Tyreek Hill and Scottie Scheffler

[evrheel]

I disagree. A cops #1 priority should be their safety.

That attitude is a big part of the problem

Remember to serve and protect

 

[Kraftyheel89]

I've read it now. I would think that a person does in fact have to put down their window if asked. I'm not 100% sure about that, but it seems reasonable and reasonableness is the touchstone of all search and seizure law.

I would offer a tiny correction to your conclusion, which I otherwise agree with: "the proper action would have been for the cop to detain him, not arrest him." And because, again, the law is ridiculous here, I will qualify that by saying that I'm not sure if "detain" is the technically accurate term here. After all, the mere stopping of the car detains him. Anyway, IIRC, the whole "step out of the car" thing is not an arrest. It's something less, and I think that's what you have in mind. If he was arrested, they would be required to Mirandize him, and I don't think you are suggesting that it should have gone that far.

Thanks Super. No I agree, they acted way too quickly. They completely skipped the step of asking him to step out of the car. I am guessing, and we will never know, but if he wouldn't put his window down he sure as he'll wasn't getting out of that car. It would have been a lot more jawwing from him and THEN they should have arrested him. Much better than how it turned out.

But thanks for backing up what I have been saying for two days now, that he has to put window down when asked. Others say no way he already handed over ID, but they show NOTHING to even try to back that up.

 

[StrangePackage]

It does give them the authority to give you lawful orders during situations like traffic stops, however. And you legally must comply or risk ending up in cuffs (like Hill) or arrested.

Which is exactly why, in how they exercise state-sanctioned violence, they must be held to a higher standard than "I didn't like the attitude of this person." With great power comes great responsibility.

By your own admission you don't believe Hill was given a reasonable amount of time to comply with the officers order before force was used against him.

Point blank, that is on the officers. That is unacceptable. Hills character or attitude make no difference.

Hill can be wrong, and have a bad attitude, and it does not justify the excessive use of force to ensure compliance during a stop for a citation where there was no reasonable threat to the safety of any officer or any bystanders until the officers elected to escalate the situation by using force.

 

[Purple Nurple]

Why do y’all ask so little from those given the most power? There’s no reason to pull a man out of his car, handcuff him, and then wrestle him to the ground over a seatbelt ticket. Learn to be the bigger man or find a new job.

 

[theel4life]

Hell they never even gave him a chance to get out of his car before jerking him out.

 

[UNCatTech]

I remember a State Trooper talking to us in Driver’s Ed. He gave us 3 reasons not to run from the cops/troopers:

• One, we drive all day, every day. We’re better drivers;
• Two, our cars are likely faster than yours (might not be true for an NFL star);
• Three, we have radios. You’re not outrunning the radio.

In my younger, stupider, days, I've ran from the police on a few occasions.

Only once did the officer catch me.

It was out in the middle of nowhere and he said he was surprised that he caught me. We talked for a bit and he let me go.

But he did advise me to do the speed limit the rest of my trip because he had already called it in. I drove another 50 miles to get home that day. I passed several police. Every one of them watched me go by, it was clear that radio would have been the downfall had I continued to speed that day.

 

[UNCatTech]

I disagree. A cops #1 priority should be their safety.

Not that they should disregard their personal safety, but they choose a profession where they will be asked to make choices between their safety and doing the job.

They should always be smart, but often they do not have the choice to put personal safety first.

 

[superrific]

For context's sake, Hill has a history of being accused of beating multiple women and of breaking his child's arm. They were not able to move forward with child abuse charges because they were not able to determine if the child's arm was broken by Hill or by the child's mother, however Hill was recorded stating that both should be afraid of him.

Hill has to worry about paparazzi. The police officers who pulled him over have to worry about being shot, or getting run over, or finding a wanted person or guns/drugs, or any number of scenarios. Surely if Hill gets your benefit of the doubt the police officers should too.

Here's the thing: I'm not judging the police officer. I'm judging the behavior. I don't know if those cops are bad people. It's not like Derek Chauvin, who revealed himself to be a truly terrible person (which is why he's in jail).

Hill's behavior has to be judged in context, just like the officers'. And I think the consensus on this thread has become something like, "they could have asked him to step out of the car and even cuffed him [maybe] but forcing him to the ground was beyond reasonable." That's also giving the cops a benefit of the doubt too. I doubt that anybody shoots cops from inside a McClaren, for a number of reasons, but I've never been a cop and I don't have perspective on whether to trust that intuition. In no circumstances should his face have ended up on the pavement.

 

[superrific]

But thanks for backing up what I have been saying for two days now, that he has to put window down when asked. Others say no way he already handed over ID, but they show NOTHING to even try to back that up.

Sure thing, except my obligatory caveat that I've issued a couple of times: I'm really not an expert on this stuff. I might be worse at Crim Pro than any other subject area in the law.

 

[Enigma94]

Thanks Super. No I agree, they acted way too quickly. They completely skipped the step of asking him to step out of the car. I am guessing, and we will never know, but if he wouldn't put his window down he sure as he'll wasn't getting out of that car. It would have been a lot more jawwing from him and THEN they should have arrested him. Much better than how it turned out.

But thanks for backing up what I have been saying for two days now, that he has to put window down when asked. Others say no way he already handed over ID, but they show NOTHING to even try to back that up.

This is completely different than what you originally said. You agreed with what the officer did and you said you would have thrown his ass on the ground too, so drop the victory march. By the way some dude on Quora isn’t exactly rock solid.

