested. She didn't submit and she was arrested. She wasn't arrested because she wouldn't submit to a test, she was arrested because they believed she was intoxicated. If they didn't have any reason to believe she was intoxicated then they wouldn't have offered her the test in the first place.
She was going to be arrested anyway. They were using deception to gather more evidence. I think that you have already posted that she didn't do well on the field sobriety tests.
She wanted legal advice at that point and the cops used a technicality that she wasn't actually under arrest at that moment to try to coerce her to give them more evidence.
And I think you need a little more information before you start saying that I'm holding him responsible for anyone's death. All I did was post the article where he is being scrutinized for a alcohol related death at his house.
You are the one that said that there was no way he was responsible.
"It is not uncommon to be charged with manslaughter if your guest dies due to alcohol consumption. This has happened to bars many times and homeowners have also been held responsible for deaths caused by excessive drinking at parties"
There are laws against liquer establishments serving alcohol to people who are intoxicated. If somebody drank to much at my house and died I think I may have some civil issues but I don't think I would be held criminally responsible unless the drinking itself was a criminal act like an under aged person. I'm just guessing, I don't really know but I would hate to think if two guys are sitting around getting drunk and one happens to die that the other one would be charged with a crime.
"You are the one that said that there was no way he was responsible"
I didn't say there was no way he was responsible. Your the one who wants to hold him responsible just because he happens to be a cop. From what I've read it sounds like a bunch of guys partying and drinking and somebody had to much. If thats the case than nobody should be criminally responsible.
Thank you for demonstrating that you have not read through this thread.
Supreme Court OKs Forced Blood -- After 3 Breath TestsNo warrant necessary.On January 18, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a state supreme court case endorsing the nonconsensual extraction of a blood sample from a DUI suspect -- after he had already consented to three earlier breath tests.
On February 19, 2002, police in Wisconsin pulled over Jacob Faust as he left a bar. Faust admitted that he had five brandies and failed the field sobriety tests. He voluntarily submitted to a roadside breath test; the results indicated a blood-alcohol concentration of .13% -- well above Wisconsin's .08% legal limit. He was arrested and, at the police station, agreed to take another breath test. Two separate tests on the breathalyzer indicated BACs of .09%.
The officer then asked Faust to submit to the withdrawal of a blood sample. Having already taken three breath tests, Faust finally refused further testing. He was immediately served with a notice of license suspension for refusing and taken to a hospital where a blood sample was drawn. The result of the blood test was .10%, almost the same as at the station.
At a suppression hearing, the officer admitted it was not departmental policy to demand further tests and he did not suspect the use of drugs: he simply wanted "additional evidence" because Faust was only .01% over the limit. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals affiirmed:
"Once an individual arrested on probable cause for OWI has provided a satisfactory and useable chemical test, the exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless and nonconsensual blood draw no longer exists."
In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding that "(t)he nature of the evidence sought -- that is, the rapid dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream -- not the existence of other evidence, determines the exigency." (Of course, by this reasoning the police can take as many chemical tests -- 15 or 20 -- as they want; there is almost no limit since alcohol will continue to dissipate for hours.) Amazingly, the Court further found that the police had a right to additional tests since they can't predict whether a breath test will be found reliable in court.
(In a footnote (fn28), the Wisconsin Supreme Court may have noted the real reason for this blatantly dishonest opinion: "There were 292 people killed and 6,570 injured as a result of alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes in Wisconsin during the year 2002..." In other words, the ends justify the means -- the Constitution notwithstanding.)
One of the three dissenting justices observed:
Without consent, without a warrant, and without exigent circumstances, the forced blood test in the present case violated the United States Constitution... The majority's argument is essentially that because law enforcement officers do not know what will happen at trial (and no one does, of course), it was reasonable for them to take as many valid tests of the suspect's blood alcohol as they thought necessary to sustain a conviction."
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari (refused to hear the case). Wisconsin v. Faust, #04-471. Police are now apparently constitutionally free to give blood-alcohol tests as many times as they wish.
I know you want to believe the ofc's are drawing blood on traffic stops because that is the basis of your argument
No, the basis of my argument is that I see 450 lbs. worth of cop tasing a 110 lb. woman who is not even capable of putting up much of a fight.
As a police officer why would you do anything to help the other team when you don't have to.
The "other team" being the citizenry.
Maybe if she wasn't being such a drunk obnoxious b&*^% they would have let her use the phone.
She had cooperated with the tests, then said she wanted to make a phone call. No obnoxious bitchiness involved.
I'd rather take my chances with drunk drivers than with a police state that prohibits legal consultation before being required to be a witness against yourself.
Hmm
I did read through the thread. Your position on this thread indicates ignorance of the laws on the books. Fortunately, the jury followed the law and had far better access to information on the case.
"The "other team" being the citizenry"
No, the other team being the suspect, who later became the defendant, who later became the convicted.
well said
"Supreme Court OKs Forced Blood -- After 3 Breath Tests"
That is the first time I ever heard of a cop drawing blood without a warrant. It makes sense since police are allowed to make warrantless searches when they have probable cause and exigent circumstances. Since a person's alcohol level decreases with time I guess there is your exigent circumstance. I do however think it is best to obtain a search warrant first if time permits. Maybe there was a reason this officer was unable to obtain a search warrant (sometimes hard to find a judge late at night) and therefore did a warrantless search. Whatever his reason the courts backed him up and thats great.
"She had cooperated with the tests, then said she wanted to make a phone call"
So what if she cooperated with the test, she didn't cooperate after the tests or with the arrest.
"she wanted to make a phone call"
Maybe they should have asked her if she would like to do some shopping before they arrested her or maybe rent a video before taking her to jail
Let's break it down:
Driver gives officer reason to believe she is driving under the influence.
Driver passes field sobriety and Breathalyzer, but officer is still not convinced.
Officer instructs driver to submit to a blood test, which he is within his legal right to do.
Driver, who is intoxicated (which is proven by a blood test) refuses to cooperate with officer's instructions.
Driver is then subdued with a Taser.
Poor choices made by the driver:
1)Drinking and driving
2) Refusing to cooperate with a police officer
The flippant "Taser time!" comment by the cop says plenty about his mindset. The woman made him angry by not cooperating, and he paid her back by hurting her unnecessarily. I hope that the sadist who used the Taser is fired, at the least.
From the video, it is obvious that the cops knew that she had a phone, not a gun or other weapon. One of the cops repeatedly tells the woman to "put the phone down." It is also clear from the video that the cops had her under sufficient control to physically restrain her and handcuff her.
It is drummed into every American who watches crime dramas on television that arrested suspects have a right to speak to an attorney. It probably seemed to the woman that she was being denied what she regarded as a basic right. Her actions are completely understandable.
Still, she did not cooperate with the cops, and for that reason I suppose I hope that she loses her lawsuit.
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.