WATCH: N.J. troopers arrest woman for remaining silent during traffic stop

BluesStringer

BluesStringer

Les Brers



The most extensive write-up of the case I could find is here:

By: S.P. Sullivan | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on May 05, 2016 at 7:00 AM, updated May 05, 2016 at 6:39 PM

TRENTON — Two New Jersey state troopers cuffed a woman along a Warren County roadway and hauled her in on an obstruction charge because she refused to answer questions during a routine traffic stop, according to dashboard camera footage obtained by NJ Advance Media.

The Oct. 16 incident, which happened near the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border on Route 519, is now the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the woman, Rebecca Musarra, an attorney from Philadelphia.

Musarra claims in the suit the troopers violated basic rules familiar to anybody who's ever watched a police show on TV, including the right to remain silent.

She claims at least three troopers insisted during the ordeal that her refusal to answer questions was a criminal act.

(More at link)​

Bottom line, if you watch the video to the end, Ofc. Mistaken Bacon can be heard saying, ""You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer any questions," as he hauls her off to jail for remaining silent and refusing to answer his questions.

I'm not a particular fan of lawyers, but I hope this one gets millions awarded. Too bad that if she is successful, it will only punish the tax-payers in Ofc. Mistaken Bacon's jurisdiction. Nothing will happen to him or the cop-shop or the municipality, and if the municipality can't afford the judgment, they'll just raise taxes and still protect Ofc. Mistaken Bacon. What a freakin' racket this country has become.

Blues
 
Never argue with the police at the side of the road. She got arrested. To quote my first platoon sergeant (Miller, Junior Sheilds) "Sometimes it just bees like that." Odds are she won't make millions but I'm sure she'll be nicely compensated
 
Eidolon said:
Never argue with the police at the side of the road. She got arrested. To quote my first platoon sergeant (Miller, Junior Sheilds) "Sometimes it just bees like that." Odds are she won't make millions but I'm sure she'll be nicely compensated
Click to expand...

How did she "argue" by keeping silent?
 
She needed to affirm her right to be silent by stating that she would not answer any questions. Not saying a word is obstruction. That is how they will spin it.

Sent from my SHIELD Tablet K1 using Tapatalk
 
"Musarra claims in the suit the troopers violated basic rules familiar to anybody who's ever watched a police show on TV, including the right to remain silent."

Watching to much TV can be bad for your health. I wpuld hate to have her sit on a Jury and say: But on TV, CSI gets DNA in 15 minutes. She just another tool in a life of funny games.
 
Waffles said:
"Musarra claims in the suit the troopers violated basic rules familiar to anybody who's ever watched a police show on TV, including the right to remain silent."

Watching to much TV can be bad for your health. I wpuld hate to have her sit on a Jury and say: But on TV, CSI gets DNA in 15 minutes. She just another tool in a life of funny games.
Click to expand...

Being an attorney herself, I seriously doubt that was the only argument presented in the suit.

Are you saying that because you don't like that one line that ostensibly comes from her lawsuit, that you're OK with arresting her for ignoring the stupid question of, "Do you know why I pulled you over tonight?" Is it just "funny games" to you when cops abuse their authority? Violate people's rights? What possible law enforcement and/or government interest is served by arresting someone who simply exercises their right to remain silent on a freakin' traffic stop?

Here's a hint: "Contempt of cop" isn't a real charge, and neither was "obstruction" in the instance of the video you just commented on.

Blues
 
Not sure of the legalities, but what's the benefit of acting like a total moron when pulled over by a cop?
Had she just answered and had a conversation, her odds of driving away would have gone up.
(Why DID she get pulled over?)

Instead, she'll teach the trooper a lesson.
She goes to a cell, he gets paid by the hour for it.
Good lesson!

Heres' the code in NJ:
2C:29-1. Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function. a. A person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act. This section does not apply to failure to perform a legal duty other than an official duty, or any other means of avoiding compliance with law without affirmative interference with governmental functions.
By refusing to converse regarding her traffic stop, was she impairing the administration of law?

