Illinois Cops Drag Man Out of Car for Recording and Remaining Silent

[Howler63]

You may need to watch the video again - the driver did EVERYTHING he was asked to do, and even started fussing at the guy in the back for him to do what the cop asked.

Again, when the cop said put your hands on the seat, say yes sir and put your ****ing hands on the seat.

If you feel you were wronged, get out of the situation and THEN you can sue or file a grievance. But during the stop, do - as - you - are - told.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Again, he had no right to refuse to identify himself. Under the Illinois stop and identify law probable cause for his arrest happened the moment he refused to identify.

I didn't see him being asked to identify himself. I'll look again.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Again, when the cop said put your hands on the seat, say yes sir and put your ****ing hands on the seat.

If you feel you were wronged, get out of the situation and THEN you can sue or file a grievance. But during the stop, do - as - you - are - told.

He put his hands on the seat.

 

[Howler63]

He put his hands on the seat.

No. He kept recording.

Sinnott said he was holding his right hand up near his head and was holding the phone with his left hand, pointing it at the officer, who was to his left.

But the cop, who had already ordered a man in the passenger seat to put his phone down, kept ordering Sinnott to put his phone down.

“Why? Because if I drop the phone, he’s going to say I’m reaching for something else,” Sinnott said.

But Gutierrez became more aggressive once a few more backup officers arrived.

“I told you to drop the phone and put your hands behind the car seat,” he ordered.

“I SAID PUT THE PHONE DOWN AND PUT YOUR HANDS ON THE SEAT!” he repeated.

But when Sinnott continued recording, Gutierrez ordered his backup officers to pull him out of the car.

“I wasn’t trying to make their job harder at all,” he said in a telephone interview with Photography is Not a Crime Friday.

“I was trying to stand up for my rights.”

 

[clownboy]

I didn't see him being asked to identify himself. I'll look again.

If he wasn't I apologize for getting it wrong.

 

[Lutherf]

You may need to watch the video again - the driver did EVERYTHING he was asked to do, and even started fussing at the guy in the back for him to do what the cop asked.

I'm VERY familiar with that video but it doesn't change anything. In fact it pretty much reinforces what I'm saying. The cops have a responsibility to investigate when they believe evidence of a crime may be present. You don't have to talk to the cop but you also don't have the right to obstruct or hinder that investigation.

In this particular case the only evidence we see is the video. We can infer that the stop was justified because the cop says the car was going 10-15mph over the posted speed limit and nobody denied that. However, once the cop stops the car he may find evidence of another crime unrelated to speeding. LOTS of stuff can be construed as evidence of a crime (and that's what they're talking about in your video). In this particular case I would suggest that the bad on the back seat could have been such evidence especially if other facts and circumstances also indicated a crime. The cop was well within his rights to ask if there was anything in the car "he needed to know about" and the hesitation of the occupants to answer that question gave him cause to investigate further.

If the owner of the car refused to consent to a search of the vehicle that would have necessitated the cop to get a warrant. It happens all the time and can easily be done by phone. If the cop felt that the guy with the camera was intentionally distracting him so that one of the other occupants could dispose of evidence, flee or commit assault he was well within his rights to request that the occupant drop the phone and put his hands on the seat. That's common protocol for officer safety and it's perfectly legal.

 

[Beaudreaux]

If he wasn't I apologize for getting it wrong.

You may be correct, I just don't remember it.

 

[Utility Man]

Good job there.....



Film The Police.....

 

[Bodi]

The guy got pulled over for doing 10-15 over the limit in a residential area, hedged on answering questions and had a trash bag on the back seat that could easily have contained a couple of pounds of weed. The stop wasn't unreasonable and neither were the questions. If the jackass had just said "There's nothing illegal in my car and I don't consent to a search" he'd have been perfectly within his rights. The cop would then have to make a determination whether he had probable cause to request a warrant and call in a K9 unit. If he didn't find anything then everyone could have just gone on their way with a speeding ticket. Instead the idiot decided to play lawyer and ended up with his face in the pavement.

No sympathy.

As a victim of cops lying twice about me speeding I don't automatically buy it when cops accuse others of speeding ... I agree that we have the "right" to stay silent but talking to a cop like you say is not a big deal and just makes things easier for all, in general.

 

[JANFU]

Again, he had no right to refuse to identify himself. Under the Illinois stop and identify law probable cause for his arrest happened the moment he refused to identify.

