In
today’s society, there seems to be an emerging trend of distrust related to
police officers, where the public often feels that the police overstep their
bounds and exercise poor judgment. I think most people would agree that there
is inherent danger in the practice of police work, and that as a matter of
public policy we want our officers to be safe. However, the question that keeps
presenting itself in the news is: are the current laws we have protecting
officer safety actually causing harm to citizens?
Laws
related to officer safety have been in place for decades. In the 1977 case Pennsylvania
v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that police have the automatic right
under Terry
to order a driver out of the car during the course of a legal stop. (In Maryland v. Wilson
(1997), the Court extended Mimms to
give police power to order passengers out of the car during traffic-related
stops). “The
State's proffered justification for such order—the officer's safety—is both
legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty
occasioned by the order, being, at most, a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail
when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.” However,
the Court was not unanimous in this decision. Justice
Stevens vehemently dissented stating, “Some citizens will be subjected to
this minor indignity while others -- perhaps those with more expensive cars, or
different bumper stickers, or different-colored skin -- may escape it
entirely.”
Justice
Stevens’ concerns may have been realized in a recent incident in Hammond,
Indiana, which has once again brought this issue to the forefront. An Indiana
family is suing the Hammond Police Department for use of excessive force, false arrest and
imprisonment, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. This came after an incident where Lisa Mahone, who was driving with
her friend, Jamal Jones, and her two children ages 14 and 7, was pulled over
for a seatbelt violation. Mahone and Jones were both cited for not wearing
their seatbelts. They were asked for their driver’s licenses. Mahone gave the
officer her license and had no further issues, but Jones had recently turned
over his license to the police in an unrelated event. Because he did not have
his license he tried to find other identification. The police officers, which supposedly
were frightened when Jones reached in the backseat for his backpack that
contained identification, asked him to step out of the car. He refused to do so
saying that he was not the operator of the vehicle. The passengers of the car
stated that they were afraid because of incidents they were aware of where
officers mistreated people. The police called for backup and repeatedly asked
Jones to get out of the car. He would not get out, and only cracked the window
enough to hand the officers a paper containing his identification. After about
thirteen minutes of this dispute, the officers used an ax to break the window
and used a taser to get Jones out of the car. The glass reportedly flew and hit
the children who were in the backseat. The 14
year-old boy filmed the event. You can hear the children and Mahone
screaming and crying after Jones is removed from the car.
The Hammond
Police Department and and the Mayor
of Hammond have both issued statements supporting the officers at the
scene. In his statement Mayor McDermott said, “Northwest Indiana recently had
two Police Officers killed in the line of duty. That is something I never want
to see happen in Hammond as long as I am the Mayor, and I will legally do all I
can, as Mayor, to help protect officer safety.” The Hammond Police Department
statement said, “The Hammond Police officers were at all times acting in the
interest of officer safety and in accordance with Indiana law.” This statement
is likely to be proved correct by the courts. In
a recent panel analyzing the events in Hammond, CNN
enforcement analyst Tom Fuentes said, "when drivers get pulled over,
whether they agree with the reason for the stop or they don't, you must comply
with lawful requests of the police." However, he also said, “Just because
the police could do it, doesn't mean they should. My question here is the
judgment that they used smashing that window with the kid in the car and four
passengers in that car if there could have been another way to get around
that.”
Until this issue
is addressed by the legislature or a change in precedent law, we are likely to
continue to see litigation concerning people fighting for rights which they do
not have, but believe they should. As the law stands right now, people such as
Jamal Jones likely have no recourse.
Kathryn
Kimball
Blog
Editor, Criminal Law Practitioner
Photo
by Jay Kleeman via Flickr
No comments:
Post a Comment