Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 8151617181920 LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 399

Thread: Okla. Troopers

  1. #341
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I am not an attorney (my one redeeming quality), but I am pretty sure that the "seizure" that is referred to in the 4th amendment is the seizure of property. An argument for unlawful arrest could probably be made, but that is a different issue. There would be no unlawful arrest argument if the trooper hadn't let the guy go. But I have pointed that out about a hundred times.
    Could he be going for the argument that the OHP did not have probable cause to stop him in the first place? Not saying that he would be right, but I have heard that if a cop starts asking questions to find out if you broke the law without having probable cause it could be considered an unlawful search. I know there has been debate about wether or not LE has a right to ask for ID if there is no probable cause that a crime has been comitted.

    Not saying that is whap happened, but maybe that's the angle they are using.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin


  2. #342
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    A quick read on Wikipedia (and yes George, I know how you feel about Wikipedia , but I think its a good resource for getting a quick feel for a subject) regarding the 4th. The full article is in the link, here are two quick sections of it:

    The amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
    A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when by means of physical force or show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained, and in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave.
    Food for thought...
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  3. #343
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    Could he be going for the argument that the OHP did not have probable cause to stop him in the first place? Not saying that he would be right, but I have heard that if a cop starts asking questions to find out if you broke the law without having probable cause it could be considered an unlawful search. I know there has been debate about wether or not LE has a right to ask for ID if there is no probable cause that a crime has been comitted.

    Not saying that is whap happened, but maybe that's the angle they are using.
    They didn't stop him. They stopped the driver. If he had stayed in the ambulance, he would not have even been involved and we probably wouldn't be talking about it.

    BTW, you did notice that this went almost a month with no comment until the HS kid chimed in? I guess that blows the widespread interest theory.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  4. #344
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    A quick read on Wikipedia (and yes George, I know how you feel about Wikipedia , but I think its a good resource for getting a quick feel for a subject) regarding the 4th. The full article is in the link, here are two quick sections of it:




    Food for thought...
    That is not typically how it is applied, but I undertand the point.

    However, you need to realize that there are exceptions to that statement. Look at Terry v. Ohio for example. There are also exceptions in case law for exigent circumstances, furitive movements, on-view arrests, officer safety, etc.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  5. #345
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    That is not typically how it is applied, but I undertand the point.

    However, you need to realize that there are exceptions to that statement. Look at Terry v. Ohio for example. There are also exceptions in case law for exigent circumstances, furitive movements, on-view arrests, officer safety, etc.
    I was aware of the concepts of Terry stops and the like. And prior to today I have always taken the 4th to be about search warrants and evidence found, but I guess it deals more with warrants in general (both search and arrest). Maybe he is onto something, maybe he is grasping at straws - I guess we will see in the future. There has not been much in the local news here in Oklahoma about the case either over the last month or so.

    And yes, my first thought a couple of days ago was "Why are we bringing this up again?"
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  6. #346
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Let me add the disclaimer that Constitutional Law is not exactly my expertise . So I don't have any real idea whether or not there is any merit to this case. I am simply a curious spectator.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  7. #347
    MembersZone Subscriber LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,924

    Default

    If it does make it to a jury, I think the trooper is screwed. The emotions will win out.

    I do think it is interesting that the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety is not included in the suit. While there is the consideration that Trooper Martin will quickly succumb to the attorney bills, and the state could fight it for years, there is also the deep pockets concept.

    Look for the state to really start distancing themselves from Trooper Martin.

  8. #348
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LVFD301 View Post
    If it does make it to a jury, I think the trooper is screwed. The emotions will win out.

    I do think it is interesting that the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety is not included in the suit. While there is the consideration that Trooper Martin will quickly succumb to the attorney bills, and the state could fight it for years, there is also the deep pockets concept.

    Look for the state to really start distancing themselves from Trooper Martin.
    I am certain that there must be an immunity from torts situation here for the DPS.

    This will NEVER make it to a jury.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  9. #349
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I am certain that there must be an immunity from torts situation here for the DPS.

    This will NEVER make it to a jury.
    I don't think that would extend to a civil rights claim?
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  10. #350
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I don't think that would extend to a civil rights claim?
    No. But I think that the proofs you would need to say that the OK DPS as an institution violated his civil rights would be too tough. Civil rights cases aren't as easy as a lot of people think.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  11. #351
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    No. But I think that the proofs you would need to say that the OK DPS as an institution violated his civil rights would be too tough. Civil rights cases aren't as easy as a lot of people think.
    I know. We just won one.

