Video shows how Texas traffic stop escalated into confrontation

[sgtsabai]

I find it mind boggling that some of the racist cop defenders posting here could pass a test to be a prison bull. I did pass the psychological although I'm no cop hater. I do find it mind boggling that many of the cops or prison bulls in America could pass any psychological exam.

[Linky]

Went through this town 36 years ago and was ticketed for changing lanes without using my turn indicator. Sat in my car, gave the police all my information, and was on my way to Houston in about five minutes.

Pardon the intrusion if you would, but are you a smoker....

Perhaps Ms Bland should have offered the out of control cop a smoke, maybe break the continuum of events going on, give the overbearing cop some pause to his ugly behavior; smoke and develop a friendly chat.

Fat chance eh.

Well, maybe a better idea just simply answer the officers questions in a respectful tone, and when asked to put out her cigarette, just comply with his request. All she was going to receive is a warning citation. A little common sense goes a long way.

I find it mind boggling at the high number of law enforcement haters there are on this site. I suspect most of the haters could never pass the psychological exam to even be considered to be hired as a police officer.

Because she simply cannot be compelled to answer any of his questions, she doesnt have to answer. Also she can use any tone she likes to answer, there is no law that says she had to be polite.

Officer can ask whatever he likes but he cannot make her answer and he cannot expect or tell her to answer in a tone acceptable to him.

He had no business asking her to put out her cig. It was only after this request that she was told to get out of the car. So his reason to ask her to get out had no basis exept he was annoyed that she didnt treat him like royalty.

So yes, if the officer had shown common sense and stayed within the parameters of his duty none of this would have happened.

[rijb]

Do You Know Why I’m Pulling You Over, Being Wildly Aggressive, And Charging You With Assault Today, Sir?

[impulse]

Forgive me as I am not familiar with US law but could someone explain if the officer's order to her to put out her cig ihas any legal foundation?

Sorry if this has been addressed. Here's an excellent CNN article about the legalities of a traffic stop, and common tactics used by the police to take advantage of the fact most of us aren't lawyers and don't have their training. I don't agree with all the writer has to say (I do agree with a lot of it), but it is thought provoking...

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/cevallos-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/index.html

Edited July 24, 2015 by impulse

[CMNightRider]

Went through this town 36 years ago and was ticketed for changing lanes without using my turn indicator. Sat in my car, gave the police all my information, and was on my way to Houston in about five minutes.

Pardon the intrusion if you would, but are you a smoker....

Perhaps Ms Bland should have offered the out of control cop a smoke, maybe break the continuum of events going on, give the overbearing cop some pause to his ugly behavior; smoke and develop a friendly chat.

Fat chance eh.

Well, maybe a better idea just simply answer the officers questions in a respectful tone, and when asked to put out her cigarette, just comply with his request. All she was going to receive is a warning citation. A little common sense goes a long way.

I find it mind boggling at the high number of law enforcement haters there are on this site. I suspect most of the haters could never pass the psychological exam to even be considered to be hired as a police officer.

Because she simply cannot be compelled to answer any of his questions, she doesnt have to answer. Also she can use any tone she likes to answer, there is no law that says she had to be polite.

Officer can ask whatever he likes but he cannot make her answer and he cannot expect or tell her to answer in a tone acceptable to him.

He had no business asking her to put out her cig. It was only after this request that she was told to get out of the car. So his reason to ask her to get out had no basis exept he was annoyed that she didnt treat him like royalty.

So yes, if the officer had shown common sense and stayed within the parameters of his duty none of this would have happened.

Please hold that thought. The next time you get stopped for a traffic violation in the U.S., answer the officers questions in anger or simply say nothing as you suggest, and let us know how it worked out for you. Like I said, a little common sense goes a long way.

[sgtsabai]