You may have missed this, but I do not recall the LEO asking him to ID himself. He asked about contents of the car, which he does not have to answer, and told him to put to phone down.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The guy got pulled over for doing 10-15 over the limit in a residential area, hedged on answering questions and had a trash bag on the back seat that could easily have contained a couple of pounds of weed. The stop wasn't unreasonable and neither were the questions. If the jackass had just said "There's nothing illegal in my car and I don't consent to a search" he'd have been perfectly within his rights. The cop would then have to make a determination whether he had probable cause to request a warrant and call in a K9 unit. If he didn't find anything then everyone could have just gone on their way with a speeding ticket. Instead the idiot decided to play lawyer and ended up with his face in the pavement.

No sympathy.

Even if legal, and it isn't, this is a huge example of un-professionalism.

Illinois cops pulled a car over for speeding, then dragged a man out of the back seat because he would not stop recording.

Dolton police then forced Steven S. Sinnot facedown on the street and handcuffed him, telling him, he should “learn how to listen.”

“I just had my hands where he could see them,” Sinnott says as he was being dragged out as you can see in the video below.

“I didn’t move or nothing. I don’t consent to no search,” he continues.

“Shut the **** up!” said the cop named Doiley who dragged him out.

The camera then turns off but Sinnott said he was left laying facedown on the street for almost ten minutes before he was transported to the police department and handcuffed to a wall.

The first priority of any law enforcement officer is to DE-ESCALATE, not ramp up tensions. This officer created a whole new list of issues, not the least of which is exposure to possible law suit by extremely inappropriate behavior. The officer has no power to stop someone from recording his actions, a matter that has been upheld by the Supreme court. Cops are simply going to have to get used to the idea they are on camera. If they're smart they'll see it as a way top get rid of "bad cops" so respect of the badge is maintained.

If he's on my force he's got himself a month off without pay at least.

What cop wannabes miss is the very core of policing is dependent on the support of the populace. If you do not respect civilians you may have your way for awhile, but respect is a two way street and once you lose respect of the populace you end up with areas like Watts or East LA

 

[SILVER SURFER]

Again, he had no right to refuse to identify himself. Under the Illinois stop and identify law probable cause for his arrest happened the moment he refused to identify.

Nope, probable cause has to exist before the demand for identification - note the emphasized part below. Also note the other requirements for the demand.

(725 ILCS 5/107-14) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-14)
Sec. 107-14. Temporary questioning without arrest.
(a) A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102-15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped.

Illinois General Assembly - Illinois Compiled Statutes

 

[SocialD]

Nope, probable cause has to exist before the demand for identification - note the emphasized part below. Also note the other requirements for the demand.



Illinois General Assembly - Illinois Compiled Statutes

That's not a definition of probable cause that is reasonable suspicion. similar but certainly different.
As to the issue at hand. the US Supreme Court has said (Muehler v. Mena) that simply asking for identification does not violate the 4th Amendment. Police can ask people questions and for identification at any time.
This of course does not mean that you have to comply. This is where the state laws come in.
Now there was already probable cause for the traffic stop because of speeding. However.. in United States v. Slater which was somewhat similar... traffic stop.. passenger was asked for ID and actually provided it and they found warrants.. it was ruled that there was no reasonable suspicion that the passenger was involved in a crime and and couldn't be arrested the reasoning being had no reasonable suspicion to believe that the passenger was involved in criminal activity; he was merely a passenger in a vehicle stopped for motor vehicle violations. As such, Hiibel would not justify his arrest since the rule from Hiibel requires that the person(s) being asked to identify themselves must be the subject of a valid Terry stop, i.e. they must be suspected of criminal activity and that suspicion must be supported by reasonable suspicion.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No. He kept recording.

With his hands on the seat. You can hold something while your hands are against something ya know. Also the cop had no reasonable excuse to order the guy to put the cell phone down as its most certainly not a dangerous object that would threaten his life...his career yes, not his life. Which is probably why the cop wanted him to put it down as he didn't want to risk his job because he did something stupid. This cop definitely went over the line and the video is proof of that.

 

[radcen]

He wasn't hooked up for exercising his rights. He was hooked up for obstructing a lawful investigation.

He got jacked up for exercising his rights. If the officer had probable cause he wouldn't have had to ask permission to search. He asked permission because he knew he didn't have probable cause. When he got a 'no' answer, he should have let it go. But he didn't let it go, did he? No, he kept pushing. That's not an investigation, that's harassment.

 

[radcen]

How freaking hard is it to listen to the cop, be pleasant and not a douche? You get your ticket for 10-15 over, and be on your way.

I think these jackasses were looking for a fight.

How hard is it to not be a douche cop?

 

[radcen]

Even if legal, and it isn't, this is a huge example of un-professionalism.

