Cop Gets Sued After This Insanely Reckless Act

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers pit maneuvers traffic stops and deadly force and is brought to us by thv 11's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on the night of july 9th 2020 arkansas state trooper rodney dunn turned on his emergency lights to attempt to pull over pregnant motorist janice harper for allegedly driving 84 miles per hour in a 70 mile per hour zone on highway 67. footage from trooper dunn's dash cam shows that miss harper immediately slowed her vehicle turned on her hazard lights and steered her vehicle towards the shoulder however she did not stop because she did not feel safe doing so on the narrow shoulder right right oh [Music] okay did they hit the inside wall after just over two minutes of pursuing ms harper at low speed trooper dunn decides to execute a precision immobilization technique commonly known as a pit maneuver on her vehicle causing it to veer left uncontrollably hit the median and flip over in order to complete a pit maneuver an officer first pulls alongside the target vehicle and meets its speed then the officer gently steers the front quarter panel of their cruiser into the rear quarter panel of the target vehicle so that it spins out and stops while the pit maneuver can be a safe method for ending low speed pursuits in the range of 35 to 45 miles per hour it can become deadly when performed at higher speeds according to an article in the washington post at least 30 individuals have been killed and hundreds have been injured by pit maneuvers since 2016. out of the 30 deaths 18 occurred after officers tried to pull over vehicles for minor traffic violations like speeding which is the offense for which trooper dunn was attempting to stop ms harper in the 2007 case of scott vs harris the supreme court determined that an officer's use of a pit maneuver that left the fleeing driver a quadriplegic did not constitute excessive force because the court found that it was quote reasonable after comparing the risks created by the officer's use of the maneuver with the risks of harm to the general public that the officer was attempting to eliminate the court concluded that quote a police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the fourth amendment even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death given the fact that ms harper was clearly attempting to comply with trooper dunn and it slowed her vehicle to look for a safe place to stop it is difficult to imagine how ms harper posed any risk to other drivers however courts have consistently found the use of pit maneuvers to be reasonable force so it is certainly possible that a court reviewing this case would find trooper dunn's decision to be a reasonable use of force got the number three line shut down can you get out come on out come out this way right here come out this way can you come out yeah about a minute can you get out your passenger door why didn't you stop i got plenty of room right here are you only one in the vehicle yes okay pregnant well man we've got to pull over when we've got come on can you come out [Music] as far as it'll go back oh my gosh i thought it would be safer to wait until the exit oh man you should pull over when law enforcement stops you okay you were running 84 miles an hour to get you to stop ms harper claims that she was waiting to pull over at the next exit and trooper dun tells her that she must stop immediately when being pulled over the arkansas state police's arkansas driver license study guide which quote offers information about arkansas rules of the road and how to apply safe driving practices states that when individuals are stopped by a law enforcement officer they should pull over to the right side of the road and activate their turn signal or emergency flashers to indicate to the officer that they are seeking a safe place to stop the study guide also informs drivers to quote pull to the nearest safest spot out of the traffic lane in 2017 the arkansas state police reiterated this information in a facebook post explaining that quote if you see blue lights behind you and you feel scared that it is not a real police officer or you would like to drive to a safe or lighted location first slow down and turn on your hazard lights this will let the officer know you see them the post also instructs drivers to quote move to the farthest right lane and continue to drive to a location where you feel safe example under a street light a gas station an exit ramp or side road you will not be charged with fleeing if you are doing these things you have a right to be safe although ms harper followed these instructions to a t in a statement issued after this incident arkansas state police director colonel bill bryant implied that she did not comply with arkansas law his statement reads quote there's a fundamental state law none of us should ever forget all drivers are required under arkansas law to safely pull off the roadway and stop when a police officer activates the patrol vehicle emergency lights and siren the language of the law is crystal clear upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle displaying the signal to stop the driver must pull over and stop to support his argument colonel bryant cited two arkansas statutes section 27-51-901 of the arkansas code which states the quote upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle when the driver is giving audible signal by siren the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right right-of-way and immediately drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge of the highway and shall stop and remain in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed except when otherwise directed by a police officer and section 27-49-107 of the arkansas code which states the quote no person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer invested by law with authority to direct control or regulate traffic even though colonel bryant's statement is in direct contradiction to his department's previous communications on the subject it is possible a court would agree with his new interpretation in the 2002 case of mcnair vs coffee the seventh circuit did not accept the defendant's excuse that they failed to pull over immediately because they wanted to get out of an unsavory neighborhood before surrendering holding that quote this reason is not relevant people ordered to stop on probable cause to arrest must halt immediately they cannot make their own decisions about when and where they will surrender given the absolute language of section 27-51-901 a court could easily conclude that miss harper was wrong for failing to immediately stop as required by the statute and then when i pulled up alongside of you you saw the state