Court: Seattle police OK to stun pregnant woman

yizuman

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
2,344
Reaction score
2
SEATTLE — Three Seattle police officers were justified when they used a stun gun on a pregnant mother who refused to sign a traffic ticket, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a case that prompted an incredulous dissent.

Malaika Brooks was driving her son to Seattle's African American Academy in 2004 when she was stopped for doing 32 mph in a school zone. She insisted it was the car in front of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket because she thought she'd be admitting guilt.

Rather than give her the ticket and let her go on her way, the officers decided to arrest her. One reached in, turned off her car and dropped the keys on the floor. Brooks stiffened her arms against the steering wheel and told the officers she was pregnant, but refused to get out, even after they threatened to stun her.

The officers — Sgt. Steven Daman, Officer Juan Ornelas and Officer Donald Jones — then stunned her three times, in the thigh, shoulder and neck, and hauled her out of the car, laying her face-down in the street.

Brooks gave birth to a healthy baby two months later, but has permanent scars from the Taser. She sued the officers for violating her constitutional rights, and U.S. District Judge Richard Jones allowed the case to continue. He declined to grant the officers immunity for performing their official duties and said Brooks' rights were clearly violated.

But in a 2-1 ruling Friday, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judges Cynthia Holcomb Hall and Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain held that the officers were justified in making an arrest because Brooks was obstructing them and resisting arrest.

The use of force was also justified because of the threat Brooks posed, Hall wrote: "It seems clear that Brooks was not going to be able to harm anyone with her car at a moment's notice. Nonetheless, some threat she might retrieve the keys and drive off erratically remained, particularly given her refusal to leave the car and her state of agitation."

They also noted that the force used wasn't that serious because the Taser was in "touch" mode rather than "dart" mode, which hurts more. They reversed the lower court's opinion and held that the officers were entitled to immunity from the lawsuit.

The officers' lawyers, Ted Buck and Karen Cobb, said the officers made the right decision under the circumstances they faced.

"Police officers have to have the ability to compel people to obey their lawful orders," Buck said. That's all the court recognized today. The 9th Circuit just applied the law instead of getting caught up in the otherwise unfortunate factual circumstances."

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.

Berzon said the majority's notion that Brooks obstructed officers was so far-fetched that even the officers themselves didn't make that legal argument. To obstruct an officer, one must obstruct the officer's official duties, and the officers' only duties in this case were to detain Brooks long enough to identify her, check for warrants, write up the citation and give it to her. Brooks' failure to sign did not interfere with those duties, she said.

Furthermore, Brooks posed no apparent threat, and the officers could not have known how stunning her would affect the fetus, or whether it might prompt premature labor — another reason their actions were inexcusable, Berzon said.

Brooks' lawyer, Eric Zubel, said he would ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case.

"This is outrageous — that something like this could happen to a pregnant woman, in front of an elementary school, at 8:30 in the morning, to someone who posed no threat whatsoever," he said.

Source: The Associated Press: Court: Seattle police OK to stun pregnant woman

Great, now every pregnant woman is in danger of being stunned and the officers will have loads of fun with them.

The officers could have just threw the ticket into her car and let it go.

In fact, most states, we don't have to sign the ticket. Just give them a summon to appear and let them argue with the Judge.

The cops did not like being told, "No!" and they decided to be assholes about it rather than just either toss the ticket to her or just mail it to her along with a summon to appear.

She wasn't threatening their lives or being a danger to anyone. Just arguing with a police officer and they didn't take it very well.

What pisses me off more is they tasered her while she's very obvious that she is pregnant, endangering the life of the child.

Yiz
 
Looks like she might be fighting and sue the police dept for abusing her rights. I think they're doing that cuz she's black.
 
Looks like she might be fighting and sue the police dept for abusing her rights. I think they're doing that cuz she's black.

I was thinking that too, but thinking isn't the same as actually knowing for sure this was race discrimination.

Yiz
 
Why'd she refuse to obey lawful orders to get out of her vehicle?
 
