A Ticket, 3 Taser Jolts and, Perhaps, a Trip to the Supreme Court

[alp227]

Source: NYT

There have been many hundreds of varied rulings in the lower courts on when the use of Taser stun guns by the police amounts to excessive force, and sooner or later the Supreme Court will have to bring order to this area of the law. Next week, the justices are set to decide whether to hear an appeal from three Seattle police officers who say they are worried about the future of what they call “a useful pain technique.”

The case involves Malaika Brooks, who was seven months pregnant and driving her 11-year-old son to school in Seattle when she was pulled over for speeding. The police say she was going 32 in a school zone; the speed limit was 20.

Ms. Brooks said she would accept a ticket but drew the line at signing it, which state law required at the time. Ms. Brooks thought, wrongly, that signing was an acknowledgment of guilt.

Refusing to sign was a crime, and the two officers on the scene summoned a sergeant, who instructed them to arrest Ms. Brooks. She would not get out of her car.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/police-taser-use-on-pregnant-woman-goes-before-supreme-court.html

[sulphurdunn]

1. This sort of police behavior is

arrogant sadism on display and in your face. That's obvious to anyone with a sense of proportionality. That these sick bastards (cops and their enabler judges) would attempt to legitimize this behavior by calling it humane and useful and the fact that the Supreme Court might well do so is retchingly loathsome. This is exactly the kind of corrupt judicial and police power that spawns revolution. By the way, any one of these he-men could have reached into the car, taken the keys out of the ignition and waited. In the mean time they could have offered to take the kid on to school, with mom's consent of course.

[Politicalboi]

2. How did these macho cops

Survive before Tasers. All for not signing the ticket. I'm sure there were other ways to get her to sign it. Cops have video of pull overs. What they should do, is if you refuse to sign the ticket, it will be DOUBLE. Problem solved.

[Meiko]

3. Why didn't she

sign the ticket? why didn't she exit the car. That's two opportunities to defuse the situation that she failed to act on. How were the cops suppose to get her out of the car without using extreme physical force and causing serious injury to her or her baby. Why do people think they are going to win a fight with the cops.....

[99th_Monkey]

4. Why don't you

read the article.

It says why she didn't sign the ticket, i.e. she felt that signing it would
be an admission of guilt, which is not an unreasonable assumption.

She also assumed (wrongly) that she was NOT in a "fight with the cops",
but was passively resisting them hassling her while she was trying to
get her kid so school. It was the cops who turned it into a "fight".

[minavasht]

12. At the time signing he ticket was required by the law

She supposedly took a test to get her license and I'd assume it was mentioned somewhere in the booklet she had to read for the test.

I am sure she was told numerous times that if she did not sign the ticket she would be arrested. She still did not sign and they had to arrest her, pregnant or not.

I've been tased before and it is not pleasant, but hardly a torture like some would like you to think. Much better that batons and way better that pepper spray. The moment the current stops you are back to normal.

BTW, I'm glad they changed the law and signing is no longer mandatory.

[pnwmom]

16. At the time that was a "Seattle police policy" -- and policy varied across the state.

They didn't have to tase her to arrest her. She was 7 months pregnant and she told them she had to pee. All they had to do was wait a few minutes and she would have had to leave the car, whether she wanted to or not.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017560360_taser22m.html

In addition, Seattle police changed their policy after the incident to no longer require drivers to sign tickets, and state law was subsequently changed along the same lines.

[99th_Monkey]

18. +2

[pnwmom]

19. The details are so much worse than this article implies.

She, at 7 months pregnant, was forced to lay on the hard ground ON HER STOMACH: i.e., ON TOP OF THE BABY.

These police officers should have been fired. I hope she wins her lawsuit against the city.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/10/malaika_brooks_case_pregnant_w.php

After a discussion among the officers, one opened the driver's door, reached in and grabbed Brooks by the left arm as another cop put the device to Brooks' thigh in touch-stun mode and shocked her with 50,000 volts. She began honking her horn, screaming for help as she resisted.

She was given another shock on the arm, and she stopped blowing the horn. She was shocked a third time in the neck, and Brooks then fell over on the car seat, unable to move. She was pulled out of the car and held face-down on the street while being handcuffed. After an examination by fire-department medics, she was jailed for resisting arrest. The charges ultimately were dismissed.