trooper you looked over at me because i can barely see let's go over here i've lost my shoe okay we'll take care of that go sit down over here okay sit down right there we call it a pit maneuver when people flee from us or don't that's what happened okay do you need to sit down since you're ready all you have to do is this vehicle registered to you yes okay where do you live sherwood that's where you were headed to yes i just left the movies okay in a cabinet dad's girlfriend and my nieces and i was on my way home okay well i told you you were running 84 and then i i know [Applause] their shoulders on the right and their shoulders on the left i just didn't feel like the shoulder was i have no idea what's going on inside your vehicle or why you wouldn't stop trooper dunn tells miss harper that he had no idea what she was doing in her vehicle as justification for employing the pit maneuver the arkansas state police manual limits when officers can use the pit maneuvers which it identifies as a use of force the manual states that quote an officer is authorized to use non-deadly physical force upon another person if the officer reasonably believes it necessary to affect an arrest but officers are only permitted to use deadly physical force which is defined as force that is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury under the circumstances it is used when quote the officer reasonably believes that it is necessary to affect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony and is presently armed or dangerous or defend himself or herself or a third person from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force whether the use of a pit maneuver constitutes deadly or non-deadly force depends on the specific circumstances in which it was used for example in the 2021 case of sabae vs washington county board of commissioners the u.s district court for the district of oregon held that the pit maneuvers used in that case could not be characterized as deadly force while acknowledging quote the obvious reality that pit maneuvers can be highly dangerous in certain scenarios such as high-speed car chases however the court found the pit maneuvers in the case to be non-deadly force because among other reasons quote video recordings of the encounter indicate the vehicles in question did not appear to be moving at high speeds when the pit maneuvers were attempted in this situation it is possible that trooper dunn's use of the pit maneuver could be characterized as deadly force as the vehicles were traveling at a much faster speed than is safe for using pit maneuvers which caused ms harper's vehicle to flip however given her limited injuries it's also possible the court would determine that the pit maneuver constituted non-deadly force which means that trooper dunn's actions would be justified if the court found them to be quote unquote reasonable because i didn't think it was safer i have no idea about that been doing this for 27 years ma'am and when people don't stop we have no idea what's going on inside the vehicle okay and all you had to do when i even pulled up alongside i know and then blinded me with the light i'm gonna tell you that's what we do is turn on our emergency lights and try to get your attention okay but when people don't stop for emergency vehicles we end this right here right now before you get further into congested traffic that's why we're here okay and no we don't anticipate vehicles rolling over or that we got that to happen but it does happen okay all you had to do was slow down and stop i did slow down i turned on my hazards i thought i was doing the right thing i know i know i do understand what you're saying but do you understand what i'm saying too i i didn't think this was enough room for you to come up beside my car and for you to be safe honestly i get that but this is what we do okay we make stops here every day every night 24 7 on these interstates in 2021 ms harper filed a federal lawsuit against trooper dunn his supervisor sergeant allen johnson and arkansas state police director colonel bill bryant as of the date of this episode the case is still pending and scheduled for a jury trial on june 28 2022 trooper dunn has remained on active patrol duty and no criminal charges have been pursued against him overall trooper dunn gets an f for employing the use of the pit maneuver after only two minutes of pursuit and no evidence of substantial criminal activity failing to acknowledge or consider ms harper's signals that she intended to stop and for displaying poor discretion and a general lack of professionalism at no point during the short pursuit did miss harper do anything that would suggest a trooper done that some kind of immediate threat or exigent circumstances existed to warrant executing a pit maneuver in fact ms harper did everything she could to signal to the trooper that she intended to pull over it's difficult to understand how trooper dunn's actions could be considered reasonable given the circumstances and this is yet another interaction where the legality and ethicality of an officer's conduct don't necessarily align while there is a legitimate argument to be made that trooper dunn's actions were technically legal that does not excuse the lack of professional discretion or ethical consideration displayed by the trooper and this interaction highlights the discrepancies that often exist between an officer's authority to uphold the law and their discretionary responsibility to do so ethically no one was made safer by trooper dunn's conduct and departmental policies that endorse conduct such as this should be reconsidered at the very least ms harper gets an a because despite having just survived a roll-over crash she remained relatively calm and collected throughout the encounter rightfully challenged the legitimacy of trooper dunn's actions and followed up this encounter with the proper legal action ms harper's ability to remain calm and focused while still processing what had just occurred and shaking off the adrenaline of the situation was remarkable engaging with members of law enforcement is extremely stressful no matter the circumstances but doing so immediately after a serious car accident requires a high degree of emotional fortitude aside from admitting to speeding miss harper did a great job of defending her actions to the trooper without admitting fault or sacrificing too much information and it'll certainly be interesting to see how her case fares in the courtroom i commend miss harper for keeping a level head throughout this encounter and for following this interaction with the proper legal action be sure to give thv 11's channel your support you can find a link in the description below let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 940,590

