Do Not Talk To Cops? Be prepared for court sanctioned police retaliation.

[phill4paul]

Can the police retaliate against a citizen for refusing to answer police questions?

In a new case, Alexander v. City of Round Rock, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit considers the following question: If the police pull over a driver and the driver indicates he will refuse to answer any police questions, does it violate the Constitution for the police to retaliate against the driver to punish him for refusing to answer their questions?

As I read the 5th Circuit’s decision, the court rules that (a) retaliation against the driver for refusing to answer police questions may involve acts that violate the Fourth Amendment, (b) retaliation for refusal to answer police questions doesn’t clearly violate the First Amendment, and (c) such retaliation doesn’t violate the Fifth Amendment.

The court’s Fifth Amendment ruling strikes me as missing some complications, and I thought I would blog about why I think it’s a tricky issue.

I. The facts and ruling

In the case, the plaintiff, Lionel Alexander, was pulled over and declined to answer police questions. According to his complaint, which at this stage of the case the court assumes is accurate (but may not be — that’s a factual question to be developed later), the police conduct was seriously out of control. Specifically, Alexander claims that the police retaliated against Alexander’s refusal to answer their questions by ordering him out of his car and then “pinn[ing] him face down onto the ground.” Several officers joined in, with “one officer press[ing] a boot or knee on the back of Alexander’s neck as his face was mashed into the concrete.” The police then handcuffed him, and an officer asked, “Are you ready to talk to me now?” Alexander responded with an expletive, which led the police to shackle his legs. Amazingly, at that point the officers arrested Alexander. The precise basis for the arrest is a little bit murky. But at least as it was written up in the police report, Alexander was arrested for obstructing a police officer.

Alexander filed a civil suit against the officers and the municipality (collectively, “the officers”). The district court rejected the civil suit, and the 5th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part, in an opinion by Judge Edith Brown Clement joined by Judge Jerry Smith and Judge Leslie Southwick.

The 5th Circuit’s new decision makes several rulings against the officers in the case. It rules that Alexander has stated a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention and arrest; that qualified immunity should not apply to those claims; and that Alexander has stated a claim for excessive force.

That all seems correct to me. But I was more interested in the court’s rulings in the officers’ favor, specifically on Alexander’s retaliation claim. Alexander claimed that the officers retaliated against him for refusing to speak to them. According to Alexander, the officers’ retaliation violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his First Amendment rights. The 5th Circuit ruled that any retaliation could not violate Alexander’s Fifth Amendment right and that any First Amendment claim was barred by qualified immunity.

Whole article includes various case law and is well worth the read....https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...ice-questions/

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Innocent-quot

Must read book, and would have saved Mr. Alexander a beating (Well, maybe. You never can tell when you poke pork. Which is why I kept my mouth shut a few weeks back when confronted by an indignant enforcer.)

As a general rule, prior to arrest, you are compelled to answer these two questions:

"Who are you?"

"What are you doing, right here, right now?"

And because the clowns in gowns have stripped so many our Fifth Amendment rights away, it is better not to even try to invoke them, because you can $#@! up in a number of ways.

Better to assert your Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel and to answer no questions without same and then clam up.

[Anti Federalist]

Can the police retaliate against a citizen...?

Always keeping in mind this central fact:

Cops can beat you, taser you, arrest you and kill you, your family, your pets, burn your home down, kill your livestock and seize every single dollar from you with utter and near total impunity, for any or no reason at all, they will find a law to charge you with, with little to no chance of repercussions.

That is why you do not call them.

You do not associate with them.

If they are in your family you shun them.

[phill4paul]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Innocent-quot

Must read book, and would have saved Mr. Alexander a beating (Well, maybe. You never can tell when you poke pork. Which is why I kept my mouth shut a few weeks back when confronted by an indignant enforcer.)

As a general rule, prior to arrest, you are compelled to answer these two questions:

"Who are you?"

"What are you doing, right here, right now?"

And because the clowns in gowns have stripped so many our Fifth Amendment rights away, it is better not to even try to invoke them, because you can $#@! up in a number of ways.

Better to assert your Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel and to answer no questions without same and then clam up.

I agree. And also notice, of all the rights, the one that is sure to stand up is the one that involves an officer of the court. Some rights are more equal than others.

[Weston White]

Any way you dice it the excessive force it itself a retaliatory act, so it would be better to just focus on the former and point to acts of wanton negligence and malevolent battery by the officers.