You also continue to gloss over the fact that Hill did lower his window to comply with giving his documentation. It was a traffic stop. Once that was done the officer’s job was to take his ass back to his vehicle, write the ticket, give it to him and go on about his day. Instead you think how the officer reacted was reasonable.

 

[Calheel]

Here's the thing: I'm not judging the police officer. I'm judging the behavior. I don't know if those cops are bad people. It's not like Derek Chauvin, who revealed himself to be a truly terrible person (which is why he's in jail).

Hill's behavior has to be judged in context, just like the officers'. And I think the consensus on this thread has become something like, "they could have asked him to step out of the car and even cuffed him [maybe] but forcing him to the ground was beyond reasonable." That's also giving the cops a benefit of the doubt too. I doubt that anybody shoots cops from inside a McClaren, for a number of reasons, but I've never been a cop and I don't have perspective on whether to trust that intuition. In no circumstances should his face have ended up on the pavement.

Did you not see Scarface? I suspect there are some very nice drug dealer cars in Miami.

 

[superrific]

Did you not see Scarface? I suspect there are some very nice drug dealer cars in Miami.

I'm sure there are as well. But shooting a cop from inside one of the more recognizable cars in the world seems like a good way to get a life sentence for sure. I mean, even someone who doesn't recognize the car would recognize it as A ridiculously expensive car and report it to the police if there was any sort of manhunt.

Idk, I'm not a drug dealer, so I don't really know. It just seems like you'd not want to get in a chase if you're driving that thing. You can't outrun radio or internet.

 

[superrific]

This is completely different than what you originally said. You agreed with what the officer did and you said you would have thrown his ass on the ground too, so drop the victory march. By the way some dude on Quora isn’t exactly rock solid.

Eh, does it matter? If we all agree now, who cares who was right or wrong a few pages back?

 

[stankeylegjones]

Hell they never even gave him a chance to get out of his car before jerking him out.

Пожалуйста, уйди, бот

 

[Enigma94]

Eh, does it matter? If we all agree now, who cares who was right or wrong a few pages back?

I had let it go, my last comment was back on page ten, but Krafty felt the need to get in one last dig while trying to position himself completely differently than he originally did. So if we all agree that the cop’s response was unreasonable then great!

 

[Kraftyheel89]

This is completely different than what you originally said. You agreed with what the officer did and you said you would have thrown his ass on the ground too, so drop the victory march. By the way some dude on Quora isn’t exactly rock solid.

You also continue to gloss over the fact that Hill did lower his window to comply with giving his documentation. It was a traffic stop. Once that was done the officer’s job was to take his ass back to his vehicle, write the ticket, give it to him and go on about his day. Instead you think how the officer reacted was reasonable.

I knew this would come up because I did in fact say that. It was a kneejerk reaction to reading 6 or 7 pages, and you (and others) claiming multiple times that Hill did everything he was supposed to do. So I overreacted and admit I was wrong about them having the right to immediately pull him out of the car, cuff him and force him to the ground. After watching the video again and actually reading what the procedures are. So yes, I admit I was wrong and overreacted.

I also said all along (after that one post) that they were far too rough amped up and especially towards the innocent bystander teammates.

You could also be a bigger man and admit once and for all that he did in fact have to put his window down when asked. Since refusing he was obstructing the officer's rightful detainment. The officer could and SHOULD have asked him to step out of the car, given him time to do so, THEN, if he failed to comply do exactly what they did.

But I am not asking or expecting you to do that. Because you did not spend 5 seconds researching and trying to find procedures and laws to back up your claim.

Don't ever accuse anyone else on this board or in any party or movement of basing things only on their feelings and what they think they know.

I do think we agree on pretty much everything else Enigma so I will let it go.

 

[UNCBAdookJD]

They teach people in driver's ed to comply with the police's instructions when pulled over during a traffic stop. It is incumbent on the civilian to follow the traffic laws and to behave appropriately when they are pulled over.

Drivers Ed isn’t required, or in most instances even offered in Florida.

 

[Enigma94]

I knew this would come up because I did in fact say that. It was a kneejerk reaction to reading 6 or 7 pages, and you (and others) claiming multiple times that Hill did everything he was supposed to do. So I overreacted and admit I was wrong about them having the right to immediately pull him out of the car, cuff him and force him to the ground. After watching the video again and actually reading what the procedures are. So yes, I admit I was wrong and overreacted.

I also said all along (after that one post) that they were far too rough amped up and especially towards the innocent bystander teammates.

You could also be a bigger man and admit once and for all that he did in fact have to put his window down when asked. Since refusing he was obstructing the officer's rightful detainment. The officer could and SHOULD have asked him to step out of the car, given him time to do so, THEN, if he failed to comply do exactly what they did.

But I am not asking or expecting you to do that. Because you did not spend 5 seconds researching and trying to find procedures and laws to back up your claim.

Don't ever accuse anyone else on this board or in any party or movement of basing things only on their feelings and what they think they know.

So I keep trying to leave this thread but then I get told to “don’t ever blah blah blah . . .” I have in fact said that Hill was out of line but that doesn’t justify what the officer did. And what should have happened is the cop should have taken his documentation and written the ticket and gone about his day. There was no reason to play tough guy and force the issue when he had what he needed to complete the stop for a minor traffic violation.

 

[theel4life]

Former cops take on it. With Dre Bly story.

 

[Calheel]

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

Do drivers need to roll down their windows during a traffic stop?

NFL star Tyreek Hill was handcuffed during a traffic stop before Sunday's game. What lawyers say about rolling down your window.

www.usatoday.com