That is a good article. The officer was not in the right, but he had the power. He provoked the altercation and I believe his actions and words show it was on purpose. Once you are handed your citation and DL you are free to go. In this case had the lady done that the cop would have probably just called for backup and lied for an excuse for stopping her again. The stop was over and she was free to go, period. No denying that. Hard to win when the cops have the power but not the right. I believe it was back in the 70's when Texas law was changed to disallow protecting yourself during a false arrest. This arose after the cops lost case after case during the anti-Vietnam war protests. They lost several against me although there was no altercation due to them not starting one. Prior to that one had the right to protect themselves against illegal arrest. Several of my good friends were involved in that, cops apparently didn't know the man subject was a 2 tour, bronze star Sgt. USMC Vietnam Vet and the other a US Army Sgt gunner(VVAW both, like me). When his attorney with the help of photos of the entire illegal cop assault tore a new <deleted> in the prosecution and the case was dismissed the cops rioted again inside the courtroom. Unfortunately I missed the first cop riot, I didn't the last one. They lost that one also when it came to court. It was sometime after that and other incidents the law was changed to allow illegal arrests. More right wing over reaction to illegality by cops. Essentially what the article concludes is that no matter what your race you better just do your "yeas sir, noa sir, shuffles mys feets hear boss" and kowtow to the cop. Forget your Constitutional rights because they don't matter to the cops, just as the DPS officer stated to me years ago. America is sick and Texas is one of the more sick states.

[MaeJoMTB]

Please hold that thought. The next time you get stopped for a traffic violation in the U.S., answer the officers questions in anger or simply say nothing as you suggest, and let us know how it worked out for you. Like I said, a little common sense goes a long way.

I can answer that (UK not US, not traffic violation but similar trivial offence),

They arrested me, and subsequently paid 10,000GBP ($16,000) to me in an out of court settlement for unlawful arrest.

They spent a further 100,000GBP+ ($160,000) in various investigation and legal costs.

So a fairly good result for me.

Edited July 24, 2015 by MaeJoMTB

[MaxYakov]

Went through this town 36 years ago and was ticketed for changing lanes without using my turn indicator. Sat in my car, gave the police all my information, and was on my way to Houston in about five minutes.

Pardon the intrusion if you would, but are you a smoker....

Perhaps Ms Bland should have offered the out of control cop a smoke, maybe break the continuum of events going on, give the overbearing cop some pause to his ugly behavior; smoke and develop a friendly chat.

Fat chance eh.

Well, maybe a better idea just simply answer the officers questions in a respectful tone, and when asked to put out her cigarette, just comply with his request. All she was going to receive is a warning citation. A little common sense goes a long way.

I find it mind boggling at the high number of law enforcement haters there are on this site. I suspect most of the haters could never pass the psychological exam to even be considered to be hired as a police officer.

Because she simply cannot be compelled to answer any of his questions, she doesnt have to answer. Also she can use any tone she likes to answer, there is no law that says she had to be polite.

Officer can ask whatever he likes but he cannot make her answer and he cannot expect or tell her to answer in a tone acceptable to him.

He had no business asking her to put out her cig. It was only after this request that she was told to get out of the car. So his reason to ask her to get out had no basis exept he was annoyed that she didnt treat him like royalty.

So yes, if the officer had shown common sense and stayed within the parameters of his duty none of this would have happened.

When will you be applying to the nearest Police Academy so you can straighten those dudes out on a few items?

You also seem to have an aptitude for mind-reading at a great distance in space and time and might consider going professional, if you haven't already. I don't believe that version of the officer's video recorder had a "mind track".

Edited July 24, 2015 by MaxYakov

[sgtsabai]

sorry 'bout that, should have been main, not man. For whatever reason I can't edit on this forum.

[CMNightRider]

I find it mind boggling that some of the racist cop defenders posting here could pass a test to be a prison bull. I did pass the psychological although I'm no cop hater. I do find it mind boggling that many of the cops or prison bulls in America could pass any psychological exam.

Well sir, I don't think anyone implied a stable person like you were not able to pass a psychological exam or that you are a cop hater.

I am a little surprised you believe there are "racist cop defenders" posting on this site. I haven't seen any indication of any racists remarks on this thread. If there were any racists or God forbid, offensive remarks made, I'm sure the offender would be awarded a suspension.

As always, it is a pleasure to read your positive and uplifting posts. Prison bull??

[impulse]

That is a good article. The officer was not in the right, but he had the power. He provoked the altercation and I believe his actions and words show it was on purpose. Once you are handed your citation and DL you are free to go. In this case had the lady done that the cop would have probably just called for backup and lied for an excuse for stopping her again. The stop was over and she was free to go, period. No denying that.

