The Volokh Conspiracy

Officer Tasers Man During Traffic Stop -- Reasonable Use of Force or Not?:
This is two weeks old, but it's still really interesting. Below you'll find a video of a Utah police officer who pulls over a man for speeding. When the driver refuses to sign the ticket, the officer orders him out of the car. The officer orders the man to put his hands behind his back, and pulls out a taser. The man refuses, says, "What the heck is wrong with you?", and then starts to back and turn away as he puts his hands in his pockets. At that point, the officer (who appears to be alone) tasers the man (at about the 2:35 mark).

  If you're interested, watch the first three minutes of the video and then vote in the poll immediately below. Here's the video:



Was the Officer's decision to use the Taser a reasonable use of force?
Yes, it was a reasonable use of force.
No, it was an unreasonable use of force.
I'm not sure.
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com

More media coverage of the case here. Link via unfogged.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. More on the Taser Video -- A Response to Scott Greenfield:
  2. More Thoughts on the Utah Tasering Video:
  3. Officer Tasers Man During Traffic Stop -- Reasonable Use of Force or Not?:
FantasiaWHT:
Unreasonable. The guy was uncooperative, yeah, but he wasn't threatening, and he was walking AWAY from the cop when he was tasered.

I always thought the point of a taser was the ability to use nonlethal force effectively in a situation you would otherwise HAVE to use lethal force.
12.7.2007 5:15pm
Anonobvious:
Wow, not even a close case. The motorist was being insolent and whiny and wasn't promptly following directions, but he was hardly threatening. I saw no sudden movements that would have prompted the officer to go for his taser. Indeed, the officer tasered the guy while his back was turned and he was slowly walking away!

It seems that tasers have become an excuse for lazy cops to immobilize a person before cuffing him.
12.7.2007 5:19pm
AlexAlex:
Responding to a drawn weapon by backing and turning away from an officer while putting your hand in your pocket is going to raise a reasonable fear that you're grabbing a weapon. Are you sure that's not threatening? I'm not.
12.7.2007 5:23pm
Stunned (mail):
Oh my! I'm in a state of shock after watching this video. If that isn't a 4th Amendment violation, I don't know what is. A taser is not a toy.
12.7.2007 5:24pm
r78:
Reasonable.

He disobeyed repeated instructions from the officer, was walking away and put his hand in his pocket.

Frankly, if I were the officer I would have dropped the taser and pulled out a sidearm once that started to happen so I would have it in hand if he pulled a pistol out of his pocket.
12.7.2007 5:28pm
Waldensian (mail):
That cop tasered the guy because the cop was pissed off at him, pure and simple.
12.7.2007 5:29pm
Mr. Liberal:
FantasiaWHT,


I always thought the point of a taser was the ability to use nonlethal force effectively in a situation you would otherwise HAVE to use lethal force.


Actually, tasering people who annoy you for fun is one of the sacred privileges that comes with being a police officer. Despite the fact that for some people with certain health conditions, a tasering can be fatal.

The amazing thing is that I bet you anything there will be comments on this very blog defending the atrocious behavior of this police officer.

Tasers are an important tool for police officers. But, unfortunately, it appears that some police officers use this potentially fatal weapon all too casually.

What if the suspect here had died, as at least 140 others have died from the use of tasers nationwide since 2001? Would anyone think that the death penalty is an appropriate penalty for someone taking a few steps away from a police officer at a very slow speed as shown on the video tape?
12.7.2007 5:29pm
MC:
Should be reasonable use of force within the law to use the taser (dangerous traffic conditions making it better to use taser than wrestle, lawful authority to arrest, clear resistance of arrest, possible involvement of other passenger etc.) but not best practice on policy grounds. As a matter of policy should not face criminal sanction(s) but conduct should be discouraged (possibly through internal procedures). Officers should be encouraged to get better at convincing irrational people to comply without using force (including tasers).

Some things officer could have done differently:
1) Made it clear that signing the ticket doesn't mean that you are acknowledging guilt, and can be disputed in court (and can only be disputed in court, not at side of road)
2) Made it clear that if person didn't sign the ticket, it was an offence and he would HAVE to be arrested
3) Made it clear verbally (not actually done) that he would SHOOT THE TASER unless person stopped moving immediately.

Again, I don't think the officer broke the law by not doing the above things, (or should be held to have broken the law - not sure of relevant local law) but I suspect that he didn't act in the best way possible either.
12.7.2007 5:29pm
common sense (www):
It was unreasonable. There was little to no threat, and if there were, the Tazer was inappropriate from a technical stand point. If the female had left the car the second time with a firearm, the police officer was defenseless. He had a used Tazer in one hand, and handcuffs in the other. There was no call to use the Tazer if he didn't feel threatened, and it was the wrong reaction if he did.
12.7.2007 5:30pm
Mr. Liberal:
As predicted, people are defending the actions of this asanine police officer.

AlexAlex thinks that this slow moving individual might have been reaching for a weapon. No reasonable person watching this video would believe that was what this guy was doing.

r78 also thinks that there was reason to be concerned about a weapon.

My guess, AlexAlex and r78 think that police officers are never wrong.

Police officers usually are the good guys. But not this one.
12.7.2007 5:33pm
P80:
I'm not sure, I think it is a close call. On one hand, the officer's only other alternative is to rush the guy and tackle him. If he has a weapon that would put the officer in danger. Also, there is a passenger who theoretically could come to the driver's assistance. On the other hand, officers seem to get a bit taser-happy. Every week, someone posts a taser video online. You can view the tape as evidence that the officer tasered the guy simply to punish him for being a jerk.
12.7.2007 5:33pm
Cory J (mail):
Why did the officer need to ask the guy to sign the ticket in the first place? I honestly don't know. Is that standard procedure? The officer has his license plate and registration. Couldn't they have simply docked him through the mail if he refused to sign?

That raises the question of what was the purpose of asking him to leave the car. My guess is he was going to arrest him since he asked him to approach the car with his hands on the hood. Is refusing to sign the ticket really worth arresting the guy and dealing with all that hassle?
12.7.2007 5:34pm
Cory J (mail):
I think MC answered my question regarding the signature requirement. Didn't see those posts before I started to write mine.

I've only been given a ticket once and can't remember if I had to sign on the spot or not.
12.7.2007 5:37pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
This was classic police sadism, enforcing the unwritten commandment that anyone who disrespects a cop must be extrajudicially punished. (See King, Rodney.) "You should have followed my instructions.", the cop says.

And look how the cop lectures the guy's companion: "ma'am, you do exactly what I say or you are going to jail too", when she rightfully complains that the cop brutalized her friend.

This cop should be tried for assault, convicted, sentenced to several years in prison, so that the next cop will think about it before deciding to use his Taser to get his rocks off.
12.7.2007 5:38pm
Smokey:
I still don't understand why the guy just turned away from the officer and started to walk away while the officer was still yelling at him? Isn't the first rule in these situations to do exactly what the officer says to do?

That said, the officer could have handled the situation way better. He acted like a real asshole. But hey, that's probably what they teach 'em in the police academy.
12.7.2007 5:41pm
Mr. Liberal:

On one hand, the officer's only other alternative is to rush the guy and tackle him.


Yeah, he was moving at such a fast speed that it was urgent to either tackle him or taser him. Right.

There was, in fact, another alternative. Further negotiation. Or, alternatively, less force than tasering or rushing and tackling him.
12.7.2007 5:41pm
Anon Y. Mous:
Copy 'n' paste of my comment over at Vodkapundit:

1. When an officer presents you with a traffic ticket to sign, there is not going to be a hearing right then and there where he has to prove the allegations to your satisfaction. That comes later - in a court with a judge, should you choose to contest the ticket. Demanding that the officer has to go down the road with you to examine the traffic signs before you will sign the ticket is not a winning strategy.

2. When you refuse to sign a traffic citation, which includes a promise to appear in court to answer the charge, the cops will arrest you to make sure that you will appear. Refusing to sign means you are refusing to agree to appear.