    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  12. #352
    MembersZone Subscriber LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    No. But I think that the proofs you would need to say that the OK DPS as an institution violated his civil rights would be too tough. Civil rights cases aren't as easy as a lot of people think.
    Absolutely, BUT, they can still sue. Seeing it to a trial is another thing, getting a favorable verdict is yet a whole nother ball of wax.

  13. #353
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Really????
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  14. #354
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Apparently the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has made their decision. I'm curious if the EMS agency will do anything towards the actions of their paramedic...

    Oklahoma Trooper Suspended Over Scuffle With Paramedic

    An Oklahoma trooper accused of using excessive force while stopping and arresting a paramedic will receive a five-day suspension without pay for his actions, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol announced Wednesday.

    An internal investigation concluded that Trooper Daniel Martin was justified in stopping and arresting paramedic Maurice White during a traffic stop, but "the situation could have, and should have, been handled differently," Highway Patrol spokesman Capt. Chris West told reporters at a news conference.

    The investigation also found that Martin should have allowed the ambulance to proceed to the hospital when he realized it was carrying a patient, West said.

    The incident rose to national prominence when a video was posted on YouTube showing the altercation, in which Martin can be seen grabbing White by the neck.

    White has filed a lawsuit against Martin, claiming he used unreasonable force during the incident.

    Martin, who has been on administrative leave since June 1, was suspended effective Wednesday. He also must undergo an anger assessment.

    The incident occurred May 24, when Martin stopped the ambulance for failing to yield to his squad car.

    White says he got out of the ambulance to tell the trooper they were taking a patient to the hospital. The argument quickly escalated into a scuffle and Martin put White in an apparent choke hold.

    Martin's attorney says the trooper either didn't hear that there was a patient in the ambulance or it didn't register. He says White failed to comply with the trooper's orders.

    White is seeking punitive and compensatory damages against Martin.

  15. #355
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LVFD301 View Post
    Absolutely, BUT, they can still sue. Seeing it to a trial is another thing, getting a favorable verdict is yet a whole nother ball of wax.
    Reading between the lines, are you thinking they're after an out of court settlement? Maybe the State of Oklahoma will opt to settle out of court rather than undergo the scrutiny and embarassment (not my opinion, putting myself in the position of the medic) of a publicized trial.

  16. #356
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Henryetta, Ok
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Here is a link to the letter notifying Trooper Martin of his suspension:

    http://www.fox23.com/media/news/9/1/...lineletter.pdf

    And a copy of the lawsuit:

    http://www.fox23.com/media/news/9/1/...lineletter.pdf

  17. #357
    MembersZone Subscriber LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Reading between the lines, are you thinking they're after an out of court settlement? Maybe the State of Oklahoma will opt to settle out of court rather than undergo the scrutiny and embarassment (not my opinion, putting myself in the position of the medic) of a publicized trial.
    The state of OK is not named in the suit. I don't know what they are
    looking for - the trooper has no money.

  18. #358
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Henryetta, Ok
    Posts
    70

    Default

    On the news this morning, the Plaintiffs lawyer said that had the trooper lost his job, the suit would have been dropped.

    Matt

  19. #359
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostRider73 View Post
    On the news this morning, the Plaintiffs lawyer said that had the trooper lost his job, the suit would have been dropped.

    Matt
    The the suit is BS and will probably be tossed.

    The criminal courts are used to punish someone for a wrong. The civil courts are used to recover damages. This scumbag is attempting to extort the state and inflict punishment on the trooper. That is not his job. If he experienced damages, then he can seek redress through the civil courts. But he cannot force punish on someone.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  20. #360
    MembersZone Subscriber LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostRider73 View Post
    On the news this morning, the Plaintiffs lawyer said that had the trooper lost his job, the suit would have been dropped.

    Matt
    Nope. Just 5 days suspension and an anger evaluation.

    At least according to a trooper out of Okmulgee.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Okla. City newspaper article
    By chiefengineer11 in forum Public Information & Media Relations
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 01:27 PM
  2. State Troopers And Other Funnies
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-10-2004, 01:39 PM
  3. Are they Storm Troopers?
    By Adze39 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 04-09-2004, 11:37 PM
  4. Open query for Okla State FPST students/grads...
    By MrFreeze in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-21-2003, 04:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts