Please bear in mind that my question is not about the legal matter as much as it's about assessing the police/courts/legal culture.

My parents are highly educated, progressive people who are lifelong political activists. My father, a physicist, was driving home from work one evening when he was stopped by a sherrif's deputy for "crossing the fog line." (That's a solid white line at the right side of the road). From our research online, we find that this is not a traffic offense in our state.

My father used no profanity, made no threatening gestures toward the officer, but did question why he had been stopped for such a minor matter in which no law had been broken. He did get out of his car.

The next thing he knew, the officer had called for backup, and very quickly three other men arrived. They slapped handcuffs on my father and arrested him. The charges are "obstruction" and "resisting arrest." They took him to jail, where four jailers removed his glasses and literally threw him down onto the floor of a cell. My father is 67 years old. The four large men then got on top of him and pressed him down.

He was kept in the cell from 7 p.m. till about 1:30 a.m. in the morning, not allowed to make any phone calls. My mother was at home with my profoundly autistic brother, increasingly worried at his absence, unable to reach him by phone. At midnight she took my brother and went searching for my father, driving to his workplace and finding his car not there, then retracing the route he takes from work, checking ditches along the way to look for accidents.

At 1:15 a.m. she got a call from the police, who asked her to "verify my father's information," so that he could be released on his own recognizance. She did, and my father was released then, taking a cab home since his car had been impounded.

While in jail, my father became aware of many Hispanic prisoners who were also being abused, as he had been.

In addition to my parents' extremely angry reaction about my father's treatment, my parents are very concerned about minority people, or any person without resources, in that situation.

Our question is: We have been aware that in most "traffic cases" in our area, the judge always believes the police officers and does not even allow citizens to state their views of what happened. We are wondering if the same would be true of our charges of the unwarranted and brutal treatment my father received from the arresting officer(s), and especially from the four jailers.

My parents are wondering if pursuing this matter would be worth the time, energy, and financial resources it would demand. In their decades of political activism, they have learned to "choose your battles." What are the chances of a fair and just outcome? Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts on this matter.

Were you there when all this happened? If not, everything is hearsay. They may have thought your father was intoxicated and stopped him when he crossed the line. Was he told to stay in the car or to get out? Doesn't help making issues about other people and how they are or may be perceived as being abused. What constitutes "brutal " treatment since you weren't there to observe?

"Getting out of the car" at night, is considered a threatening gesture on its own. HE should have stayed in his car with his hands on the wheel in plain sight. Cops have to assume the worst so many have been shot by people getting out of their cars... or rummaging around IN their car. A political activist should be more aware of this than most.

Were you actually there to witness these events?

Incidentally crossing either line is a giveaway of either driving under the influence... or distracted driving... both reasons to pull someone over.

Also question how much of this is tainted by the admitted "Lifelong Political activist" perception. It seems to be dripping from this post... intentional or not. Its apparent.

Sure you can hire a lawyer and try to sue... keep in mind police stations tend to have security cameras recording a lot of stuff in case people make false claims about what happens there. So if any of them contradicts claims made... it will discredit all of the claims. Possibly open him up to perjury. You can spend tens of thousands and not win anything...and in fact get on the offical "usual suspects" list of known troublemakers.

"Lifelong Political Activist"-I picked up the same unwritten bias too . Lots of unneeded comments-Physicist etc. Stick to the perceived case. Sounds like the poster is "assessing" their own leanings about police/courts/legal culture.

Crossing the line is not an offense by itself but is a good enough reason to be pulled over to check for DUI and such. You are never supposed to get out of the car unless instructed to. Once you get out on your own, you are fair game as they have no idea of your intentions.

You were not there so your father may have said or done something to escalate this further. He may also be embellishing what actually happened. We don't really know what happened so it is all hard to say.

Do I always believe cops? Actually, as a group, I don't trust them. I have known plenty of good cops in my life but at the same time, I have known plenty of bad ones and ones that just get a little over zealous.

You could check with a lawyer. There should be cameras on the cars as well as in the police station so if this really happened as you say, it should all be caught on some sort of media. Suing the cops is a case that can be won, you just have to make sure it is worth the fight and that you really did give no reason for a problem. I sued the police for violating my rights and I won. There was no question about what they did to me so I was sure to win that. If your father is sure of what he says, and isn't just making it worse by embellishing, then you should look for a lawyer that will take this on. I found a lawyer who fought for me at no cost to myself until after we won...then the town had to pay him. You may be able to find a lawyer like that as well.