3. If, when the officer instructs you to put your hands behind your back as he is arresting you, you refuse to comply and instead walk away, he will use force to effect the arrest.

4. Of all the different force options the officer could have used at that point, the taser probably was the least harmful to the moron who was resisting arrest.
12.7.2007 5:42pm
AlexAlex:
Mr. Liberal: "My guess, AlexAlex and r78 think that police officers are never wrong."

Bad guess, Mr. Liberal! Police officers lie, and they are often abusive, and they are sometimes complete and utter ***holes. The officer here looks like a really terrible guy. But our general feelings about police officers are not relevant. It sure looked to me like the man was grabbing a gun, and I'm sure it looked that way to the officer, too; the driver made every mistake in the book to try to raise that suspicion. I was just pointing out my opinion; sorry if that annoyed your liberal views.
12.7.2007 5:42pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
.On one hand, the officer's only other alternative is to rush the guy and tackle him.

How about letting him go, and announcing that if he leaves the scene without signing the ticket, he will be committing a misdemeanor? You've written him the ticket, you've got it on videotape, you have his license. You can haul him in later with backup if you need to.

A lot of defenders of police officers in these situations forget that except with violent offenders, there isn't any public safety purpose why you HAVE to use massive amounts of force on people who are fleeing.
12.7.2007 5:42pm
Mr. Liberal:

I still don't understand why the guy just turned away from the officer and started to walk away while the officer was still yelling at him?


Because the guy is an idiot. Notwithstanding that, just because a citizen is an idiot, that does not give a police officer the right to use more force than necessary to effectuate an arrest.
12.7.2007 5:43pm
Anderson (mail):
I hit the wrong freakin' button -- "yes" not "no." Don't taser me for it!

I still don't understand why the guy just turned away from the officer and started to walk away while the officer was still yelling at him?

He had the momentary illusion he was in America?
12.7.2007 5:43pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Of all the different force options the officer could have used at that point, the taser probably was the least harmful to the moron who was resisting arrest.

He wasn't resisting arrest, though. He was simply turning around.

When a suspect is ACTUALLY resisting arrest, of course the police may use the force necessary to subdue him or her (but no more than that).

But don't turn this into "resisting arrest". Where's the resistance?
12.7.2007 5:44pm
AlexAlex:
Oh, I should have said, "It sure looked to me like the man might have been grabbing a gun." Obviously we don't know with certainty.
12.7.2007 5:45pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Oh, I should have said, "It sure looked to me like the man might have been grabbing a gun." Obviously we don't know with certainty.

Must have been one of those guns that shoots backwards.
12.7.2007 5:46pm
New Pseudonym (mail):
Although I really think Attila the Hun was a soft hearted liberal, I cannot understand the 23% (as of my visit) who say the use of force was justified. I can see why 9% say they don't have enough information -- there's a lot of conversation that is not recorded due to passing vehicles. Perhaps the guy said some really outrageous things then.

For me the turning point is the fact that the cop police officer pulled over to the shoulder before the temporary 40 MPH sign, just looking for someone who would not slow down immediately. From the get-go, a parody of leftist views of the pigs police officers.
12.7.2007 5:47pm
New Pseudonym (mail):
OK, Anderson, you explained part of the 23%
12.7.2007 5:48pm
Mr. Liberal:

But our general feelings about police officers are not relevant. It sure looked to me like the man was grabbing a gun, and I'm sure it looked that way to the officer, too; the driver made every mistake in the book to try to raise that suspicion. I was just pointing out my opinion; sorry if that annoyed your liberal views.


The officer had a view of the front pocket of the man for quite a good amount of time. There was no bulge or any other indication that the man could have been armed. He obviously was not armed.

I am pretty sure that this is just a case of you siding with police officers no matter what. This is not a close case. This is obviously not reasonable force, especially since tasers can be fatal.

In fact, our general feelings about police officers are relevant. I fully support law-abiding police officers and believe that they usually tell the truth and usually respect the rights of their fellow citizens. Incidents like these demonstrate why we need to weed out the bad apples in our otherwise stellar police forces.
12.7.2007 5:48pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
The driver did not submit to the police officer's lawful authority. He did not control his anger. He did not comply with any instructions. He tried to control the situation. He kept yapping and refusing to comply even after the officer pulled the taser out. Under these circumstances, tasering was a reasonable way to bring the driver under control.
12.7.2007 5:49pm
Frater Plotter:
Here's another contributing factor:

Cops are trained to look for threats, to see the world as containing many hazards to their lives. This is a survival skill. To a cop trained this way, anyone putting his hand into a pocket might come up with a gun.

But ordinary citizens don't think that way. An ordinary citizen is not aware that the casual act of putting a hand into a pocket might get misinterpreted that way. Indeed, it is unreasonable to expect people to think this way: we don't live in a war zone.

People who feel threatened and lash out violently at casual, nonthreatening actions are called paranoid schizophrenics.

Training cops to respond violently to a casual act means training cops to lash out like a paranoid schizophrenic. Likewise, justifying this cop's behavior with the claim that he might have felt threatened, means encouraging both cops and ordinary folks to have to live by the rules of paranoid schizophrenia rather than the rules of sanity.
12.7.2007 5:51pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
The driver did not submit to the police officer's lawful authority. He did not control his anger. He did not comply with any instructions. He tried to control the situation. He kept yapping and refusing to comply even after the officer pulled the taser out. Under these circumstances, tasering was a reasonable way to bring the driver under control.

No, Tony. All of those things you mention are reasons you think that tasering is a reasonable PUNISHMENT. None of them have anything to do with "bringing the driver under control", because he was not out of control and was not a danger to the public. And police officers are NEVER allowed to PUNISH suspects for disrespecting them.

As I said, worse case scenario, if he won't listen to reason, let him go.
12.7.2007 5:52pm
Perseus (mail):
thinks that this slow moving individual might have been reaching for a weapon. No reasonable person watching this video would believe that was what this guy was doing.

Call me unreasonable, but I did find it suspicious when the guy was fidgeting with his right pocket. So put me in the "I'm not sure" category.
12.7.2007 5:54pm
technocrati (www):
maybe not backwards Dilan, but around the corner!

A lot of genius at play here. Who would've seen the corner shot coming?
12.7.2007 5:55pm
AlexAlex:
Mr. Liberal claims:
The officer had a view of the front pocket of the man for quite a good amount of time. There was no bulge or any other indication that the man could have been armed. He obviously was not armed.
Watch the video again, closely this time, watching the man's right pocket. It's one of those big baggy pockets, ones that could hide almost anything, and the man is clearly opening the flap to get something inside. Do you disagree that he appears to be opening up the flap on his pocket? I'm curious, why do you think he was doing that?
I am pretty sure that this is just a case of you siding with police officers no matter what.
On this we agree! I think you really do believe that I am really not paying attention to the evidence, and am just reaching a preordained decision. Based on your comments, I don't doubt that you think this.
12.7.2007 5:58pm
MR (mail) (www):
I think Anon Y. Mous seems to have the best argument. I'm checking with my brother who is a police officer, but I always thought that refusal to sign a ticket resulted in arrest since the signature is essentially an "own recognizance" pledge that one would have to make in court as well (says the IP professor...).

If so, then the failure by the officer was really not making clear that the driver was under arrest for not signing, and that he was resisting arrest. Even so, when an officer tells you to put your hands behind your back and you walk away (however slowly) something is going to happen, and it won't be good for the person walking away.
12.7.2007 6:01pm
Apollo:
Some of you keep saying that the driver was resisting arrest, but the cop never makes it clear that the man is under arrest. Perhaps a statement along the lines of "You're under arrest" would have made turned the driver's actions into resisting arrest, but as is he was just walking away from a guy pointing a taser at him without cause.

Perhaps the officer felt "threatened" when the driver walked up behind him, but whose fault is that? The cop told him to get out of the car, and then the cop completely turned his back on the guy for a lengthy period of time. At the time the cop pulled the Taser, except for not signing the ticket the driver had done everything the cop told him to do.
12.7.2007 6:01pm
Mr. Liberal:

The driver did not submit to the police officer's lawful authority.


