Woman Backs Car Into Cruiser With Police Officer Half-Inside

[jimnyc]

All this for a suspended license? Why such a confrontation and disruption over something small? And how he's injured and she's in jail. Tsk Tsk. Perhaps he should have just smiled, reminded her not to drive in the future, and then set her free. :rolleyes:

I wish he shot her in her face.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=2ebf221ef385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[NightTrain]

That had to hurt.

Yep, she's going to be in the cooler for a while over that.

[jimnyc]

That had to hurt.

Yep, she's going to be in the cooler for a while over that.

I hope not too short. This type of scum should get at least 5 years, IMO, for shit like this. She'll cry assault, and then black lives matter, Jesse and Al will complain to the authorities and she'll be out in a week. :rolleyes:

[LongTermGuy]

​Entitled...loud...stupid and small brain....she cant help it.



Good Morning!:coffee:

[Jeff]

All this for a suspended license? Why such a confrontation and disruption over something small? And how he's injured and she's in jail. Tsk Tsk. Perhaps he should have just smiled, reminded her not to drive in the future, and then set her free. :rolleyes:

I wish he shot her in her face.

<iframe src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=2ebf221ef385" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Yep he should of just shot her and put her out of her misery.

Cops can be pecker heads I know, but this country is getting ridicules with the don't touch me, I am recording this, hell don't break the law and you have no issues.

[Perianne]

I am psychic. I knew before even watching the video that the perp was gonna be a negro.

[indago]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=2ebf221ef385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

"Oh, Officer, I didn't see you there. Was there something else you wanted?"



.

[Gunny]

All this for a suspended license? Why such a confrontation and disruption over something small? And how he's injured and she's in jail. Tsk Tsk. Perhaps he should have just smiled, reminded her not to drive in the future, and then set her free. :rolleyes:

I wish he shot her in her face.

<iframe src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=2ebf221ef385" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Depends on which state you live in. Driving on a suspended license in some states means a trip to jail. Take your medicine.

[Noir]

Something that comes up a lot in these videos is the following

Cop: You're under arrest.
Citizen: Arresting me for what?
Cop: *Silence*

Can the cops chose to not give out this information because it seems to happen in all of these types of videos.

---

As for driving without a licence / trying to run someone over, i don't think there'll be any disagreement that neither are acceptable.

[DLT]

All this for a suspended license? Why such a confrontation and disruption over something small? And how he's injured and she's in jail. Tsk Tsk. Perhaps he should have just smiled, reminded her not to drive in the future, and then set her free. :rolleyes:

I wish he shot her in her face.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=2ebf221ef385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ho hum. Yet another loud-mouthed/mouthy black beotch and another really stupid cop. He had her out of the car. Why the hell didn't he cuff her and frog-march her over to the squad car and toss her stupid ass in? Really weird. You don't inform someone they're under arrest and then proceed to put them back into their own car.

[DLT]

Depends on which state you live in. Driving on a suspended license in some states means a trip to jail. Take your medicine.

Notice how....in all of these stores lately....all of the perps are clearly breaking the law....yet all of them somehow think they're supposed to get away with it because of their skin color....that magic skin color.

This is the culture and reality that the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and Holder's ilk have brought us to. And no, I don't want another black in the WH ....ever again, because of it.

You can call me "wacist" if you will. I have my reasons and they are very logical and sound. Plus....I really don't give a damn....lol.

[Gunny]

Notice how....in all of these stores lately....all of the perps are clearly breaking the law....yet all of them somehow think they're supposed to get away with it because of their skin color....that magic skin color.

This is the culture and reality that the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and Holder's ilk have brought us to. And no, I don't want another black in the WH ....ever again, because of it.

You can call me "wacist" if you will. I have my reasons and they are very logical and sound. Plus....I really don't give a damn....lol.

Not just clearly breaking the law. They escalate the situation by thinking they can fight the cops. It's like grow up. I don'tlike cops but I damned sure ain't giving them an opportunity to beat on me. Been there, done THAT (I elbowed a cop in the mouth when I was 18) got the tee shirt. Turned a ticket into a $2K in 1978 dollars ordeal. Not worth it. Except I'm white. No one was glorifying ME.

I have ZERO sympathy for these asshats. I took my lumps and marched on. Now apparently if you're black you can whine and you're the victim and illegals can murder citizens.

[jimnyc]

Something that comes up a lot in these videos is the following

Cop: You're under arrest.
Citizen: Arresting me for what?
Cop: *Silence*

Can the cops chose to not give out this information because it seems to happen in all of these types of videos.

---

As for driving without a licence / trying to run someone over, i don't think there'll be any disagreement that neither are acceptable.