However, I also agree with the others that answered this...the political activist part does show through and I wonder how one-sided this all is because of that.

Crossing a solid white line is not illegal in most states I have been involved with. Otherwise vehicles could not reach the safety of the shoulders during breakdowns etc. which is the main purpose of shoulders. However, failure to stay in designated lane is an infraction usually.
Exiting the vehicle is also in my experience, improper procedure. Safety of the driver as well as risk to the officer are factors. Let alone the possible threat to the officer, many officers are struck by vehicles in the U.S. during traffic stops. States in my region have "move over " laws to help protect officers and other emergency personnel. Consider the risk to a driver in the situation, if trained officers themselves are frequently struck.

Portion of PA Driver's Manual:

"WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE STOPPED BY THE POLICE

You will know a police officer wants you to pull over when he or she activates the flashing red and blue lights on top of
the police vehicle. In some instances, an unmarked police vehicle may be equipped with a flashing red light only.

For your safety and the safety of others, police recommend you do the following:

Place your hands on the steering wheel, and ask any passengers to have their hands in view.

Keep your vehicle doors closed as the officer
approaches, and stay inside your vehicle, unless
the officer asks you to get out.

I get the impression that you at least suspect that your father was stopped because he is known for his political involvements. As in- the officers plan it and follow him until he makes mistake of any kind so they can arrest him for some sort of retribution. He violated rules and procedures (if procedures are outlined as they are in my state) twice before the officer even talked to him.

I sincerely hope that there was no plot involved with the traffic stop because the chances of proving it are very slim based on your post. The video records mentioned by odin may be available via a freedom of information act, if applicable in your region. But, if the officer had a dash cam, the first things on the record will be the two infractions. He was wrong when he weaved onto the shoulder, and he was very likely wrong when he exited the vehicle. If feels he was wronged and can find a lawyer who is interested enough to help collect the evidence, them maybe - big maybe. One big clue will be whether or not the lawyer(s) will take the case on a contingency basis or not. If he crossed the white line and drove partially on the shoulder, the stop was legitimate in my opinion.

@smearcase: If we suspected he had been targeted for political activism (which, by the way, people, is certainly not a crime), I would have written that we suspected that. We do not. He may have been unwise to get out of the car. It was in the early evening, but it was fully light, not dark. The officer did not tell him to stay in the car when he began to get out. There is no law against exiting the vehicle, and if the policeman felt uncomfortable about his exiting the vehicle, he could have told my father to stay put. He was not intoxicated, and the officer did not ask him to take a breathalyzer or walk a line.

A general comment about "political activism", which seems to have struck a nerve in some of you: We were raised to be compassionate and kind, and to stand up for those who are mistreated, so of course we are concerned about others at that jail who may not have our resources, and of course we do suspect that they are treated even worse. I would hope you could understand this.

Ok. Thank you, now I know. The term "political activism" struck no nerve with me. I just tried to follow your post from one sentence to the next.
The deputy charged him for what happened after the stop and must have determined (or more likely has been instructed) that straying across the white line onto the shoulder is probable cause for making the stop. We can't research anything specific without knowing where this occurred. Suggest you review the procedure for obtaining copies of documents and videos in your jurisdiction. These are the requirements, for example, in MD where I worked for DOT. It is referred to as PIA or Public Information Act there.
Maryland Attorney General - Public Information Act

While I don't disagree with the other responses. I do find your description of the manhandling of a 67 yr old man with (I assume) no prior record and for a minor traffic incident to be disturbing. I would consult a local attorney also check to see if there is an independent ombudsman overseeing the local police.

I don't see the arrest as way overdoing things, but the manhandling bothers me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

.... I would consult a local attorney also check to see if there is an independent ombudsman overseeing the local police.

I don't see the arrest as way overdoing things, but the manhandling bothers me.

---

Yes.

But I suggest that if OP plans to consult an attorney and think about litigation, one of the first things to be done is to seek discovery of any video recording the police may have of this incident. OP was told the arrested person's side of it. I can imagine that what really happened may be very much different.