I don't think answering "no" would be self-incrimination (and she wasn't mirandized when he asked if she knew why she was stopped as she was not being placed under arrest- yet).
 
Robgmn said:
Not sure of the legalities, but what's the benefit of acting like a total moron when pulled over by a cop?
Click to expand...

How was her refusal to talk in any way impeding the officer from taking her driver's license, proof of insurance and registration and writing the citation?

What's the benefit of the cop exercising unlawful authority over the woman? She didn't want to, nor was required to provide verbal answers to the question. IF she supplied the officer with a driver's license, proof of insurance and registration, then the extent of the police officer's authority is to write a citation for the offense he believes he witnessed. I hate it how people who chose to exercise their rights get labeled as "morons".

"Do you know why I pulled you over" is nothing more than asking the person for a confession, which under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution the subject cannot be coerced into providing and just because the cop does not "grant" the right to remain silent to the subject by informing them of it does not mean that the person does not retain that right.
 
NavyLCDR said:
How was her refusal to talk in any way impeding the officer from taking her driver's license, proof of insurance and registration and writing the citation?

What's the benefit of the cop exercising unlawful authority over the woman? She didn't want to, nor was required to provide verbal answers to the question. IF she supplied the officer with a driver's license, proof of insurance and registration, then the extent of the police officer's authority is to write a citation for the offense he believes he witnessed. I hate it how people who chose to exercise their rights get labeled as "morons".

"Do you know why I pulled you over" is nothing more than asking the person for a confession, which under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution the subject cannot be coerced into providing and just because the cop does not "grant" the right to remain silent to the subject by informing them of it does not mean that the person does not retain that right.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's acting like a moron.
In our society, when someone speaks to you, it is a societal norm to respond, whether it's a person on the sidewalk, a cop, a stock-person in a store, or the POTUS.

A "yes/no" question is not asking for a confession, it's asking the driver if they know what is happening. An answer of "no" is not terribly difficult, and it does not incriminate you in any way.
There is no law that says you are supposed to know why a cop pulls you over, and there is no penalty for not knowing why if a cop asks you.

Getting tired of apologists who think that acting like an *** in society is a good thing.
Chris Rock did a great skit on how to act around the police. I couldn't have said it better.

I can't link to it, but if you look up Chris Rock and Police on Youtube, ya' can't miss it.
 
Robgmn said:
Sorry, but it's acting like a moron.
In our society, when someone speaks to you, it is a societal norm to respond, whether it's a person on the sidewalk, a cop, a stock-person in a store, or the POTUS.

A "yes/no" question is not asking for a confession, it's asking the driver if they know what is happening. An answer of "no" is not terribly difficult, and it does not incriminate you in any way.
There is no law that says you are supposed to know why a cop pulls you over, and there is no penalty for not knowing why if a cop asks you.

Getting tired of apologists who think that acting like an *** in society is a good thing.
Chris Rock did a great skit on how to act around the police. I couldn't have said it better.

I can't link to it, but if you look up Chris Rock and Police on Youtube, ya' can't miss it.
Click to expand...

She still did not obstruct or impede the officer's duty in any way, shape or form. Refuse to provide the documents required by law to produce? Then yes. Refuse to speak to the officer? No. One of the reasons cops try to get you to talk during a traffic stop is so they can check for the odor of alcohol on the breath. Absent other reasons to believe the person might be under the influence of alcohol, that's called fishing. Absent other reasons to believe the subject stopped was guilty of something other than the observed traffic infraction, the professional way to handle the person exercising their right to remain silent would be to simply ask for the required documents and return with a written citation. You expect us to be polite to cops. I expect cops to be professional. Even in situations that might test their ability to remain professional. The cop threw a temper tantrum because he didn't get the response he expected, much like you.
 
