Incident during Traffic Stop in Texas - Death While In Police Custody Under Investigation

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadwinter**

I must have my crazy filter on too strong. I must have glossed over that stuff when I realized they were going full Jesse Ventura.

**timetowaste85**

Dreadwinter wrote:
I must have my crazy filter on too strong. I must have glossed over that stuff when I realized they were going full Jesse Ventura.

That's you're problem, right there. You should ignore those posters who haven't embraced the Dakka hive mind. All your post are belong to us.

**cincydooley**

Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?

And more philosophically, should they?

**CptJake**

cincydooley wrote:
Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?

And more philosophically, should they?

You need to narrow the frame of your questions I think. In the context "When the police have taken a person into custody" they absolutely are responsible for that person's safety, even from self inflicted injury/death. No police force will ever be perfect and a determined person is going to find a way, but the onus should ALWAYS be on the cops in these cases. Once they bring a person into custody they are responsible for the well being of that person.

**Hordini**

Dreadwinter wrote:
I must have my crazy filter on too strong. I must have glossed over that stuff when I realized they were going full Jesse Ventura.

I just read part of an article full of Twitter comments from people who seriously think that Sandra Bland was already dead before arriving at the jail, and that the corrections officers put her body in an orange jumpsuit and took her mugshot. So the "theory" is that her mugshot is actually a postmortem photo of her.

The crazy is flowing.

**timetowaste85**

One or two have suggested that here too. I'm just going to start saying 'bah' to the idiotic posts here. Now I just need to find the Dilbert comment where Dogbert waves his paw while saying it and inject that in after those comments.

**d-usa**

Dreadwinter wrote:
d-usa wrote:
There is also the issue with people cutting without actually having any SI.

Cutting scars are very different from suicide wounds.

Mostly true. I don't think I have seen exactly what kind of cuts she had on her wrists, so it's hard to tell.

Of course even with suicide cuts (real or "for attention") it can have a variety of presentation. How deep, how many, down the street vs across the road. Cuts, of any kind, can be an strong indicator of mental illness that requires closer monitoring and follow up, but they don't automatically mean that suicidal. And someone without much exposure to the different presentation of cuts and injuries of that kind might not be able to tell the difference between cutting and SI. That was my main concern.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?

And more philosophically, should they?

You need to narrow the frame of your questions I think. In the context "When the police have taken a person into custody" they absolutely are responsible for that person's safety, even from self inflicted injury/death. No police force will ever be perfect and a determined person is going to find a way, but the onus should ALWAYS be on the cops in these cases. Once they bring a person into custody they are responsible for the well being of that person.

That's my thought as well.

There are legitimate questions one can have about "should people be able to hurt themselves without police intervention" and right to suicide and other things like that. But I do think that those questions are out of the scope for this particular case.

Once you are in custody, they are responsible for your safety even if it is safety "against your will" so to speak. I would imagine that somewhere in their big book of procedures there is a page on what to do with prisoners suspected of mental illness or suicidal ideations as well as physical checks of inmates when they arrive and possible medical clearance. Some of that will depend on the size of the jail of course, with bigger places probably having more resources to thoroughly check someone on arrival.

**Tannhauser42**

cincydooley wrote:
Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?

And more philosophically, should they?

In these days where a cop with an otherwise sterling record can make one mistake on camera and lose his career, they have to be as careful as possible, whether it's legally required or not.

**Frazzled**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
No. They can hold you for the investigatory stop for a reasonable period, until the interview has ended, or an arrest is made.
Only if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed, which is not the case here. The traffic stop was concerning an illegal lane change and by law it should have concluded with the issuance of a ticket. That isn't what happened because the officer escalated and extended the encounter.

No. You are obligated to obey commands about movement. A PoPo is fully within established rights under law and stare decisis to have you exit the vehicle until such time as the interview is ended.
Yes. You do not have to obey ancillary commands from an officer. Asking someone to put out a cigarette is an ancillary command and she was legally within her rights to continue smoking. Keep in mind that I'm not saying it was the best course of action on her part, but she was well within her rights and that's all that matters.

No. The traffic stop should have ended when it ends.
Exactly, after the ticket was issued, considering at no time did the officer become reasonably suspicious of any further crime. For more on that, see below.