Great, now every pregnant woman is in danger of being stunned and the officers will have loads of fun with them.

The officers could have just threw the ticket into her car and let it go.

In fact, most states, we don't have to sign the ticket. Just give them a summon to appear and let them argue with the Judge.
that is what the signing ticket is for. You sign the ticket to promise that you will appear and argue the case. law's law. if you don't like it, move somewhere else or don't drive thru it. "Vote with your feet"

The cops did not like being told, "No!" and they decided to be assholes about it rather than just either toss the ticket to her or just mail it to her along with a summon to appear.

She wasn't threatening their lives or being a danger to anyone. Just arguing with a police officer and they didn't take it very well.
well the people don't like being told either. they think they're above the law. :roll:

What pisses me off more is they tasered her while she's very obvious that she is pregnant, endangering the life of the child.

Yiz
well what pisses me off is that she KNOWINGLY endangered her baby AFTER the repeated taser warning by officer. If she cares about her child, she should have comply.

Very simple - comply and argue your case later at court if you feel you've been wronged.
 
In fact, most states, we don't have to sign the ticket. Just give them a summon to appear and let them argue with the Judge.
The reason why a signature is usually required is so that the driver acknowledges that he/she received a ticket. Signing it does not mean you're guilty. When those officers turn in their tickets at the end of the day, it shows the drivers' signatures confirming they were invalid.

What if we didn't require signatures? It would be easy for drivers to deny it since they never signed anything.

If the woman believed that signing the ticket was an admission of guilt, then she needs to learn to read the back of the ticket.

Every ticket I've received, I always read the back before signing it. Every cop that gives me a ticket, will point out to the paragraph that they suggest I read to emphasize what's going on since they know I'm deaf. Just about every ticket I've gotten has in bold letters... "SIGNING THIS IS NOT AN ADMISSION OF GUILT."

While I do agree that using a taser on a pregnant woman may seem extreme or inappropriate, I would also have to say that the woman's actions were also uncalled for as well. Locking your arms on a steering wheel and refusing to cooperate is like a little kid dropping dead on the floor kicking and screaming for mommy's attention.
 
The reason why a signature is usually required is so that the driver acknowledges that he/she received a ticket. Signing it does not mean you're guilty. When those officers turn in their tickets at the end of the day, it shows the drivers' signatures confirming they were invalid.

What if we didn't require signatures? It would be easy for drivers to deny it since they never signed anything.

If the woman believed that signing the ticket was an admission of guilt, then she needs to learn to read the back of the ticket.

Every ticket I've received, I always read the back before signing it. Every cop that gives me a ticket, will point out to the paragraph that they suggest I read to emphasize what's going on since they know I'm deaf. Just about every ticket I've gotten has in bold letters... "SIGNING THIS IS NOT AN ADMISSION OF GUILT."

While I do agree that using a taser on a pregnant woman may seem extreme or inappropriate, I would also have to say that the woman's actions were also uncalled for as well. Locking your arms on a steering wheel and refusing to cooperate is like a little kid dropping dead on the floor kicking and screaming for mommy's attention.

Cops now have dashcams on their vehicles. In fact the new ones even record what the speedcams reads on the vehicles and you can see them all on one screen. They also record the voices of the driver the cops pull over. So pretty much everything that cops need can be used in the court of law.

So instead of arresting someone for refusing to sign a ticket, just let the dashcam hash it out in court with the defendant. I think with technology advancements, signing tickets is becoming, imho, a thing of the past. Rather let the ticket serve as a summons to appear in court.

Yiz
 
The reason why a signature is usually required is so that the driver acknowledges that he/she received a ticket. Signing it does not mean you're guilty. When those officers turn in their tickets at the end of the day, it shows the drivers' signatures confirming they were invalid.

What if we didn't require signatures? It would be easy for drivers to deny it since they never signed anything.

If the woman believed that signing the ticket was an admission of guilt, then she needs to learn to read the back of the ticket.

