My public service announcement to show stories that elevate when the cooperation is not there.

Man In Wheelchair Ticketed For Riding In Street
So; he could have just filed a complaint, a lawsuit, or educate the cop
He could have recieved the first citation which he could show that he was not guilty of.

But now, he has to fight something that he actually is guilty of, and has to now show extenuating circumstances.

Now; I think the cop was a total idiot, but there may be more to it, like maybe the guy was in the middle of the street.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I don't even think the cop was a total or even partial idiot. I recall a similar case in Ohio several years ago (wheelchair being driven in the street), though I don't remember the final court ruling. In that case it was a motorized chair and IIRC, the woman had a kid sitting in her lap. It seems to me a little unclear as to what the law is in such cases and, from a practical standpoint, how safe a road is for someone in a wheelchair. I think the cop was just trying to do his job.

But, I absolutely agree with your point - even if the cop is wrong, not cooperating is just going to make things worse. Settle it later either with the Police Department or in the courts.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

That one was a drunk driving case, if I remember right.
Like I said, we don't know the circumstances. But lacking any sidewalks, what else was the man to do?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Stop when the cop asked him to stop?

A lot of psycopaths don't think they're doing anything wrong as they carve up thier victims and eat them for lunch either, doesn't mean they can continue doing it. You can agree or disagree with the cops decision; but it was made in the interest of the man's own saftey and that of the drivers on the road. Right or wrong, I totally agree that he could have fought the initial charge. But the obstruction charge? I can't have too much sympathy when someone's bad decision doesn't turn out how they wanted it to.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Um; yeah, the rules are lax, but not lax enough for a protest to get you into trouble.
Woman sentenced for registering her dog to vote

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Ok you guys keep saying he could fight the initial charge, but from that article, there wasn't going to be an initial charge.

Sounds to me like they were going to help him stay safe, not give him a ticket for being on the road.

He's lucky he just got a ticket, in some places that would constitute evasion. Cop told you stop, you didn't, he had to "chase" you, you're going to jail.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Yes; I admit from the discussion that we are jumping to the conclusion to what the cop was going to do, but that's part of the point...so did the man in the wheelchair.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Obviously, some humans must have some hellacious signatures too, in order for that to get by...

Timmy: What is it girl?
Lassie: Arf! ARF!
Timmy: No girl, he's running for council, not county commissioner!

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

It sounds like the obstruction charge is for not giving the officer his name, which should be his right. It's akin to unreasonable search and seizure. If he's not being charged with a crime, then he should not have to say or do anything.

If a ticket had been issued for blocking traffic or something, I'd agree with that. But from what I've read, I'm with the wheelchair guy.

__________________
"It's turtles all the way down."

All of us will cooperate with authority some of the time and defy it others. The difference is where we draw our respective boundaries.

To me the obstruction charge was legitimate because he failed to comply with the officer. He has the right to withhold his name, but when the officer tells him to stop he can't just decide to keep going.

In his own words
Regardless whether or not you think you're not doing anything wrong or not, if an officer tells you to stop, you still have to stop.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

The longest police report I ever saw in my days at the Evergreen school paper involved the cops just asking someone to move 100 feet down the road before hitchhiking. It was ludicrous. However, no one in the office was surprised. We all knew the guy.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

In the US, police can stop just about anyone at any time, and it's legal. Sort of. The officer needs to have some suspicion about the person to justify it.
Here are the reasons for a justified stop, from this page.
In the case of the guy headed down the street in a wheelchair, I'd say #1, and maybe 3 could apply. #3 does leave room for abuse, because what is strange to the officer might not be strange to the subject. If that guy wheeled himself down that road every day for the last 4 years, it's normal to him. The officer is used to people stopping when he asks them to. When this guy didn't, it could have been "strange behavior".

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Seems that #5 would apply, too, wouldn't it?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

People in wheelchairs, by definition, don't "run away".

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Not as a cause for the cop to stop.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

The thing is, people were worried that the hadicapped man was in danger of being hurt. The police got the call. The cop *had* to respond.

Picture this scenario: People alert the police. Police say "it's his right, he can go wherever he wants". Pickup truck hauling chickens in wire cages comes around the corner and strickes the man, killing him. Feathers go everywhere. Billybob doesn't get to have his chicken gizzards and beer for dinner. Who do you think will be the first party sued? Yep, the police for not taking action.