The first priority of any law enforcement officer is to DE-ESCALATE, not ramp up tensions. This officer created a whole new list of issues, not the least of which is exposure to possible law suit by extremely inappropriate behavior. The officer has no power to stop someone from recording his actions, a matter that has been upheld by the Supreme court. Cops are simply going to have to get used to the idea they are on camera. If they're smart they'll see it as a way top get rid of "bad cops" so respect of the badge is maintained.

If he's on my force he's got himself a month off without pay at least.

What cop wannabes miss is the very core of policing is dependent on the support of the populace. If you do not respect civilians you may have your way for awhile, but respect is a two way street and once you lose respect of the populace you end up with areas like Watts or East LA

How many times have we seen stories where the cop tries to stop someone from recording them, then get slapped down in a lawsuit afterward? I'm starting to believe that SOP before giving a cop a badge should be signing a public document stating that they know recording is legal and allowed.

 

[Lutherf]

He got jacked up for exercising his rights. If the officer had probable cause he wouldn't have had to ask permission to search. He asked permission because he knew he didn't have probable cause. When he got a 'no' answer, he should have let it go. But he didn't let it go, did he? No, he kept pushing. That's not an investigation, that's harassment.

Just because a cop has probable cause to search someone or something does not preclude the need for a warrant if the subject of the search refuses to give permission (exercises their rights under the 4th Amendment). There is an exception for exigent circumstances but nothing in the video indicates that such and circumstance occurred.

 

[SILVER SURFER]

That's not a definition of probable cause that is reasonable suspicion.

True. I was replying to clownboy's post that, under Illinois stop and identify law, refusal to provide identification constitutes probable cause for arrest. I used his terminology but reasonable suspicion (or "reasonable inference" in Illinois-speak) is correct.

Police can ask people questions and for identification at any time.
This of course does not mean that you have to comply. This is where the state laws come in.

And that's the point I was making. Police can ask for identification. But in Illinois, they cannot demand it unless they meet the requirements in the statute I cited. If they don't, there is no crime in refusing and therefore no "probable cause" to arrest for it.

 

[reinoe]

I wanted to watch the video before I made judgement because I've made mistakes in the past...

With that being said, this was unjustified. He had no reason to interrogate the passenger since the stop involved the driver speeding. He had no reason to tell him to put the phone down. And the passenger was correct and that if he did put the phone down then the cop could use that as a pretext for "reaching for something".

These cops need to be sued because they are completely in the wrong on this one.

 

[Thorgasm]

He wasn't hooked up for exercising his rights. He was hooked up for obstructing a lawful investigation.

What crime was being investigated?

 

[Thoreau72]

About that Police State we are inching ourselves towards...

Inching towards? Recall that the Patriot Act nullification of the Fourth Amendment has been with us for about 15 years now. Recall that the NDAA amendment nullifying Habeas Corpus is 3 or 4 years old.

Recall that the US has led the world with the highest per capita rate of imprisonment for decades, thanks in large part to drug policy.

Cops dragging a man out of his car for remaining silent is what one would expect in a police state. Rodney King event is what one would expect in a police state. Being detained and arrested for not having identification papers is what one would expect in a police state.

We're not inching towards it, we've been there for many years.

 

[Howler63]

How hard is it to not be a douche cop?

Not very, I would imagine. But the cop is still a COP. You are not. Go along, be nice and post a grievance (if you have one) AFTER the event.

 

[Howler63]

With his hands on the seat. You can hold something while your hands are against something ya know. Also the cop had no reasonable excuse to order the guy to put the cell phone down as its most certainly not a dangerous object that would threaten his life...his career yes, not his life. Which is probably why the cop wanted him to put it down as he didn't want to risk his job because he did something stupid. This cop definitely went over the line and the video is proof of that.

When a cop tells you to empty your hands and put them on the seat...you do it. Don't give them any excuse to jack you up. Be nice, be calm, and walk away clean. THEN you can raise questions about the cops actions.

 

[Henrin]

The guy got pulled over for doing 10-15 over the limit in a residential area, hedged on answering questions and had a trash bag on the back seat that could easily have contained a couple of pounds of weed. The stop wasn't unreasonable and neither were the questions. If the jackass had just said "There's nothing illegal in my car and I don't consent to a search" he'd have been perfectly within his rights. The cop would then have to make a determination whether he had probable cause to request a warrant and call in a K9 unit. If he didn't find anything then everyone could have just gone on their way with a speeding ticket. Instead the idiot decided to play lawyer and ended up with his face in the pavement.

No sympathy.

He never had to say anything. In reality the cop could have been standing there for the next twenty ****ing hours asking that question and the man would never be obligated to answer.