Seems to me like y'all are taking issue with the wrong part of the story.
DPS was acting on information from Border Patrol regarding the vehicle, and had placed him under arrest. By not coming out of the vehicle when ordered, after being told he was under arrest (and why), he was resisting arrest (right?). He's got to come out of the vehicle one way or another, seems like the taser was one of the safer ways to make that happen.
Though perhaps tasing the dude with all that broken glass around was a bad idea. But if he won't open the vehicle breaking the window(s) is their only real option.
Taking his story at face value perhaps DPS used a bit more force than necessary afterwards. But based on what I
saw I don't necessarily see what DPS did that was particularly wrong.
Now, the fact that Border Patrol was able to detain somebody so easily with what appeared to be no probable cause (or perhaps a little fabricated probable cause thrown in
after the initial detention) is what worries
me. But it's still not surprising; we threw a coat of White-Out over the fourth amendment
long ago.
Quote:
|
Grym, The guy asked the Arizona DPS officer to get that same dog back to the car to show him an alert and Border Patrol officers refused. I am a witness to officers using this same tactic. Officer walks dog to blind side of vehicle and says dog alerted to drug presence when no drugs had ever been in the vehicle.
|
But again, that was Border Patrol not DPS. DPS still had (seemingly, though I'm no lawyer) enough probable cause to arrest him and search the vehicle. Of course, I still maintain that the detention was unreasonable (though sadly legal) long before the pooch ever came out. Just because I live near the border my fourth amendment rights shouldn't be null and void.