So now you're this officer, who is bound by duty to at least show up. You find the guy, and say "hey, I don't think this is such a good idea. How 'bout I give you a ride home?" the guy basically says "screw you". You ask his name, he refuses to tell you, and continues on his way (which fits the fleeing/evading description above). As a police officer, are you going to just say, "Okay that's his right" and leave? Now that you've actually been on scene, what happens when the guy gets hit and killed now? Now YOU are the one being sued, and losing your job and facing possible jail time for failure to perform your duty.

I know, if we think rationally about it, we would all say "he couldn't make the man get off the road, it's not the officer's fault". But cout is anything but rational. We've all seen how it works. How do you honestly think that case would turn out against that officer had he left the man and the man got killed, or even just hurt?

Wheelchair dude decided to take that officer, and intentianlly be defiant. I think the obstruction charge is fine.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

From what I understand it is well within your rights to refuse to identify yourself unless you are being arrested (may vary by state). That said, you aren't going to make any friends that way.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

That's my take as well. He wasn't evading or fleeing until after the officer attempted to stop him.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

From what I understand it is well within your rights to refuse to identify yourself unless you are being arrested (may vary by state). That said, you aren't going to make any friends that way.
I believe it varries by state. I remember during my academy training, we discussed the topic because there was a court case in [IIRC] Utah over that very subject. I'm very very fuzzy on it, but I think basically you HAVE to tell them your name and indentifying information if asked (i.e. SSN#) but you don't have to show your physical identification. Of course, this all applies in a valid stop.

But I think the subject is being confused here. This wasn't a criminal stop (or at least, it doesn't sound like it was). Just because you're a cop, you don't need to have "resonable suspision" to stop and talk to someone. You just cannot detain them. Now when he stopped to talk to him, and the guy became obstonate and uncooperative, that could (theoretically) give resonable suspision that something's wrong, so then the officer is entitled to his identifiying information. (I'll admit, this is a theoretical version of what might have happened).

Obviously, since I was not there and did not see exactly how this played out, I can't say for sure who's wrong or right. The officer very well could have been a total [a-hem] and he could have been the one that became confrontational. Who knows?

All I can do is point out some of the aspects that the article doesn't.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

That gets into a really gray area then. There used to be a good dashboard camera show called Real Stories of the Highway Patrol. It was good because that one guy from Portland had nothing to do with it. Anyway, a common practice there was to pull someone over. In Utah, anything hanging from the rear view mirror is cause enough because it obstructs your view. Now that they have you pulled over, they ask if they can search your car. If you say "no" which is your right, they can use it as probable cause to call out the drug dog, often saying something about how long it will take to get it out to you before they can let you on your way. Many people cae at this point ans give consent to search. Legally, it's allowed, but I don't think it's right. On the other hand, I've been pulled over a couple of times and they've never asked to search the car. A big part of it is how you act from the moment you stop your car.

That said, from what I saw of the different officers on that show, Utah has about the most laid back highway patrol in the nation. A lot of the ones from back east seemed to be goading people into a confrontation.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Actually, no. They cannot use your refusal to consent as grounds for a search.

Edit: Misread. I guess they could call out the drug dog and delay you in that way as an attempt to intimidate you into consenting. However, they will still need your consent or a warrant to search the vehicle, or the drug dog getting a positive. I would be interested in seeing what happens on a search from a false positive from the dog.

I, personally, would challenge their right to detain me for a traffic violation in order to wait for the dog to show up. Especially if it was something like a broken taillight or something hanging from my mirror.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

That gets into a really gray area then. There used to be a good dashboard camera show called Real Stories of the Highway Patrol. It was good because that one guy from Portland had nothing to do with it. Anyway, a common practice there was to pull someone over. In Utah, anything hanging from the rear view mirror is cause enough because it obstructs your view. Now that they have you pulled over, they ask if they can search your car. If you say "no" which is your right, they can use it as probable cause to call out the drug dog, often saying something about how long it will take to get it out to you before they can let you on your way. Many people cae at this point ans give consent to search. Legally, it's allowed, but I don't think it's right. On the other hand, I've been pulled over a couple of times and they've never asked to search the car. A big part of it is how you act from the moment you stop your car.
Heh, I'll probably never get any of you to agree with my view on these tactics. It sounds unfair, but when you're on the beat in the same area day in and day out, there's those situations where you know(and I mean litterally know) someone is guilty of some bigger infration (eg. known dealer) but you can't just pull him over because of that. So you look for something like illegal tinting of car windows, no tag on front, brake light out, etc.