Keywords: amagansett press, first amendment audit, 1st amendment audit, auditing america, news now california, sgv news first, high desert community watch, anselmo morales, photography is not a crime, san joaquin valley transparency, first amendment audit fail, walk of shame, news now houston, police fail, 1st amendment audit fail, public photography, auditor arrested, police brutality, highdesert community watch, pinac news, cops triggered, news now patrick, east hampton

Id: ViB_PoykWAw

Length: 16min 36sec (996 seconds)

Published: Mon Nov 29 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/dick-wart]

They settled, of course the cop gets to keep his job.

https://www.kark.com/news/working4you/arkansas-state-police-settle-pit-maneuver-lawsuit-which-injured-pregnant-woman/

[u/DefendCharterRights]

Was the trooper's use of the PIT maneuver excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment? While I agree with Audit the Audit's legal analysis the vast majority of the time, I found his reasoning to be noticeably weak in this instance.

In Graham v Connor, the U.S. Supreme Court stated officers' actions must be "'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them...judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene." The totality of the circumstances must be considered, including the severity of the crime, safety issues, and whether the suspect is fleeing.

AtA never mentioned Graham v Connor. Instead, starting at 2:47, he discussed Scott v Harris, where SCOTUS stated:

A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.

While Scott v Harris is on-point in considering PIT maneuvers, it has little relevance because it's easily "distinguishable" from the PIT maneuver performed in the posted video where the low-speed chase did not threaten innocent bystanders. Instead, a court considering this PIT maneuver very likely would apply the Graham v Connor "objectively reasonable" standard. It wasn't a serious crime, there was little danger to anyone, and the suspect wasn't likely to "get away." It's unlikely that any reasonable officer would have performed a PIT maneuver in this kind of situation.

Starting at 10:39, AtA discusses whether PIT maneuvers are or are not "deadly force" under Arkansas state police policy. While deadly vs. non-deadly force might be a binary choice in police policies, it isn't binary in court. For the court, it's a continuum. The more dangerous the use of force is, the more serious the situation must be for an officer to justify the use of that force. Even if a police manual allows a PIT maneuver to be deployed, that doesn't mean it's a reasonable use of force under the Fourth Amendment.

At 12:15, AtA stated: "However, given her limited injuries, it's also possible the court would determine the PIT maneuver constituted non-deadly force, which means that Trooper Dunn's actions would be justified if the court found them to be 'reasonable.'"

First, the extent of the suspect's injuries has nothing to do with whether the PIT maneuver constituted deadly or non-deadly force. That's "results oriented" thinking. If an officer shoots a suspect in the head point-blank, that's a use of deadly force even if the suspect miraculously survives.

Second, a court isn't going to use deadly vs. non-deadly force to determine if the level of force was justified. Instead, it's very likely going to use Graham v Connor's "objectively reasonable" standard, as AtA alluded to at the end.