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.
Well, well, well JTN.
Here you are on another DWI/DUI thread.
And the mean old pigs are brutalizing and trampling another victim.
You really don't like us pig-types or what?
Hmmmmmmm.
I've read the thread and I think I'll just observe rather than engage as you have your hands full. (but please do respond re: the alleged illegality of States issuance of Driver Licenses.......but by all means get your head above water here first:)
This ruling was overturned by a higher court so I guess it doesn't violate the us constitution.
Right. And there's also a Constitutional right to abortions.
Your issues should be with the law itself not the officers enforcing it.
My issue is with the behavior of the officers. As I've said (several times now), the fact that she was convicted has no relevance to the issue at hand.
Well if she was on her way up maybe she should have taken the breath test which would have given her a lower bac.
After cooperating with a series of physical sobriety tests and giving inconclusive breath tests, the trouble begins when Lockhart, who is more 6 feet tall and weighs more than 250 pounds, tells Marshall that she will be taken to jail if she does not submit to a blood draw.They told her not to go into the car and she went into the car anyways
No they didn't.
So what, they don't have to.
You previously said that they probably would have allowed a phone call if she had cooperated (which she had).
You are very strange. You make a statement, then when I respond to your statement to you act as if you don't know why I brought the subject up.
You honestly believe whenever the police are arresting somebody they should stop if the person wants to call a lawyer?
She wasn't being arrested. She was only arrested after asking to make a phone call.
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, you have the right to call an attorney even if you are not fed up.
Are you saying she handcuffed when they tasered her? Because she wasn't.
No, I'm saying that she was pinned down against the hood of her car by a man twice her size. Again, as the officer said in #102, "in this situation, with two large officers and one little female subject, I can see no reason for her to be tased."
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....
My god. Would you please read the f'ing links?
Well, these officers did.
You really don't like us pig-types or what?
Cut the crap. I'm fine with police who do their jobs conscientiously and with some degree of restraint. These officers did not.
"I'm fine with police who do their jobs conscientiously and with some degree of restraint. These officers did not."
You know my history JTM (and I know your history and Ping Buddies). I know your views on DUI/DWI, drugs etc....
Libertarianism is your chosen affiliation and I respect that though I differ.
Your version of proper police conduct puts officers at risk. An officer's responsibility is FIRST to ensure his/her safety concurrent with the general publics' safety and SECOND to secure the suspects' safety (if priortization must be established that is how it goes).
When this woman decided she wanted to reach for her phone or whatever, she foolishly risked her life. After an attempt of taking into custody is effected, suspects will have to wait until a later time to call their attorney. That is what being taken into custody means....exactly that.....your freedom is suspended and movements to extract oneself from custody constitute resisting arrest and can lead to situations such as this.
If this woman was uncuffed and not in custody, she resisted and the prudent officer will take her down using appropriate or escalation of force.
She was better off tased than beaten down via baton.
Of course in your armchair world they should have reasoned with her first or maybe just let her have her way:)LOL!!!!
Responsibility for one's actions and knowing the consequences of dangerous or irresponsible actions......is this concept lost on you?
"I'm fine with police who do their jobs conscientiously and with some degree of restraint"
Just like the A/W crowd who "support the troops".
Anyone can go back and read your views on POs.
I maintain that in the videotape, I did not see an officer who feared for his safety. Some of the posters on this thread who have defended the officers involved claim that the tasing was justified on the grounds that Jennifer Marshall might have been reaching for a weapon. The problem with this is that she was not tased as she reached into her car. It was only after pulling her out of the car, bringing her around to the trunk and pinning her down that the taser was was used.
That is what being taken into custody means....exactly that.....your freedom is suspended and movements to extract oneself from custody constitute resisting arrest and can lead to situations such as this.
I don't know whether or not you have watched the videotape, but if you do you will see that the officer had already made his intentions to use the taser clear before any resistance had been put up. She had not even been placed under arrest at that time.
Responsibility for one's actions and knowing the consequences of dangerous or irresponsible actions......is this concept lost on you?
No. That is why I posted this thread. I believe that the officer involved should bear responsibility for his actions.
Anyone can go back and read your views on POs.
Do that and please post them here. Understand, I'm not asking you to go back and find statements from me about individual officers or specific cases, but an expression of my viewpoint that "All officer's are ________." Please fill in that blank.
Question. Somewhere along the line she has a right to call her lawyer and the police can not prevent her from doing so. At what point does that right kick in? Any legal reaons why she should not call from her car?
I'll look at the videotape. It stayed on stuck when I tried before but I'll try again tommorrow.
I've been following what others have written about what they saw.
"Somewhere along the line she has a right to call her lawyer and the police can not prevent her from doing so."
Procedure where I worked was that the suspect could call the attorney after booking unless they were released O/R. Then they could call after O/R.
Paperwork was not "final" and sent to DA until after booking and in fact we would even release arrestees as "detained" if the particulars of a case changed from what first seemed to be the case.
An example would be arresting a dude for spousal who was "mouthy" and physically resisting on first contact.....then find out no assault/battery was evident/could be tangibly established other than harsh words. The guy was in fact under arrest/mirandized/advised of charges/hooked up...not detained...but further investigation and calming down of things allowed Officers' discretion not to complete the arrest procedure via transport and booking.
The dude saves the arrest/booking record and thus did not need to call an attorney. So it can be to the suspects advantage.
Back then Cell phones didn't exist but if they did I doubt I would have allowed them to have their phone back to call from the car either. Once arrested and hooked, everything comes out of the pockets and you don't get it back til after release.
I thought I was responding to JTN's post just above and my apologies for interjecting without looking at the poster of the question.
That link makes me suspect that you are very personally experienced in trying to dodge a DUI. I lost 5 members of my high school senior class before graduation day because of drunk drivers. My dad's last commanding officer lost his daughter to a drunk driver. I had dinner with her on many occasions, so it wasn't just another disconnected statistic. When San Diego country called me for jury duty, the first attempt to seat me was on a drunk driving case. The jackass lawyer tried to convince the prospective jurors that the gas chromatograph used for the alcohol measurement was grossly inaccurate. BS. I'm a molecular biologist with hands-on experience making those measurements in the lab. The defendant was an aide to a city councilman and measured a BAC 0.27. He was driving down a 4 lane freeway like it was one big lane. I have zero tolerance for drunk drivers. Take your pleas somewhere else.
"She had not even been placed under arrest at that time."
Actually (and I will be going to bed now) a taser would be used to effect bringing her into physical custody prior to the formality of advise of charges and miranda which basically completes the arrest procedure. POs certainly advise suspects at times they will be placed under arrest before physically taking them into custody so how can you assume she was not under arrest? Additionally one can go from being "detained" to being arrested (there is a significant difference in the two) very quickly...that is the Officers judgement call.
I'm tired. "taser would" should be "taser could"
It is also amazing to witness the mindset of the "The police are always in the wrong" crowd.
libertarian ping
Right, I guess the Jews in Germany could have just not been Jewish anymore, and they wouldn't have had to worry about being hauled off by jack-boot thugs either.
Great vision on your part.
Okay. I'm just saying that someday, you'll wish that you had stood up against the police state that is forming around us.
"No, you have the right to call an attorney even if you are not fed up"
According to you a person has the right to call an attorney in the middle of a police investigation but unfortunatly for this drunk woman according to the law they do not have the right to call an attorney.
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.