The officer had the right to arrest the driver, but he did not have the right to use anything more than reasonable force. I wonder how many more deaths and other serious medical incidents have to occur from tasers before police realize that they should not be used casually.


He did not control his anger.


Although it is clear that the man was angry, he did not make any sudden movements and instead moved very slowly. Thus, it was unreasonable to view him as a physical threat that would justify the use of a taser.


He did not comply with any instructions. He tried to control the situation.


The citizen was unwise in his interactions with this police officer, but that does not give the police officer any right to use more than reasonable force.


He kept yapping and refusing to comply even after the officer pulled the taser out.


Actually, in most states, citizens have a right to resist to protect themselves against police who use an unreasonable amount of force to effectuate an arrest. That this police officer was threatening to use an unreasonable amount of force by pointing the taser at the individual long before he took any actions whatsoever that indicated he was not going to cooperate with an arrest is actually the event that triggered the citizens very slow steps away from the police officer.


Under these circumstances, tasering was a reasonable way to bring the driver under control.


Actually, the broader desire to control the citizen (i.e. to stop him from "yapping" or to stop him from being angry) is not a justification for the use of force. Here, the police officer had legitimate reason to use force to effectuate an arrest, but it has to be reasonable force. Using a potentially fatal weapon is not reasonable under these circumstances.
12.7.2007 6:03pm
Don Miller (mail) (www):
I am giving the officer the benefit of the doubt.

Once the person turned his back and started walking back to the car he was resisting, and had the appearance that he was seriously considering getting back in his car and leaving.

My understanding that refusing to sign a ticket in UT moves the stop from a citation to an arrestable offense.

Maybe the officer could have tried explaining the issue, but in the first minute the driver was arguing about providing his driver's license and insurance.

Right or wrong cops are being taught that Tazer is safer for the officer and the arrestee than tackling them and using physical force to subdue them.

Highway Patrol Officers in particular (especially out west) are in remote areas miles and miles from any assistance. They tend to be really paranoid.
12.7.2007 6:04pm
r78:

My guess, AlexAlex and r78 think that police officers are never wrong.

As someone who has filed actions against police officers for civil rights violations and improper use of force, I would not describe myself as someone who believes that police officers are never wrong.
12.7.2007 6:06pm
A.:
I hope the cop is killed on the job, or at the very least paralyzed. What a monster. Also, note the lie to the other cop towards the end of the video -- our enforcer says that he warned the guy, which is false, but might play well for a judge.
12.7.2007 6:07pm
Apollo:
"Call me unreasonable, but I did find it suspicious when the guy was fidgeting with his right pocket. So put me in the "I'm not sure" category."

If a cop is so fearful of motorists that he's going to tase them for jingling their keys, perhaps he needs to be reassigned to a job where he doesn't always have to walk up on strangers sitting in their cars (often at night).
12.7.2007 6:07pm
AlexAlex:
Actually, I watched the key section a few more times, and my desciption above was a bit inaccurate. The man has his hand in his pocket the whole time, and he is fidgeting and saying "what the heck is wrong with you?" He then turns away, seeming to pull after something in his pocket, like he's trying to grab something in it.
12.7.2007 6:08pm
r78:
I just watched it again and counted 4 or 5 commands that the officer issued for the guy to turn around and put his hands behind his back.

And this is while the cop had the taser drawn and the driver saw the taser drawn.

That is not the time to walk away from the cop and put your hand into your pocket.
12.7.2007 6:09pm
AlexAlex:
r78 writes: "As someone who has filed actions against police officers for civil rights violations and improper use of force, I would not describe myself as someone who believes that police officers are never wrong."

Mr. Liberal is 0 for 2, it seems.
12.7.2007 6:10pm
x (mail):
Well I've gotten a couple of tickets in my life. (Yeah, just a couple, not a bunch.) I haven't been asked or ordered to sign one. What state was this in? Is the signing required in some states? Are you sure the signing isn't an admission of guilt, and if so then isn't the cop trying to force an admission on the spot and isn't that unreasonable?

Just askin'
12.7.2007 6:12pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

if he won't listen to reason, let him go.

OK, are we all agreed dilan would not make a good cop? Or even a good third grade teacher?
12.7.2007 6:13pm
Ignorance is Bliss:
I consider myself pretty pro-police, and I watched the video assuming that I would find the taser use acceptable.

It was not. Not even close.
12.7.2007 6:17pm
EH (mail):

Maybe the officer could have tried explaining the issue, but in the first minute the driver was arguing about providing his driver's license and insurance.

Does this really matter when the officer just skips the whole "you're under arrest" part?
12.7.2007 6:19pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

Actually, in most states, citizens have a right to resist to protect themselves against police who use an unreasonable amount of force to effectuate an arrest.

So had the police officer drawn his service weapon, the driver could have shot him? I thought the rule was that citizens could resist an unlawful arrest, not a lawful one.


That this police officer was threatening to use an unreasonable amount of force by pointing the taser at the individual long before he took any actions whatsoever that indicated he was not going to cooperate with an arrest is actually the event that triggered the citizens very slow steps away from the police officer.

The officer could reasonably conclude that the driver would not obey his lawful instructions because up to that point, the driver had not obeyed any of the officer's lawful instructions.
12.7.2007 6:20pm
Perseus (mail):
If a cop is so fearful of motorists that he's going to tase them for jingling their keys, perhaps he needs to be reassigned to a job where he doesn't always have to walk up on strangers sitting in their cars (often at night).

The cop, of course, had no way of knowing that the guy was merely "jingling his keys" and ignores the guy's pattern of behavior prior to being tased.
12.7.2007 6:20pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
I don't much like cops, and I especially don't like traffic cops, but the number one rule is "never argue with a man pointing a gun at you." The idiot got what he deserved. The place to argue is in court, not with a cop.
12.7.2007 6:28pm
DrGrishka (mail):
I think that the use of force was reasonable, but the search of the car at the end was not. By the time the officer searched the car, he already had the guy under arrest, so it is not as if he could have lunged and grabbed something in the car. If I recall my ConCrimPro, "search incident to arrest" only allows the office to search items that could be in teh immediate control of the arrestee. The car here was not in the person's immediate control.

As to the Taser, as I read Utah statute, the officer may arrest an individual if he does not get "motorist's personal recognizance that he or she will comply with the terms of the citation." That recognizance, as I take it is evidenced bythe signature (which is not an admission of guilt). Since the officer here did not recieve that recognizance he could have either required bail or placed the guy under arrest (he chose the latter option). Once the officer was attempting to place the guy under arrest, and the guy refused to follow orders, I think the officer was within his rights to use force.
12.7.2007 6:29pm
Mike& (mail):
Be belligerent. Question authority. Refuse to sign tickets. That's cool.

But you put your hand in your pocket.... you get tasered.

I do think it was a close call, though. But you could sense real hostility from the driver. He wasn't merely "questioning authority." He was getting loud. If someone like him got loud like that in the street, I would assume he meant me violence and I would strike before he had a chance.

Now, admittedly, most police officers are way too eager to use tasers. They don't like being questioned, and when questioned, they want to get violent with you. Don't give them a reason. Open your mouth but keep your hands where they can see them!

Then again, most people want to be police officers so they can drive fast and carry a gun. (Just go to any college and talk to some law enforcement majors before telling me I'm wrong.) They look for a reason to taser people.

Don't give them a reason. Putting your hand near your pocket is a reason enough even for this hard core civil libertarian.
12.7.2007 6:30pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
if he won't listen to reason, let him go.

OK, are we all agreed dilan would not make a good cop? Or even a good third grade teacher?

A cop isn't a third grade teacher. And you may not realize it, but at least out here where I am (California), cops are told to defuse MANY situations by letting suspects go. Classic example is during rioting, the police may witness numerous crimes and yet they are not supposed to do things that make the situations worse and that sometimes just means forming a perimeter around the rioting rather than trying to make arrests.