That's what's disturbing., According to the article, once he gave her the warning, he had no more authority. The traffic stop was over and it became a "voluntary interaction". That being the case, he had no authority to ask her to put out the cigarette, or step out of the car. (The article also says there's some question whether he had actually delivered the "warning")

[sgtsabai]

The remarks don't have to be explicitly racist. You know that as well as I and you know exactly what I mean, whether you can admit it even to yourself. Pretty good sarcasm on your last. You're getting better. Regardless of some cop/prison bull defenders here misguided opinions, the cop was wrong and deliberately provoked the victim. Because some of the posters here seem to think cops are gods and should be instantly obeyed in any circumstance does not mean we have to live on our knees. I realize that even in many cases white people (usually poor) or people like OWS, legitimate protesters of bad government policy are vamped by cops, we are still supposed to have Constitutional rights that override illegal actions by cops. I also realize that thanks to the right wing, the war on drugs, the un-Supreme Court (gang of 5) and in many cases Obama our Constitution no longer exists as a viable document. Cops do not "Serve and Protect", they instill fear into the people. Black while driving, black while walking, black while in school all seem to be illegal these days.

[stevenl]

She had committed two traffic violations in less than two minutes.

I think the Patrolman had every right to question her activities.

But he had no right to tell her to stop smoking. That is the point where it escalated.

Maybe you should watch and listen to the video. He asked her "please" to snuff her cigarette. It escalated at the point when she refused to get of the vehicle.

I read an account of an Oakland motorcycle cop that had pulled over Sonny Barger, a founding member of the Hell's Angels MC. Sonny copped an attitude with the cop so he related how he kept writing tickets regarding infractions of his motorcycle until it was going to be very costly for Sonny so he finally shut up.

So what should an officer do in the case of a driver or passenger that refuses to exit the vehicle? It appears that the threat to "light them up" is not a viable option, eh?

Listen to that sentence, that was clearly not a request.

Deleted the rest of the answer.

Edited July 24, 2015 by stevenl

[sgtsabai]

Here is a video from her cell the morning of her death, check out the guard with the plastic bag and where he goes. Also an excellent article by a person with more than one working brain cell. http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=821nTUmnFWrsVS9Z3TWG3Y5rrYAjaW3I http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sandra-bland-jail-video-20150721-story.html

[sdanielmcev]

Turns out she had many scars on her wrists from weeks previous. From the autopsy report. She'd been trying to kill herself for a while.So you can all remove your tin foil hats. Until the next conspiracy theory.

[impulse]

Turns out she had many scars on her wrists from weeks previous. From the autopsy report. She'd been trying to kill herself for a while.So you can all remove your tin foil hats. Until the next conspiracy theory.

What she did was legal. Standing up for her rights was legal. Refusing to put out her cigarette during a "voluntary encounter" with a guy was legal. Refusing to get out of her car after the traffic stop had been (legally) concluded was legal. What the cop did was probably illegal, definitely questionable (and apparently against DPS policy). The cop was even suspended for doing what he did.

Why was she the one in jail?

If she hadn't died, she'd just be another innocent spending time in jail- and we'd have never even heard the story. If there were no dash cams, she'd have been the bitch that picked a fight with the cop and got arrested for it- because it would have been her word against his. How many millions have had the same happen over the years, before there were dash cams and cell phone cameras? How many today, because the SD cards disappear? (BTW, kudos to the DPS for coming clean and doing the right thing- so far)

That new job she just got at the university? Do you think she'd still have it with a conviction for resisting arrest and assault on a police officer on her record? You figure she'd get a visa to Thailand with that conviction? How about the next job she applies for? How many hundreds of dollars you figure she'd have to pay to get her car back out of the impound yard? To hire a lawyer? To pay the fee to the bail bondsman?

It goes way beyond the arrest and a few days in the hoosgaw. It goes to $$$ thousands in legal fees, bail bond fees, and, for low income earners- to ruined lives. Even if she was eventually cleared of the charges, she was still out $$$ thousands, and absent from her new job- which I'm sure played into her decision. (Assuming it was her decision...)

Edited July 24, 2015 by impulse

[chuckd]

Turns out she had many scars on her wrists from weeks previous. From the autopsy report. She'd been trying to kill herself for a while.So you can all remove your tin foil hats. Until the next conspiracy theory.

What she did was legal. Standing up for her rights was legal. Refusing to put out her cigarette during a "voluntary encounter" with a guy was legal. Refusing to get out of her car after the traffic stop had been (legally) concluded was legal. What the cop did was probably illegal, definitely questionable (and apparently against DPS policy). The cop was even suspended for doing what he did.

Why was she the one in jail?