Accuse me of throwing a temper tantrum when I state that some people in our society act like jackasses.
I can provide proof, but there are far too many options out there to pick from.

The category of "Jackasses who are going to prove their knowledge of the 2nd Amendment to the police" fills dozens of pages alone.
Would hyperlinks to proofs make you feel better?

It IS pretty neat that the ACLU attorney knowns what the intent of the question was:
"They wanted her to incriminate herself,"€ said Alexander Shalom, the senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's New Jersey chapter, after reviewing the dashboard video from the incident. "They wanted her to say, 'Yeah, I was going a little too fast'"

Did the troopers tell him this, or is he stating it as fact before it's proven?
Maybe they wanted her to say "no" so they could explain.
Maybe they wanted to make sure she was able to speak English before asking for her documents.

Imagine if she was drunk, but they just ticketed her and let her go based on her refusal to answer questions.
Then the ACLU and every other group out there would be suing the State Police for allowing a drunk driver to leave a stop and kill someone.

To avoid all the whining and hand-wringing, maybe we should just eliminate police departments altogether and let society sort it out.
 
Hey Navy, everybody knows that YouTube videos depicting people who other people might hold the opinion are jackasses equals "proofs" that they are indeed jackasses, so maybe you should at least request that he go through the motions of providing said "proofs" just to keep him "honest" and stuff.
lmao3.gif



RemainSilent-01.jpg
 
Robgmn said:
Not sure of the legalities, but what's the benefit of acting like a total moron when pulled over by a cop?
Had she just answered and had a conversation, her odds of driving away would have gone up.
(Why DID she get pulled over?)

Instead, she'll teach the trooper a lesson.
She goes to a cell, he gets paid by the hour for it.
Good lesson!

Heres' the code in NJ:
2C:29-1. Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function. a. A person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act. This section does not apply to failure to perform a legal duty other than an official duty, or any other means of avoiding compliance with law without affirmative interference with governmental functions.
By refusing to converse regarding her traffic stop, was she impairing the administration of law?

I don't think answering "no" would be self-incrimination (and she wasn't mirandized when he asked if she knew why she was stopped as she was not being placed under arrest- yet).
Click to expand...
clearly unconstitutional, a good many of the statutes in NJ also are overly broad and probably wouldn't stand a challenge. I am so glad to have escaped from that hell hole.
 
Robgmn said:
Sorry, but it's acting like a moron.
In our society, when someone speaks to you, it is a societal norm to respond, whether it's a person on the sidewalk, a cop, a stock-person in a store, or the POTUS.
Click to expand...

that may be your "norm" I have zero obligation to engage in a cordial conversation with anyone. answering the cops investigatory questions is not required and I am not going to assist in a cop's probing for info that can and will be used against me by engaging is "idle" chit chat.
just like when a soldier is captured by an enemy, I will offer only the basic/required info to the cop. if he doesn't like it he can haul me to jail and then we'll fight it out in the proper venue.
 
Robgmn said:
Sorry, but it's acting like a moron.
In our society, when someone speaks to you, it is a societal norm to respond, whether it's a person on the sidewalk, a cop, a stock-person in a store, or the POTUS.

A "yes/no" question is not asking for a confession, it's asking the driver if they know what is happening. An answer of "no" is not terribly difficult, and it does not incriminate you in any way.
There is no law that says you are supposed to know why a cop pulls you over, and there is no penalty for not knowing why if a cop asks you.

Getting tired of apologists who think that acting like an *** in society is a good thing.
Chris Rock did a great skit on how to act around the police. I couldn't have said it better.

I can't link to it, but if you look up Chris Rock and Police on Youtube, ya' can't miss it.
Click to expand...

any answer could be turned around on you later and then a charge of obstruction could be filed after the fact. you are protecting yourself by offering only the required credentials and remaining silent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 127 (members: 0, guests: 127)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,520
Messages
610,654
Members
74,982
Latest member
schulze

Share this page

Back
Top