In order to defend this tasering, you have to have an "arrest at all costs" mentality that says that not making the arrest at this particular moment (even though he could still be arrested later because they had his ID) is worse than any harm that could result from the use of force. (And, I think mixed into this is an attidue that people who don't do exactly what cops say "deserve" tasering.)

But in the real world, you only need to arrest at all costs when the person is a threat to public safety if you don't. When this guy is walking away, let him walk.
12.7.2007 6:30pm
ChrisO (mail):
I fully support any actions police take to avoid having to interacting with suspects as if they are people. I know when my computer gives me an error screen i kick it a few times, and it costs a lot more to buy a new computer than to get someone pregnant. Plus it feels good to take a few swings!
12.7.2007 6:30pm
byomtov (mail):
Any time I've gotten a ticket I've been asked to sign and had it explained that this was not an admission of guilt. I always just assumed I was acknowledging receipt or something and signed, but I never suspected I could be arrested for refusing.

Why is it not standard procedure to explain that to someone who won't sign?

Anyway, the use of the taser seems wildly unreasonable to me.
12.7.2007 6:31pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

Why is it not standard procedure to explain that to someone who won't sign?

The driver wasn't letting the officer get a word in edgewise.
12.7.2007 6:35pm
Mike& (mail):
AlexAlex thinks that this slow moving individual might have been reaching for a weapon. No reasonable person watching this video would believe that was what this guy was doing.


Dude, I am a very reasonable person. If anything, I have a bias against cops.

But you don't put your hands near your pockets.

No cop wants to get shot. All that cop was trying to do was error on the side of not getting shot.

Moral of the story: Your First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights do not include the right to reach for your pocket.
12.7.2007 6:37pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
Also, it's not deadly force, so the justification for using the fancy device is much lower. It's not a gun.
12.7.2007 6:38pm
Mike& (mail):
If I recall my ConCrimPro, "search incident to arrest" only allows the office to search items that could be in teh immediate control of the arrestee. The car here was not in the person's immediate control.



Not anymore. U.S. v. Thornton. Even Scalia noted in that case or another that the law (perhaps irrationally) presumes a suspect has the strength of Hercules and escape skills of Houdini.

Your civil liberties are slowly slipping away.
12.7.2007 6:40pm
ChrisO (mail):
I'm also rather amazed at the people who think ensuring obedience and awe for those with badges &guns is more important than anything else, a value independent from aiding the police to keep the peace and compliance with ordinances. You actually think this guy was going to flee out into the utah desert, leaving his car with his wife? And that this would actually let him get away with the purported traffic offense?
12.7.2007 6:42pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
How about letting him go, and announcing that if he leaves the scene without signing the ticket, he will be committing a misdemeanor? You've written him the ticket, you've got it on videotape, you have his license. You can haul him in later with backup if you need to.

It's real tough to see any way the officer thought his physical safety was at risk: the guy's hand was in his pocket, he was facing away, and he was angry but not making any foolish moves.

Unreasonable force, as I'd also say if the cop had given him a couple of baton shots across the kidneys or to the scalp. in both cases, you're inflicting severe pain and (as we know) some significant risk of permanent injury or death.

He had the drivers identifying information; he had the video tape. The rule, as I've always understood it, was not to use potentially deadly force unless you are protecting yourself or properly protecting others. All he was protecting was his sense of empowerment. Thank God he didn't have his gun out --- as we've seen in other cases, similar treatment in Los Angeles and Denver has gotten other citizens dead.

That said, the guy was an idiot, but if being an idiot was sufficient qualification for being Tased, no man should 'scape tasing. Make it contributory negligence and reduce the award the ex-cop and the insurance carrier would have to pay in civil proceedings.
12.7.2007 6:45pm
Apollo:
So had the police officer drawn his service weapon, the driver could have shot him? I thought the rule was that citizens could resist an unlawful arrest, not a lawful one.

There seems to be no right to resist arrest in Utah. In Texas, on the other hand...

The cop, of course, had no way of knowing that the guy was merely "jingling his keys" and ignores the guy's pattern of behavior prior to being tased.

Yeah, and when he asks a driver for his license, he has no way of knowing that the guy was merely "reaching for his wallet."

It's not hard to pull people over for speeding, give them tickets, and then everyone go on their way without someone getting tased. From top to bottom, this cop had egregious communication skills, seemed to have no hesitation in turning his back on the guy for a while (for no good reason that I can discern; if the motorist was going to hurt him, he had plenty of opportunity), never gave the motorist much hint that he was under arrest, pulled a Taser on the motorist for obeying his directions, then after he tased the guy left himself completely vulnerable to the wife (he's supposed to be scared, right?), and then described it to the second officer as "took a ride on the Taser." Bonus points go to the second cop, who asked the motorist whether the Taser hurt.

I'm just saying the Taser-happy cop should be reassigned to some area where his skills might be put to better use. Dealing with motorists is not his forte.
12.7.2007 6:47pm
Bill R:

For me the turning point is the fact that the cop police officer pulled over to the shoulder before the temporary 40 MPH sign, just looking for someone who would not slow down immediately.


I don't think this analysis is well supported by the linked video (assuming it's not been edited and that the timestamps closely reflect actual elapsed time).

It appears the violation wasn't for a speed zone that started with the temporary 40 MPH limit sign seen in the video but rather one started with a sign passed prior to the start of the video.

Between the time the suspect passed the 40 MPH sign we see and the time the suspect started pulling over (presumably in response to the officer's red light or similar signal) was about 3 seconds - that would be a very fast determination of speed when considering reaction times. (Indeed the speed with which the suspect started pulling over suggests to me that he knew that the reason the officer had pulled off was just to get behind the suspect in order to stop him -- but then perhaps that's just a reflection of my somewhat checkered history of being on the wrong side of such situations). The officer appears to refer to the sign we see in this video, but also, the officer tells the suspect (at about 1:27) that "you passed one about half a mile..." (the rest of the comment is cut off after, once again, the suspect interrupts and the officer appears to decide that discussions with the suspect are not fruitful). It seems likely that the speed zone the suspect violated started well before the video begins and that the officer probably had already determined the suspect's speed (either by pacing or via something like radar) before he pulled off to get behind the suspect's vehicle to effect the stop.
12.7.2007 6:48pm
David Matthews (mail):
I voted in the "I'm not sure" super-minority, because (surprise, surprise) I'm not sure. Going for the pockets is a bad idea, around any cop.

A few years ago, while I was sitting in my favorite watering hole in St. Paul, MN, a stranger decided to pick a fight with me (probably because I was the lone white guy in the bar.) He was otherwise also acting pretty spooky, and after I had ignored him for a good while, he leaned over and whispered to me, "I'm gonna kill you, you white m.f." So, eventually, after the bartender, who was working alone, tried several unobtrusive methods to remove the patron, the cops were called. One of the cops calmly asked the gentleman to place his hands on the bar, where he could see them. Instead, the guy stuffed them both into his pockets. Bad move on his part.

Now, that situation was different in many material respects, but what I took away from it (besides the lesson to continue to drink where I was well known), was that, in any altercation with the law, whatever else you do, keep your hands in plain sight, and in a non-threatening position. From their perspective, any motion toward your pocket, or their gun, is always potentially deadly.

So, in this instance, warranted? Maybe no. Understandable? Maybe perhaps (maybe perhaps?). And, on the positive side in this altercation -- generally speaking, it's better for a cop who gets a bit nervous to tase someone, than to shoot him.

On the other hand, when we have Supreme Court Justices who are so out of touch with reality that they think that the average Joe knows that when a cop says, "Stay Put," and they stay put, that they're acting voluntarily (thank you Scalia), and voluntarily ceding their 4th Amendment rights, what do you do?

So I, being honest, if spineless, voted "I'm not sure."
12.7.2007 6:49pm
David Matthews (mail):
Oh. Mike&said it better and sooner than I did.
12.7.2007 6:50pm
Mike& (mail):
I'm also rather amazed at the people who think ensuring obedience and awe for those with badges &guns is more important than anything else


Huh? I'm willing to bet I've done more in my short life to address police misconduct than you have. Your insults miss their mark.