[minavasht]

20. Here in FL

it was a state law requiring drivers to sign the ticket or face arrest.
I don't have the details of the case, but didn't they call for a supervisor? So it seems to me they did wait and she still did not get out. And there is no guarantee that she would have come out on her own, peeing or not.
Any way you look at it it is a bad situation. They could have waited, because she presumably would want to get out of the car at some point in the future. Or they could have pepper spayed her, which is much more painful and with longer lasting effects. Or they could have physically wrestled her out of the car, as she was clinging to the wheel and seat belt, having to pry her fingers out one by one, with her still being 7-month pregnant.

Or she could have signed the damn ticket and be on her way to school. Or get out of the vehicle when told by the officers and avoid being wrestled or tased.

[minavasht]

21. From the brief search I did

it appears that the law was changed in 2006. If it was a state law I don't see how a department policy can choose to enforce it or not, it's like saying "our department will not arrest for burglary, because we chose so".
Even if that was the case, it was still an arrestable offence. And like one of the judges wrote - there was no pretty solution to the problem she created.

[pnwmom]

22. I don't think it was a state law -- different municipalities did different things.

A state law was written to keep this from happening again, in Seattle or anywhere else.

Unlike you, I don't blame her for not expecting the police to react that badly to a non-violent, pregnant woman's completely non-threatening refusal to put her name on a ticket.

They tasered her a THIRD time even though she couldn't move after the second time. Then they yanked her out of the car and forced her down onto the hard ground ON HER STOMACH. In other words, ON HER BABY.

Poor woman, she probably trusted the police to behave themselves. Never again.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/10/malaika_brooks_case_pregnant_w.php

In concluding that Seattle police unnecessarily Tazered Brooks, the court, writes Judge Richard A. Paez, recognizes "the importance of having people sign their traffic citations when required to do so by state law. However, we have no difficulty deciding that failing to sign a traffic citation and driving 32 miles per hour in a 20-mile-per-hour zone are not serious offenses."

Officers also were at no risk from the the pregnant driver, Paez adds. "At no time did Brooks verbally threaten the officers. She gave no indication of being armed and, behind the wheel of her car, she was not physically threatening....A reasonable fact-finder could conclude, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Brooks, that the officers' use of force was unreasonable and therefore constitutionally excessive."

[99th_Monkey]

17. You make some valid points.

I probably would have signed it myself, for the reasons you cite, i.e. it's the law, etc.

And if this were an isolated incident, I'd be even more in your camp; but it's not. There
are SO MANY (like every day it seems) instances where police just become brutal sadists
and beat people to death, or shoot them dead, for no apparent justifiable reason, that
has affected my knee-jerk response to side with the "victim" of police violence and
brute force.

Interestingly, I saw on TV tonight some big national convention of police captains or some
such; and they noted that the number of police killed in line of duty has taken a sharp
up-tick within past several years; and a police spokes person was asked why they thought
that was the case, and the guy (to my surprise) said "well, these are becoming desperate
times economically and socially and when that happens, people feel they have nothing
left to lose." which i thought was a really intelligent statement.

[pnwmom]

24. No, the police overstepped -- state law did not require this.

They also pushed her down on the hard ground on her stomach, even though she was 7 months pregnant. Have you ever experienced that?

http://destee.com/index.php?threads/pregnant-woman-tazored-for-not-signing-a-traffic-ticket.61348/


The majority's opinion outraged Judge Marsha Berzon, who called it "off the wall."

"I fail utterly to comprehend how my colleagues are able to conclude that it was objectively reasonable to use any force against Brooks, let alone three activations of a Taser, in response to such a trivial offense," she wrote.

She argued that under Washington law, the officers had no authority to take Brooks into custody: Failure to sign a traffic infraction is not an arrestable offense, and it's not illegal to resist an unlawful arrest.

[sulphurdunn]

25. Until your pace maker shorts out

because some clown cop yelled "get down, get down" and then SAP! in less than three seconds, before you had time to comply or even speak unless you just returned from boot camp and were able to drop and say "Yes, Sir!" simultaneously. Tazers kill. Read the data.

[The Magistrate]

5. Or Two Opportunities For Officers To Be Reasonable And Use Human Discretion, Which They Passed On

In order to assault a pregnant woman in front of a child when they knew damned well she presented no threat whatever to them.

"Hanging's too good for 'im, and shooting's too dear...."

