by John W. Whitehead
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”—Martin
Luther King Jr.
Once
again, the United States Supreme Court has proven Clarence Darrow, a civil
liberties attorney and long-time advocate for the Constitution, correct in his
assertion that “there is no such thing as justice—in or out of court.” In
meting out this particular miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court recently
refused to hear the case of a pregnant woman who was repeatedly tasered by
Seattle police during a routine traffic stop simply because she refused to sign
a speeding ticket.
Malaika
Brooks, 33 years old and seven months pregnant, was driving her 11-year-old son
to school on a November morning in 2004, when she was pulled over for driving
32 mph in a 20 mph school zone. Instructing her son to walk the rest of the way
to school, Malaika handed over her driver’s license to Officer Juan Ornelas for
processing. However, when instructed to sign the speeding ticket—which the
state inexplicably requires, Malaika declared that she wished to contest the
charge, insisting that she had not done anything wrong and fearing that signing
the ticket would signify an admission of guilt.
What
happened next is a cautionary tale for anyone who still thinks that they can
defy a police officer, even if it’s simply to disagree about a speeding ticket.
Rather than issuing a verbal warning to the clearly pregnant (and understandably
emotional) woman, Officer Ornelas called for backup. Officer Donald Jones
subsequently arrived and told Brooks to sign the ticket. Again she refused. The
conversation became heated. The cops called in more backup. The next to arrive
was Sergeant Steven Daman, who directed Brooks to sign the ticket, pointing out
that if she failed to do so, she would be arrested and taken to jail. Again,
Malaika refused.
On
orders from Sgt. Daman, Ornelas ordered a distraught Brooks to get out of the
car, telling her she was “going to jail.” Malaika refused, and the second cop,
Jones, responded by pulling out his taser electro-shock weapon, asking her if
she knew what it was and warning her it would be used on her if she continued
to resist. Brooks told him “No,” and then said, “I have to go to the bathroom,
I am pregnant, I’m less than 60 days from having my baby.”
Jones
and Ornelas then proceeded to discuss how best to taser the pregnant woman and
forcibly remove her from the car. One officer said, “Well, don’t do it in her
stomach; do it in her thigh.” Opening the car door, Ornelas twisted Malaika’s
arm behind her back. Desperate, Brooks held on tightly to the steering wheel,
while Jones cycled the taser as a demonstration of its capacity to cause pain.
With
the taser in a “drive-stun” mode, Officer Jones then pressed the taser against
Brooks’ thigh while Ornelas held her hand behind her back. Brooks, in obvious
pain, began to cry and honk her car horn—hoping someone would help. Thirty-six
seconds later, Ornelas pressed it into her left arm. Six seconds later, he
again stunned her, this time on the neck. After being tasered numerous times,
Brooks’ pregnant body eventually gave way. As Malaika fell over and out of the
car, the officers dragged her onto the street, placing the pregnant woman face
down on the pavement, handcuffing her and transporting her to jail.
While
Malaika Brooks’ ordeal with the police did not seem to negatively impact her
unborn child—she gave birth to a healthy baby girl two months after the
altercation—Malaika bears permanent burn scars on her body where she was
tasered by police. Thus, looking to the courts to hopefully right the wrong
against her, Malaika sued the arresting officers, charging them with use of
excessive force and violating her constitutional rights.
Unfortunately,
this is where what happened to Malaika Brooks at the hands of the
police—behavior that should be roundly condemned and prohibited—becomes yet
another example of the cowardice of our justice system and the corrupt nature
of life in a police state. Even though the Ninth Circuit of the United States
Court of Appeals recognized that Malaika posed no threat to anyone, nor did she
pose a physical threat to the officers, that none of her offenses were serious,
and that officers clearly used “excessive force” against her, the justices
granted qualified immunity to the officers—a ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court
ostensibly upheld when it refused to hear the case. In doing so, the courts
have essentially given police carte blanche authority when it comes to using
tasers against American citizens.
