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

[Cubby]

rsbm

I'm not sure why you posted this -- it's not like people are disputing that he was legally entitled to pull her over. The issue for most here is how he treated her after he pulled her over. Making it seem like people are saying he wasn't allowed to pull her over seems to be deflecting from the main issue.

I interpreted the information posted to indicate SB was mistaken when she was seen on the video telling BE (paraphrased) that he had no right to ask her to step out of the car.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Doesn't sound like he was on the job though.
From the article posted above: Encinia's performance evaluation for September and October 2014 referred to him receiving "a written counseling for unprofessional conduct... occurring while at a school in Austin." The circumstances weren't specified.

According to his personnel file, Encinia was selected for the Trooper Trainee Academy in December 2013, joined the Department of Public Safety in June 2014 as a probationary trooper and completed his probation in June 2015, becoming a Highway Patrol trooper.

Encinia's most recent performance evaluation was for November and December 2014. Among the remarks were that Encinia "appears to operate effectively under stress," ''continues to use good problem solving skills and judgment while working patrol" and "appears to treat others in a respectful manner."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...bland-trooper-disciplined-20150731-story.html

 

[arkansasmimi]

The officer who arrested Sandra Bland received glowing reviews during his training and has since received one citation for “unprofessional conduct,” according to documents obtained by WLS-TV , an ABC affiliate in Chicago.

Encinia’s professional history at the department, as outlined in the documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by WLS-TV, do not, however, detail a long history of abuse and bad behavior. He had received just one citation for “unprofessional behavior” while responding to an incident at a school in Austin, Texas, but the specifics surrounding the citation were not discussed in the FOIA documents. He later received written therapy because of the incident.

During his training evaluation, however, he received good marks for a variety of studied attributes. For “stress tolerance,” he is said to have “performed effectively and rationally while involved in a pursuit resulting a firearms discharge,” another incident that did not come with specifics. It was written last fall that he had good problem-solving skills and good judgment on patrol

http://www.ibtimes.com/sandra-bland...nal-behavior-mugshot-rumors-dispelled-2034596

 

[arkansasmimi]

Do Police Have to Inform You of Your Charges?
By Brett Snider, Esq. on October 16, 2013 12:33 PM
It is a common misapprehension that police officers are required to tell you why you're being arrested or what offense you've committed when you're being arrested.

This legal legend may be supported by some state laws, like New York's, that require police to notify suspects of the reason for their arrests. But even these state laws allow police to forgo this requirement if it isn't practical.

All arrests without a warrant must be supported by probable cause, no matter which state you're in. So every legal arrest must be based on probable cause that a suspect has committed a crime.

There Must First Be an Arrest

Police can often detain or hold a suspect temporarily without completing an actual arrest. You have the right to remain silent whether you're actually under arrest or simply being detained, but police officers don't have to tell you anything either.

Constitutional Protection When Waiting for Charges

Still, there is no general requirement that, at the time of arrest, an officer has to share this probable cause assessment with the arrestee.

In Devenpeck v. Alford, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that although it's certainly "good police practice" to let a suspect know the reason for his arrest when taken into custody, there is no constitutional requirement to do so.

And while there is a requirement for a "prompt" probable cause determination by a neutral magistrate, the High Court has explained that this hearing may be reasonably held up to 48 hours after the time of arrest.

This hearing is usually satisfied at arraignment, which typically takes place within two to three days of an arrest, depending on state law. At arraignment, a defendant is informed of the charges (if there are any) and a judge's determination that they are supported by probable cause.
More at link http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/10/do-police-have-to-inform-you-of-your-charges.html

 

[Cubby]

For starters, SB requested an attorney, was not allowed to call one, and the officer continued to ask her questions.

RSBM. Link regarding her asking for and being denied a call to an attorney?