Every ticket I've received, I always read the back before signing it. Every cop that gives me a ticket, will point out to the paragraph that they suggest I read to emphasize what's going on since they know I'm deaf. Just about every ticket I've gotten has in bold letters... "SIGNING THIS IS NOT AN ADMISSION OF GUILT."
and also - the officer most likely repeated it loudly and clearly that it is not an admission to guilt and that it is the law to sign it.... and that refusing to sign it would result in arrest.

While I do agree that using a taser on a pregnant woman may seem extreme or inappropriate, I would also have to say that the woman's actions were also uncalled for as well. Locking your arms on a steering wheel and refusing to cooperate is like a little kid dropping dead on the floor kicking and screaming for mommy's attention.
the thought of that just made me *shuddering*
 
Cops now have dashcams on their vehicles. In fact the new ones even record what the speedcams reads on the vehicles and you can see them all on one screen. They also record the voices of the driver the cops pull over. So pretty much everything that cops need can be used in the court of law.

So instead of arresting someone for refusing to sign a ticket, just let the dashcam hash it out in court with the defendant. I think with technology advancements, signing tickets is becoming, imho, a thing of the past. Rather let the ticket serve as a summons to appear in court.

Yiz

well at more stores, they have security cameras. then why do we have to sign the check when using credit card? They've got cameras to prove that I have made purchase so why do I gotta sign? :hmm:
 
well at more stores, they have security cameras. then why do we have to sign the check when using credit card? They've got cameras to prove that I have made purchase so why do I gotta sign? :hmm:

Huh? What check for a credit card? Been doing retail for 25 years and that's a new one to me.

Yiz
 
Seems to me the lady thought more of getting out of a ticket than she did for her unborn child.....And she was speeding in a school zone....lots of points on ur record for that...so she pulls shyt like this!

She should have obeyed the officers to get out of the car...they were doing their job! It's cases like this that flog up our system!

Kudos to the officers!
 
Huh? What check for a credit card? Been doing retail for 25 years and that's a new one to me.

Yiz

lol sorry - I mean - sign the credit card receipt
 
If it were me, i have to sign or anything in order to protect my own baby because i knew cops are crazy enough to harm me if i dont cooperative. so i know I should not assume but i get a feeling this lady thinks if she were pregnant therefore people should respect her or not hurt her. THINK WRONG. It looks like to me that she is using her baby as her shield from anyone. =/
 
If it were me, i have to sign or anything in order to protect my own baby because i knew cops are crazy enough to harm me if i dont cooperative. so i know I should not assume but i get a feeling this lady thinks if she were pregnant therefore people should respect her or not hurt her. THINK WRONG. It looks like to me that she is using her baby as her shield from anyone. =/

Why should we HAVE to live in fear of the cops?

Yiz
 
lol sorry - I mean - sign the credit card receipt

Well, electronically or using a paper receipt. But I'm seeing far fewer of that. McDonald's uses credit these days and nobody has to sign anymore.

But I think there's a catch 22 in that regard. Someone that swipes a credit card and not sign it could later refute it at the bank.

Yiz
 
Why should we HAVE to live in fear of the cops?

Yiz

No. I am not afraid of the cops. i think it's not wise to resist under any circumstances around the cops. If you think it's wrong and take the issues to the court and then sues them for damages later. That's only i can think of. =/
 
Very simple - comply and argue your case later at court if you feel you've been wronged

.

Very simple: Comply now or else.

Why is it when I was a kid you cooperated with the police because you were a good person

--

Now you comply or else you get tasered.

The shift in thought patterns from a free people who cooperated with the police to slaves who comply with their masters seemed to appear rather quickly.

People brag now about being compliant.

They had her ID containing her home address, her car license number, and her keys: she was not going anywhere or going to get out of anything. A bit of patience would yield any result the police cared to achieve.

So why taser?

Perhaps how to deal with people simply is not taught any more -- Why bother teaching police how to diplomatically achieve results when they can more easily teach them how to taser people.
 
We're next! The police may believe that we're acting strangely when we don't hear them. *volt*
 
Back
Top