If she hadn't died, she'd just be another innocent spending time in jail- and we'd have never even heard the story. If there were no dash cams, she'd have been the bitch that picked a fight with the cop and got arrested for it- because it would have been her word against his. How many millions have had the same happen over the years, before there were dash cams and cell phone cameras? How many today, because the SD cards disappear? (BTW, kudos to the DPS for coming clean and doing the right thing- so far)

That new job she just got at the university? Do you think she'd still have it with a conviction for resisting arrest and assault on a police officer on her record? You figure she'd get a visa to Thailand with that conviction? How about the next job she applies for? How many hundreds of dollars you figure she'd have to pay to get her car back out of the impound yard? To hire a lawyer? To pay the fee to the bail bondsman?

It goes way beyond the arrest and a few days in the hoosgaw. It goes to $$$ thousands in legal fees, bail bond fees, and, for low income earners- to ruined lives. Even if she was eventually cleared of the charges, she was still out $$$ thousands, and absent from her new job- which I'm sure played into her decision. (Assuming it was her decision...)

She was in jail because her alleged friend had never showed up to post bond for her and wasn't taking her calls, according to the following article:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/23/as-conspiracy-theories-swirl-sandra-blands-co-inmate-says-she-likely-committed-suicide/

From the article:

"Besides being upset over her arrest, Bland was distraught because a friend she said was going to bail her out of jail had not showed up to get her, Pyle said.

“She said, ‘He’s not answering, it’s going straight to voicemail. I don’t know why, I don’t know why. He said he’s going to be here in an hour, and it’s days later,'” Pyle told the news station. Bland was being held on $5,000 bond which would have required her to pay $500 to get out of jail."

[sdanielmcev]

Turns out she had many scars on her wrists from weeks previous. From the autopsy report. She'd been trying to kill herself for a while.So you can all remove your tin foil hats. Until the next conspiracy theory.

What she did was legal. Standing up for her rights was legal. Refusing to put out her cigarette during a "voluntary encounter" with a guy was legal. Refusing to get out of her car after the traffic stop had been (legally) concluded was legal. What the cop did was probably illegal, definitely questionable (and apparently against DPS policy). The cop was even suspended for doing what he did.

Why was she the one in jail?

If she hadn't died, she'd just be another innocent spending time in jail- and we'd have never even heard the story. If there were no dash cams, she'd have been the bitch that picked a fight with the cop and got arrested for it- because it would have been her word against his. How many millions have had the same happen over the years, before there were dash cams and cell phone cameras? How many today, because the SD cards disappear? (BTW, kudos to the DPS for coming clean and doing the right thing- so far)

That new job she just got at the university? Do you think she'd still have it with a conviction for resisting arrest and assault on a police officer on her record? You figure she'd get a visa to Thailand with that conviction? How about the next job she applies for? How many hundreds of dollars you figure she'd have to pay to get her car back out of the impound yard? To hire a lawyer? To pay the fee to the bail bondsman?

It goes way beyond the arrest and a few days in the hoosgaw. It goes to $$$ thousands in legal fees, bail bond fees, and, for low income earners- to ruined lives. Even if she was eventually cleared of the charges, she was still out $$$ thousands, and absent from her new job- which I'm sure played into her decision. (Assuming it was her decision...)

First of all, the stop, there is no 'legal conclusion' to a traffic stop. She made a decision not to obey a police officer. And, in the US, it is illegal for some one to be denied employment because a conviction, except for certain security reasons. I am not certain where your dollar amounts, or anything else you've written here, comes from, but a not guilty plea, would've resulted in a reduction to a misdemeanor charge with probation and credit for time served. Maybe a fine and court costs.

[sgtsabai]

Glad to see another right winger has joined. The "daily caller", nothing but a right wing lying rag. There is a definite "legal conclusion" to a traffic stop. You know not of what you speak. Read the cnn article and as a former law enforcement officer I confirm that. When the citation/warning is written and the DL and citation is handed back the stop is over and the officer is now obligated to see that the subject leaves safely. The officer turned around, went back to the vehicle and deliberately picked a fight. Not an uncommon tactic with cops. In fact read the posts, not just the right wing wacko ones. Unlike the right wing posters, I know Texas and Waller. Racist to the core. You know nothing and refuse to learn, like all right wingers. A not guilty plea reduced to misdemeanor fee for being "uppity" oh give us a break. No, a not guilty plea would have resulted in, ah duh, not guilty, after lots of money. This woman was an activist, especially against police abuse of black people. Perhaps when the cop walked back to his vehicle that information had just become available on his computer. Think on that. I know what it is like to be on one of those lists. I was fortunate, I had the Lawyers Guild/Center for Constitutional Rights behind me. Long after I dropped out of the movement to raise my son the pigs continued to screw with my life, causing me to get an attorney to stop the problems. I have no convictions on my criminal history but it was thick enough to be a book. Do you understand political prisoner? No, right wingers don't understand anything. They can't handle the facts and the truth.

