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.
The attorney said the subsequent criminal conviction is irrelevant to Marshall's claim that deputies violated her 4th Amendment rights of protection from physical abuse, coercion, intimidation and excessive force.
As for the evidence of drunken driving -- a measurement of 0.10 blood-alcohol content that was obtained after the tasing and Marshall's insistence on a blood test -- he contests that, too
It says in the article, a measurement of 0.10 blood-alcohol content that was obtained after the tasing and Marshall's insistence on a blood test, it sounds like the woman is the one who insisted on a blood test not the officers.
________________________________________________________
"The only thing I can tell you is that we disagree with the jury," said Tambasco, whose client maintains that any alcohol in her system was the result of medicine she had been taking and, perhaps, a flawed analysis because of the lengthy delay in testing and questionable test control procedures
Even after being convicted she can't admit she was drinking
Convicted by eyewitness testimony.
KUDOS TO THE POLICE WHO KEPT INVESTIGATING .
You're telling me what you just described is not a police state?
"Once the situation warrants an arrest , you might as well shut up a go quietly."
Nazi Germany passed laws and arrested the Jews. You're saying the Jews should have just gone quietly.
You are the greatest threat facing America today. You have been hood winked by statists who pretend to be "Republicans".
The Patriot Act, the TSA, the Campaign Finance law, the IRS, Social Security numbers, the Kelo vs New London decision etc... You don't see the statist police state in any of this?
Quickly, you have gone from the position that requiring a warrant is "common sense", to saying that not requiring one "makes sense."
Now, let's revisit the dissent.
Without consent, without a warrant, and without exigent circumstances, the forced blood test in the present case violated the United States Constitution...Since a person's alcohol level decreases with time
Or increases, depending on the time elapsed since the last drink, the person's physical condition, what they have eaten, etc., etc.
So what if she cooperated with the test, she didn't cooperate after the tests or with the arrest.
Here is the statement I was responding to:
Maybe if she wasn't being such a drunk obnoxious b&*^% they would have let her use the phone.
I am pointing out to you that she had cooperated up to that point, then became fed up and asked to make a call to an attorney (I realize you don't believe this. Frankly I don't know how). I don't see any reason to believe they would have allowed the phone call no matter what.
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
Or call an attorney.
Even after being convicted she can't admit she was drinking
Have you not been paying attention to my links in this thread?
Look, I have posted enough specific links. Just go here, and have a look around. You will see that having a BAC does not necessarily mean that you have even been exposed to any substance that impairs.
Using more than the minimum amount of force necessary.
As it turns out, she was guilty of the crime for which she was arrested.
This is not an ex post facto justification for the police doing whatever they want.
Driver passes field sobriety and Breathalyzer, but officer is still not convinced.
Too damn bad for the officer, I say. You are not required to simply hand over all evidence.
Driver, who is intoxicated (which is proven by a blood test)
Read the links I'm posting!
refuses to cooperate with officer's instructions.
She had cooperated, then wanted to make a phone call.
Driver is then subdued with a Taser.
No. The driver was already subdued, then got hit with a taser.
1)Drinking and driving
Assuming that happened.
2) Refusing to cooperate with a police officer
It's amazing what qualifies as not cooperating to you.
"Without consent, without a warrant, and without exigent circumstances, the forced blood test in the present case violated the United States Constitution"
This ruling was overturned by a higher court so I guess it doesn't violate the us constitution.
"Without consent, without a warrant, and without exigent circumstances, the forced blood test in the present case violated the United States Constitution"
This ruling was overturned by a higher court so I guess it doesn't violate the us constitution.
Ok it is obvious you don't agree with the .08 law and thats fine, I don't really care one way or the other if they raised it to a higher standard. My point is that the law is the law and it is the job of the police to enforce the law. I'm sure there are plenty of police officers who agree with you that .08 is too low of a standard. I'm sure there are officers who give breaks to people who are at or over the limit. Your issues should be with the law itself not the officers enforcing it.
"Quickly, you have gone from the position that requiring a warrant is "common sense", to saying that not requiring one "makes sense."
There are exceptions to every rule. Like I said maybe this ofc tried to get a search warrant but for some reason was unable to, not enough time, no available judge, I don't know, the article never mentioned why the ofc didn't obtain a search warrant prior to drawing blood. One of the exceptions to the search warrant rule is probable cause and exigent circumstances. If this ofc was able to articulate his probable cause and the exigent circumstances then why shouldn't he be allowed to do a warrantless search. Obviously he was able to defend his actions in court because the court ruled in his favor. I think under normal circumstances a search warrant should be obtained but like I said there are exceptions to every rule.
"Too damn bad for the officer, I say. You are not required to simply hand over all evidence"
No, too damn bad for her, she lost in court remember. Maybe she should have argued your defense, I don't agree with the law so I'm not going to obey it.
"It's amazing what qualifies as not cooperating to you"
They told her not to go into the car and she went into the car anyways. I think that qualifies. If she was a man she wouldn't have been tasered because they would have planted her face first as soon as she reached into the car.
"I am pointing out to you that she had cooperated up to that point, then became fed up and asked to make a call to an attorney (I realize you don't believe this. Frankly I don't know how)"
If she wanted to call her attorney could you please explain why she didn't tell the ofc's that.
"I don't see any reason to believe they would have allowed the phone call no matter what"
So what, they don't have to. You honestly believe whenever the police are arresting somebody they should stop if the person wants to call a lawyer?
"I am pointing out to you that she had cooperated up to that point, then became fed up and asked to make a call to an attorney"
Oh I didn't realize she got "fed up" with the officers that were investigating her. I guess that makes it ok to do whatever you want, as long as your "fed up".
"No. The driver was already subdued, then got hit with a taser"
Are you saying she handcuffed when they tasered her? Because she wasn't.
Even after being convicted she can't admit she was drinking
"Have you not been paying attention to my links in this thread"
I know she says she wasn't drinking and it must have been her cough syrup and if you buy that, I got some ocean front property in Arizona, from my front porch you can see the sea....
Did you see the tape? Even before she was tasered she started screaming, "police brutality" at the top of her lungs. Why was she screaming police brutality when all they were doing was simply holding onto her?
"a police state that prohibits legal consultation before being required to be a witness against yourself"
If you don't like it don't drive drunk and you won't have to worry about it.
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.