He told her why he pulled her over. Her actions lead to him arresting her. The police don't need to tell you until they have you in custody and likely in their vehicle. Their primary goal, like in this instance, is to get the person under control for safety reasons. But even milder cases, they likely won't have such a "conversation" until their on the scene investigation is over. That investigation being cuffing and placing in the car most of the time.

And I'm sure that all of these folks are told their charges once they are subdued, if fighting and/or resisting arrest.

[Gunny]

He told her why he pulled her over. Her actions lead to him arresting her. The police don't need to tell you until they have you in custody and likely in their vehicle. Their primary goal, like in this instance, is to get the person under control for safety reasons. But even milder cases, they likely won't have such a "conversation" until their on the scene investigation is over. That investigation being cuffing and placing in the car most of the time.

And I'm sure that all of these folks are told their charges once they are subdued, if fighting and/or resisting arrest.

I disagree with the rule. You tell me why you're arresting me. You DON'T have the right under the 4th Amendment to "detain" me. You really don't even have the right under the 4th Amendment to arrest me without actual evidence of wrongdoing. The assumption of wrongdoing is unconstitutional. We like to say "innocent until proven guilty" when in fact, it's the other way around.

This the state's way of collecting money. You have to pay bail. Then a fine. Then if they can stick you in some dumb class or group, you have to pay for that too.

The point is, why escalate the amount of YOUR money it's going to cost YOU? Want to change the law? Vote. Be active in your community and local politics. Arguing with the Sheriff of Nottingham's tax collectors gets you nowhere.

[jimnyc]

I disagree with the rule. You tell me why you're arresting me. You DON'T have the right under the 4th Amendment to "detain" me. You really don't even have the right under the 4th Amendment to arrest me without actual evidence of wrongdoing. The assumption of wrongdoing is unconstitutional. We like to say "innocent until proven guilty" when in fact, it's the other way around.

This the state's way of collecting money. You have to pay bail. Then a fine. Then if they can stick you in some dumb class or group, you have to pay for that too.

The point is, why escalate the amount of YOUR money it's going to cost YOU? Want to change the law? Vote. Be active in your community and local politics. Arguing with the Sheriff of Nottingham's tax collectors gets you nowhere.

If simply detaining, they should explain to you why. If like the video here, and going from talking to an arrest in action, the police won't discuss why they're arresting you, while in the midst of struggling with you. If arrested peacefully, I'm sure they will tell you as they place the cuffs on you.

---------

No, the Officer Doesn’t Have to Announce the Offense When He Makes An Arrest



This video of columnist Mona Eltahawy being arrested after she vandalized a subway advertisement and spray-painted a woman in her way brings up an often-misunderstood question of criminal procedure: If an officer places a person under arrest, do they have to tell the person what crime they are under arrest for having violated? Eltahawy certainly thinks so. Watch the video at the 1:56 mark:

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P0jSSLleGiY" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

Here’s the transcript at that point, as best I could make out:

Officer: You’re under arrest.
Eltahawy: For what? For what?
Officer: You’re under arrest. Turn around.
Eltahawy: For what? Tell me what I’m under arrest for. For what? I need to know what you’re arresting me for. It’s my right to know what you’re arresting me for. It is my right as a U.S. Citizen to know what you are arresting me for. What are you arresting me for? Tell me! Tell me what you are arresting me for. Is everybody watching? What is he arresting me for? Tell me what it is, I want to know what the charge is. I seriously want to know the charge.

That’s often how it happens on TV, in part because it makes for good drama. On TV, the officer announces the arrest, announces the crime of arrest, and then reads the suspect Miranda rights. But these are not actually constitutionally required. As the Court explained in Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004): “While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we have never held that to be constitutionally required.” In Devenpeck, the Court rejected a requirement that probable cause for an arrest must be measured by reference to the offense that the officer named at the time of arrest. Such a rule was improper because it hinged on the subjective belief of the officer, and because it would have “perverse” consequences:

[T]he predictable consequence of a rule limiting the probable-cause inquiry to offenses closely related to (and supported by the same facts as) those identified by the arresting officer is not, as respondent contends, that officers will cease making sham arrests on the hope that such arrests will later be validated, but rather that officers will cease providing reasons for arrest. And even if this option were to be foreclosed by adoption of a statutory or constitutional requirement, officers would simply give every reason for which probable cause could conceivably exist.

The right to notice instead comes later, after the arrest has occured. A person arrested must be given a probable cause hearing, ordinarily within 48 hours of their arrest. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). The government will have to inform the suspect of the reason for arrest then, as the government has to establish probable cause based on a specific offense. Statutes provide for additional notice of the nature of the charge and the maximum penalty at that time, as well. See, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 5.

I should add that this is the federal rule, and as far as I know most states follow it as well. However, there may be some states that have a statute or state constitutional rule requiring or encouraging notice of the crime of arrest at the time of arrest. If so, I hope commenters will point them out in the comment thread.

Finally, although it’s not directly at issue in the Eltahawy arrest, it might be helpful to point out a similarly widespread but mistaken belief that officers must read arrestees their Miranda rights. There is no right to be read Miranda rights on arrest. Miranda merely impacts what statements are admissible in response to police questioning after arrest or its functional equivalent. If the police don’t want to question the person, or if they want to question the person but either don’t want to use the statements at trial or they think one of many exceptions to Miranda will apply, they are free not to read the suspect Miranda rights. See generally Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003).

Anyway, it’s probably not so surprising that Eltahawy misunderstands her constitutional rights. As the video shows, she also seems to think she has a First Amendment right to vandalize the private property of others that carries a message she opposes. (!) But I thought I would leave the First Amendment issue to others, and just focus on the rights at arrest.

UPDATE: It turns out that New York state law does have a statutory notice requirement, but it’s somewhat unclear if it applies when the officer catches the suspect in the act. The general notice requirement is found in N.Y. CPL. LAW § 140.15:

The arresting police officer must inform such person of his authority and purpose and of the reason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical.

The uncertainty as to whether it applies here follows from its history. Section 140.15 is an updated version of the former Code of Criminal Procedure § 180, which had an explicit exception when the defendant was arrested in the actual commission of the crime. New York courts reasoned that this made sense because a person arrested in the middle of a crime “is fully aware of what he is doing and why he is being taken into custody.” Squadrito v. Griebsch, 1 N.Y.2d 471, 474 (1956). The circumstances created an implied notice. See People v. Coffey, 12 N.Y.2d 443, 453, 240 N.Y.S.2d 721, 191 N.E.2d 263 (1963) (where a defendant was arrested for speeding but not informed of the reason for arrest, there is no requirement of notice because “on the whole picture [the person arrested] had for our present purposes sufficient notice as to the cause for his capture and detention”). The updated version of the statute was passed without commentary, and there is some uncertainty as to whether the new version was meant to incorporate the caselaw on the earlier version on the theory that the person has implied notice as to the reason of their arrest if they are caught in the act. People v. Henry, 152 Misc.2d 848, 579 N.Y.S.2d 565 (N.Y.Sup. 1991). If any New York practitioners know more of the details, please send them on.

http://volokh.com/2012/09/26/no-the-officer-doesnt-have-to-tell-you-why-he-is-arresting-you/

[DLT]

Not just clearly breaking the law. They escalate the situation by thinking they can fight the cops. It's like grow up. I don'tlike cops but I damned sure ain't giving them an opportunity to beat on me. Been there, done THAT (I elbowed a cop in the mouth when I was 18) got the tee shirt. Turned a ticket into a $2K in 1978 dollars ordeal. Not worth it. Except I'm white. No one was glorifying ME.

I have ZERO sympathy for these asshats. I took my lumps and marched on. Now apparently if you're black you can whine and you're the victim and illegals can murder citizens.

Not only that....but if you're black in the Obamanation......under the right (Read: exact opposite=wrong) circumstances....your family can become fabulously wealthy by suing various entities for your little thug/whelp getting killed or manhandled by any whitey cop. And where the hell is the pushback from whiteys on this? Crickets.

Except for a few of us on forums around the net, I'm seeing nothing and no attempt to stop this bullshit cultural undeclared Obama war on whitey America.

[Gunny]

If simply detaining, they should explain to you why. If like the video here, and going from talking to an arrest in action, the police won't discuss why they're arresting you, while in the midst of struggling with you. If arrested peacefully, I'm sure they will tell you as they place the cuffs on you.

---------

No, the Officer Doesn’t Have to Announce the Offense When He Makes An Arrest



This video of columnist Mona Eltahawy being arrested after she vandalized a subway advertisement and spray-painted a woman in her way brings up an often-misunderstood question of criminal procedure: If an officer places a person under arrest, do they have to tell the person what crime they are under arrest for having violated? Eltahawy certainly thinks so. Watch the video at the 1:56 mark:

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P0jSSLleGiY" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

Here’s the transcript at that point, as best I could make out:

Officer: You’re under arrest.
Eltahawy: For what? For what?
Officer: You’re under arrest. Turn around.
Eltahawy: For what? Tell me what I’m under arrest for. For what? I need to know what you’re arresting me for. It’s my right to know what you’re arresting me for. It is my right as a U.S. Citizen to know what you are arresting me for. What are you arresting me for? Tell me! Tell me what you are arresting me for. Is everybody watching? What is he arresting me for? Tell me what it is, I want to know what the charge is. I seriously want to know the charge.

That’s often how it happens on TV, in part because it makes for good drama. On TV, the officer announces the arrest, announces the crime of arrest, and then reads the suspect Miranda rights. But these are not actually constitutionally required. As the Court explained in Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004): “While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we have never held that to be constitutionally required.” In Devenpeck, the Court rejected a requirement that probable cause for an arrest must be measured by reference to the offense that the officer named at the time of arrest. Such a rule was improper because it hinged on the subjective belief of the officer, and because it would have “perverse” consequences:

[T]he predictable consequence of a rule limiting the probable-cause inquiry to offenses closely related to (and supported by the same facts as) those identified by the arresting officer is not, as respondent contends, that officers will cease making sham arrests on the hope that such arrests will later be validated, but rather that officers will cease providing reasons for arrest. And even if this option were to be foreclosed by adoption of a statutory or constitutional requirement, officers would simply give every reason for which probable cause could conceivably exist.

The right to notice instead comes later, after the arrest has occured. A person arrested must be given a probable cause hearing, ordinarily within 48 hours of their arrest. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). The government will have to inform the suspect of the reason for arrest then, as the government has to establish probable cause based on a specific offense. Statutes provide for additional notice of the nature of the charge and the maximum penalty at that time, as well. See, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 5.

I should add that this is the federal rule, and as far as I know most states follow it as well. However, there may be some states that have a statute or state constitutional rule requiring or encouraging notice of the crime of arrest at the time of arrest. If so, I hope commenters will point them out in the comment thread.

Finally, although it’s not directly at issue in the Eltahawy arrest, it might be helpful to point out a similarly widespread but mistaken belief that officers must read arrestees their Miranda rights. There is no right to be read Miranda rights on arrest. Miranda merely impacts what statements are admissible in response to police questioning after arrest or its functional equivalent. If the police don’t want to question the person, or if they want to question the person but either don’t want to use the statements at trial or they think one of many exceptions to Miranda will apply, they are free not to read the suspect Miranda rights. See generally Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003).

Anyway, it’s probably not so surprising that Eltahawy misunderstands her constitutional rights. As the video shows, she also seems to think she has a First Amendment right to vandalize the private property of others that carries a message she opposes. (!) But I thought I would leave the First Amendment issue to others, and just focus on the rights at arrest.

UPDATE: It turns out that New York state law does have a statutory notice requirement, but it’s somewhat unclear if it applies when the officer catches the suspect in the act. The general notice requirement is found in N.Y. CPL. LAW § 140.15:

The arresting police officer must inform such person of his authority and purpose and of the reason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical.

The uncertainty as to whether it applies here follows from its history. Section 140.15 is an updated version of the former Code of Criminal Procedure § 180, which had an explicit exception when the defendant was arrested in the actual commission of the crime. New York courts reasoned that this made sense because a person arrested in the middle of a crime “is fully aware of what he is doing and why he is being taken into custody.” Squadrito v. Griebsch, 1 N.Y.2d 471, 474 (1956). The circumstances created an implied notice. See People v. Coffey, 12 N.Y.2d 443, 453, 240 N.Y.S.2d 721, 191 N.E.2d 263 (1963) (where a defendant was arrested for speeding but not informed of the reason for arrest, there is no requirement of notice because “on the whole picture [the person arrested] had for our present purposes sufficient notice as to the cause for his capture and detention”). The updated version of the statute was passed without commentary, and there is some uncertainty as to whether the new version was meant to incorporate the caselaw on the earlier version on the theory that the person has implied notice as to the reason of their arrest if they are caught in the act. People v. Henry, 152 Misc.2d 848, 579 N.Y.S.2d 565 (N.Y.Sup. 1991). If any New York practitioners know more of the details, please send them on.

http://volokh.com/2012/09/26/no-the-officer-doesnt-have-to-tell-you-why-he-is-arresting-you/

The point is, we accept things -- like Democrats and Republicans -- we shouldn't. I can read. I didn't swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States only to be deprived of those rights. I've spent the night in jail more than once based on a lying accusation.

I'm a Constitutionalist, NOT an "exception to the rule one". ANd I don't live in NY. I am well aware of the reality and just deal with it. My point is the reality doesn't have much to do with our ideology.

[jimnyc]

The point is, we accept things -- like Democrats and Republicans -- we shouldn't. I can read. I didn't swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States only to be deprived of those rights. I've spent the night in jail more than once based on a lying accusation.

I'm a Constitutionalist, NOT an "exception to the rule one". ANd I don't live in NY. I am well aware of the reality and just deal with it. My point is the reality doesn't have much to do with our ideology.

The videos all in question that I'm aware of, these folks were lawfully being arrested, but demanding explanations. Nothing wrong or illegal about that.

[Gunny]

The videos all in question that I'm aware of, these folks were lawfully being arrested, but demanding explanations. Nothing wrong or illegal about that.

And I'm just discussing the situation in general.