Tyreek Hill and Scottie Scheffler

[UNCatTech]

He didn’t hold his license up against the window. He rolled it down and handed his information to the officer. At that point he has done what he is required to do. The officer had no reason to tell him to lower his window after that except he was mad about being disrespected. The correct response by a responsible officer would be to go to his vehicle, write the ticket and go back and hand it to him.

That response and the officer is probably not at a desk today contemplating his next career move.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

I think there should be some use of force questions.

Sure, on a departmental policy level. Nothing that rises to a legal level. The cop was irritated and gruff but he was well within his rights to remove Hill from the vehicle once Hill refused to comply with instructions. I personally would have given Hill more time to get out of the car but I'm also not a cop. The best way to reduce your odds of that happening is to not behave like Hill did.

 

[Bigs23]

I've dealt with cops like this before. I was pulled over, a cop asked me why my registration was expired, and before I could say another word he yelled "I'm not interested in your fucking story." I didn't argue with him, or roll my window up, or ignore his commands. I simply did what he said, heavily rolled my eyes as he walked away, and took my ticket. The exact same things Hill should have done.

Hill isn’t required to behave like you did.

 

[superrific]

It actually is the law that you have to comply with lawful orders when detained at a traffic stop.

That's irrelevant. The only question here is the reasonableness of force. Whether Hill broke the law or not is for the courts to decide.

 

[ZenMode]

Does this also apply to soldiers? Firefighters? School teachers?

If you don't want to put your life on the line, then don't be a cop. It's especially egregious because the benevolent associations are always calling, asking for money to support the cops who put their lives on the line every day. Which is it? Anyway, police salaries include what economists call a risk premium -- i.e. the extra money you are paid to assume risks at work. For instance, coal miners make better money than other laborers of similar skill, because you know, admin assistants aren't killed by mine explosions. And if the police departments can't find qualified people, then raise their pay.

Cops and firefighters are required to put their lives on the line. They are required to run toward the shooter/fire, not away from the shooter/fire. Cops are required to pursue and interact with the most dangerous members of society. Within the confines of interacting with the most dangerous people in society (aka doing their job), their first priority should be taking basic steps to protect themselves. Asking a suspect to put their hands out the window, turn off their vehicle, open their window, etc are basic actions taken to protect their safety. Those steps aren't illegal or unconstitutional.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

Hill isn’t required to behave like you did.

Hill is required to obey lawful orders when detained during a traffic stop.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

That's irrelevant. The only question here is the reasonableness of force. Whether Hill broke the law or not is for the courts to decide.

It isn't irrelevant. In fact, it is the most relevant thing to this entire conversation. Hill's refusal to obey lawful orders is what got him removed from his car.

 

[superrific]

Within the confines of interacting with the most dangerous people in society, their first priority should be taking basic steps to protect themselves. Asking a suspect to put their hands out the window, turn off their vehicle, open their window, etc are basic actions taken to protect their safety. Those steps aren't illegal or unconstitutional.

Again, as others have noted, the Uvalde police did their job by your logic.

Anyway, the issue isn't whether the request to turn off a vehicle, open a window, etc is legal. It's what happened after that is at issue. How was it reasonable to force him to the ground? You are focusing on irrelevancies.

 

[ZenMode]

Sure, on a departmental policy level. Nothing that rises to a legal level. The cop was irritated and gruff but he was well within his rights to remove Hill from the vehicle once Hill refused to comply with instructions. I personally would have given Hill more time to get out of the car but I'm also not a cop. The best way to reduce your odds of that happening is to not behave like Hill did.

Perfectly fine to remove Hill from the car. I'd say it's fine to handcuff him. Throwing him to the ground was unnecessary, IMO. That was an emotional response by the cop.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

Cops and firefighters are required to put their lives on the line. They are required to run toward the shooter/fire, not away from the shooter/fire. Cops are required to pursue and interact with the most dangerous members of society. Within the confines of interacting with the most dangerous people in society (aka doing their job), their first priority should be taking basic steps to protect themselves. Asking a suspect to put their hands out the window, turn off their vehicle, open their window, etc are basic actions taken to protect their safety. Those steps aren't illegal or unconstitutional.

Agreed. Additionally, the argument that someone willingly chose to work in a hazardous profession does not mean that that person should not be given basic protections (legal protection, personal protective equipment, etc) to make that work less hazardous. You don't tell a surgeon, for example, "I need you to operate on this person, but we're not going to give you any gloves to wear and you'll have to use this kitchen knife....you signed up to be a surgeon, you knew the risks." Same thing applies to police officers.

 

[superrific]

It isn't irrelevant. In fact, it is the most relevant thing to this entire conversation. Hill's refusal to obey lawful orders is what got him removed from his car.

1. From what I saw, it doesn't seem to be the case. It sure seemed like the police officer was irritated that Hill was talking back.
2. Like all seizures, removal from the car is judged on a reasonableness standard. If Hill was posing no threat, and the cop just wanted to be a tough guy (which is what his statements imply), that's not permissible conduct by the officer. I will admit that the law of traffic stops is absurdly complicated and I don't know for sure what does and doesn't constitute acceptable grounds for ordering a person to get out of the car. BUT. . .
3. The issue isn't removal from the car. It's forcing him to the ground. If he wasn't a threat, and he wasn't, and the cops knew that, then cuffing him as they did was excessive.

