TX - Sandra Bland, 28, found dead in jail cell, Waller County, 13 July 2015 #3

[Montjoy]

Honest and Serious question. I keep reading here on these threads that Sandra Bland's Civil Rights were violated. I have read a lot of stuff, concerning Civil Rights. Can someone tell me WHAT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED? Thank You in advance.

For starters, SB requested an attorney, was not allowed to call one, and the officer continued to ask her questions. (The officer said when speaking to his department that he considered her to be under arrest from the moment he pulled her over.)

She may also be considered to be falsely arrested as she repeatedly asked why she was under arrest, and the officer refused to answer.

She was not treated humanely, both with respect to the excessive force in her arrest and to the inadequate custody she was given in the county jail, something that violated state law.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Drivers' rights during a traffic stop in Texas
BY J.M. SCOTT, SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS : JULY 22, 2015 : Updated: July 23, 2015 9:03am

> You can't be pulled over for no reason. A police officer needs an initial reason or “probable cause.” It can be as minor as a broken taillight.
> The most basic right you have during a traffic stop is to remain silent. Aside from basic identification questions, you do not have to respond to any other investigative queries
> A driver is required to hand over her license and proof of insurance as well as handgun license if she has one. It's recommended a driver discloses the location and type of any weapon in possession at the time.
>Texas law enforcement officials cannot arrest someone simply for talking back. If an officer thinks the language crosses a line, however, he can charge the individual with disorderly conduct, threat of assault or terrorist threat
>Know this: drivers, passengers and bystanders always have the right to videotape any interaction with the police. For better or worse, the presence of a camera can affect the dynamics of a situation.
>When an officer asks a driver to exit the car in Texas, the driver must comply. Texas law enforcement officers may also separate drivers from passengers. However, no one is required to answer any questions posed by the police that go beyond basic identification queries.
>When it comes to searches, drivers can refuse to submit unless an officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle may contain evidence of a crime
>If a driver steps out of his vehicle, police can frisk him if there is probable cause. For example, the officer may conduct a pat-down in search of a weapons.
>Drivers in Texas who are pulled over for possible intoxication may refuse to submit to a breath-alcohol test. In 'no refusal' cities like San Antonio, however, suspected drunken drivers who refuse a breath test are subject to a mandatory blood draw.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...affic-stop-in-Texas-6399983.php#photo-1814275

 

[scmom]

Don't see anything there about calling an attorney while being arrested.

 

[human]

Drivers' rights during a traffic stop in Texas
BY J.M. SCOTT, SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS : JULY 22, 2015 : Updated: July 23, 2015 9:03am

> You can't be pulled over for no reason. A police officer needs an initial reason or “probable cause.” It can be as minor as a broken taillight.
> The most basic right you have during a traffic stop is to remain silent. Aside from basic identification questions, you do not have to respond to any other investigative queries
> A driver is required to hand over her license and proof of insurance as well as handgun license if she has one. It's recommended a driver discloses the location and type of any weapon in possession at the time.
>Texas law enforcement officials cannot arrest someone simply for talking back. If an officer thinks the language crosses a line, however, he can charge the individual with disorderly conduct, threat of assault or terrorist threat
>Know this: drivers, passengers and bystanders always have the right to videotape any interaction with the police. For better or worse, the presence of a camera can affect the dynamics of a situation.
>When an officer asks a driver to exit the car in Texas, the driver must comply. Texas law enforcement officers may also separate drivers from passengers. However, no one is required to answer any questions posed by the police that go beyond basic identification queries.
>When it comes to searches, drivers can refuse to submit unless an officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle may contain evidence of a crime
>If a driver steps out of his vehicle, police can frisk him if there is probable cause. For example, the officer may conduct a pat-down in search of a weapons.
>Drivers in Texas who are pulled over for possible intoxication may refuse to submit to a breath-alcohol test. In 'no refusal' cities like San Antonio, however, suspected drunken drivers who refuse a breath test are subject to a mandatory blood draw.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...affic-stop-in-Texas-6399983.php#photo-1814275

She did not have to answer him. She could videotape.

 

[KateB]

Honest and Serious question. I keep reading here on these threads that Sandra Bland's Civil Rights were violated. I have read a lot of stuff, concerning Civil Rights. Can someone tell me WHAT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED? Thank You in advance.

https://www.aclunc.org/blog/sandra-blands-only-crime-she-knew-her-rights
ACLU explains it better than I can.

 

[Lilibet]

https://www.aclunc.org/blog/sandra-blands-only-crime-she-knew-her-rights
ACLU explains it better than I can.