 

[arkansasmimi]

violation for Trooper BE.... will be "I will light you up" Can't see anything else....still looking hard tho. JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

Do Police Have to Inform You of Your Charges?
By Brett Snider, Esq. on October 16, 2013 12:33 PM
It is a common misapprehension that police officers are required to tell you why you're being arrested or what offense you've committed when you're being arrested.

This legal legend may be supported by some state laws, like New York's, that require police to notify suspects of the reason for their arrests. But even these state laws allow police to forgo this requirement if it isn't practical.

All arrests without a warrant must be supported by probable cause, no matter which state you're in. So every legal arrest must be based on probable cause that a suspect has committed a crime.

There Must First Be an Arrest

Police can often detain or hold a suspect temporarily without completing an actual arrest. You have the right to remain silent whether you're actually under arrest or simply being detained, but police officers don't have to tell you anything either.

Constitutional Protection When Waiting for Charges

Still, there is no general requirement that, at the time of arrest, an officer has to share this probable cause assessment with the arrestee.

In Devenpeck v. Alford, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that although it's certainly "good police practice" to let a suspect know the reason for his arrest when taken into custody, there is no constitutional requirement to do so.

And while there is a requirement for a "prompt" probable cause determination by a neutral magistrate, the High Court has explained that this hearing may be reasonably held up to 48 hours after the time of arrest.

This hearing is usually satisfied at arraignment, which typically takes place within two to three days of an arrest, depending on state law. At arraignment, a defendant is informed of the charges (if there are any) and a judge's determination that they are supported by probable cause.
More at link http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/10/do-police-have-to-inform-you-of-your-charges.html

Sandra Bland had a bond hearing on July 11, bond set and case transferred to District Court.

Register of Actions
Case No. 02-F-00151
The State of Texas vs. SANDRA BLAND §
§
§
§
§
Case Type: Felony Magistrations
Date Filed: 07/10/2015
Location: JP2
Party Information
Attorneys
Defendant BLAND, SANDRA ANNETTE Female Black
6' 0", 175 lbs
HOUSTON, TX 77077

State The State of Texas
Hempstead, TX 77445
Charge Information
Charges: BLAND, SANDRA ANNETTE Statute Level Date
1. ASSAULT PUBLIC SERVANT 22.01(b)(1) PC Third Degree Felony 07/10/2015 http://odysseypa.tylerhost.net/Waller/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=345456

02-F-00151
BLAND, SANDRA ANNETTE
07/10/2015
JP2
Felony Magistrations
Transferred to District Court
ASSAULT PUBLIC SERVANT http://odysseypa.tylerhost.net/Wall...0,320,330,340,120,220,230&NodeDesc=All+Courts

 

[JeannaT]

Most of Europe thought Hitler was reasonable. Despite what side they profess to take today, in hindsight.

Especially the nobility and upper classes. Who, of course were not in the cross hairs of the Third Reich.

When people shut up and allow terrible thing to happen because they don't happen to THEM, it is still criminal.

I don't think we can compare the evils of the Third Reich to a jerk of a cop who gets more angry than necessary in a non compliant traffic stop case. It's not the same thing, IMHO. You certainly see judges jail people for giving them a little lip - that's what the cop was doing, basically.

I've read the rest of this thread and am surprised to see people thinking that cops are getting more violent than they were before, in history. In my experience, Cops are MUCH more respectful and restrained than I've ever seen. When I was a teenager, mouth off to a cop and you'll get a bloody face.

With the advent of more education (probably actually the advent of more cameras) cops now mostly treat people in their custody with respect.

I really think we are in MUCH graver danger, as a community, if everyone thinks they don't need to do what a cop says, when he says it. Imagine a couple cops arriving on a scene of a large riot, or even a burglary in progress, etc., and bystanders or participants think they don't have to comply.

 

[Confusion]

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.

That really had nothing to do with my question. What I asked was, would refusing to go out of camera range be considered being non-compliant? Thanks for responding anyway.

 

[Night-owl]

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.