[sdanielmcev]

Glad to see another right winger has joined. The "daily caller", nothing but a right wing lying rag. There is a definite "legal conclusion" to a traffic stop. You know not of what you speak. Read the cnn article and as a former law enforcement officer I confirm that. When the citation/warning is written and the DL and citation is handed back the stop is over and the officer is now obligated to see that the subject leaves safely. The officer turned around, went back to the vehicle and deliberately picked a fight. Not an uncommon tactic with cops. In fact read the posts, not just the right wing wacko ones. Unlike the right wing posters, I know Texas and Waller. Racist to the core. You know nothing and refuse to learn, like all right wingers. A not guilty plea reduced to misdemeanor fee for being "uppity" oh give us a break. No, a not guilty plea would have resulted in, ah duh, not guilty, after lots of money. This woman was an activist, especially against police abuse of black people. Perhaps when the cop walked back to his vehicle that information had just become available on his computer. Think on that. I know what it is like to be on one of those lists. I was fortunate, I had the Lawyers Guild/Center for Constitutional Rights behind me. Long after I dropped out of the movement to raise my son the pigs continued to screw with my life, causing me to get an attorney to stop the problems. I have no convictions on my criminal history but it was thick enough to be a book. Do you understand political prisoner? No, right wingers don't understand anything. They can't handle the facts and the truth.

If you really were a cop, which seems doubtful by your response here, and your threats on other threads, you would know that there is no legal definition of a 'legally concluded' traffic stop. To which I refuted in the previous post. At what point did the officer claim she was being "uppity?" How did the officer know she was an activist? Got any proof?

And calling police officers 'pigs,' that wonderful 60's term for police officers that you claim to be in fraternity, highlights that you are not talking about the subject at hand, but your own fears.

[impulse]

First of all, the stop, there is no 'legal conclusion' to a traffic stop. She made a decision not to obey a police officer. And, in the US, it is illegal for some one to be denied employment because a conviction, except for certain security reasons. I am not certain where your dollar amounts, or anything else you've written here, comes from, but a not guilty plea, would've resulted in a reduction to a misdemeanor charge with probation and credit for time served. Maybe a fine and court costs.

From the linked CNN article:

As far as the officer was concerned, the investigatory stop had concluded with the handing of the warning: He gives a warning; driver is free to leave. Thanks to modern recording devices, we actually learn that this is this trooper's M.O.-- from the car stop immediately preceding Bland's.

What most citizens don't know is that police not only continue investigating after an investigatory stop, some of their best busts happen after they give you your warning and a "have a nice day".

This is where it gets complicated. You see, while you're being detained, a court will scrutinize any answers or consent a driver gives, because of the coercive atmosphere of the stop. But, when police hand you back your license and a ticket, and say "drive safely," courts have concluded that that moment, the encounter has just de-escalated from an investigatory stop, to -- get this -- a mere "consensual encounter."

The author: Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal analyst and a criminal defense attorney practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The link (excellent article): http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/cevallos-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/index.html

[Credo]

I wonder why a judge would allow her to be detained and set bail if she had done nothing wrong?

[impulse]

I wonder why a judge would allow her to be detained and set bail if she had done nothing wrong?

Rubber stamp on a cop's report would be my guess. In fairness, he probably deals with dozens in a day.

Edited July 25, 2015 by impulse

[Credo]

She has to appear at the bail hearing, doesn't she?

$5,000 is quite high it seems. What was she charged with?

[sdanielmcev]

First of all, the stop, there is no 'legal conclusion' to a traffic stop. She made a decision not to obey a police officer. And, in the US, it is illegal for some one to be denied employment because a conviction, except for certain security reasons. I am not certain where your dollar amounts, or anything else you've written here, comes from, but a not guilty plea, would've resulted in a reduction to a misdemeanor charge with probation and credit for time served. Maybe a fine and court costs.

From the linked CNN article:

As far as the officer was concerned, the investigatory stop had concluded with the handing of the warning: He gives a warning; driver is free to leave. Thanks to modern recording devices, we actually learn that this is this trooper's M.O.-- from the car stop immediately preceding Bland's.