Please cite case law where it is unlawful to extend. Immediate response: her manner was indicative of someone under the influence of marijuana. (oh look she was under the influence of marijuana)
I'm glad you asked, since we just had a Supreme Court case decided in April about police detaining people during traffic stops. Here are some excerpts from Justice Ginsberg's majority opinion:

... a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.
[a traffic stop becomes unlawful if] it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation.
As far as the marijuana is concerned, the officer made no mention of suspecting that she was under the influence of illegal drugs. Furthermore, her manner was indicative of someone who was pissed that they got pulled over for bs, which isn't against the law. Also, I don't know what kind of weed they have down in Texas, but I've never experienced any that makes someone irritated... unless there isn't any tasty snacks in arms reach.

That’s not illegal. She was resisting exiting the vehicle. At that point she’s defacto under arrest AND HAS NO LEGAL RECOURSE TO RESIST WHATSOEVER. Swing Away Merrill.

You just demonstrated that you did not read anything I wrote. The arrest was legal even though it occurred in an unlawfully extended traffic stop. Her refusal to leave the vehicle is indeed resisting arrest in the state of Texas, therefore making the actual arrest lawful. The issue is the use of force during the arrest was not lawful because it was objectively unreasonable given her alleged crime and therefore a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.

Upon sleeping on it, I find your argument, persuasive.

**Psienesis**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?

And more philosophically, should they?

In these days where a cop with an otherwise sterling record can make one mistake on camera and lose his career, they have to be as careful as possible, whether it's legally required or not.

Considering that their mistakes can cost someone their life? I'm ok with that.

**cincydooley**

d-usa wrote:

Once you are in custody, they are responsible for your safety even if it is safety "against your will" so to speak. I would imagine that somewhere in their big book of procedures there is a page on what to do with prisoners suspected of mental illness or suicidal ideations as well as physical checks of inmates when they arrive and possible medical clearance. Some of that will depend on the size of the jail of course, with bigger places probably having more resources to thoroughly check someone on arrival.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I was coming at from situations my wife has had in the past with ED students; the teachers are told specifically told not to put their hands on the children if they're having outbursts to avoid lawsuits. In that same vein, they're also told not to let the student do 'undue harm' to themselves...

Not an easy line to walk, I don't think.

**d-usa**

cincydooley wrote:
d-usa wrote:

Once you are in custody, they are responsible for your safety even if it is safety "against your will" so to speak. I would imagine that somewhere in their big book of procedures there is a page on what to do with prisoners suspected of mental illness or suicidal ideations as well as physical checks of inmates when they arrive and possible medical clearance. Some of that will depend on the size of the jail of course, with bigger places probably having more resources to thoroughly check someone on arrival.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I was coming at from situations my wife has had in the past with ED students; the teachers are told specifically told not to put their hands on the children if they're having outbursts to avoid lawsuits. In that same vein, they're also told not to let the student do 'undue harm' to themselves...

Not an easy line to walk, I don't think.

I was in the similar situation during my time in EMS and even now as a nurse in the ER.

In the EMS setting, legally we are not allowed to touch you at all unless you are giving us consent. Even if you are having a psychotic breakdown and are clearly out of your mind, that still remains (at least that was what was always drilled into our heads). Any touching at all could be assault, even if we are sitting next to you and doing a simple hand on your shoulder and going "listen, let us help you" thing. In those settings we basically had to wait for a cop to show up to place them in protective custody at which point the cop became the decision maker and he could give us consent to treat them.

In the ER we are also unable to treat anyone without consent and our options for consent are for a patient to come in while in police custody with a signed peace officer statement from the cop saying why this person is unable to provide consent, for a patient to be in the custody of our facilities police officers, or for us to call our own police officers after filling out our own third party statement and giving it to them.

It's a complicated issue.

**cincydooley**

d-usa wrote:
Any touching at all could be assault, even if we are sitting next to you and doing a simple hand on your shoulder and going "listen, let us help you" thing. In those settings we basically had to wait for a cop to show up to place them in protective custody at which point the cop became the decision maker and he could give us consent to treat them.

Yup. that's exactly the justification she told me. Almost made her quit her job in year #1.

In the ER we are also unable to treat anyone without consent and our options for consent are for a patient to come in while in police custody with a signed peace officer statement from the cop saying why this person is unable to provide consent, for a patient to be in the custody of our facilities police officers, or for us to call our own police officers after filling out our own third party statement and giving it to them.

It's a complicated issue.

So I assume when taking someone into custody there's a similar decision tree that's followed, perhaps?