No one is saying that police should be able to taser you "just cuz." The guy in the video reached for his pocket. Should the cop wait to see if a gun is pulled out first? That would be brilliant.

Let's draft a policy that requires a cop to allow a gun to be actually pulled on him before he can use a non-lethal device.

No one got shot. No one suffered any long-term health effects. This is not one of the many bad examples of officers using tasers. (And if you watch the related videos on YouTube, you will see several.)

I have been in many street conflicts. I know when I'm dealing with a hot-head. The motorist was a hot-head. You never know what such people will do. They are unpredictable.

Of course, anyone who doesn't think "Cops are evil and should be murdered" could see that the motorist was a hot-head. Hot-heads do, well, hot-headed things.

So the cop erred on the side of protecting his own life.

Oh, the shame.
12.7.2007 6:53pm
agesilaus:
Everytime I have been issued a ticket the officer always gives me a memorized spiel about signing the ticket, it's just an acknowledgement that you received the ticket and will pay or appear in court.

From reports about the incident:

"Communication: UHP investigators feel the officer who dealt with Jared Massey in this incident did not communicate well enough with Massey when he giving him the speeding ticket.

Investigation: UHP investigators acknowlege there was a delay in reporting the incident. The Department of Public Safety said they did not find out about it until three days after it happened, about the same time it was posted on YouTube.

Taser Use: The most important issue. UHP investigators said they feel that using it was justified and reasonable because when an officer is out there he or she has only a split second to make a decision on the use of force. In this incident they feel that use of force was justified because Massey had turned his back and looked like he was reaching into his pocket."



The cop has apparently received a lot of threats like the one from the jerk above here.
12.7.2007 6:56pm
DrGrishka (mail):
Mike&

I think Thoroton is distinguishable. There the Court said:


nor is an arrestee less likely to attempt to lunge for a weapon or to destroy evidence if he is outside of, but still in control of, the vehicle


It seems to me that someone cuffed and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser cannot possibly be "in control" of the vehicle.
12.7.2007 6:57pm
Lior:
1. The police officer didn't tell the man was under arrest. Hence the man was not under arrest, and the officer wasn't trying to arrest him. In particular, this was not a case of resisting arrest.


2. Was the police officer in danger? If he was, he was justified in using force to defend himself. It seems to me that someone slowly turning away from you is not putting you in danger. The police should be threatening non-cooperative people with arrest, not with bodily harm.


3. Probably what happened here is legal. The problem is laws that are designed to protect the police from the public, rather than force the police to protect the public.
12.7.2007 6:57pm
ogged:
I'm not convinced that the motorist reaches into his pocket. Watch 2:34-2:40; he has his thumb hooked into his pocket and we don't see him move it before our view is obscured by the officer, who then tases him. It looks much more like "don't you walk away from me" than "I was afraid for my life." And maybe I'm spoiling a subsequent post from Oren by noting this, but the cop doesn't say anything about the man reaching for his pocket when he explains what happened to the next officer who shows up. It seems like a bogus post facto rationalization.
12.7.2007 6:57pm
agesilaus:
I did post a link attributing the quote above to the Voice of Desert but as usual the blog software ate it.
12.7.2007 6:58pm
Dave N (mail):
hope the cop is killed on the job, or at the very least paralyzed.
Regardless of whether the cop was justified (and I thought he was not), what an appalling statement. Not only appalling, but sick and disgusting.
12.7.2007 6:59pm
Mike& (mail):
So I, being honest, if spineless, voted "I'm not sure."


So did I. But my view has shifted to "Reasonable!!!!!"

There was some research done showing how discussions often lead people to partisanship. This is one such example. It's very interesting self-reflecting on how my view has shifted so dramatically after less than 30 minutes.

I could talk to you about this and still be in the "It's close" camp. But when so many you-know-whats start acting as if there was no justification at all for the cop to use the taser, then otherwise sober people become partisan. Or, at least this sober person does.

Weird, and an interesting self-case-study in how biases are formed.
12.7.2007 7:00pm
ChrisO (mail):
hey mike&, you giant knowledge has swayed me. Let's tase everyone a cop interacts with, because then there wouldn't be any chance for someone to play gunsmoke. I mean, it only takes a second, and what if the cop's reaction time is off that day?
12.7.2007 7:02pm
Apollo:
It seems like a bogus post facto rationalization.

Good point. At 8:06 he's talking to the wife and justifies using the Taser by saying that "It looked like he was walking away." And then a few seconds later, "When you're under arrest you don't go anywhere."
12.7.2007 7:03pm
Mike& (mail):
DrGrishka: Don't want to get off-topic. But did you read the facts? "Nichols handcuffed petitioner, informed him that he was under arrest, and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car. He then searched petitioner’s vehicle ...."

If you've seen a post-Thornton case excluding evidence obtained in a similar search, I would be interested in reading it. Please e-mail me at the address associated with my moniker. Thanks.
12.7.2007 7:04pm
TomHynes (mail):
You don't have to do everything a cop tells you to do. But - (a) don't threaten him and (b) when you are under arrest, don't resist.

If the cop had said "You are under arrest. Put your hands behind your back. If you do not comply I will taser you, bro." - I would say vote for reasonable use of force.

Otherwise, mouthing off to cops is in one of the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.
12.7.2007 7:05pm
Mike& (mail):
I'm not convinced that the motorist reaches into his pocket. Watch 2:34-2:40;


Unlike the cop on the scence, we are able to watch the video multiple times. We can "stop time" to freeze in on images. We know what to zoom in on. We also don't have to worry about oncoming cars, or the passenger in the motorist's car. We can take our time and decide what should be done.

The cop in the video, unfortunately, did not have that luxury.
12.7.2007 7:07pm
Jared McLaughlin (mail):
Frater Plotter:

I've been in a war zone, and I've been on the other side of the gun trying to decide when force is necessary. Tasers are potentially deadly weapons, and should be used as an alternative to firearms when and only when firearms would otherwise be warranted. The officer escalated the situation, which is what untrained individuals do. Professionals de-escalate the situation using tactics and procedures that are part of their professional education.

I'm not a lawyer, but if I were in the position to be the one filing charges, I'd go for attempted murder.
12.7.2007 7:10pm
Roy Haddad (mail):

Watch the video again, closely this time, watching the man's right pocket. It's one of those big baggy pockets, ones that could hide almost anything


Why, he could have been hiding a terrorist in there!
12.7.2007 7:11pm
Perseus (mail):
Good point. At 8:06 he's talking to the wife and justifies using the Taser by saying that "It looked like he was walking away." And then a few seconds later, "When you're under arrest you don't go anywhere."

That is best argument I've seen so far that the officer may not have noticed or felt threatened by the guy fidgeting with his right pocket.
12.7.2007 7:17pm
J.McFaul (mail) (www):
Unreasonable.

But some axioms:

1. Police work is hazardous.
2. Police routinely deal with bad people who are armed and act unpredictably.
3. Traffic stops present peculiar hazards--situational awareness is required. The cop can be injured by a quick draw driver, passenger, or unseen occupant or can get hit by passing traffic. He is interacting with either (1) a scared law abiding citizen; or (2) hardened criminals who happened to have the bad luck of not wearing seatbelts in a "Click-it or Ticket" state.

4. The Police officer is entitled to take reasonable precautions against these potential threats.

5. The Police officer is entitled (but not required) to arrest someone who won't sign the ticket acknowledgment and promise to appear.

Taking all that into account.

Step 1. Police officer pulls over driver for a traffic ticket. Sitautional awareness check: Officer asks, "Is there anything about this stop out of the ordinary. Did I just stop a heroin loaded SUV for a seat belt violation?"

If the answer is YES, then draw weapon (not taser!), call for back up and exert positve control at gunpoint as discussed below.

We know this officer answered the question, "No." We know that because the officer, in determining the threat level, must size up the driver and the passenger. He must determine if there are any other occupants in the car. Are there visible weapons? Any suspicious bulges? Any visible contraband, Dope? Alcohol, prescription meds? any makeshift weapons (baseball bats)?" Is the person acting "normally?"

