Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your trying to fit a round peg into a square hole with regards to this case.
I suggest you read the entire SCOTUS opinion with regards to this dog sniff case you reference.
Specifically focus on section III, yeah I read it all including the dissenting opinions of Thomas, Alito and Kennedy.
Dissenting opinions are completely and totally irrelevant to the law. Yes, this particular case was about a dog but it applies to traffic stops, period.
OMG Stop already! If he thought she was under the influence he would have told her he was asking her to exit the car so that he could conduct a roadside sobriety test. AND a damn Cigarette is NOT a safety issue.
Listen, if people can speculate she was DEAD in her mugshot, I can speculate that he had reasons to suspect she was under the influence of something.
And since the tox screen showed her to have high levels of THC, the officers was probably correct.
Listen, if people can speculate she was DEAD in her mugshot, I can speculate that he had reasons to suspect she was under the influence of something.
And since the tox screen showed her to have high levels of THC, the officers was probably correct.
Not really..the problem with your "speculation" is that if he suspected her of DUI or DUID he would have told her that and asked her to exit the car for a roadside sobriety test. I'm sorry that you are having a problem figuring that out- but that's how it works in real life.
Not really..the problem with your "speculation" is that if he suspected her of DUI or DUID he would have told her that and asked her to exit the car for a roadside sobriety test. I'm sorry that you are having a problem figuring that out- but that's how it works in real life.
Eh, whatever. Think what you want.
My original post about being under the influence was a direct response (and a correction) to another posters take on Rodriguez v United States and how it related to Bland.
I'm sorry that you are having a problem figuring that out.
One thing I learned from my suicide survivor support group is that suicide is unpredictable and absolutely no one should be blamed on other people's illness, action, and behavior.
The role of impulsiveness is one of the saddest things about suicide. There were absolutely no warning signs of my late boyfriend's suicide. He hid it very well. He has extremely poor impulse control, which I learned is a symptom of mental illness.
My original post about being under the influence was a direct response (and a correction) to another posters take on Rodriguez v United States and how it related to Bland.
I'm sorry that you are having a problem figuring that out.
I worked in law enforcement for 24 years. I am telling you that if you tell someone to get out of their car you have to tell them a reason.
So take your time, consider what I told you, read the info on the link, then come back and tell me that you are right and bring some support for your asserting that.
So take your time, consider what I told you, read the info on the link, then come back and tell me that you are right and bring some support for your asserting that.
I don't care if you've worked in cream pies for the last 24 years and your name is Bozo the Clown. I really don't believe who are you are or what you say you've done - this is the internet for cripes sake.
But I'll see your Jim Harrington and raise you a Orin Kerr. But first, a bit from his curriculum vitae:
Quote:
BSE, Princeton University; MS, Stanford University; JD, Harvard University
A little bit better than the U of Detroit, dontcha think?
Quote:
Professor Kerr is a nationally recognized scholar of criminal procedure and computer crime law. He has authored more than 50 articles, and his scholarship has been cited in over 150 judicial opinions and more than 2000 academic works.
It’s clear that the officer’s order was lawful under the Fourth Amendment. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that officers can always order a driver out of a car during a traffic stop. “[O]nce a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation,” the Court held, “the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures.” No cause or threat to the officer is required, and it doesn’t matter under the Fourth Amendment if the officer ordered Bland out of the car for a legitimate reason or not.
And then the article goes on to flip flop between the 1st and 4th Amendments and ends w/ this:
Quote:
So in short: Bland did not have to put out her cigarette. She likely had to exit the car, although it’s possible to that she didn’t have to because the officer was ordering her out of the car for reasons of retaliation — a possibility that might have been raised later in court, but wouldn’t persuade the officer.
So did she have to get out of the car? I don't know - but I've never claimed she had to.
Dissenting opinions are completely and totally irrelevant to the law. Yes, this particular case was about a dog but it applies to traffic stops, period.
Yes we get it you can't be bothered to read and understand the SCOTUS decision you decided to utilize in bolstering and support of your position no matter how unsuitable the correlation.
[quote=Chuckity;40573919] After the tasks associated with the stop have been completed, there was no legal justification to require her to get out of the car. I'm familiar with Mims but that refers to the legality of requiring a person to exit their car DURING the process for which the stop was made and I'm not arguing that. What I am saying is that you can't wait 10 minutes, allow her to sit in the car for that duration and then decide she has to exit the car. The process of talking to the driver, running her license etc. was completed all that was left was for him to either cite her or warn her, so the order to exit her car was NOT incidental to the traffic stop. Rodriguez vs the United States addresses this very issue
Since her families and supporters refuse to believe she committed suicide and this has turned into a racial matter (of course it has, what white officer/black arrestee isn't a racial matter now), why can't people simply believe she took her own life?
Would it have mattered if the arresting officer were black? How many white people commit suicide in jail and it doesn't make national news?
Seriously.....why does everything have to be about race! I'm so tired of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who is to blame for Sandra Blands death?