**d-usa**

There should be. The one consistent thing between all the different scenarios is that once the police takes someone in custody the decisions regarding safety, and the responsibility for it, transfers to the police.

They gain the power to consent for the person against their will because at that point the police, and not the person, are responsible for their safety.

That gets complicated down the line with inmates rights to refuse treatments, make advanced directives, go on hunger strikes, etc etc etc. But on the basic level that I would deal with, or like the situation in the article, the police gets to do what they need to do in order to keep you safe while they are on the line for your safety. That's why escalation of force gets to be a messy thing at times because it's a weird area where "allowed to hurt people" and "responsibility to make sure people don't get hurt" intersect.

**Ghazkuul**

Psienesis wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?

And more philosophically, should they?

In these days where a cop with an otherwise sterling record can make one mistake on camera and lose his career, they have to be as careful as possible, whether it's legally required or not.

Considering that their mistakes can cost someone their life? I'm ok with that.

And when a Doctor makes a mistake and costs someone their life do they lose their career? Nope, they have insurance that pays the deceased family a huge amount of money and he continues on with his practice. But apparently that isn't ok for a cop because...Reasons..and or balance.

**stanman**

I think the that the claims she's dead in the booking photo is reaching pretty hard. When somebody strangles or suffocates themselves they tend to rupture the blood vessels in their eyes and lips during the process. The eyes would be very bloodshot (and in some cases even completely blood red) if she was hung you'd also see very evident bruising around the neck. She has a rather blank and detached expression but she certainly doesn't appear to be lifeless corpse propped up for a photo.

**Psienesis**

So are the claims that she somehow ingested a large amount of marijuana while in police custody. Not only was she in a prison jumpsuit, but you get searched like 10 times between the site of your initial arrest and walking into a cell.

**d-usa**

Ghazkuul wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?

And more philosophically, should they?

In these days where a cop with an otherwise sterling record can make one mistake on camera and lose his career, they have to be as careful as possible, whether it's legally required or not.

Considering that their mistakes can cost someone their life? I'm ok with that.

And when a Doctor makes a mistake and costs someone their life do they lose their career? Nope, they have insurance that pays the deceased family a huge amount of money and he continues on with his practice. But apparently that isn't ok for a cop because...Reasons..and or balance.

It depends on the level of their mistake. There is a big gradient between "oops, that could have happened to anyone" and "gross negligence" for both cops and doctors, and the results of that varies with both as well.

Police departments and municipalities also often pay the deceased family a huge amount of money and the police officer gets to continue on with his job.

But hey, if you want to parade around here and pretend that nothing ever happens to doctors that kill someone while every police officer that killed someone is fired on the spot then go right on ahead.

**Spetulhu**

d-usa wrote:
There should be. The one consistent thing between all the different scenarios is that once the police takes someone in custody the decisions regarding safety, and the responsibility for it, transfers to the police.

Ofc, police can ask for help if they're not sure. At least over here. When taking in someone who is severely drunk or hyped up on drugs police sometimes take them via the ER before taking them to the station, just to get a medic's opinion on whether the person will survive without treatment. Even then the responsible attendant at the lockup (often not a cop but a security guard) is supposed to check on his prisoners regularly.

And if the place is well run you won't have any immediately dangerous object on you. I'll confess to being brought in for excessive intoxication a couple times while young and out of a job so I've seen it. I had to sign for getting back stuff like shoes, belt and any other clothes I could have used to hurt myself with (not that police cells in Finland have any points you could use to fasten an object for hanging yourself). Deaths in custody are usually professional drunks that have some medical condition and would have died on their own too - but it still means the police failed to have a medic check them out, probably because they're there for the fifth time that month.

**Psienesis**

Ghazkuul wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?

And more philosophically, should they?

In these days where a cop with an otherwise sterling record can make one mistake on camera and lose his career, they have to be as careful as possible, whether it's legally required or not.

Considering that their mistakes can cost someone their life? I'm ok with that.

And when a Doctor makes a mistake and costs someone their life do they lose their career? Nope, they have insurance that pays the deceased family a huge amount of money and he continues on with his practice. But apparently that isn't ok for a cop because...Reasons..and or balance.

Quite often they do, yes. Just because the malpractice insurance covers the bills does not mean their license to practice is not revoked by the medical board of the state in which they practice. That is a record that will follow a medical practitioner around forever.

**Jihadin**

Then we have these

John R. McLean, a Salisbury physician, was sentenced to eight years in federal prison Thursday, making him the second cardiologist in the country to face incarceration for implanting unnecessary coronary stents in dozens of patients, then fraudulently billing insurers thousands for the work.

