Carrollton PD Sued for Civil Right Violations

[chabouk]

The initial takedown was definitely over the line, although some skillful report writing might have gotten the officer off the hook if what he claimed he heard varied from what we heard on the tape. Maybe, not definitely.

The second claim (being physically intimidated from filing an open records request) is actually far more serious, but there's no evidence to back it up.

If you are ever in a situation where you want to file a complaint against an officer, the first step should be a request for any and all records in all formats, written, or electronic, relating to the incident, with a specific time and place mentioned.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/og_faqs.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After you have that information in hand, you can pursue either administrative complaints, a lawsuit, or even criminal complaints.

[gemini]

The first part I can understand. Someone getting out of a vehicle during a contact and stating they have a weapon is a HUGE issue. The officer told him to get back in the vehicle, then tried to push him back in, and after those failed he executed a straight arm bar takedown as the subject approached him. I don't think this part will get them in trouble.

The second part of the story, the part w/o video is where he has a very strong case - it just may be tough to prove. If there was in fact malicious conduct at the station I hope it is prosecuted. I'll be watching this one.

How someone interprets video is subjective to the viewers point of view.
I did not hear any officer tell Mr Statin to remain in the vehicle. Nor did I hear any
officer say "keep your hands where we can see them". When Mr Statin exited the vehicle
there was NO resistance, he had his back to the officer, as the officer grabbed Mr Statin's
arms, Mr Statin responded "I have a CHL" (paraphrased), the officer seized control of the weapon,
the officer already had Mr Statin's arms under control and behind Mr Statin's back. THEN the officer
decided to apply an arm bar, slam Mr Statin into the car in the next space and put Mr Statin on the ground.
I found it funny (heavy sarcasim) the officer then thought it necessary to say "quit resisting". Give me a break.
Had the officer placed cuffs on Mr Statin immediately after finding the weapon I probably would not be
too concerned. However, the use and abuse of unnecessary force to "take down" a person who is not
physically resisting is unacceptable behavior, in my opinion.
Had Mr Statin shoved the officer, gone into a fighting stance, tried to run, etc etc then I would probably
be supporting the officer. That's not what the video shows happened. In my opinion. As I stated previously,
interpreting the video is really in the eye of the beholder.
I will be interested to see what a jury thinks.

[suthdj]

Those officers involved should not only be terminated from their jobs but banned from ever being a LEO again.

[puma guy]

Granted CPD was way out of line, but I think if the guy remained in the car everything would have turned out different.

While it wasn't the wisest thing to do getting out of a vehicle is not against any law that I'm aware of. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. The officer waited until he was out of the vehicle before saying anything. He never ordered him to stay in his car. He said "Don't jump out of the car like that". The the guy was turned as he was telling the officer he had his CHL ; he is disarmed by the LEO and thrown to the ground. He has the guy in front of him disarmed and throws him to the ground. What threat is the LEO reacting (over reacting) to? I could give the LEO a break if at this point, having him disarmed, ordered him to the ground. Don't misunderstand I respect, admire and support all LEO's but when they do a wrong thing and then try to intimidate it's wrong and needs to be punished. I have to hand it to the officer for his quick thinking to say "Quit resisting", after the guy said he hadn't broken the law, which was a true. Trying to interpret what the officer's thinking was is no more enlightening to the facts than trying to read the guy's mind as to why he got out in the first place. He did and the facts are the facts as to what happened as a result. IMHO Mr. Staten was wronged.... twice!

[Medic218]

He is being charged with "failure to present a chl" to the officer??? Really??? Once he verbalized his possession of a chl he was promptly and forcefully taken down to the groud. When exactly where they eactly expecting him to show proof of licensure when he is being roughed up and donest have free use of his hands?
I was stopped for speeding on beltline in Carrollton a few weeks back, I wasn't carrying, I handed him both IDs...he ran em, came back to my truck and thanked me for showing him my chl and told me to slow down. He was very polite and professional throughout the whole process. I was quite impressed, he was a prime example of a "good" cop.

[srothstein]

There are two points to take into account on this. The first and most important is that this is an edited video and not continuous coverage that the news is showing. I am always very leery of edited videos. Even given that, the news story does make it look very bad for the police involved. The big questions is what evidence he will have of the second assault while walking down the hallway. The second point is that we do not yet know enough about the subsequent arrest. If the police filed the charges on him, they would have had the warrant by the time he came back in. That arrest might be legal, even though the news story makes it look like it was revenge. Resisting and failure to display a CHL are both misdemeanors. You can arrest at the scene or with a warrant, but not legally arrest without the warrant several days later.

I also wonder what happened to the complaint. If he was adamant about filing it, was the complaint taken? Was it investigated? What are the results of that investigation?

