Man drags deputy, dies after officers use stun gun

[TheeBadOne]

ST. AUGUSTINE, Fla. — A 39-year-old driver who dragged a deputy following a routine traffic stop died early today after other deputies used a stun gun to subdue him, authorities said.

Kevin Kelshaw, a spokesman for the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office, said investigators are still attempting to determine the events leading up to the man’s death.

Kelshaw gave this account:
At about 1:30 a.m., deputies stopped a 2000 Chevrolet Suburban for a broken tail light.

During the stop, a deputy noticed a container, about the size of a pill box, in the sports utility vehicle and suspected it might contain drugs.

The driver was questioned and denied knowing anything about the container. When the deputy reached into the SUV, the driver sped off with the deputy hanging onto the car.

Several times, the deputy asked the man to slow down, but the man accelerated. The deputy, whose name has not been released, was able to free himself when the car slowed to make a turn. He was treated for minor injuries at Flagler Hospital and released.

The driver then drove into the woods and fled on foot.
When officers caught him, the man refused to comply with deputies’ orders and they used a stun gun on him.

Kelshaw said investigators are trying to determine how many times the man was zapped.

The man, whose name was being withheld until relatives are notified, complained of breathing difficulties. Rescue workers responded, but the man was pronounced dead at Flagler Hospital.

The cause of death will be determined by an autopsy.

http://www.floridatoday.com/topstories/120903stungun.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One lucky Copper!

 

[TarpleyG]

When the deputy reached into the SUV,

I'd like to know more about this. A closed "pill box" does constitute probable cause. Did the officer reach in without the owners consent and if so, why?

GT

 

[TheeBadOne]

The driver was questioned and denied knowing anything about the container.

 

[WYO]

Your point is well taken, TarpleyG. It is at least POSSIBLE that the officer's actions were not correct. However, the correct procedure in such a case is first to try to talk to the officer about the propriety of the action, move to suppress the evidence (assuming something inculpatory was found), file a civil suit, a complaint, etc. Speeding off with a cop attached to the car amounts to aggravated assault and/or battery, and generally cannot be justified on the basis of self defense. (Check your own state law.) I would hope that most people know this.

 

[TallPine]

So, with one man injured and one man dead, just what was in this "pill box" ...?

 

[TarpleyG]

WYO,

I was not contesting that. What the BG did was wrong. I was just wondering what else happened that we aren't hearing. Any LEO worth his salt wouldn't just go reaching in without asking.

GT

 

[TheeBadOne]

The driver was questioned and denied knowing anything about the container.

Well, for starters, their's no issue of ownership of the container, as the driver relinquished that claim.

 

[TallPine]

The driver was questioned and denied knowing anything about the container.

I believe that is (or used to be) a 5th amendment right.

The officer was clearly in the wrong here. If he had probable cause, he should have asked the driver to step out of the car, and performed a search.

That isn't to say driving off is the best response. I'm not sure what I would have done ...

 

[tyme]

The driver was a moron to drive off in that situation. Presuming there were drugs in the pillbox, he should have gone to court and gotten the case promptly thrown out because a broken taillight doesn't justify a search of closed containers in the vehicle for drugs.

However, there have been prior documented cases of stun guns causing deaths and long-term health problems, so the main point of the story shouldn't be a surprise. Deaths are rare, as are serious health effects, but they have occurred. There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapons. There are only less-lethal weapons.

I have to mostly blame the officer for getting dragged around. There's no excuse for reaching into a person's car if the officer doesn't have legal justification. It may not deserve retaliation, but it's certainly not smart, legally or practically. It puts the officer at serious risk... I was under the impression that one of the basic officer safety rules during traffic stops was "don't reach inside the car while it's on." Now, if the driver grabbed the officer's arm, that's different and completely unjustified. But if the account is correct, with the officer "hanging onto the car," the officer is a moron on two counts. He shouldn't have reached inside the vehicle without cause, and he shouldn't have held onto a moving vehicle.

So the issue is whether a felony committed as a result of an unconstitutional search justifies lethal force in the case of a fleeing felon. The law doesn't seem to carve out any exception to felonies when they're committed to avoid unconstitutional searches. The proper remedy for such searches is obviously through the courts. However, officers ought to be at least somewhat responsible for chains of events they set in motion due to unconstitutional actions. Even in TX, the only defense against violence at an officer is excessive use of force. The officer apparently didn't use force in his attempt to search the pillbox, so retaliation was unjustified and was a felony. Lethal force by police officers is justified almost everywhere to stop fleeing felons, right?