Now most people say "that's bull! blah blah blah" but if you do have something to hide, then shouldn't you be smart enough to not draw attention to yourself by having illegal tint, no plate, etc?

It's like people who drive w/o a license and then speed. If you know you're driving illegally, why speed? If you drive the limit and use your signals, they'll probably never find out because you won't get pulled over. Same with people who drive without insurance (insurance is mandatory in I think every state now, or at least most). If you know you don't have it, don't do anything to get pulled over. But they still speed, don't use signals, do U-turns...if anything they do these violations more than the average driver. Then it's "oh boo-hoo I got my license revoked" when they get pulled over. Stupidity knows no bounds.

Anyway, yes these tactics can be abused. My opinion is that the good that comes from it outweighs the bad. Most people don't share that view, and I understand that.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Sure they can. But not outright. Usually goes something like;
The person faultering usually says something to give probable cause, and now you can search.

Of course, if you'd just outright say "I don't have anything, but it's my right to decline the search and I wish to excersize that right" or something else intelligent, the officer would have a much tougher time spinning it into a probable cause situation and probably would have to give up the search. Alot of being an effective (see my above post, but you don't have to agree) officer is word play.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Sure, but when I say that refusal to consent cannot be used as PC, I mean just that and no more. I would love to see a judge being asked to approve a warrant with that as the PC. But, like you said, if you can get someone to admit something or give you something to use as PC, more power to you.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

When I used to work at a grocery store, a fun activity on a slow day was shoplifter hunting. Now that I work nights in a hotel, there is a similar game. So far, every room that I have reported to the boss as being "one ot watch" has ended up with drug items in it. It's nothing that I see them do that would be a legal reason to have the police search the room, but it's just a set of behaviors that it seems only dirt-bags have.

Fazor's comments above play into my last one. Act like a crook, you get treated like one. There is a big difference between
A. I don't have anything like that in the car, but I also need to get to where I was going. You won't find anything if you search, and I would prefer not to waste either of our time while it's done.
And
B. Why? I don't got nuthin. You don't have a warrant even. You can't do this. This is harassment.

Acting nervous will trip the alarm for most cops. Most expect a little anger, but a lot of it, or being nervous at all and they know you're hiding something.

Like I said, I've been pulled over a lot, mostly for expired plates, but twice for speeding and I've never even been asked to step out of the car. If it's night turn on the dome light as soon as you get stopped so they can see into the car. Don't go for you wallet or registration until they ask and can watch you do it. Don't be nervous. Don't lie. If you were doing 85 in a 65 and they ask if you know why you got pulled over, tell them "speeding". It amazing how well that works. My 85 in a 55 (construction zone with double fine) turned into 75 in a 65 not a construction zone, and saved me $120. I'm sure it was because I pulled over as soon as I knew he was on me, and I told him flat out how fast I was going and why.

I've also seen many of the shoplifters at the store lie and try to play lawyer and have it not work out so well for them. One guy was told that if he didn't shut up he would be riding to jail in the back of the truck. With the dog. I had to duck around the corner to laugh.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Back to the OP, if we were to assume that the article is a complete and accurate record of the incident (I know, fat chance, but still), then the wheelchair guy, in my opinion, is still in violation. By his own words he refused to stop when the cop told him to. Regardless of anything else, he failed to comply with the commands of an officer of the public safety and prevented that officer from carrying out his sworn duty. That is obstruction.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Woman arrested for unkempt lawn

No...arrested for not cooperating, not arrested for her lawn.

Even international agreements allow name, rank and serial number...

I do think that the treatment by the officer was rather harsh. But; then again we don't know what the circumstances were, and the harshness was after her not cooperating.

So now she goes overboard.

Anyway, somebody should tell the journa...er...reporter that proper nouns are capitalized.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)