This is an excellent article that shows what a complex, deeply-rooted problem this is. The solutions are equally complex, I'm afraid. Racial prejudice and distrust run deep in this country. JMO

 

[arkansasmimi]

For starters, SB requested an attorney, was not allowed to call one, and the officer continued to ask her questions. (The officer said when speaking to his department that he considered her to be under arrest from the moment he pulled her over.)

She may also be considered to be falsely arrested as she repeatedly asked why she was under arrest, and the officer refused to answer.

She was not treated humanely, both with respect to the excessive force in her arrest and to the inadequate custody she was given in the county jail, something that violated state law.

Respectfully,
1) Bland did not ask for one, she reached for her phone and said she was calling her lawyer, because Trooper BE asked her to step out.
942mark, after she had told him why she was irritated, and he asks her to put out the cig, the tells her to step out of the car. She said she doesn't have to and that he has no right, which she is wrong. She says then that she is refusing to talk to him other than give her name, he continues to tell her to get out and she says she is calling her lawyer, so she is seen making movement in the car that's when he reaches into car ( she could have been reaching for a weapon also) she did not comply. He calls for back up she still keep on and thats when he pulled the taser

Watch this, she could have recorded, but the officer says no sudden moves, when Sandra Bland did. http://www.today.com/news/traffic-stops-what-are-your-rights-jeff-rossen-explains-t35561

Her saying that she invoking her right to only give her name when he was telling her to get out of car, has nothing to do with her not getting out of the car. And even after she said she was invoking her right to remain silent she didn't.

Also from what I am reading, I am not for certain that the Trooper did have to tell her what he was arresting her for at the time. JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

Reasonable Force
Reasonable Force: Only that amount of force that is reasonably necessary under the circumstances may be used to effect an arrest, prevent escape, or overcome resistance. (Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt (9th Cir. 2002) 276 F.3rd 1125.)

"The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures permits law enforcement officers to use only such force to effect an arrest as is ‘objectively reasonable' under the circumstances." (Emphasis added; Id., at p. 1198.)

"A police officer may use force, including blocking a vehicle and displaying his or her weapon, to accomplish an otherwise lawful stop or detention as long as the force used is reasonable under the circumstances to protect the officer or members of the public or to maintain the status quo." (People v. McHugh (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 202, 211.)

The use of force to effect an arrest is evaluated in light of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures. (Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386 [104 L.Ed.2nd 443].)

"(A)cts by which cruel and sadistic purpose to harm another would be manifest" may also be a violation of the Eighth Amendment's proscription on "cruel and unusual" punishment. (Watts v. McKinney (9th Cir. 2005) 394 F.3rd 170; kicking a prisoner in the genitals.)

The reasonableness of the force used to effect a particular seizure is determined by a "careful balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests' against the countervailing governmental interest at stake." (Graham v. Connor, supra, at p. 396 [104 L.Ed.2nd at p. 455], quoting Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, 8 [85 L.Ed.2nd 1, 7]; Jackson v. City of Bremerton (9th Cir. 2001) 268 F.3rd 646.)


Factors
Factors to consider in determining the amount of force that may be used include:

The severity of the crime at issue;
Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others;
Whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight; and
Any other exigent circumstances present at the time.
(Bell v. Wolfish (1979) 441 U.S. 520 [60 L.Ed.2nd 447]; Chew v. Gates (9th Cir. 1994) 27 F.3rd 1432, 1440-1441, fn. 5.)http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/140#cont141

 

[arkansasmimi]

She did not have to answer him. She could videotape.

Correct. Rewatch the dash cam after reading this. She did not have to say anything to him at all. She didn't have to respond to the whole cig request. She told him she did not have to step out of the vehicle. Yes she did.

ETA: Trooper BE never told her she couldn't record. When he told he to put her phone down, that's when he was going to handcuff her.

 

[arkansasmimi]

https://www.aclunc.org/blog/sandra-blands-only-crime-she-knew-her-rights
ACLU explains it better than I can.

Thank you, I read that earlier. I have not seen anything that shows Sandra Bland was stopped, or anything because of her race. While Sandra Bland had the rights to speak under her First Amendment Right, her Fifth, she was told to step out of her vehicle. She told the officer she didn't have to, Yes she does. The officer continued to tell her to get out of the car and she was resisting doing what she was told. Trooper BE called for back up and she still refused and thats when he pulled the taser.

 

[human]

After seeing this, I would lock my doors and call an attorney. Of course, who has a criminal one that you know? Not me,

Even if they have the right to ask me to exit the car, I would not get out,I suppose they would shoot me then, though

I like the advice that if someone tries to kidnap you, don't ever get in a car.