[Politicalboi]

6. This is all true

And she should have just signed it and been on her way. But do they really need to taser her for it? Like I said up post, they should double the ticket if you refuse to sign. And they should show proof that you refused. Had she read the ticket, it says right on there that signing is NOT an admission of guilt. So I don't know why she didn't just sign it. But if you think you're not guilty, and you won't sign, just double it. After getting $700.00 speeding tickets for not signing, it will sink in to some.

[pnwmom]

8. We had a much better solution here in Washington, where that occurred.

We eliminated the requirement for people to sign their tickets.

And the City of Seattle is opposing this appeal. They are not backing the police officers in this particular use of the taser.

[alp227]

13. My state still requires signatures on traffic tickets,

as a promise to appear in court. That is clearly outlined in the DMV guide (see section "Getting a ticket&quot so that misunderstandings like this Seattle case don't happen.

However the website of the Washington Department of Licensing didn't outline the ticket-signing provision clearly. I had to go to the Wash. Dept. of Transportation website to look up the law. WADOT then links to the WA state legislature for the laws. But I'm assuming for now that EVERY state requires such signatures to promise to appear in court and court is where guilty/non-guilty pleas are made. I wish the officer had clarified the signature situation instead of calling for an arrest immediately. Hell, even some on the Other Forum can't support the police in this case.

[pnwmom]

14. No, every state does not require such a signature.

Washington state eliminated any such requirement some time ago, in response to this case.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017560360_taser22m.html

In addition, Seattle police changed their policy after the incident to no longer require drivers to sign tickets, and state law was subsequently changed along the same lines.

[pnwmom]

7. She mistakenly thought signing the ticket meant conceding the facts of the case.

And she wanted to plead not guilty.

Since then, WA State has changed the law so that no one has to sign speeding tickets anymore. (She was going 32 MPH.)

How were the police supposed to get her out of the car? Simple. She was 7 months pregnant. One of them just needed to stay with her till she needed to use the bathroom (which is very frequent for women at this stage of pregnancy). In fact, she mentioned to them that she needed to pee, so they probably wouldn't have had to wait long at all.

The police have NO excuse for tasering a nonviolent pregnant woman. They wouldn't expose a pregnant cop to this kind of risk; they shouldn't expose any non-violent pregnant woman.

From the Police Policy Studies Council:

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Czarnecki/pregnant_officer.htm

The taser is an electrical restraint device that is used in law enforcement. It is common for officers to have the taser applied to themselves during training. One study suggested an association between the taser and miscarriage after reviewing a case report and the literature on electrical injuries during pregnancy [21]. Pregnant officers should not be subjected to the taser and should not try to restrain subjects during a taser application.

[Ash_F]

23. The "she made me do it" argument is terrible and does not sell at all here

The justice system has a lot of options that they can and do use on a regular basis.

They could have processed the citation without a signature.

They could have sent the citation in the mail. Then, if she didn't pay...

They could have withheld tax returns.

They could have ordered the employer to garnish wages.

They could have repo'ed the car.

These are all things courts in other cities actually do to get the money. Why was arresting her right there an absolute necessity? This was not a violent crime. The best argument for them is that her driving may have endangered children but that is not why they decided to arrest. It was because she did not sign a paper.

She didn't listen, so obviously a beatdown and possibly causing a miscarriage is appropriate?

[pnwmom]

9. The police limit their own pregnant officers' exposures to the taser because

they recognize the risk to a pregnant woman. They shouldn't be allowed to use it on any non-violent pregnant suspects, either.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Czarnecki/pregnant_officer.htm


The taser is an electrical restraint device that is used in law enforcement. It is common for officers to have the taser applied to themselves during training. One study suggested an association between the taser and miscarriage after reviewing a case report and the literature on electrical injuries during pregnancy [21]. Pregnant officers should not be subjected to the taser and should not try to restrain subjects during a taser application.

[unkachuck]

10. why....

....would you need to sign a speeding ticket in the first place? And why would refusing to sign be a crime?....goofy law....

....but since the goofy law is on the books and since the police can't be too careful these days, I'm surprised they didn't shoot her....a pregnant women with a child could be very dangerous....

[ManiacJoe]

11. Signing = proof of receipt.

[pnwmom]

15. The "goofy law" was a Seattle police policy.

Washington state eliminated any such requirement some time ago, in response to this case.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017560360_taser22m.html

In addition, Seattle police changed their policy after the incident to no longer require drivers to sign tickets, and state law was subsequently changed along the same lines.