A Louisiana doctor was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2009 under similar allegations. And a half-dozen other physicians, including Towson's Dr. Mark G. Midei, are accused in civil lawsuits of overusing stents, though they have not been charged criminally.

"I conclude, sadly, that this was a crime of greed," U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles Jr. said of McLean's actions, which include falsifying patient records at Peninsula Regional Medical Center to justify the expensive procedures, then prescribing gratuitous follow-up tests for months afterward.

He was ordered to spend 97 months in prison, forfeit $579,000 in illegal proceeds and to pay the same amount in restitution to the public and private insurers he illegally billed. His lawyer plans to file an appeal and will ask that McLean, who was ordered to report for prison in February shortly after his 60th birthday, be allowed to remain free until the matter is resolved.

The sentence stunned his family, some of whom sobbed throughout the lengthy hearing, and sent a message about the "seriousness" of the crime, Quarles said.

Improper stenting has been a focus at the state and national levels over the past several years after Midei, a star cardiologist at St. Joseph Medical Center, was accused of implanting the tiny mesh tubes in hundreds of people whose arteries didn't need them. The allegations led to national media attention, a U.S. Senate inquiry, a multimillion-dollar settlement from the hospital and a debate in the medical community about the role of a physician's judgment in medical care.

Supporters of the embattled cardiologists — many of them stent patients — contend that the physicians are making sound calls based on certain symptoms. But malpractice attorneys, and in some cases prosecutors, say the doctors are overdoing the relatively simple procedures — which typically cost about $10,000 — driven by money and their egos.

McLean's desire to be the "biggest and the best cardiologist" at PRMC drove him to perform the unwarranted procedures, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandra Wilkinson.

"There's just some arrogance there," Wilkinson said. "At the end of the day, he made a lot of money, but he also made a really good reputation for himself."

McLean was indicted last year on charges he ran the fraudulent stent scheme from 2003 through 2007, when he resigned his practice privileges at PRMC after a hospital investigation. He was convicted this summer of health care fraud and of making false statements, and PRMC agreed to a $1.8 million settlement afterward to settle claims it did not put a stop to the improper procedures.

Several patients who received improper stents testified during the trial, according to court papers.

One man said he nearly died from blood loss after being required to take blood thinners. Another patient said she had a heart attack, brought on by the dye used in the procedure, while on the operating table.

"These people are looking to their cardiologists almost as if they're a god … we're talking about [their] hearts," Wilkinson said. "They're thinking that Dr. McLean is saving their life when really he's just looking for an opportunity."

McLean insisted he never meant to hurt anyone.

"I've worked hard all my life," he told the judge, characterizing himself as a perfectionist who lived for his practice, spending every other night on call for a decade and missing many of his daughter's milestones. The young woman, now 25, wiped away tears as he spoke.

"I never ever did anything intentionally dishonest to a patient," he said, denying that money drove him to do wrong. "I did the best I could, I always did the best I could."

He called himself a "broken man" and ticked off a list of ailments, including diabetes, vision problems and a previous heart attack. He said his mother is elderly and begged the court for "leniency and mercy" in sentencing.

His lawyer, Richard W. Westling, said he feared McLean would die in prison if forced to serve a lengthy term.

Quarles noted that McLean, a Baltimore native, had never been in trouble before, and commended him for the many good works he has done. Some of his supposed victims wrote letters to the court praising the doctor for saving lives and doing excellent work.

He "has done many positive things," Quarles said before sentencing him. "It's also clear that Dr. McLean implemented medically unnecessary stents for the basest of reasons … largely for the money."

Louisiana cardiologist Mehmood M. Patel, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2009 after being convicted of 51 counts of fraud connected to improper stents, is also appealing his conviction and is free on bond. Arguments were heard in Patel's appeals case Tuesday.

Westling said he will be watching closely for the outcome.

**Hordini**

Psienesis wrote:
So are the claims that she somehow ingested a large amount of marijuana while in police custody. Not only was she in a prison jumpsuit, but you get searched like 10 times between the site of your initial arrest and walking into a cell.

People are claiming she ingested marijuana while in police custody? I'm seriously asking; I was under the impression that there was marijuana in her system because she had been smoking or ingesting marijuana sometime prior to getting arrested.

