Deputy sued for using stun gun on woman

WTHR ^

[absolootezer0]

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?

yep. then i would sue the living crap out of them.

[School of Rational Thought]

"What is relavant is that the jury heard the whole story and convicted her on all counts."

No it is not relevant. The the roadside cops did have this information, nor were they judges, nor after she passed the roadside tests have probable cause.

You cannot mix after the fact information with what the cops knew at the time or had reason to believe at the time of the incident.

[NJ_gent]

"she was only 5-foot-5, 110-pounds. I think the two, over two-hundred pound officers could have easily manhandled her."

Sure, but I think the officer showed he was at the end of his rope when he said "tazer time" as she was diving into her car (going for a dark, metallic object). Could they have forced her arms into position for cuffs? Sure. Could they have seriously injured her while doing so? Yes.

We couldn't see how hard she was fighting in the video. Sometimes it's just easier and safer for all concerned to use something like pepper spray or a tazer.

[School of Rational Thought]

"His announcing "taser time" sounds bad, but it could simply mena that he was giving her fair warning that she needed to quit resisting arrest or he would be required to use force. "

What was she under arrest for if she passed both roadside tests?

[yer gonna put yer eye out]

"School of Rational Thought"

Just a suggestion, but if I were you, I'd change my posting name pronto...:0) (saves future embarrassment don'tcha know?)

[School of Rational Thought]

"It said she cooperated with the physical sobriety tests. It does not say that she passed them. "

If she failed those test there would be no need for the blood tests. And she was on tape.

[JTN]

What state has the police do the blood draw?? I've never heard of that.

Forceful Blood Draws by Cops: Constitutional?

Some time ago I commented on the increasingly rough tactics used by police to incapacitate a nonconsenting DUI suspect while a nurse or blood technician draws a blood sample. More recently, I discussed the approach now being used in Utah: doing away with the doctor, nurse or medical technician and simply letting the officer stick a needle into the suspect himself out on the highway. (It takes little imagination to envision the scene: the struggling suspect thrown across the dirty hood of his car, his hands cuffed behind his back, the officer with a baton in one hand and a hypodermic needle in the other....)

I've received a number of inquiries from attorneys concerning that post, advising me that their own states are now planning to emulate Utah's new cost-effective approach and asking for any ideas on how to challenge it.

This is from March, so I don't know the current state-by-state status.

[PAR35]

I wouldn't have pulled the trigger unless what she came out with was a weapon,

If it was a weapon, she could have used it before you could make that determination and act on it. The only thing that saved her here was probably that the other officer grabbed her and was able to restrict her motion until the first officer could remove the object from her control.

[Pharmboy]

Yep--I saw the video and those cops should not be doing police work. Disgraceful...

[NJ_gent]

"So some cop was to take a sample of your blood for a reason you believe is baseless and you would simple comply because it is the easiest thing to do?"

The person in this case did not know she was being asked to submit to a blood test. He asked her if she would submit to a "chemical test", she responded that she didn't know what that meant, and then she went into her car for a dark metallic object (her phone) before he could explain.

"Since when can a cop forcibly take blood?"

He didn't force her to give blood. She was given the choice of submitting to a chemical test or going to jail. That's not force; it's an option.

"From the original post"

The original post is factually incorrect and inconsistent with the article it linked to, as well as the video from that link. I wouldn't rely on it for judgement. Read the article and view the video to decide for yourself.

"Sometimes folks need to contest the government."

I absolutely agree with you, but nighttime when you've been drunk driving is probably not one of those times.

[jaydubya2]

If a male had tried to pull off the same stunt, he would have been pulled out of the car, his face stuck in the pavement, and had a knee in the back of his neck crying uncle. Maybe throw in a couple of swings from a nite stick until he starts behaving himself. Because she's a small women, she probably got a little wiggle room before they decided enough is enough. She may have been lucky to just have gotten tazered.
I don't know how people can play games like that when their getting pulled over by the cops. I've always been a hands at 10 and 2, yes sir, what ever you want type of personality when confronted by the police. I've found they take their job rather seriously.
The video just shows the last scene. I wonder how she was conducting herself prior to that.

[NJ_gent]

"nor after she passed the roadside tests have probable cause."

Who said she passed roadside tests? The article states she "cooperated" with physical sobriety tests (which could mean she smiled, nodded, and proceeded to stagger forward a few steps before falling face-first into the pavement), and that she had "inconclusive" breath tests (which could be for any number of reasons).

"You cannot mix after the fact information with what the cops knew at the time or had reason to believe at the time of the incident."

You're right about that, which makes her all the more lucky they believer her when she said she was going for her phone as she dove into her car reaching for a dark, metallic object. I don't know about you, but if I'm a police officer who's pulled over a drunk who's now being combative, and that person then reaches into their car for a dark, metallic object, my first thought is "gun" and my first instinct is to draw mine and give a single warning.

[JTN]

Using this logic, states should remove BAC from their drunk driving laws. After all, your BAC doesn't tell you anything, right? You may want to check here.

Alcohol affects different people differently. A BAC level in one person is not equivalent to the same BAC in another.