What most citizens don't know is that police not only continue investigating after an investigatory stop, some of their best busts happen after they give you your warning and a "have a nice day".

This is where it gets complicated. You see, while you're being detained, a court will scrutinize any answers or consent a driver gives, because of the coercive atmosphere of the stop. But, when police hand you back your license and a ticket, and say "drive safely," courts have concluded that that moment, the encounter has just de-escalated from an investigatory stop, to -- get this -- a mere "consensual encounter."

The author: Danny Cevallos is a CNN legal analyst and a criminal defense attorney practicing in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The link (excellent article): http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/cevallos-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/index.html

I'm not certain what your point is. She was free to leave, yet, she didn't. What 'courts' have decided that legal conclusion to the aforementioned stop? It is one thing to talk about phases of an investigation, it is another to say there are legally binding starts and stops.

To whit; drunk driver throws out a beer can during a traffic stop, later the beer can shows fingerprints of a felony/kidnap/missing person suspect.

[impulse]

The link (excellent article): http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/cevallos-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/index.html

I'm not certain what your point is. She was free to leave, yet, she didn't. What 'courts' have decided that legal conclusion to the aforementioned stop? It is one thing to talk about phases of an investigation, it is another to say there are legally binding starts and stops.

To whit; drunk driver throws out a beer can during a traffic stop, later the beer can shows fingerprints of a felony/kidnap/missing person suspect.

My point is that the woman should have never ended up in jail.

A point that will become abundantly clear when the taxpayers of Texas have to pay the multi-million dollar lawsuit that's inevitably going to be filed, and settled before going to trial...

Edited July 25, 2015 by impulse

[sdanielmcev]

The link (excellent article): http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/cevallos-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/index.html

I'm not certain what your point is. She was free to leave, yet, she didn't. What 'courts' have decided that legal conclusion to the aforementioned stop? It is one thing to talk about phases of an investigation, it is another to say there are legally binding starts and stops.

To whit; drunk driver throws out a beer can during a traffic stop, later the beer can shows fingerprints of a felony/kidnap/missing person suspect.

My point is that the woman should have never ended up in jail.

A point that will become abundantly clear when the taxpayers of Texas have to pay the multi-million dollar lawsuit that's inevitably going to be filed, and settled before going to trial...

Nice try, but you haven't answered any of my, or your questions. Failure to obey a police officer is a punishable offense in all 50 states as well as any county or local jurisdiction. So, why shouldn't she have been arrested? It is one thing to have an opinion on a matter, it is another to state that those same laws that protect you and me are wrong when you sit on a lazy butt and criticize.

Just as a caveat, do you know anybody that does not know that failure to obey a law enforcement officer might wind up in jail?

Edited July 25, 2015 by sdanielmcev

[impulse]

when you sit on a lazy butt and criticize.

I'm done.

[Linky]

The link (excellent article): http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/cevallos-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/index.html

I'm not certain what your point is. She was free to leave, yet, she didn't. What 'courts' have decided that legal conclusion to the aforementioned stop? It is one thing to talk about phases of an investigation, it is another to say there are legally binding starts and stops.

To whit; drunk driver throws out a beer can during a traffic stop, later the beer can shows fingerprints of a felony/kidnap/missing person suspect.

My point is that the woman should have never ended up in jail.

A point that will become abundantly clear when the taxpayers of Texas have to pay the multi-million dollar lawsuit that's inevitably going to be filed, and settled before going to trial...

Nice try, but you haven't answered any of my, or your questions. Failure to obey a police officer is a punishable offense in all 50 states as well as any county or local jurisdiction. So, why shouldn't she have been arrested? It is one thing to have an opinion on a matter, it is another to state that those same laws that protect you and me are wrong when you sit on a lazy butt and criticize.

Just as a caveat, do you know anybody that does not know that failure to obey a law enforcement officer might wind up in jail?

Failure to obey a police officer is punishable??

So if the officer orders you to bend over and take it like a man you have to just obey do you?

I think you will find the order must have a legal foundation. Telling her to put out her cig had no legal directive so she was not required to obey.

Thats when the small d*ck syndrome kicked in.

[Linky]

I wonder why a judge would allow her to be detained and set bail if she had done nothing wrong?

Because Judges will usually err on the side of caution and believe an officer over the accused until the Judge can be provided full facts.

As you are wondering you could also wonder why the officer has now been taken off the road and admonished for not following proper procedure.