These cops conducted a felony stop and are now told they will have to defend themselves in civil court.
I’ve posted on how police work can sometimes be brutal. Unlike many other public services, we have the authorized use of force, even deadly force, as part of our methods. Now I’m going to review how the threat of deadly force is used on the street under a most stressful situation. And how, again, liberals want to strip away civil immunity needed by first responders.
A “high risk” or felony stop is when a vehicle is considered to have a felony component. After running the plate, it says the vehicle was believed to be used in a homicide or other serious crime. Perhaps the vehicle ran off from a shooting scene and is stopped by responding officers. A vehicle may have refused to pull over for an initial traffic stop and finally halted after a high-speed pursuit. Or, as in this incident, the officers believed the car to be stolen.
A quick review of the basic procedures of a felony stop. After deciding to initiate a stop, the primary unit must insure they have at least two officers available (two single man units or a two-man unit). The rest requires command, control, and coordination on the go. The unit (s) initiate the stop (lights and siren), have the “air held” (all radio traffic is stopped to ensure these units can call out), and pull the vehicle over. One officer uses the loudspeaker, orders the driver to shut off the engine, exit the vehicle with his hands up, and walk backwards. The driver may be told to get to the ground or his knees, or just handcuffed while standing. The driver is then brought behind the police vehicles, a quick search conducted, and he’s secured in a unit. Any passengers are withdrawn individually in the same manner, the vehicle is searched and the scene secured.
Points to take out is only one officer issues commands, at least one officer covers the car at all times, at least one more handles suspects as they are taken, and people are taken one at a time. A good summary of the felony stop is provided here from UEI College.
I found this article last week and it’s interesting a “majority conservative” Supreme Court would not at least review this:
Supreme Court sides with 83-year-old woman forced to her knees during traffic stop
WASHINGTON – Elise Brown was a little over 5 feet tall and weighed all of 117 pounds when she was ordered out of her blue Oldsmobile by police in California in 2019.
She was also 83 years old.
The officers who pulled Brown over thought the car she was driving had been stolen – mistakenly, it turns out – and, following their protocol, they drew their handguns, handcuffed Brown and forced her to her knees.
A federal appeals court this year ruled that Brown could sue the police for excessive force, waiving a legal doctrine known as qualified immunity that protects police from liability for civil rights violations in many circumstances.
The Supreme Court on Monday let that lower court ruling stand, keeping Brown’s lawsuit alive…
…The Chino Police Department officers argue they were simply following protocols: Traffic stops for potentially stolen vehicles are “high-risk” under city and state standards, they said. Brown was required to kneel for no more than 20 seconds and was in handcuffs for about three minutes, they said.
A question I did want answered in looking into this matter, why did the officers think the vehicle was stolen. Took some searching, but finally got an answer:
Appeals court revives elderly woman’s lawsuit against police
Ms. (Elise) Brown was stopped by Officers Gregory and Briley on July 7, 2019, on Central Avenue near the entrance to the California Institution for Men after police received a hit from an automated license plate reader about a stolen vehicle that had entered the city, according to court documents.
“The officers pulled her over, had her toss her keys out, exit the car, walk backwards, making her get on her knees and handcuffing her. While Ms. Brown was handcuffed, officers did not point their weapons at her. The officers then determined Ms. Brown’s car was not stolen after running the license plate number through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. The car was, however, reported as associated with a cream-colored Oldsmobile the woman owned and had reported stolen, court records show. Once officers realized the computer mistake, they removed the handcuffs, and released her. Court documents show that Ms. Brown was handcuffed for three minutes.”
That is not excessive. A few years back I was patrolling downtown Houston and saw a man in a red Taurus run a stop sign. After running his license plate, the computer said (yes, they do say these things), “CAUTION. POSSIBLE STOLEN VEHICLE.” After verifying I put the right plate in, I got back up units and initiated a felony stop. After getting the driver and passenger out, we determined he was the owner of the car. He purchased two used cars (the Taurus and a Mustang) and mistakenly put the wrong plate on the wrong car. When his Mustang got stolen, he reported it, but the Mustang plate was on the back of the Taurus. Took us about ten minutes to clear the matter up, and again, that’s not unreasonable.
Seeing the officers did, with the information they had at the time they decided, believe the car was stolen, conducting a felony stop was objectively reasonable. The amount of time Mrs. Brown was in hand cuffs (three minutes) was not excessive, and proper procedures were followed. Once it was determined she was the owner of the car and it was a computer error, she was released.
No question being ordered out of your car at gunpoint is traumatic, but an officer must control a scene. The assumption in this incident is the vehicle is stolen and the driver must be brought into custody for an initial investigation to be conducted.
If I were to hazard a guess, the city will offer a quick settlement to get this behind them and go on. But if goes to trial and these two cops are held liable for conducting a legitimate felony stop, that city (hell, cities all over this country) will have even more issues. The war on cops will have a new front, and the bad guys (e.g., the defense/”civil rights” attorneys) will be hard at work bankrupting governments and police. If the cops won’t initiate (“Sorry sarge, lost him in traffic…”) or go hands on, the bad guys know to drive off. Why not, the cops don’t follow, they got nothing to worry about.
Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years’ service, and over ten year’s experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch.
Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA