Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

MichaelBluejay · 2014-03-09 00:03:07

This is a couple of weeks old now, but nobody else posted it, so here goes:

Austin police handcuffed a woman for jaywalking near UT when she didn't acknowledge them, she refused to ID, got taken downtown, a bystander recorded the whole thing in video, the video went viral on YouTube, the police chief flippantly defended the arrest, and he got a lot of flak for it.

The incident got international attention; for example, here's the article in the U.K.'s Daily Mail.

dougmc · 2014-03-09 01:10:16

They tried to write her a ticket for jaywalking -- she refused to tell them her name, and "Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY" requires that she identify herself under such circumstances. (It doesn't require that she carry ID, but she does have to tell them her name, address and date of birth if asked when under arrest (and being given a citation is an arrest for purposes of this.)

Because she refused, she was arrested. (And the video started after this point.)

That's standard procedure for anybody who is being cited but refuses to even tell the police who they are -- they arrest them, take them downtown and work it out there.

I'm certainly ready to jump on the "police screwed up!" bandwagon when appropriate -- but this isn't really such a case. (Now, Acevedo put his foot into his mouth nicely, but that's another matter.)

Donald Lewis · 2014-03-09 13:37:13

Reasonable and well thought out response as we have come to expect from Doug Mc.

I am sure I would have hell to pay if pulled over for speeding and refused to identify myself. Besides being arrested, I would have my vehicle towed and impounded. If you can get your act together with cash, proof of ownership etc. really quickly a police-ordered tow plus various fees is still almost $200. If your vehicle sits in the impound lot a few days it is a lot more.

Don in Austin

MichaelBluejay · 2014-03-09 14:10:47

dougmc wrote:

They tried to write her a ticket for jaywalking....Because she refused, she was arrested.

Sorry, Doug, that's not what's been reported.

(1) She was arrested BEFORE she refused to ID. "Startled, and not knowing it was a cop, she jerked her arm away. The cop viewed this as resisting arrest and proceeded to grab both arms tightly, placing her in handcuffs," Quintero wrote. (Huffington Post) Now, you might argue that Quintero is ascribing a motive to the officer's actions, but what's not in dispute is that Stephen was handcuffed long before she failed to ID. The courts have often ruled that being placed in handcuffs equals arrest. (e.g., U.S. vs. Ramos-Zaragosa)

(2) The media reported that, according to the police, one of the things she was arrested for was indeed jaywalking. "According to police, Stephen was arrested for failure to obey a pedestrian control device and failure to identify." (KVUE) Now, either the police misled the media, or the media didn't accurately report what the police told them...or she really was arrested for jaywalking.

dougmc · 2014-03-09 21:23:11

Standard procedure for resisting arrest is ... arrest. (It's not a class C misdemeanor, so they don't cite you for it -- they do a full fledged arrest.) And when the police try to stop you for something, and you don't stop ... they call that resisting arrest or fleeing from police.

And "543.003. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: PERSON NOT TAKEN BEFORE MAGISTRATE." makes it pretty clear that even giving somebody a ticket is an arrest -- you just don't get taken to see the magistrate, instead you're released in exchange for your promise to appear.

It sounds like they initially thought she was resisting arrest or fleeing -- they certainly seemed to make it clear that they thought she could see them (even if she couldn't hear them with the headphones) and was just ignoring them. And then maybe after getting her they decided that she wasn't actually trying to resist arrest, or maybe they still did but figured they weren't likely to be able to prove it in a court "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't know.

Either way though, at that point it would seem that they tried to give her a ticket and she wouldn't tell them who she is. Had she played along, they'd probably have taken the cuffs off, given her her ticket and sent her on her way. (Assuming that Quintero was correct in the sequence of events -- if not, the cuffs may have never gone on in the first place.)

If you're looking for blatant cases of police abuse ... this aint it.

or she really was arrested for jaywalking.

Standard procedure for somebody who won't identify themselves so they can be cited is to arrest them for whatever they were going to cite them for and work out who they are downtown. The only other options would be to 1) let them go, or 2) keep asking them who they are until they give in or they can figure it out some other way.

The police can arrest you (and take you downtown) for anything they want in Texas except for speeding and open container violations, as per "543.004. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: CERTAIN OFFENSES" -- and even for those two violations they can take you downtown if you refuse to identify yourself. Well, she refused to identify herself, and police aren't known for letting people go just because they're being difficult, so ... she got a trip downtown.

Side note: Here is APD's policy manual. It looks like arresting her required supervisor approval, as per "319.11 ARRESTS REQUIRING SUPERVISOR APPROVAL". "342.1 SUFFICIENT SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION" lets them arrest people who can't be identified.

