the 9th circus does it again

and approves police brutality and excessive force with full immunity.

9th federal appeals court ok's tasering for not signing a ticket

Three Seattle police officers were justified when they used a stun gun on a pregnant mother who refused to sign a traffic ticket, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a case that prompted an incredulous dissent.

Malaika Brooks was driving her son to Seattle's African American Academy in 2004 when she was stopped for doing 32 mph in a school zone. She insisted it was the car in front of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket because she thought she'd be admitting guilt.

Rather than give her the ticket and let her go on her way, the officers decided to arrest her. One reached in, turned off her car and dropped the keys on the floor. Brooks stiffened her arms against the steering wheel and told the officers she was pregnant, but refused to get out, even after they threatened to stun her.

The officers — Sgt. Steven Daman, Officer Juan Ornelas and Officer Donald Jones — then stunned her three times, in the thigh, shoulder and neck, and hauled her out of the car, laying her face-down in the street.

Brooks gave birth to a healthy baby two months later, but has permanent scars from the Taser. She sued the officers for violating her constitutional rights, and U.S. District Judge Richard Jones allowed the case to continue. He declined to grant the officers immunity for performing their official duties and said Brooks' rights were clearly violated.

But in a 2-1 ruling Friday, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judges Cynthia Holcomb Hall and Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain held that the officers were justified in making an arrest because Brooks was obstructing them and resisting arrest.

The use of force was also justified because of the threat Brooks posed, Hall wrote: "It seems clear that Brooks was not going to be able to harm anyone with her car at a moment's notice. Nonetheless, some threat she might retrieve the keys and drive off erratically remained, particularly given her refusal to leave the car and her state of agitation."

They also noted that the force used wasn't that serious because the Taser was in "touch" mode rather than "dart" mode, which hurts more. They reversed the lower court's opinion and held that the officers were entitled to immunity from the lawsuit.

The officers' lawyers, Ted Buck and Karen Cobb, said the officers made the right decision under the circumstances they faced.

"Police officers have to have the ability to compel people to obey their lawful orders," Buck said. That's all the court recognized today. The 9th Circuit just applied the law instead of getting caught up in the otherwise unfortunate factual circumstances."

The majority's opinion outraged Judge Marsha Berzon, who called it "off the wall."

"I fail utterly to comprehend how my colleagues are able to conclude that it was objectively reasonable to use any force against Brooks, let alone three activations of a Taser, in response to such a trivial offense," she wrote.

She argued that under Washington law, the officers had no authority to take Brooks into custody: Failure to sign a traffic infraction is not an arrestable offense, and it's not illegal to resist an unlawful arrest.

Berzon said the majority's notion that Brooks obstructed officers was so far-fetched that even the officers themselves didn't make that legal argument. To obstruct an officer, one must obstruct the officer's official duties, and the officers' only duties in this case were to detain Brooks long enough to identify her, check for warrants, write up the citation and give it to her. Brooks' failure to sign did not interfere with those duties, she said.

Furthermore, Brooks posed no apparent threat, and the officers could not have known how stunning her would affect the fetus, or whether it might prompt premature labor — another reason their actions were inexcusable, Berzon said.

Brooks' lawyer, Eric Zubel, said he would ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case.

"This is outrageous — that something like this could happen to a pregnant woman, in front of an elementary school, at 8:30 in the morning, to someone who posed no threat whatsoever," he said.

when can we finally say that the police are the standing army our forefathers warned us about?
 
When are people going to learn to take responsibility for their actions. She only had to comply with the police and sign the ticket, it did not mean she was guilty, only agreeing that she would appear. I guess she thought in the world of ObamaLand that she no longer had to follow the rules because she is black.
 
When are people going to learn to take responsibility for their actions. She only had to comply with the police and sign the ticket, it did not mean she was guilty, only agreeing that she would appear. I guess she thought in the world of ObamaLand that she no longer had to follow the rules because she is black.

What a maroon you are. This happened in 2004 -- that would make it the bush reign of terror, not ObamaLand.
 
When are people going to learn to take responsibility for their actions. She only had to comply with the police and sign the ticket, it did not mean she was guilty, only agreeing that she would appear. I guess she thought in the world of ObamaLand that she no longer had to follow the rules because she is black.

only had to comply. so you approve of tasers as a way of gaining compliance to sign a traffic ticket?
 
The 9th circuit court is massive and when you get three random judges they can turn out to have ridiculously out of mainstream views. If it's outrageous enough they'll hold a partial en banc (the 9th is the only court that is actually to large for a full en banc) and revise it.

IMHO, the 9th needs to be split into at least five or so pieces.
 
The police do not have authority to use lethal or less than lethal force against you for refusing to sign a ticket. They are not judge jury and executioner. It's an issue that should be taken up with the courts, and if they agree with the police they should use non-barbaric punishments.
 
The 9th circuit court is massive and when you get three random judges they can turn out to have ridiculously out of mainstream views. If it's outrageous enough they'll hold a partial en banc (the 9th is the only court that is actually to large for a full en banc) and revise it.

IMHO, the 9th needs to be split into at least five or so pieces.

not true....the 9th can and does have en banc

you think it is "massive" only because of the geographical scope....look at some the circuits in the east and compare the population....however, it would not surprise me if the 9th did break up if the population in the west continues to grow.
 
i wonder what they would have done if it was a white woman with an attitude

while they had the right to arrest her, using a taser several times is a bit much - did they think she was going to do pull a gun on them or what
 
When are people going to learn to take responsibility for their actions. She only had to comply with the police and sign the ticket, it did not mean she was guilty, only agreeing that she would appear. I guess she thought in the world of ObamaLand that she no longer had to follow the rules because she is black.

Dammit, when are people going to follow the Police unquestioningly?

When are people just going to go along with what the Government wants!
 
Dammit, when are people going to follow the Police unquestioningly?

When are people just going to go along with what the Government wants!
Isn't that what the "Trust your Representative Government" thread is all about? I don't trust my reps to correctly understand the delineation of property lines, let alone something like health care coverage....
 
Back
Top