The office, in this case, spends about 30 seconds talking with the driver presumably with all of the above potential threats in his mind.

If the officer was concerned, he retreats to his car, calls for back up and either has the persons remain in the car with hands out the windows or has them exit the car and lay face down on the pavement until back up arrives. Orders can be given by loudspeaker and delivered over the top of a drawn weapon to enforce cooperation. The officer is entitled to do this on very little suspicion.

This was not done because we know for a fact the officer percieved no threat.

After speaking with the driver, he nonchalantly turns his back completely to the driver...and the passenger...and their combined arsenal of small arms, flame throwers, throwing stars and bowie knives...and then STROLLS the 15 feet back to his cruiser to get his ticket book, oblivious to any threat.

He returns to the car, and speaks with driver. He then returns to his cruiser again turning his back (almost completely) to the driver who is now out of the car.

Still no weapon. He does not make an effort to keep the passeger in view. I'm not clear on the audio but I don't hear him arrest the driver or tell the driver he will arrest him.

This doesn't look like an officer who really was concerned about being shot, even taking into account a movement that could be considered furtive. There were too many earlier furtive movements ignored by the officer. If he thought the driver wwas going for a weapon then he automatically should assume the passenger would have too. He didn't have a weapon drawn when she got out of the car after the bro' was tazed.

I don't think he felt threatened.

I could be convinced otherwise by a police officer's analysis of this situation.
12.7.2007 7:20pm
Dave N (mail):
I think the officer did not work to de-escalate the situation (as he should have) and I agree with those that if he had announced that the driver was under arrest, it would be a different situation.

As for those who think the officer should be charged with attempted murder, give me a frigging break.

By the way, Mike&, very thoughtful comments on your part.
12.7.2007 7:20pm
Frater Plotter:
Jared --

I agree with you ... but I suspect that in this case the cop has been trained (either formally, or informally through the police department culture) to have a mentality and behavior pattern that should be considered criminally insane and irresponsible.

As such, the blame doesn't lie solely with THIS cop in THIS situation. It lies also with the system that has taught this cop to see citizens as threats and to lash out with acts of violence.

But then, if I were running the show, every cop who uses violence would be expected to turn himself in for battery, and leave it up to a jury whether the act was justified in self defense ... on the same basis as any other citizen's use of violence in a threat situation.
12.7.2007 7:21pm
Dan Bongard:
Wow, I'm really surprised so many people thought the tasering was unreasonable. I thought the driver acted in a way that gave the cop good reason to think he might be trying something -- first, getting out and walking up behind him, then ignoring instructions and reaching into his pocket.
12.7.2007 7:21pm
Bama 1L:
The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the officer has been cleared by the Utah Highway Patrol, although investigations continue.
12.7.2007 7:22pm
Bama 1L:
And . . . were the occupants of the vehicle "seized" by the officer's action? Discuss.
12.7.2007 7:29pm
r78:
Another question:

Do we review this from the standard of whether it was objectively reasonable (i.e. reaching into the pocket could be a threatening gesture) or whether the cop subjectively believed he was threatened?
12.7.2007 7:29pm
Visitor Again:
No matter how ignorant/stupid the driver was, this was lousy police work. The officer should have explained to the driver that signing the ticket was merely a promise to appear and not an admission of guilt and that if it wasn't signed the driver would have to be arrested.

As a young man, I once refused to sign a ticket. The officer explained it was only a promise to appear and he'd have to arrest me if I didn't sign, then said, "You're not going to make me arrest you, take you to jail and fill out all that paperwork, are you?" Well, of course I wasn't.

This officer was bent on arrest without any such explanation. And he didn't even bother to communicate to the driver that he was under arrest, but just told him to put his hands behind him. After cuffing the driver, the officer in the video said to the passenger that the reason he tasered the driver was "because he refused to follow my instructions." He also said the same thing to the driver earlier on.

I think this cop let his authority go to his head. He has no business dealing with the public. He should have been fired or at least disciplined and forced to undergo training.

And he lied to his fellow officer in recounting the incident. Plus there was no report made of the tasering incident, as apparently required by law, until the videotape appeared on YouTube. This leads me to suspect the officer knew he was in the wrong.
12.7.2007 7:34pm
Cornellian (mail):
Don't tase me bro.
12.7.2007 7:35pm
DrGrishka (mail):
Mike&..

Upon closer reading you are correct.
12.7.2007 7:36pm
OrinKerr:
r78,

Legally, the test is objective reasonableness.

Jared McLaughlin,

You can't charge someone with attempted murder unless he subjectively was trying to kill the guy.
12.7.2007 7:47pm
Kerr office neighbor:
Aside from what the comments above express, there has to be some guidance given to officers discouraging the use of their tasers on someone standing right next to moving traffic. What if the guy had, upon being tasered, spun into a moving car and been fatally injured? This cop should be permanently assigned to a desk.
12.7.2007 7:49pm
Bama 1L:
r78: The answer is both, isn't it? In order to justify use of force, the officer's belief that he was facing a like force had to be both actual (subjective) and reasonable (objective).

Thus, the problem with some of the analysis here. "I would have thought he was going for a gun" doesn't quite do it. Did the officer think that when he tased the motorist? If not, then he has a bit of a problem.

All I've been able to read about this is that the actual officer in the actual incident later told his supervisors he didn't know whether the motorist was armed or not. That's not good enough. In particular, if he only thought of that after the incident, then it's really hard to justify his use of force.

(Of course, we know that he wasn't armed, but that's not relevant to any analysis.)
12.7.2007 7:50pm
Clint:
It's pretty clear that the driver was an idiot, but it's also clear that he had no idea that refusing to sign the ticket was an arrest-worthy offense, and no idea at all that the officer was placing him under arrest. Atrocious communications skills on the part of the officer.

I'd like to side with the officer -- and would have if he'd once said "I'm placing you under arrest" or even "If you do not comply, I will be forced to tase you."

The fact that he tells the other officer that he *did* issue such a warning, when the tape clearly shows that he didn't, just makes it that much worse.

Unreasonable use of force. (My druthers would be to handle it internally, with a reprimand and some conflict-resolution training for the officer.)

Re: "looked like he was reaching for a gun..." -- it's worth noting that the arresting officer explains the arrest to the driver (5:09), his wife (8:00) and to his superior officer (9:48). In all three cases he makes it clear that he shot the driver for refusing to follow his instructions, not for reaching for something.

Again, the fact that puts this one over the edge from "not sure" to "unreasonable" for me is his fabrication (of a clear warning) when reporting to the other officer around 9:48. This shows a clear consciousness that his unembroidered actions wouldn't have been acceptable.
12.7.2007 7:53pm
Jmaie (mail):
Bill R.

A common practice in Washington is to pace from in front. The officer determined the speed of the violator's vehicle, pulled over to let him pass, then pulled back into traffic and affected the stop.
12.7.2007 8:00pm
GatoRat:
I was struck at how unprofessional the officer was all around. What a loathsome bully. Unfortunately, about half the officers in my town are just like him (and the other half agree with me.) They are why I have gained such disrespect for police officers in general. (Somewhat made up by a detective who got involved in situation with my daughter and who is the very opposite of the officer here.)
12.7.2007 8:01pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
Can anyone tell if the car is instate or out of state? I've been caught in one of these Utah speed traps. Like this guy, I literally did not see the first speed warning that the officer insisted there. I didn't go back to check it either, because I was in a hurry. I had California drivers license, and was driving a car with NY plates. And yes, I had to sign the ticket promising to pay or appear. I wouldn't be surprised if the first signs are all but invisible here, but that's a separate issue.

Also, the reason I was driving on that trip is because my sister in law, a Utah resident, had already been stopped once. She was clocked going 140 in a 50mph zone. She got off with a warning (after showing her Utah license). My ticket was for going 56 in a 50 mph zone.

I don't have the highest faith in Utah highway patrolman.