So if I seem like someone will raise a stink, cops will treat me better than the one treated Sandra Bland.

On the other hand, if I do raise a stink, I'm going to be abused by cops.

Is that what you're saying? Because that makes no sense.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Night-owl]

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.)

whoa, whoa, whoa

Legally, I think you are under arrest when an officer of the law says to you, "You're under arrest for ". The officer should surely know that, and I'd be interested in seeing a credible source that says he thought an arrest takes place at a pull over. Legally, I think you're "detained" when pulled over.

Once arrested, you have the right to an attorney when talking with law officers, and you can consult with your attorney. You don't have a right to have an attorney present at any and/or all times.

I honestly would only evoke the "am I under arrest (if not then I'm leaving)" in some REALLY specific circumstances.

I also think it's a disservice to tell someone to refuse to talk to an officer about anything. You may have the legal right to do that, but it will generally be seen as confrontational. it's not going to get you off any easier. And sorry, it makes you look stupid. I'm a master talking a lot and saying nothing. Non committed answers are easy to do. You acknowledge that the officer is talking to you but you're not volunteering any info that you don't want them to have.




Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Confusion]

whoa, whoa, whoa

Legally, I think you are under arrest when an officer of the law says to you, "You're under arrest for ". The officer should surely know that, and I'd be interested in seeing a credible source that says he thought an arrest takes place at a pull over. Legally, I think you're "detained" when pulled over.

Once arrested, you have the right to an attorney when talking with law officers, and you can consult with your attorney. You don't have a right to have an attorney present at any and/or all times.

I honestly would only evoke the "am I under arrest (if not then I'm leaving)" in some REALLY specific circumstances.

I also think it's a disservice to tell someone to refuse to talk to an officer about anything. You may have the legal right to do that, but it will generally be seen as confrontational. it's not going to get you off any easier. And sorry, it makes you look stupid. I'm a master talking a lot and saying nothing. Non committed answers are easy to do. You acknowledge that the officer is talking to you but you're not volunteering any info that you don't want them to have.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

I think that BE's own statement (in the video) to his superior should be considered a credible source about what he thought. He said something like "technically she was under arrest from the time I pulled her over." In addition to that, he told her she was under arrest while she was still in the car.

I don't believe anyone is obligated to make small talk during a traffic stop, but I could never shut up for that long.

MOO

 

[kimlynn]

[video=youtube;URAZ3umt7v0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URAZ3umt7v0[/video]

Good quality audio and may address times and what was said.

9:55 SB says she is calling attorney. BE reaches for her and says he will yank her out.
10:09 BE tells SB You are under arrest
10:46 BE tells SB to get off the phone.
10:50 Put your phone down from BE.

Conversation with Sgt?
25:00 Trying to get her out to sign.
25:05 Explain to her what was going on
27.30 She was detained
28:.07 Technically she is under arrest from? the traffic stop. You're not free to go.
28.18 I never said you're under arrest.
30.06 Told her what she was receiving and what to do
31:19 I told her you're under arrest.

ETA..feel free to add more or make any corrections. Did this in a hurry.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I think that BE's own statement (in the video) to his superior should be considered a credible source about what he thought. He said something like "technically she was under arrest from the time I pulled her over." In addition to that, he told her she was under arrest while she was still in the car.

I don't believe anyone is obligated to make small talk during a traffic stop, but I could never shut up for that long.

MOO

She was told to get out of the car, which she has to do, multiple posts with links. So she was non compliant and could have been arrested. She reached for her phone is when he took his taser out. Even one officer on the Today show said you can film, just dont make any sudden moves, which is what SB did. Also, when you only hear one part of a conversation, you dont get the full context of what is being said. as what your comments reflect towards answers or statements .... jmho

 

[arkansasmimi]

[video=youtube;URAZ3umt7v0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URAZ3umt7v0[/video]

Good quality audio and may address times and what was said.