The liver processes (breaks down) alcohol at the rate of roughly 1 'drink' per hour. The lungs exhale roughly 5% of the alcohol you ingest, and the kidneys eliminate roughly the same amount through urine. Unless the officers were giving her beer on the way to the station, it's extremely unlikely her BAC would even be maintained over any significant period of time.

Rising Blood Alcohol Levels in DUI Cases

It is illegal to have a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08% or greater while driving a vehicle. It is not illegal to have a BAC of .08% or greater while blowing into a breathalyzer in a police station.

In other words, just because a breath test shows a level of, say, .09%, it does not mean that the BAC when the suspect was driving an hour earlier was .09%

. So what was the breath alcohol level when driving? Well, we’ll never know: There is no evidence of the BAC at the time of actual driving. However, we can be fairly sure that it wasn’t .09%, since the body is constantly either absorbing or eliminating alcohol and the BAC is therefore constantly rising or falling. If it was falling, then we can expect the BAC when driving was higher -- .10% or more. But if it was rising.....

Let’s take a typical example. The subject -- let’s call her "Janet" -- finishes dinner by throwing down "one for the road", a 12-ounce can of beer containing .05% alcohol. She is stopped by an officer soon after leaving the restaurant, alcohol is smelled on her breath and she is given field sobriety tests. She does marginally well but, to be sure, the officer takes her into the police station for breath testing. About 45 minutes after drinking the alcohol, Janet breathes into the breathalyzer. The result: .09%. She is booked and his driver’s license confiscated.

It will take, on average, about one hour for the alcohol to be absorbed and reach peak levels of concentration in the blood, thereafter to be eliminated from the body. This is only an average; it can vary from 15 minutes to 2 hours; some invidividuals can reach peak concentration ten times faster than others. Dubowski, ""Absorption, Distribution and Elimination of Alcohol: Highway Safety Aspects", Journal on Studies of Alcohol, Supp. 10 (July 1985). This makes trying to estimate earlier BAC levels no better than a rough guess, and scientists have uniformly condemned the practice. See, for example, "Breath Alcohol Analysis: Uses, Methods and Some Forensic Problems", 21 Journal of Forensic Sciences 9.

Applying averages to Janet, though, we can expect the last drink to have had little if any effect on her blood-alcohol concentration while she was driving. By the time she is being tested at the station 45 minutes later, however, she is reaching peak concentration. In other words, Janet’s BAC has been rising. At about 120 pounds, we can estimate (read "guess") that the can of beer has increased her BAC by about .031%.

Translation: the breathalyzer reading of .09% at the station indicates a BAC while driving of only .06%. She is not guilty. But the "evidence" will convict her.

Just to make things worse....As I indicated, attempts to guess BACs when driving earlier than when tested have been condemned by scientists. This makes things tough for prosecutors. Solution? As I discussed in an earlier post, "Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?", most states today have passed laws -- contrary to scientific truth -- which presume that the BAC at the time of being tested is the same as at the time of driving! In other words, unless the defendant can prove that his BAC was different than when tested, the jury will be instructed that they must find that it is the same. In effect, the defendant is presumed guilty. And since there is no evidence of the BAC when driving, there is no way for the defendant to rebut the presumption.

These laws do, however, make getting convictions much easier.

Emphasis added.

He didn't force her to give blood. She was given the choice of submitting to a chemical test or going to jail. That's not force; it's an option.

Some option. If a thug with a gun tells you to give him your wallet or he'll blow your brains out, he's not stealing; he's giving you an option.

[NJ_gent]

"What was she under arrest for if she passed both roadside tests?"

We don't know if she passed the physical roadside tests, but the breath test was "inconclusive". As far as what she was being arrested for, refusing to submit to the chemical test (which she was warned previously would be grounds for arrest), and resisting arrest (by failing to follow the orders of a police officer). She was convicted by a jury of her peers of everything they alleged. This isn't a case of an innocent person being brutalized by powertripping cops; it's a drunk who became angry and combative who ended up tazered with a criminal record to show for it.

[yer gonna put yer eye out]

"Dear submissive or do prefer catcher.

Take that leather hood off your head, take the ball gag out of your mouth and tell your pitcher in the cop get up you need further discipline."

What you've just written is called "Projection" in psychology.
Just wanted you to understand I know what your preferences are....:0)

[Moonman62]

It's next to the third paragraph under "Related links." Whether she was guilty or not is irrelevant.

I think it's relevant. Even though you were crowing about her passing her sobriety tests, her blood alcohol was over the limit.

[Moonman62]

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 do you mean without probable cause? She was convicted and that would be hard to do if the evidence was thrown out.

[JTN]

I think it's relevant.

Are you suggesting that anything an officer does to a suspect is fine as long as that person is later convicted?

Even though you were crowing about her passing her sobriety tests, her blood alcohol was over the limit.

Keep reading through the thread, especially #74. I hate having to deal with that point though, since I think it distracts from the real issue here which is the police officers' actions. Guilty or not, it was wrong to tase someone that they had under control.

[JTN]

What do you mean without probable cause? She was convicted and that would be hard to do if the evidence was thrown out.

Our courts have not been friendly to Constitutional rights when it comes to DUI cases.

Anyway, how would you answer my question?