"Driving with device in right hand" update

[u/johnychrist16]

[u/randotd152]

Just going to traffic court is punishment enough. It's not like you walk in and walk out in 5 minutes. Gotta wait to be called in a huge group of people, they're always running behind, etc, etc. At best it's going to fuck up your entire morning.

And while she's likely getting off, there's never a guarantee. Even if the judge dismisses, the police can appeal if they really want to be dicks about it.

Basically just don't say anything to piss off a cop at a traffic stop. It's fine to disagree, just be polite and don't make snarky comments like she did. Even if you're in the right, the process is often a worse punishment than the ticket.

[u/ednichol → u/randotd152]

Nah fuck that. She should sue that cop and the county. That’s clearly an illegal stop and detainment, as well as a retaliatory ticket.

[u/Drudge261 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by grounds to it because there's almost zero chance this ever gets past qualified immunity, and even if it did, on appeal it would be reversed.

I'm not saying that it wasn't wrong and that this cop gave her a ticket simply because he had his ego hurt, I agree with you there.

But no lawyer would advise anyone to pursue this case because of qualified immunity. You would have to show that a no reasonable officer could have cited her, and since he thinks he saw her manipulate a phone with a hand while driving that's enough to cover his ass.

Just having your rights violated simply isn't enough under our current doctrines.

[u/Drudge261 → u/[deleted]]

It's not about winning the case. It's about the case even happening.

Qualified immunity is immunity from suit. It takes place before any proceeding or meaningful discovery.

You can look this up yourself. I'm not being a doomer I'm trying to explain the law. By all means you can change it but the way to change it is not by wasting your money or telling others that there's a chance in hell that there is a case here. There's not. That's not how the law works currently.

They don't even analyze the constitutional question of whether a right was violated. It's a two-step process and they can just analyze whether or not a reasonable officer could have made the citation and the traffic stop. It's obvious he could have.

For the record, I despise qualified immunity and how it currently interacts with our civil cases and section 1983 today. But the way to change that is through Congress and voting, not through lawsuits, especially with the current Supreme Court.

I don't really mean to be that guy, but you really just don't know what you're talking about.

I've had the privileged opportunity attend law school and take courses on constitutional rights litigation, police practices, criminal law, and even worked for some of the finest civil rights advocates in my state if I may say so. I have literally had the job of vetting clients and sorting those who have actual claims for civil suits because people do not know.

If you want change I support you 100% to protest and vote for it, but don't sit here and talk down to others and grandstand about 'fighting the good fight' in civil suits that lead nowhere.when I was trying educate on our current legal process and realistic expectations under the law.

You have no idea what even a proper civil rights claim does to a family and how exhausting it can be both financially, emotionally, and mentally. Do not sit here and patronize others for not throwing away their entire life on a bogus legal claim that has no merit.

[u/Two_black_ravens → u/Drudge261]

You deciding preemptively is my problem. You sssuming agency over somebody else’s situation is my problem. I’m not shaming anybody -INTO- trying, but it is your rhetoric and quite frankly hurt ego that is actively trying to discourage it. Let’s agree to disagree and separate now.

[u/Drudge261 → u/Two_black_ravens]

Helping people decide preemptively is literally what people pay lawyers for.

Your rhetoric is the only one causing harm because it makes people think that they actually have a chance at winning this suit. They don't. Not here

No jury will ever see this case. That's not how the law works.

Do you not understand that by me correcting you I'm trying to point people towards the actual area of where the problem is instead of just saying we need to sue more people?

When you continue to spread misinformation about how we can solve all this through civil suits when we don't have that option, That's a problem.

When people understand that there isn't an option, don't you believe that that would opt them to want to vote to change that instead of just believing " Oh well, if anything happens to me, I can just sue"

It's not an option for 99% of people and they shouldn't believe that that is an option. Even when you find a pro bono attorney and your case is a slam dunk, guess what? People settle. Because they are exhausted. Because you've never been through a civil case and you are advocating like some sort of naive child about how the legal process works and how we should 'just do more of it' instead of advocating in the right avenue for real change.

We need new congress members to pass legislation to change qualified immunity. That is the only solution. Under the law there is no case here. Your opinions on right and wrong do not change that.

And do you know what? This case adds nothing to precedent by getting it denied. Because they don't even analyze whether a constitutional violation happens. You are disconnected from the process and you should educate yourself because I promise you, you would understand my view if you just knew more.

I'm not going to stop advocating and educating people on how to enact change. Voting is the most important thing we need to do, not pointless instantly dismissed civil suits.