There's a lot to be said about the traffic stop of Lieutenant Caron Nazario, but one of them is that it makes this 2015 blog post unfortunately relevant again:
"Sandra Bland and the 'Lawful Order’ Problem."
(Given the paywall, I'll include screenshots.)
https://t.co/6AU9OdU50g

https://t.co/VLL70fFvtH
https://t.co/U3nUHvcUCR
https://t.co/7p1FpS4fmH
In this case, one of the (many) problems was that the officers were coming in with one view of their lawful order authority and Lt. Nazario very understandably had no idea of what that was. Here's why.
The officers are trained about the Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). Mimms lets officers order the driver of the car out of the car during a traffic stop. They don't need specific cause to do that, Mimms says. They don't need to say why.
An officer trained on Mimms will know that he can order anyone stopped out of the car, with no reason and no stated reason. And he's also know that refusal to obey that order is a crime -- it's refusal to obey a lawful order.
But of course most people WON'T KNOW THAT. It's understandable that a driver ordered out of the car will want to know why. What is happening? Why order him out of the car? What is the officer doing? And here, all that, with *multiple guns drawn already,* yikes.
The driver and the officers are in two totally different mental worlds. The driver is understandably wanting to know what the heck is going on. The officers are meanwhile thinking, "why is this person committing the crime of refusing my lawful order?"
I've wondered if one way of defusing these situations would be for officers to be required to explain the law to the drivers. Perhaps: "sir, I am giving you what the law calls a lawful order. Under the law, I am allowed to order you out of the car. It is a crime to refuse."
That's not perfect wording, I realize. But the thought is that *something* to bridge the gap between those two mental worlds would be really important.
Here's a recent student note offering a statutory proposal somewhat along those lines.
https://t.co/JtPjPTQZiW
And I also think there's a plausible due process argument (albeit not one courts have so far adopted alas) that a person can't be arrested for failure to obey a lawful order unless they have been informed that failure to obey that specific order is a crime.
Maybe I'll write more on this formally at some point. It's unfortunate to see it relevant again. /end

More from All

Master Thread of all my threads!

Hello!! 👋

• I have curated some of the best tweets from the best traders we know of.

• Making one master thread and will keep posting all my threads under this.

• Go through this for super learning/value totally free of cost! 😃

1. 7 FREE OPTION TRADING COURSES FOR


2. THE ABSOLUTE BEST 15 SCANNERS EXPERTS ARE USING

Got these scanners from the following accounts:

1. @Pathik_Trader
2. @sanjufunda
3. @sanstocktrader
4. @SouravSenguptaI
5. @Rishikesh_ADX


3. 12 TRADING SETUPS which experts are using.

These setups I found from the following 4 accounts:

1. @Pathik_Trader
2. @sourabhsiso19
3. @ITRADE191
4.


4. Curated tweets on HOW TO SELL STRADDLES.

Everything covered in this thread.
1. Management
2. How to initiate
3. When to exit straddles
4. Examples
5. Videos on

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".