In this case, I feel like never get out of the car. I don't think I could handle getting my head hit on the ground

 

[arkansasmimi]

After seeing this, I would lock my doors and call an attorney. Of course, who has a criminal one that you know? Not me,

Even if they have the right to ask me to exit the car, I would not get out,I suppose they would shoot me then, though

I like the advice that if someone tries to kidnap you, don't ever get in a car.

In this case, I feel like never get out of the car. I don't think I could handle getting my head hit on the ground

You have to get out of your car if you are told to by LEO. I see no reason you would get your head allegedly hit on the ground, if you were complying with what your told and not resisting arrest. http://www.today.com/news/traffic-stops-what-are-your-rights-jeff-rossen-explains-t35561

 

[Confusion]

Would it be considered being non-compliant if you refused to go out of camera range?

 

[Cubby]

There is no reason people would know this. Is it taught in Driver's Ed now? Is it on the written test for your permit? How would anyone know what there rights and the rights of LE are?

And someone claiming their rights were violated, call themselves a civil-rights activist - yet not know their own rights during a traffic stop? Wow.

 

[arkansasmimi]

The video in your link changes on refresh. No wonder I am confused. I watched the bystander cellphone video clearly shows BE with a hat on standing over Sandra. Refreshed the page and the dash cam video begins and the part the bystander captured is out of range of it.
So I'm still looking for the video of the female officer standing over Sandra.

If the point is when was she handcuffed, disregard this post. She's on all 4's still in the video you linked.

trooper is on her Left, Female office is over Sandra Bland, You can see the Trooper raise straight up he was kneeling on his right knee, gets up and goes to open female officer patrol car door, Trooper is who tells person video he needs to leave or whatever he said. [video=youtube;umOvM-bxXJI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umOvM-bxXJI[/video]

 

[human]

And someone claiming their rights were violated, call themselves a civil-rights activist - yet not know their own rights during a traffic stop? Wow.

Seems like she knew more than I. And she may have interpreted that he went beyond what he was allowed to do based on the limits of the traffic stop that have been posted on herenumerous times.

She is allowed to tape, but he would not allow it.

He could have told her to go ahead, but he needed to see her hands.

He is the professional and is the one who needs the cool head under stress.

 

[human]

trooper is on her Left, Female office is over Sandra Bland, You can see the Trooper raise straight up he was kneeling on his right knee, gets up and goes to open female officer patrol car door, Trooper is who tells person video he needs to leave or whatever he said. View attachment 79257 [video=youtube;umOvM-bxXJI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umOvM-bxXJI[/video]

Wow. Crazy. And I do not mean her, Slamming her head to the ground,

And no, she was not putting on a show. How would she know the guy is filming her?

 

[arkansasmimi]

Would it be considered being non-compliant if you refused to go out of camera range?

She was being non compliant IN camera range. She was being taken to the sidewalk area. You can hear the Trooper tell her multiple time to stand still, he was trying to handcuff her. Then he leaves her alone and goes to get his clipboard and shut the car door, as the car is in the roadway, in the right hand lane. He then tells her to come read, he was giving her a Warning. She brought it all on herself.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Seems like she knew more than I. And she may have interpreted that he went beyond what he was allowed to do based on the limits of the traffic stop that have been posted on herenumerous times.

She is allowed to tape, but he would not allow it.

He could have told her to go ahead, but he needed to see her hands.

He is the professional and is the one who needs the cool head under stress.

Respectfully,Not meaning that snarky, but how is she going to video with her hands cuffed behind her back? He did not tell her she could not video as she got out of her veh and walked to the side walk. That's when he told her to put her phone down, and she took it finally and laid on back of her car.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Every time someone 'buttons their lips' they are basically condoning abusive behavior, so it multiplies, bad cops are emboldened, and the sickness of the system spreads.

It's largely because people have kept 'buttoning their lips', taking the abuse, that things have gotten this bad.

LE knows who is vulnerable, who is powerless -- like all abusers, those are the ones who bullies and abusers target. If you haven't been treated like SB in the past, it's probably partly because LE figured that you'd raise a stink, so you were a risk.

Enough is enough.

Wait, so now your saying that her Right to remain silent, that she Legally doesn't have to answer any question, just state I want to exercise my right to remain silent, IS NOW A BAD THING??? She only has to Legally hand over her DL/Insur/Registration and if asked to step out of the car. The ACLU even says this. Sure she can choose to also use her First Amendment right of free speech, BUT SHE STILL HAD TO GET OUT OF THE CAR....And she refused, told him she didn[t have to. Which she was WRONG.