One thing that's nice to know is that after last years S.Ct. decision on videotape evidence, all you would have to do is show this tape to the Supremes to get a definitive answer on whether it was reasonable force or not. From the tape, I think there's alot of stupidity on both sides, and with the other person in the car, if they were packing guns, I would have thought that tasing the guy put the officer in more danger instead of less. If the person in the car had access to a gun, the officer in this situation might have ended up dead.
12.7.2007 8:09pm
David Matthews (mail):
"There was some research done showing how discussions often lead people to partisanship."

As a mathematician/statistician, my favorite on these lines is by E. T. Jaynes:

Probability Theory, The Logic of Science

See Chapter 5: Queer Uses For Probability Theory.

It's excellent; mathematically correct; easy to understand.

It's also in postscript format, so you might need Ghostview or something like it, to read it.
12.7.2007 8:22pm
Gil Milbauer (mail) (www):
This was clearly unreasonable.

The driver clearly had an unorthodox communication style, and poor judgment, but he presented no physical threat.

If the officer is unable to handle the situation without resorting to this level of violence, then he's unfit for his position. That position imposes a high level of responsibility; it's not just a license to abuse people who don't show you the respect and compliance you think you deserve.
12.7.2007 8:25pm
jj (mail):
I'm utterly appalled that anyone thinks the officer's use of force was reasonable.

At no point in any of the postmortem did the officer even hint that he felt threatened. Indeed, when speaking to his fellow officer after, he justified the use of force because the guy refused to heed his instructions and that he "wasn't playing that game."
12.7.2007 8:33pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
Clearly, this incident was the result of Bush's Gitmo policies. Now, cops in America think they can do whatever they want and disregard constitutional rights just like we are doing to the people in Guantanamo Bay.
12.7.2007 8:41pm
John Neff:
I noticed there was a split vote so I looked at the video and read the comments to see why the vote was split and the I think the problem was the word "unreasonable" "excessive would have been a better choice IMHO.
12.7.2007 8:49pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
Informative part before throwing my 2 cents in

I saw another clip, an interview with the taseree and a PR flack for the Police Dept. Which answered a question some people have been asking. The policy of the state if someone refuses to sign a ticket the office has the choice of writing refused to sign on the ticket, or arresting the person.

The question is reasonable or not. I voted not reasonable, the guy was clearly not a threat to the officer, a pain in the ass, sure. But as others have pointed out at no point did the officer properly inform the guy of what was happening. On top of that he gives his justification for tasering the guy repeatedly in the clip he says he tasered him for not following directions. I don't think he should be fired, he should be suspended without pay for a period of time and forced to retake police communication classes.

It doesn't look like the tasering crossed the line to illegal just wrong and unethical.
12.7.2007 8:52pm
SenatorX (mail):
Reasonable. Dude should have given his license and registration when first asked. Then signed the ticket. All the rest was his wakeup call realizing this officer wasnt his daddy (someone whos authority he felt he could abuse at will). It's like that guy at UoF, he begged for it and he got it.
12.7.2007 9:00pm
wisconsindoug (mail):
reasonable. The driver was uncooperative and there was someone else in the car. The cop knew this. Once the driver began to argue and got out of the car and began to walk away, the officer began to lose control of the situation. The cop has no idea what the other occupant of the truck is going to do. The best thing to do in a traffic stop is to be polite and sign the ticket and be on your way.
12.7.2007 9:09pm
Bad (mail) (www):
Simply put, officers like this are starting to use tazers simply as a cure for their own impatience, rather than using them to deal with actual threats. Worse, in this case, the officer exacerbated the situation and even posed a major risk by knocking a man down so close to a highway.

Tazers, safe or not, are a serious, violent, and extremely coercive move that needs justification: not simply officers getting bored or irritated.
12.7.2007 9:09pm
Morat20 (mail):
Just a note -- another forum I'm on had a cop show up and defend the incident. During this, he noted that he -- and his fellow officers -- frequently use tasers for "pain compliance".

Utilization of tasers for pain compliance leads directly to abuse. There's no avoiding it. I was appalled that it was apparently an official and accepted policy for whatever police force he worked for.
12.7.2007 9:29pm
what the...:
Good to see that people that frequent a legal blog are quick to shoot from the hip about what the law actually says. The Utah Highway Patrol admits themselves that the officer can just write "refused to sign" on the citation and let the driver go. Arrest is an option, but not a requirement. See this story in the Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7552974

Everyone claiming that the officer *had* to arrest Mr. Massey is an idiot and has clearly read nothing about this situation.
12.7.2007 9:40pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
I think a lot of people are missing the important point.

Cops are dangerous to your health. Do piss them off. You will not win. They've got more guns and they've got a lot of the law tilted in their direction, both statutorily and by sympathy from jurors, prosecutors, public opinion, etc. This is not a just situation, but there you have it.

Second, this guy is lucky that there is taser technology. And video tapes in cars. Just a decade ago this guy would have some very large bruises and possbly some broken bones. But now he just pees in his pants and looks like an idiot to his family.

A coworker joined the local reserve police. In one of his oral exams he was asked what to do if they don't sign the ticket and close the window. The desired answer, according to this guy -- but not necessarily the law -- was to break the window and drag the person out of the car through the broken window. The emphasis was to not unbuckle the seat belt and to cause as much pain as possible in the process. I don't doubt this story one bit.
12.7.2007 9:48pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
Er, that's "Do not piss them off."
12.7.2007 9:59pm
Shivering Timbers (mail) (www):
Slightly off topic, but if you think about it, a taser is more or less the functional equivalent of a really long cattle prod.

Most people would probably agree that a police officer using a cattle prod under just about any circumstances would normally constitute abuse and possibly torture.

So what is it about the taser which makes it more morally acceptable than a cattle prod?

I don't have an answer--this is very perplexing to me. Is it just that the taser has better marketing? Or is it because people see the taser as replacing a lethal firearm, whereas a cattle prod is seen as a more brutal form of billy club?

Help me out here.
12.7.2007 10:13pm
ManBearPig:

There was, in fact, another alternative. Further negotiation. Or, alternatively, less force than tasering or rushing and tackling him.



No I think it's pretty clear that the driver was ending the negotiation. and less force? grabbing his arm? Would a headlock have been sufficient? He shouldn't have to get that close to a guy who has just turned his back to a cop and was reaching into his pocket.

The only thing I would have had done differently is a series of verbal warnings (as just pointing it at the guy is not enough). Being tasered is very serious and shouldn't be undertaken willy-nilly. Something along the lines of: "freeze. I have a taser. if you do not stop, slowly take your hands out of your pockets, and put them over your head I will use it on you." Giving warning, telling him what was going to happen, how to avoid being tasered, etc. Strict rule application would be good in this situation, so that courts don’t have to constantly engage in tedious weighing/balancing, etc.

The driver in no way should have turned his back on the cop or put his hands in his pockets. Completely ridiculous. He should be brow beaten by the court for this. He really should win an award for foolishness in that regard. I think using the taser was excessive only b/c i think these warnings should have been given (at least absent something more exigent). The driver’s actions were provocative—kind of weird that some don’t see that.

The cop should not have taken the guy out of the car unless he was, at that point, going to arrest him. If he was going to arrest him, he should have told him that as he was getting out of the car. The driver's concerns about what he was being arrested for and how fast he was going should have been answered quickly: "your speed is on the ticket, you're being arrested for failing to follow police instructions (signing the ticket?)." Even better would be telling him he’s under arrest, ordering him out of the car, and immediately reading him his rights, rather than waiting longer (though I think this is just best practice and should not be the source of judicial remedy).

The driver's whining once he was taken to the back seat/back door was comical. The cop should have told him that if he has concerns about whether he was properly read his rights, he should take that up with his lawyer—then maybe told him the joke was on him, since forgetting to give Miranda warnings would nearly be a get-out-of-jail-free card (who reminds a cop he has to do it?!).

I think it would have been interesting if the girl had called the police while this cop was tasering the driver. That, perhaps, would have made him moderate his actions. It also might have changed the power relationships between them: her on the phone with dispatch telling them where she is, demanding the officer’s name and badge #, describing in her own words (which probably would have been wholly tendentious and histrionic) what happened.