9:55 SB says she is calling attorney. BE reaches for her and says he will yank her out.
10:09 BE tells SB You are under arrest
10:46 BE tells SB to get off the phone.
10:50 Put your phone down from BE.

Conversation with Sgt?
25:00 Trying to get her out to sign.
25:05 Explain to her what was going on
27.30 She was detained
28:.07 Technically she is under arrest from? the traffic stop. You're not free to go.
28.18 I never said you're under arrest.
30.06 Told her what she was receiving and what to do
31:19 I told her you're under arrest.

ETA..feel free to add more or make any corrections. Did this in a hurry.

Why would you you not feel it important to start at the beginning of the encounter of returning back to give her the warning? When he told her "you can step out of the car" she has to do that. Not an option. She tells him she doesn't have to....its all relevant, every single word and action. And according to the US Supreme Court, he didnt have to tell her why she was under arrest

 

[Montjoy]

When he told her "you can step out of the car" she has to do that. Not an option.

rsbm

If those are his exact words, then he is not uttering an order or instruction. She would have every right to say 'no'. If he is legally allowed to order her to leave her car, he would have to order her. But the way that is phrased, it's no different from saying "you can leave the car if you'd like."

And if he subsequently did specifically order her to leave, then the force of his order will have been somewhat diminished by his initial phrasing. I'm not saying that it would make a later, specific order less legally binding, but it would certainly create understandable ambiguity about whether he is giving a legal order or presenting an option.

 

[Cubby]

[video=youtube;URAZ3umt7v0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URAZ3umt7v0[/video]

Good quality audio and may address times and what was said.

9:55 SB says she is calling attorney. BE reaches for her and says he will yank her out.
10:09 BE tells SB You are under arrest
10:46 BE tells SB to get off the phone.
10:50 Put your phone down from BE.

Conversation with Sgt?
25:00 Trying to get her out to sign.
25:05 Explain to her what was going on
27.30 She was detained
28:.07 Technically she is under arrest from? the traffic stop. You're not free to go.
28.18 I never said you're under arrest.
30.06 Told her what she was receiving and what to do
31:19 I told her you're under arrest.

ETA..feel free to add more or make any corrections. Did this in a hurry.

This was no false arrest. Disorderly conduct even prior to her being handcuffed.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm

 

[kimlynn]

Why would you you not feel it important to start at the beginning of the encounter of returning back to give her the warning? When he told her "you can step out of the car" she has to do that. Not an option. She tells him she doesn't have to....its all relevant, every single word and action. And according to the US Supreme Court, he didnt have to tell her why she was under arrest

All of it is important. The reason I did specific sections was in order to answer a few questions I had seen posted in the last two pages of this thread.
One was in regard to being denied an attorney. As you can tell she wasn't denied verbally,but BE is grabbing at her and telling her to get out of her car and telling her to put her phone down,obviously she isn't able to call her attorney with all that happening.
The second question was at what point did BE consider SB to be under arrest.
As posted earlier feel free to add as you see fit.
IMO

 

[kimlynn]

She was told to get out of the car, which she has to do, multiple posts with links. So she was non compliant and could have been arrested. She reached for her phone is when he took his taser out. Even one officer on the Today show said you can film, just dont make any sudden moves, which is what SB did. Also, when you only hear one part of a conversation, you dont get the full context of what is being said. as what your comments reflect towards answers or statements .... jmho

On the video I posted 9:55 is when SB says she is calling her attorney.
After a tussle and more orders to exit the taser comes out at 10:30
It seems SB would have had her phone out at the time she said she was calling her attorney. The taser is pulled later after verbal orders are ignored. IMO

 

[kimlynn]

This was no false arrest. Disorderly conduct even prior to her being handcuffed.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm

The charge iirc was for kicking BE. And this was after he said she was under arrest while trying to get her out of her car. Take your pick. He had to get her on something after such a display and I don't mean a display from SB.