Why is there no word in the story whether there really were drugs in the pillbox?

 

[TheeBadOne]

unconstitutional search

Not enough info in the news article (as usual) to know exactly what went on, but if the driver told the Officer, "It's not mine, I've never seen it before" he has no claim of ownership of the container, thus no objection to it's search. (not quite as simple at that, but as concise as I can make it).

 

[cordex]

TBO,
Where on the perp's do police train to use stun guns? Thinking this sounds like repeated hits to the throat. Would be better to just use the gun in that sort of situation, I'd think.

if the driver told the Officer, "It's not mine, I've never seen it before" he has no claim of ownership of the container, thus no objection to it's search.

Hmmm ... I could see if the guy handed the officer the pill box, but while it was still in the car? If there is a closed cabinet in my home and I tell the police that I don't know whose it is - but do not otherwise give them permission to search my house - can they come in to my home and search the cabinet without a warrant?

 

[tyme]

I *hope* not. TheeBadOne, case cites?

 

[TheeBadOne]

Thinking this sounds like repeated hits to the throat.

Where do you get that from?

 

[cordex]

Where do you get that from?

Never mind, I misread the story.

I thought the deputy who was going for a ride-along was doing the zapping. In his shoes, that's where I'd have gone for. And electrical shock to the neck and throat can cause difficulty breathing.

Still interested in the extent of giving up ownership leading to searches, though.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Again, we need to know what occured (and won't, not until the case is charged and reports are available).
This is my take on it.
Officer makes a lawful stop on the car. While speaking with the driver through an open window he observes a container that attracts his attention. (possible due to his training/experiance IE: in his areas drugs packaged/transported in a particular manner). Something raised Reasonable Suspicion in the Officer. When he inquires about the container the driver claims no knowledge/ownership of it. Thus, no one to refuse to allow a search of it.
This would be different of the window was up, or the car was unoccupied, etc.
The courts will settle this when it goes to court.
Anyway, that's my take on it.

 

[TallPine]

TBO, the container was IN the car

No permission was given to search the car. (AFIAK anyway)

 

[TheeBadOne]

No permission was given to search the car.

Defeated by "Plain View". (and that fact that the driver does not claim it as his or know who's it is)

 

[TallPine]

You're hopeless, TBO - why do you post this stuff anyway ...?

 

[TheeBadOne]

Ad Hominem

Whenever you point a finger at someone there's three fingers pointing back at you.

why do you post this stuff anyway ...?

Why do you read it/reply to it?

 

[TarpleyG]

Defeated by "Plain View". (and that fact that the driver does not claim it as his or know who's it is)

Sorry, but the plain view defense won't work here. The box, in and of itself was not illegal thus not subject to the plain view doctrine even if the driver claimed he didn't know. An LEO cannot simply reach into a car without permission or PC otherwise.

GT

 

[tyme]

TBO, cops cannot search anything in "plain view." They can observe things in "plain view" and use that to form reasonable suspicion.

It does not matter who owns something. What matters is who is in possession of it, unless it's clearly stolen.

Please cite a case holding that lack of ownership and/or "knowledge" of an item, particularly inside a private vehicle or a building, allows police to avoid 4th amendment restrictions, or provide some rationale for that assertion. The courts have eroded the 4th amendment in many ways, but AFAIK this isn't one of them.

 

[TheeBadOne]

As I said, this is my opinion. I'll wait to see what the court does with it.

TBO

 

[WvaBill]

TBO,

Thanks for posting the stuff. I won't deny ownersip of anything in my vehicle...not likely to be tempted. I was ignorant of this nuance of "closed container"

Bill

 

[Intune]

"Yeah, it's my pill container."
"What kind of pills?"
"Sugar." Spice, anything nice. Anything I feel like saying. Even the dreaded, "none of your business." Oooh I feel the nightsticks now... Too bad.

If I want to put a baggie of flour that I borrowed from my sister on the way home on the console of my vehicle and one thinks that such gives them reasonable cause for search, think again. I'll see them in court.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Intune:

If I want to put a baggie of flour that I borrowed from my sister on the way home on the console of my vehicle and one thinks that such gives them reasonable cause for search, think again. I'll see them in court.

That one clearly falls under plain view doctrine.