Mr. Liberal, your other argument that it is potentially fatal is just silly in this context. So is being pulled over if you have a serious heart condition and are overly sensitive. By and large it is just painful. The mere fact it’s a possibility that someone can die doesn't change its essential character.
12.7.2007 10:25pm
Mike Keenan:
The cop may be a bully, but the driver seems to blame as well. Even after being tasered, he got up and followed the cop around. And he kept arguing about the ticket completely oblivious to why he was getting arrested. Still, you have to think a good cop would have handled things much better.
12.7.2007 10:32pm
Humble Law Student (mail):
Ugh, I hate cops like that one. The use of force was unreasonable. I don't know if the cop should be fired for it, or suffer some legal penalty (I don't know if it rises to that bar), but it was definitely unreasonable.

Several things (which may already been stated).

First, the cop NEVER said the guy was under arrest (or threatened arrest) before he tasered the guy.

Second, the cop's command to "turn around" is utterly confusing in context. The guy is facing him, when the cop yells the order. Then the guy basically turns around. Yes, he is slowly walking away, but it probably because he is scared shitless because suddenly the cop is pointing what looks like a gun at him. The guy has basically complied to turn around and he even drops his hands (though not behind his back). Once again, the cop NEVER said you are under arrest. The guy is thinking, "WTF, the cop is just going to shoot me!"

Another point, you can clearly tell that the guy did think he was let out to look at the sign. The video clearly shows that.

I'm surprised the guy reacted as calmly as he did. That cop is lucky that guy didn't have a "concealed weapons" permit (along with a weapon). A citizen could reasonably think their life was in danger by that cop and respond appropriately.
12.7.2007 10:35pm
Thomas_Holsinger:
My wife and I have watched the full video, and agree that the officer decided to use the taser on the driver BEFORE he told the driver to exit the vehicle. Then he just waited for a plausible excuse to fire it, knowing the idiot would give him one.
12.7.2007 10:37pm
Humble Law Student (mail):
Further evidence the cop is a lying bastard.

Look at this version of the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc

It more clearly shows what looks like the caution sign to indicate a slower speed is coming ahead. I can't exactly make the sign out. But, it really looks like one of those signs that warns you that the speed limit is lower on ahead.

If you look at when the cop starts to pull him over, it seems the cop starts to try to pull the driver over, BEFORE he even crosses the 40 mph sign, which is exactly the point the driver tried to make. The "slow speed ahead" sign is NOT a speed limit sign, and that was all the driver has passed before the cop tried to pull him over.

Further, it casts into doubt the officer's claim that the driver had passed the speed limit "a half mile back." Those "Slow speed ahead" signs come BEFORE the slow speed. So, it is very unlikely that there was an earlier sign, not shown on the tape, that said the speed limit was 40 mph.

Of course, the driver did not behave properly in trying to badger the officer, but it must have been especially frustrating for the driver because the driver was right! He likely had NOT passed a 40 mph sign, before the cop turned on his lights and tried to pull the driver over.
12.7.2007 10:46pm
Humble Law Student (mail):
On 2nd glance, the sign appears to say "Caution Ahead," but that doesn't change my argument, it only confirms it.
12.7.2007 10:48pm
jvarisco (www):
How hard is it to listen to a cop? If you ignore his instructions, whatever happens is your fault. Police have to deal with enough problems without idiots refusing to let them do their job.
12.7.2007 11:00pm
Jagermeister:
According to laws in California (where I live), you HAVE to sign the ticket. This is taught in Traffic School (of which I, unfortunately, have experience), and if memory serves, is a question on the license exam. A local summary of the laws says:


By signing the ticket, you are acknowledging its receipt and promising to go to court and handle the matter. In essence, by signing the ticket, you just "bailed yourself out." If you refuse to sign the ticket, in effect, you are not promising to appear in court. If you do not promise to appear in court, then the Officer is obliged to taken you there immediately.


The operative California law is:


Mandatory Appearance
40302. Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of this code, not declared to be a felony, the arrested person shall be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who has jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible with reference to the place where the arrest is made in any of the following cases:
(a) When the person arrested fails to present his driver's license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.
(b) When the person arrested refuses to give his written promise to appear in court.
(c) When the person arrested demands an immediate appearance before a magistrate.
(d) When the person arrested is charged with violating Section 23152.


If I searched (and understood) correctly, the similar, and operative, Utah laws appear to be:


41-6a-209. Obedience to peace officer or other traffic controllers -- Speeding in construction zones.
(1) A person may not willfully fail or willfully refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a:
(a) peace officer;
(b) firefighter;
(c) flagger at a highway construction or maintenance site using devices and procedures conforming to the standards adopted under Section 41-6a-301; or
(d) uniformed adult school crossing guard invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.
(2) (a) If a person commits a speeding violation in a highway construction or maintenance site where workers are present, the court shall impose a fine for the offense that is at least double the fine in the uniform recommended fine schedule established under Section 76-3-301.5.
(b) The highway construction or maintenance site under Subsection (2)(a) shall be clearly marked and have signs posted that warn of the doubled fine.

77-7-18. Citation on misdemeanor or infraction charge.

A peace officer, in lieu of taking a person into custody, any public official of any county or municipality charged with the enforcement of the law, a port-of-entry agent as defined in Section 72-1-102, and a volunteer authorized to issue a citation under Section 41-6a-213 may issue and deliver a citation requiring any person subject to arrest or prosecution on a misdemeanor or infraction charge to appear at the court of the magistrate before whom the person should be taken pursuant to law if the person had been arrested.

77-7-19. Appearance required by citation -- Arrest for failure to appear -- Transfer of cases -- Motor vehicle violations -- Disposition of fines and costs.

(1) Persons receiving misdemeanor citations shall appear before the magistrate designated in the citation on or before the time and date specified in the citation unless the uniform bail schedule adopted by the Judicial Council or Subsection 77-7-21(1) permits forfeiture of bail for the offense charged.
(2) A citation may not require a person to appear sooner than five days or later than 14 days following its issuance.
(3) A person who receives a citation and who fails to comply with Section 77-7-21 on or before the time and date and at the court specified is subject to arrest. The magistrate may issue a warrant of arrest.
(4) Except where otherwise provided by law, a citation or information issued for violations of Title 41, Motor Vehicles, shall state that the person receiving the citation or information shall appear before the magistrate who has jurisdiction over the offense charged.
(5) Any justice court judge may, upon the motion of either the defense attorney or prosecuting attorney, based on a lack of territorial jurisdiction or the disqualification of the judge, transfer cases to a justice court with territorial jurisdiction or the district court within the county.
(6) (a) Clerks and other administrative personnel serving the courts shall ensure that all citations for violation of Title 41, Motor Vehicles, are filed in a court with jurisdiction and venue and shall refuse to receive citations that should be filed in another court.
(b) Fines, fees, costs, and forfeitures imposed or collected for violations of Title 41, Motor Vehicles, which are filed contrary to this section shall be paid to the entitled municipality or county by the state, county, or municipal treasurer who has received the fines, fees, costs, or forfeitures from the court which collected them.
(c) The accounting and remitting of sums due shall be at the close of the fiscal year of the municipality or county which has received fines, fees, costs, or forfeitures as a result of any improperly filed citations.

77-7-24. Notice to appear in court -- Contents -- Promise to comply -- Signing -- Release from custody -- Official misconduct.

(1) If a person who is arrested for a violation of Title 41, Chapter 6a, Traffic Code, that is punishable as a misdemeanor is immediately taken before a magistrate as provided under Section 77-7-23, the peace officer shall prepare, in triplicate or more copies, a written notice to appear in court containing:
(a) the name and address of the person;
(b) the number, if any, of the person's driver license;
(c) the license plate number of the person's vehicle;
(d) the offense charged; and
(e) the time and place the person shall appear in court.
(2) The time specified in the notice to appear must be at least five days after the arrest of the person unless the person demands an earlier hearing.
(3) The place specified in the notice to appear shall be made before a magistrate of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the alleged violation occurred.
(4) (a) In order to secure release as provided in this section, the arrested person