Who Killed Sandra Bland?

[Ike Bana]

Nice attempt at misdirection Zeke. Not this week.


From attn.com:
http://www.attn.com/stories/2498/san...-arrest-lawful

(Attorney John Hamasaki)

On July 10, Sandra Bland was pulled over by Texas state trooper Brian Encina, for failing to signal a lane change. On July 13, while in police custody as a result of said stop, she was found dead.

Officials from the Waller County jail where she was being held say she hanged herself in her cell. Her family disputes the claim, saying Bland wouldn’t have killed herself. She had recently landed a new job at her alma mater, Prairie View A&M University, and was in good spirits.

For many, the details of Bland’s death don’t seem to add up. Waller County’s long history of racial tension only complicates the matter—raising the question of whether Bland was a victim of discriminatory practices.

On Tuesday, dashcam video of the July 10 stop was released. Following the release of the footage, ATTN: spoke with California-based attorney John Hamasaki for his particular analysis of the video from the viewpoint of a criminal defense lawyer. Hamasaki specializes in defending those who are facing criminal charges or an investigation; he has built his practice with a focus on defending constitutional protections in criminal cases implicating civil rights and civil liberties.


It is important to note that Hamasaki, like the rest of us, is responding to the dashcam video made available, and he is not making a judgment based on any potential state-specific laws.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

ATTN: Can you walk me through the video? What are a citizen’s rights during a routine traffic stop?

John Hamasaki: The principal right that controls all police-civilian encounters is the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It’s essentially the right to be left alone. The stopping of a vehicle is a seizure of your vehicle and your person, and therefore officers have to fulfill certain legal obligations in order to detain you. They can’t just stop you, and harass you--even though they sometimes do--legally without reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is occurring.

However, if they have reached that threshold of reasonable suspicion, they do have the right to conduct a temporary investigative detention. So if police see somebody doing what they believe is a violation of the traffic law, they have the right to stop you, detain you--but they only have the right to detain you for the time that it’s necessary to execute the duties relating to the investigation of the traffic incident. For the detention to extend beyond that point, there needs to be additional reasonable suspicion to prolong the detention or probable cause to eventually arrest you.

If an officer tells you to pull over; you’re required to pull over. Whether or not they’re acting lawfully is a secondary question. Sandra pulled over; she followed the law; she did what she was supposed to do. She provided her information-- and you are required to identify yourself so that the officer can conduct the investigation.

Again, there are different laws throughout the country regarding some of these issues, so what I’m going to speak to is over general constitutional principles, and not specific state laws.

After Officer Encina pulls her over, he has the right to resolve the issues of the traffic violation he observed. That’s through identifying her, and she cooperated in that. That’s through writing her the ticket, or the warning, which he was able to do. He ran her for any wants or warrants, and he returned and issued the citation.

At that point, the question is, what’s his legal right to continue her detention? Why is he allowed to keep her there by the side of the road? So, the first problem that I see-- and I’ve watched it twice, but I may have missed some details or intricacies-- but I don’t know what exists at the point where the confrontation begins that allows him to continue the detention. Meaning, why is he allowed to keep her there? There’s no basis under the facts as seen in the dashcam video to order her to put out her cigarette.

So much for the 4th Amendment, eh Zeke?

[Zeke]

He hadn't completed his well articulated investigation. That doesn't occur until anything perceived as a safety risk (cigarette) is eradicated or the completely justified search has been completed.

Don't like it?

Don't commit criminal activity leading to one.

She screwed herself then made a selfish choice to avoid repercussion.

[Rajoo]

From Post #61.

At that point, the question is, what’s his legal right to continue her detention? Why is he allowed to keep her there by the side of the road? So, the first problem that I see-- and I’ve watched it twice, but I may have missed some details or intricacies-- but I don’t know what exists at the point where the confrontation begins that allows him to continue the detention. Meaning, why is he allowed to keep her there? There’s no basis under the facts as seen in the dashcam video to order her to put out her cigarette.

This will make it a case of false arrest as I mentioned in my Post #54. No reasonable jury will believe that a cigarette is a weapon, simply ensure there are no passionate anti-smokers in the jury. Then there is the case of the intake form where she had indicated prior mental issues and she was left in a cell without being watched.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

From Post #61.


This will make it a case of false arrest as I mentioned in my Post #54. No reasonable jury will believe that a cigarette is a weapon, simply ensure there are no passionate anti-smokers in the jury. Then there is the case of the intake form where she had indicated prior mental issues and she was left in a cell without being watched.

Lately as I have been driving around town I have been noting how often drivers, including myself, signal prior to making a lane change. The percentage is pretty damned low. IMO This was a bullshit "driving while black" stop.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Zeke

He hadn't completed his well articulated investigation. That doesn't occur until anything perceived as a safety risk (cigarette) is eradicated or the completely justified search has been completed.

Don't like it?

Don't commit criminal activity leading to one.

She screwed herself then made a selfish choice to avoid repercussion.

Ya can't tell an ENTP anything. It all makes sense now, Zeke. One of the most enlightening bits of info in the ENTP profile is, "Will often argue either side of an issue, just for fun." If that's not you Zeke, I don't know what is.

A woman friend of mine had this cool t-shirt with what looked like the 7-UP logo on it. But the 7 had been replaced with a 1, with something written underneath.

Thus: "1-UP, THE DRINK OF ENTP's.

If the shoe fits, eh?

[Rajoo]

I deliberately use lane change signals as a precaution only when getting in front of a semi or a vehicle with a trailer. Other times I don't bother and neither do most other drivers here. On local roads, depends on speed and traffic. I do drive a lot, 40 mile one way commute.

From my knowledge in CA, signaling is not mandatory but is suggested under safe driving practices. So this would not be a violation here.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

I deliberately use lane change signals as a precaution only when getting in front of a semi or a vehicle with a trailer. Other times I don't bother and neither do most other drivers here. On local roads, depends on speed and traffic. I do drive a lot, 40 mile one way commute.

From my knowledge in CA, signaling is not mandatory but is suggested under safe driving practices. So this would not be a violation here.

I've just been noticing that a lot of these stops that end up with the Cops going ballistic on a black person start out as really chickenshit stuff. Like a third brake light being out. It just looks like a pattern of deliberate harassment to me.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I've just been noticing that a lot of these stops that end up with the Cops going ballistic on a black person start out as really chickenshit stuff. Like a third brake light being out. It just looks like a pattern of deliberate harassment to me.

Racism is genetic so say nothing can be done. So let a white cop target a black person or another minority for a chicken shit probable cause. But if there are no outstanding warrants or a DUI situation, let them go with a warning. Now that will be good PR but that's not their intent is it?

[Zeke]

You apologists...

Bland, who killed herself, had a LONG history of endangering other drivers, owed >$4000 in fines to the State of Illinois and her own family -- the whiners now trying to soak the public for sympathy and, eventually, $$$ -- refused to bail her out.

She'd attempted suicide before, had been cutting herself, was inundated with THC and, likely, shouldn't have possessed a DL to begin with.

This is ALL on her.

Disconnected family and sense of desperation? Maybe. Created by her? Undoubtedly.

She owns her own death.

[Rajoo]

And of course you blame the victim which makes you.......let me think here, ah an apologist for the cops. And who will be paying for this transgression?