Puma guy, yes there is a law saying you cannot get out of the car, sort of. Transportation Code section 542.501 requires people to obey the lawful orders of police officers. SCOTUS has ruled several times that this includes getting in and out of the car. As a matter of fact, two years ago they ruled that this even applied to passengers who can now consider themselves under arrest as part of the traffic stop, giving them the right to question the grounds for the stop.

Basically, the courts have ruled that any time you are in a situation with the police, they are in charge and can tell you what and what not to do. And you are not supposed to do anything they do not tell you to. Obviously, they cannot legally violate your rights though.

From the facts reported by the paper and pending hearing the other side's story, I have to agree that Carrollton PD is about to be out some big bucks and two officers, plus one sergeant especially (laughing at the scene) should not be in law enforcement.

[marksiwel]

Did anyone else see a gun busters sign on the Carrollton PD station?

[Beiruty]

This car dealer is looking multiple $10,000, I guess he will accept a $100,000 and if it was me, I would only settle if the LEO who arrested this man for no apparent reason should lose his job.

[boomerang]

If the allegations regarding tampering/retaliation/oppression are correct, the law breakers should spend some time behind bars.
http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/statutes/05ch36&39.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[casingpoint]

That video will never load on my slow speed connection, but from the comments above, I surmise this incident may fall in this category:
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[puma guy]

There are two points to take into account on this. The first and most important is that this is an edited video and not continuous coverage that the news is showing. I am always very leery of edited videos. Even given that, the news story does make it look very bad for the police involved. The big questions is what evidence he will have of the second assault while walking down the hallway. The second point is that we do not yet know enough about the subsequent arrest. If the police filed the charges on him, they would have had the warrant by the time he came back in. That arrest might be legal, even though the news story makes it look like it was revenge. Resisting and failure to display a CHL are both misdemeanors. You can arrest at the scene or with a warrant, but not legally arrest without the warrant several days later.

I also wonder what happened to the complaint. If he was adamant about filing it, was the complaint taken? Was it investigated? What are the results of that investigation?

Puma guy, yes there is a law saying you cannot get out of the car, sort of. Transportation Code section 542.501 requires people to obey the lawful orders of police officers. SCOTUS has ruled several times that this includes getting in and out of the car. As a matter of fact, two years ago they ruled that this even applied to passengers who can now consider themselves under arrest as part of the traffic stop, giving them the right to question the grounds for the stop.

Basically, the courts have ruled that any time you are in a situation with the police, they are in charge and can tell you what and what not to do. And you are not supposed to do anything they do not tell you to. Obviously, they cannot legally violate your rights though.

From the facts reported by the paper and pending hearing the other side's story, I have to agree that Carrollton PD is about to be out some big bucks and two officers, plus one sergeant especially (laughing at the scene) should not be in law enforcement.

I didn't notice the video jumped a few seconds just as Mr. Staten was slowly raising his right hand and something provoked the takedown. It appears the time stamp is intermittent, but it's clear there was no physical resistance from the actor just prior to the takedown. A full unedited copy would certainly make it easier. I think the officer over-reacted and should be reprimanded/suspended if it is clear he's in the wrong. I think firing him is too harsh. Now if the intimidation and assualt at the station when he was retrieving the tape is proved those guys should lose their jobs. IMHO

I am not familiar with the code you quote but I do know failure to obey an officer is grounds for charges. I don't know if I can agree with a law that says I can only do what an officer tells me to do. Sounds too easliy abused. "I arrested him for picking his nose when it's clear I never ordered him to do that." I know that is a ridiculous example but you can see my point. I am all for obeying an officer. I hung out with a lot of HPD officers in my younger days, (All retired or dead now) and got to witness them arresting a couple of guys while off duty. They had identified themselves as HPD while trying to defuse the situation. Not enough time to relay it here but it was a righteous arrest and backed up by their uniformed buddies at the old Bill Bennet Restaurant in Houston who came over to convince the guy "Yes, they are off duty and yes you are under arrest."

[nitrogen]

This is precicely why you NEVER say "I have a weapon" or "I have a CHL" to the officer, you just give him/her your ID and keep shut.

Still... Out of line, 100%

[marksiwel]

First mistake the guy made going to Carrollton
Second mistake the guy made getting out of the car
Third going to the police station without his lawyer

[sjfcontrol]

Read the comments under the video. It doesn't look like this kind of behavior is an isolated incident.

[marksiwel]

Read the comments under the video. It doesn't look like this kind of behavior is an isolated incident.

Its not.

I'm alittle upset about the first part, the CHL being thrown to the ground
But I'm really upset about when he tried to take legal action the locked him up and threatened him. Now thats the part that make me