imported post
Look, with all due respect to some of you, don't beat up on the O.P.
"How is it I can cooperate and then be detained? Why would I not be able to leave at any time?"
Well, to the extent that many cops equate "cooperation" with "compliance" the question then would be: what if you refuse to comply with a LEO's command/request? What could happen to you?
See this new case from the Ninth Circuit. Mind you this is the 9[sup]th[/sup] Circuit!
Tasering pregnant woman not excessive force
Officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff when she refused to sign a notice of infraction for speeding in a school zone and she became disorderly. The officers Tasered plaintiff, but the pain was only an intermediate level, and it was not unreasonable under the circumstances, even though plaintiff was seven months pregnant. Her refusal to get out of the car was a threat to the officers. On the totality, it was not unreasonable.
And, she was warned they would use the Taser if she did not comply.
Brooks v. City of Seattle, 08-35526 (9th Cir. March 26, 2010):
It would also be incorrect to say Brooks posed no threat to officers. While she might have been less of a threat because her force so far had been directed solely at immobilizing herself, a suspect who repeatedly refuses to comply with instructions or leave her car escalates the risk involved for officers unable to predict what type of noncompliance might come next. A contemporaneous statement by Officer Jones confirms this fear. That Brooks remained in her car, resisting even the pain compliance hold the Officers first attempted, also reveals that she was not under their control. Finally, the Washington legislature’s action in making obstructing an officer a gross misdemeanor for which custodial arrest is appropriate suggests that Brooks posed the sort of threat that it was appropriate to remove from the streets. See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.76.020(3), 10.31.100. Therefore, Brooks may not have posed a great threat, she did pose some threat by virtue of her continued non-compliance, which weighs against finding the less-than-intermediate force excessive.
. . .
In conclusion, then, this case presents a less-than intermediate use of force, prefaced by warnings and other attempts to obtain compliance, against a suspect accused of a minor crime, but actively resisting arrest, out of police control, and posing some slight threat to officers. In this situation, we find, assuming all the facts in Brooks’s favor, that the Officers’ behavior did not amount to a constitutional violation.
The dissent is more to the point: “Nor does the majority point to any authority supporting its
off-the-wall theory.
========================
Now, a pregnant woman gets into trouble pursuant to a traffic
infraction and she, for whatever reason, refuses to sign the traffic citation, and the cops resort to torture -- well, tasering -- to force her to comply. The dissent is worth reading.
Gee, good thing that sort of thing never happens in Virginia, huh?