 

[superrific]

Agreed. Additionally, the argument that someone willingly chose to work in a hazardous profession does not mean that that person should not be given basic protections (legal protection, personal protective equipment, etc) to make that work less hazardous. You don't tell a surgeon, for example, "I need you to operate on this person, but we're not going to give you any gloves to wear and you'll have to use this kitchen knife....you signed up to be a surgeon, you knew the risks." Same thing applies to police officers.

My advice: don't go to law school. You would struggle. Don't go to med school either. That would be worse. LOL at the idea that the gloves and scalpels are there to protect the surgeon.

 

[ZenMode]

Again, as others have noted, the Uvalde police did their job by your logic.

The Uvalde police were not doing their job, as I discussed here.

Anyway, the issue isn't whether the request to turn off a vehicle, open a window, etc is legal. It's what happened after that is at issue. How was it reasonable to force him to the ground? You are focusing on irrelevancies.

There can be multiple issues/discussion within a topic. As I said above, I think throwing him to the ground was completely uncalled for - unnecessary use of force.

Pull him out of the car, handcuff him and stand him at the back of his car until you're done.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

1. From what I saw, it doesn't seem to be the case. It sure seemed like the police officer was irritated that Hill was talking back.
2. Like all seizures, removal from the car is judged on a reasonableness standard. If Hill was posing no threat, and the cop just wanted to be a tough guy (which is what his statements imply), that's not permissible conduct by the officer. I will admit that the law of traffic stops is absurdly complicated and I don't know for sure what does and doesn't constitute acceptable grounds for ordering a person to get out of the car. BUT. . .
3. The issue isn't removal from the car. It's forcing him to the ground. If he wasn't a threat, and he wasn't, and the cops knew that, then cuffing him as they did was excessive.

1. The officer is allowed to be irritated that Hill was talking back.
2. Removal from the car is warranted in any traffic stop. Technically, an officer can choose to arrest someone for a traffic violation such as reckless driving, which is what Hill was cited for. This almost never happens because it would be a waste of time for all involved. However, removing someone from a car who is already detained is not unlawful.
3. I don't know how you can argue that they knew Hill wasn't a threat when they cuffed him. The main officer had no idea who Hill was until well after he was cuffed. All they knew is that they had a driver on a traffic stop who was refusing lawful orders, first to roll his window down and then to exit his vehicle. I could see your point if they had kicked or hit him as was claimed before the videos came out, but they did no such thing. They simply took him to the ground quite slowly and cuffed his hands behind his back.

 

[superrific]

The Uvalde police were not doing their job, as I discussed here.

Maybe you could try that explanation again, because as written it doesn't convey the idea that you think it does. I mean, that's fine. If you explain yourself reasonably, it doesn't matter much if your first try wasn't very successful. But we can't read your mind, so clarity is important.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

My advice: don't go to law school. You would struggle. Don't go to med school either. That would be worse. LOL at the idea that the gloves and scalpels are there to protect the surgeon.

My advice: don't go to medical school. You would struggle. Gloves are absolutely there to protect the surgeon AND the patient. Are you aware of blood borne pathogens? You may believe that snark can fool people into believing that you know what you are talking about in this case, but that belief would be misplaced.

 

[Kraftyheel89]

Again, the only problem with that as I pointed out earlier is that Enigma is 100% false on Hill not required to put his window down when told to do so. That is all I have been arguing this entire time, and the only one to attempt to find and post any legal explanation. If somebody has facts that are different, please post them rather than your "feelings."

That was your position of superiority around here all the way up until this incident. Now all of a sudden, nobody else is linking or posting a single damn fact or law or ANYTHING, or even attempting to do so.

Yes the link I posted earlier uses the holding your license up to the window as an example. But it went WAY beyond that and explained requirements of an individual being detained as well as what officers have the right to do.

I never defended the bullying nature of the cops and how they added to the escalation, went after innocent bystanders, and potentially assaulted Hill, which they should pay for if so.

So StrangePackage can do all the feelings tirades he wants and issue all the fatwas he wants on extended families.

The proper action would have been for the cop to CALMY arrest Hill, and only then use force to get him out of car if refused. He gave him no time, nor did he ask or demand.

See below......

 

[Kraftyheel89]

Paul Harding
Deputy Sheriff since 2000, Flight Instructor Upvoted by

Originally Answered: Is it legal to refuse to roll down your window at a traffic stop?
The factor which really disrupts this theory is that a properly-conducted traffic stop is, at the least, a lawful detention based upon reasonable suspicion, and even more likely an arrest based upon probable cause. Lawful detention, as described in Terry v. Ohio, is the lesser standard, so I’ll just focus on that one to give our hypothetical driver every possible advantage in our hypothetical scenario.