Indeed,
this case highlights a growing trend in which police officers use tasers to
force individuals into compliance in relatively non-threatening situations.
Originally designed to restrain violent criminals, tasers are now used with
impunity against individuals who pose no bodily harm to the police. Rowdy
schoolchildren, the elderly, and mentally ill individuals are increasingly
finding themselves on the receiving end of these sometimes lethal electroshock
devices. Cops who have been shocked in the course of their training have
described being tased as “the most profound pain,” and “like getting punched
100 times in a row.”
Police
looking for absolute deference to their authority are quick to utilize tasers.
For example, there have been a number of incidents where suspects of minor
crimes and even completely innocent people were electroshocked into compliance
by cops. In Florida, a 15-year-old girl was tased and pepper sprayed after
being taken off of a bus following a disturbance. In Arizona, a run-away
9-year-old girl was tased as she sat in the back seat of a police car with her
hands cuffed behind her back. In Oregon, police tased a blind and partially
deaf 71-year-old multiple times in her own front yard. In another instance, a
Florida woman, 12-weeks pregnant, was tased after refusing to submit to a strip
search at a jail. She spontaneously miscarried seven days later. In Texas, a
72-year-old great-grandmother was tased after refusing to sign a speeding
ticket.
While
law enforcement advocates may suggest otherwise, these incongruous and
excessive uses of force by the police are quickly becoming the rule, not the
exception. A 2011 New York Civil Liberties Union report showed that of the
eight police departments surveyed across the state, over 85 percent of taser
uses occurred in cases where suspects were not armed. Incredibly, 40 percent of
taser uses were aimed at the elderly, children, the mentally ill, or the severely
intoxicated. And despite claims that tasers de-escalate tense situations, a
Michigan State University study shows that suspects are more likely to be
injured in incidences where police use stun guns (41% of the time), rather than
when no stun gun is used (29% of the time).
Moreover,
although tasers are touted as being non-lethal, there is a growing body of
evidence that suggests otherwise. A study recently published by the American
Heart Association has determined that taser shocks applied to the chest can
lead to cardiac arrest. According to cardiologist Byron Lee, “This is no longer
arguable. This is a scientific fact.”
Since
2001, over 500 people have died after being stunned with tasers. In a 2008
report, Amnesty International reviewed hundreds of deaths following taser use
and found that 90 percent of those who died after being struck with a taser
were unarmed. In late 2007, the United Nations Committee Against Torture
declared that the use of tasers constituted a form of torture. Yet despite all
of the evidence that tasers are dangerous, taser technology continues to
rapidly advance. One of the most recent advances in taser technology is the X12
Taser shotgun, which fires taser rounds at a distance of up to 100 feet, adding
nearly 80 feet in range compared to a regular handheld taser. It would not be a
stretch to envision police using the X12 against protesters simply exercising
their right to free speech and assembly under the First Amendment.
While
it is tempting to paint all law enforcement officials as brutish thugs, I truly
do not believe that is the case. I have known many honorable law enforcement
officials who sincerely struggle with how best to balance the demands placed on
them by higher ups in government with the need to treat those around them with
respect and dignity.
As
John Lennon once remarked, “The trouble with government as it is, is that it
doesn’t represent the people. It controls them.” Indeed, the varied expressions
of the government’s growing power—the excessive use of tasers by police on
non-threatening individuals, allowing drones to take to the skies domestically
for purposes of surveillance, the government’s monitoring of our emails and
phone calls, and on and on—which get more troubling by the day, are merely the
outward manifestations of an inner, philosophical shift underway in how the
government views not only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but “we the
people,” as well.
What
this reflects is a move away from a government bound by the rule of law to one
that seeks total control over the populace through the imposition of its own
self-serving laws on the populace—laws carried out by a police force hired to
do the government’s bidding.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder
and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book The Freedom Wars (TRI Press) is available online
at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The
Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org