It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The report also says her only crime was not taking shiit from the cop, but cops are trained not to have an ego as it is, although he did so in this case for reasons only he knows, albeit racism would be the obvious one.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sharted
They would be incorrect. So long as she is detained (traffic stop / investigative stop) her 4th amendment rights are curtailed (including passengers in the car) - IE movement and actions. It means law enforcement can ask them to put cigarettes out, and I have done that myself while dealing with people on traffic stops.
It all depends on what is going on at the time the request is made. If an agitation is present and the persons is not following commands a lit cigarette can be used as a weapon. Its better to have them put it out so if a misunderstanding does occur there is no accidental escalation of the lit cigarette makes contact with the officer.
He did not ask her to put her cigarette out until she became confrontational. As I stated earlier a lit cigarette can be a danger.
Although the Prouse Court recognized that the purpose of a traffic
stop is limited and the subsequent detention is brief, the
Court ruled that the act of stopping a vehicle and detaining its
occupants constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.34
When considering challenges to police intrusions that occur
in the context of a motorist detention, the Court looks to the
reasonableness component of the Fourth Amendment.35 While
motorists enjoy significant interests in automobile travel which
are protected by the Fourth Amendment,3 6 a traffic stop lawfully
may be initiated based on an officer's articulable and reasonable
belief that a motorist is in violation of the traffic law.
The law regarding an officer's intentions during traffic stops
developed from the Supreme Court's holding in Terry v. Ohio!"
Terry represented a departure from the Court's prior requirement
that a police officer needed probable cause to suspect
criminal activity when detaining an individual. 9 The central
tenet of Terry provides that, "[in] justifying the particular intrusion
the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable
facts which, taken together with the rational inferences
from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."0 The Terry
Court employed a two-prong analysis to determine whether the
step was reasonable: (1) whether the police officer was justified
at the beginning of the stop; and (2) whether the officer's actions
were reasonably related to the circumstances that triggered
the initial interference.'
“We have identified violations of the department’s procedures regarding traffic stops and the department’s courtesy policy,” said the Texas Department of Public Safety in an updated statement later on Thursday. “Pending the outcome of the Texas Ranger and FBI investigation into this incident, the employee involved has been assigned administrative duties [and] at the conclusion of this investigation, any violations of protocols will be addressed.”
Finally if you watch and listen to the dash cam she flat out questions the reason she is being asked to step out of the car for a signal violation.