A person who is lawfully detained, pursuant to reasonable suspicion, is not free to go. A police officer may require that person to remain in place or to move to some other location in the immediate vicinity. In the context of a traffic stop, this would include the area around the car or even the officer's squad car parked right behind it. On a stop based upon reasonable suspicion, the officer may also pat the suspect down for weapons. This is not the same as a search. It is less thorough and invasive than a search. For example, the officer could “pat” the outside of a pocket, but he could not search inside the pocket unless that “pat” revealed something of obvious concern. Again, this is for lawful detention. An actual arrest justifies a more complete search.

These actions I'm describing are well-established in Supreme Court case law, ruled Constitutional, and in some cases even prescribed by the Supreme Court. This isn't opinion or what I “wish” the law was. For any professional from lawyers to cops who has been trained in the relevant law and procedures, this is basic, elementary knowledge.

These requirements that you go where the officer wants you to go in the immediate vicinity and even accept a pat down for weapons during a lawful detention will negate the plan of holding your license against the window and refusing to get out of the car. The result will almost certainly be that the officer will require you to get out of the car since you refused to speak to him through an open window. If you refuse that requirement as well, then you are obstructing the officer in the carrying out of his lawful duties, giving him probable cause to arrest you and take you to jail for that crime. Now, I've seen a lot of officers mess this one up, but if he's sharp he will say, through the closed window, in a loud enough voice to be heard, that you are now under arrest for obstructing a peace officer, or whatever that particular crime is called in your jurisdiction. At that point, if you still refuse to get out, you aren't just obstructing a peace officer from carrying out his lawful duties anymore. Now you are resisting arrest. That's another crime, and it also brings into play your state’s justifiable use of force laws which, in some form or another, state that an officer is justified in using the minimum force necessary to overcome physical resistance to an arrest, with extra restrictions on the officer's use of deadly force, should it come to that. This means that the officer is now justified in physically removing you from the car and taking you to jail.

That’s a lot of perfectly avoidable consequences, none of which would be lawfully possible if the hypothetical person in question had just rolled the window down and allowed the officer to talk to them, explain the reason for the stop, give a warning or explain how to comply with the court requirements of the citation, etc.

Now, let's go back to the beginning and address the fact that I specified a properly-conducted traffic stop. For purposes of this answer, what I mean is that the stop was properly based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The question of whether those factors exist is always, always, always a matter of opinion. Since opinions can differ from one person to another, our laws contain a system of deciding whose opinion holds sway in any given situation. At the scene of the traffic stop, it is the officer's opinion. The next step is court, where it’s the judge’s opinion. It could even go up from there and be subjected to the opinions of appellate justices and even the US Supreme Court. Note that at all steps in this process, you are free to express your opinion, but you are never required to do so. You are, as always, free to remain silent on the matter as you specified in the question details.

There will also be some intermediate steps where police supervisors and someone from the prosecutor’s office review the officer's actions and decide whether to proceed to the next person in the opinion chain above the officer - that being the judge.

You can express your opinion about the legality of the stop to the officer or the judge if you want to, but neither of them is required to accept your opinion. You are required to accept theirs, at least temporarily, until you reach the next step in the process.

In summary, no, the strategy of holding up a license and refusing to roll down a window *****or otherwise make face-to-face contact with the officer on a traffic stop just will not work. It’s not even within your rights to do so, assuming the stop was properly made****** and there's no practical way for you to know whether it was properly made at the time it happens, so your only practical course of action is to assume that it was. Even if you know you are innocent, there's no way for you to know whether the officer is in possession of some information which would lead a reasonable person to suspect that you had committed a crime, and that’s the standard by which the legality of the stop will be judged.

Is it legal in the state of Florida, U.S.A. to refuse to roll down your window at a traffic stop?

Answer (1 of 22): The factor which really disrupts this theory is that a properly-conducted traffic stop is, at the least, a lawful detention based upon reasonable suspicion, and even more likely an arrest based upon probable cause. Lawful detention, as described in Terry v. Ohio, is the lesser s...

www.quora.com

 

[Bigs23]

Hill is required to obey lawful orders when detained during a traffic stop.

We’ll see how this ends up.

Video cameras have made life much harder for these tough guy cops.

 

[Bigs23]

Again, the only problem with that as I pointed out earlier is that Enigma is 100% false on Hill not required to put his window down when told to do so. That is all I have been arguing this entire time, and the only one to attempt to find and post any legal explanation. If somebody has facts that are different, please post them rather than your "feelings."

That was your position of superiority around here all the way up until this incident. Now all of a sudden, nobody else is linking or posting a single damn fact or law or ANYTHING, or even attempting to do so.

Yes the link I posted earlier uses the holding your license up to the window as an example. But it went WAY beyond that and explained requirements of an individual being detained as well as what officers have the right to do.

I never defended the bullying nature of the cops and how they added to the escalation, went after innocent bystanders, and potentially assaulted Hill, which they should pay for if so.

So Super can do all the feelings tirades he wants and issue all the fatwas he wants on extended families.

The proper action would have been for the cop to CALMY arrest Hill, and only then use force to get him out of car if refused. He gave him no time, nor did he ask or demand.

See below......

Hill should not have been arrested.

Give him his citations and carry on.