**Jihadin**

Hordini wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
So are the claims that she somehow ingested a large amount of marijuana while in police custody. Not only was she in a prison jumpsuit, but you get searched like 10 times between the site of your initial arrest and walking into a cell.

People are claiming she ingested marijuana while in police custody? I'm seriously asking; I was under the impression that there was marijuana in her system because she had been smoking or ingesting marijuana sometime prior to getting arrested.

That was my perception to.

**Smacks**

I just got home from the island of Malta, where people basically don't know how to drive. They speed, drive drunk, overtake on corners... The system there for negotiating blind intersections seems to be: speed through with complete disregard for traffic coming the other way, BUT half a second before you reach the intersection, you beep your horn... Presumably, so that people speeding the other way have half a second to contemplate what might have been, before their inevitable traffic death.

But of all the driving sins I witnessed in my short time there, by far the most infuriating was failure to signal. As someone from a country where drivers are quite good (relatively speaking), watching indicator lights is kind of second nature for me. They are really useful for anticipating what cars are about to do, even while you're just walking around. Finding myself in an environment where people don't use indicators at all (except to occasionally switch them on and forget about them) I found it confusing, dangerous and terrifying. Not only do people not use their indicators, but they will also beep their horn at you for crossing a road that you had no forewarning they might be about to turn down. It's the only time I think I've ever suffered from road rage as a pedestrian. It makes me want to rip people's doors off, and slam their face into the steering wheel repeatedly, beep, beep, beep, until they develop a deep Pavlovian aversion to the sound that their horn makes.

I know that police can't legally execute people for failure to signal... but if a few transgressors just happened to err... "have an accident", or "commit suicide" while in police custody... Well lets just say: I'd understand *taps nose*

**Sigvatr**

Smacks wrote:
As someone from a country where drivers are quite good (relatively speaking)

All of you guys drive on the wrong side of the road! :O

**Smacks**

Sigvatr wrote:
All of you guys drive on the wrong side of the road! :O

Actually, countries that have left hand drive tend to have a lower collision rate, possibly because most people are right handed and right eye dominant, and it allows people to monitor oncoming traffic and the driver side wing mirror with their good eye. You can also operate the break and transmission without taking your good hand off the wheel. Most people also mount bikes from the left side, which over here places them on the pavement instead of in the road. All things considered, it is probably you who drives on the wrong side.

**Ghazkuul**

Smacks wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
All of you guys drive on the wrong side of the road! :O
Actually, countries that have left hand drive tend to have a lower collision rate, possibly because most people are right handed and right eye dominant, and it allows people to monitor oncoming traffic and the driver side wing mirror with their good eye. You can also operate the break and transmission without taking your good hand off the wheel. Most people also mount bikes from the left side, which over here places them on the pavement instead of in the road. All things considered, it is probably you who drives on the wrong side.

where did you get those numbers from? also did those numbers come from population per capita or from vehicle per capita.

**Smacks**

Ghazkuul wrote:
where did you get those numbers from? also did those numbers come from population per capita or from vehicle per capita.

I think most of the research on the subject was done by a guy called J J Leeming, I don't know the details, and I don't really care that much, but I believe he compared traffic accidents, and it was based on the volume of traffic. The phenomenon has also been observed in the long term accident rates of countries that have switched from left to right such as Sweden (above what aught to be expected).

People being right side dominant is common knowledge. If you want to get all patriotic about driving on the right, then meh. I probably can't prove beyond all doubt that driving on the left is really better, I just thought it was interesting to note that it might be, despite the right being more common.

**Ghazkuul**

Smacks wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
where did you get those numbers from? also did those numbers come from population per capita or from vehicle per capita.
I think most of the research on the subject was done by a guy called J J Leeming, I don't know the details, and I don't really care that much, but I believe he compared traffic accidents, and it was based on the volume of traffic. The phenomenon has also been observed in the long term accident rates of countries that have switched from left to right such as Sweden (above what aught to be expected).

People being right side dominant is common knowledge. If you want to get all patriotic about driving on the right, then meh. I probably can't prove beyond all doubt that driving on the left is really better, I just thought it was interesting to note that it might be, despite the right being more common.

lol im not trying to get all "Patriotic" im just wondering if it was a true study or if it was one of those famously flawed ones. you know "Eggs are unhealthy never eat them ....because reasons" and then 2 years later "eggs are amazing eat them every day...because reasons.'

**Sigvatr**

The study is flawed and its author openly acknowledged it. Small sample size, no validity, no reliability.