(Of course, this is their policy book, which doesn't override the law, but the law permits it too.)

It's not really related to this case, but the "Uniform Traffic Enforcement" part of this document is particularly interesting as well from a cycling advocacy standpoint.

MichaelBluejay · 2014-03-09 21:45:06

And again:

(1) She was arrested the moment the cuffs went on, and the eyewitness account is that the cuffs went on *before* she refused to ID. Certainly no one is saying otherwise, including the police.

(2) KVUE says that, according to the police, she was indeed arrested for jaywalking, in addition to the failure to identify.

No argument that if you don't ID you get arrested. But in this case, she was arrested *before* she refused to ID, and the media says that according to the police, she was indeed arrested in part for jaywalking.

No, this isn't the most flagrant abuse of police power, not by a longshot. I never said otherwise. You challenged my reporting that the woman was arrested for jaywalking. The eyewitness account, media reporting of what the police said, and case law say that indeed she was.

dougmc · 2014-03-10 00:49:30

Personally, I think this is pretty much a non-event, as far as police misconduct goes.

They saw her jaywalk, yelled at her to stop, she did not, they thought she could see them (I'll assume that this is the truth), and she ignored them. They treated it as resisting arrest and caught her and cuffed her. Then they decided that maybe it wasn't worth treating as resisting arrest for whatever reason.

But she still wouldn't tell them who she was so she could be cited. So she gets a ride down town.

How do you feel the police should have handled this differently? The only thing I see that they could have done better is to not have a crackdown on jaywalking in the first place -- pick something more important -- but while I am aware of the shady past of such laws, they are probably worth some effort to enforce, at least in the more serious situations. (But I don't know if this is one of those more serious situations.)

(Acevedo could have spent more time on what he was going to say about it, but I'm talking about what the police did before that.)

MichaelBluejay · 2014-03-10 01:10:28

dougmc wrote:

Personally, I think this is pretty much a non-event, as far as police misconduct goes....How do you feel the police should have handled this differently?

Ugh. I never said it was misconduct. I said that a woman got arrested for jaywalking, you disputed that, and I backed it up. That's it.

But yes, the best way to handle it differently would be to not go after jaywalkers in the first place, inasmuch as they aren't a threat to anyone but themselves.

Donald Lewis · 2014-03-10 05:25:56

MichaelBluejay wrote:

dougmc wrote:
Personally, I think this is pretty much a non-event, as far as police misconduct goes....How do you feel the police should have handled this differently?
Ugh. I never said it was misconduct. I said that a woman got arrested for jaywalking, you disputed that, and I backed it up. That's it.
But yes, the best way to handle it differently would be to not go after jaywalkers in the first place, inasmuch as they aren't a threat to anyone but themselves.

If somebody jaywalked in front of my truck and ended up dead that would have a profound negative impact on my life. I was once in stopped traffic outside lane headed southbound in front of my shop on South First. Traffic started to move and about that time some idiot crossing the street threading his way through the stopped traffic stepped out from the inside southbound lane directly in front of me. I had to hit the brakes so hard that the ABS kicked in on dry pavement and I missed him by inches. I think jaywalking enforcement has its place. Whether or not the place where the jogger got arrested was the best choice for enforcement I do not know.

Don in Austin

dougmc · 2014-03-10 12:42:27

Makes me wonder, how often do law-breaking drivers (who actually put others' lives at risk) get ARRESTED for moving violations, rather than just being given a ticket? Nice to see that the police have their priorities in place.

Based on this statement, I assumed that you felt the police did something wrong here, and that's why you posted this in the first place. Certainly, that's been a pretty common belief regarding this incident.

If not -- my apologies.

That said, if a motorist were to run a red light [or, to pick a less serious offence -- roll through a stop sign at 1 mph rather than stopping], then take longer than usual to pull over for the police but eventually pull over (note that this part is optional), and then refuse to present ID or even tell the police who they were when the police attempted to give them a ticket for running the red light ... they'd be arrested too.

The only problem with this analogy I see is that motorists are *required* to carry ID where joggers are not -- but then again, the police will normally not ticket somebody for that just because they left their wallet at home, as long as they tell the police their name (and it all checks out, of course -- they should be able to verify things on their computer pretty easily.)

MichaelBluejay · 2014-03-10 13:26:09

Okay, I edited out the quoted part of my original post, since that went a little too far, and clarified the summary. But, I don't think the police should have been targeting jaywalkers anyway, and because they did, this unfortunate incident happened. With their limited resources, I'd prefer they go after people who are a real public threat (e.g., law-breaking drivers).

chuckthomas · 2014-03-10 22:03:59

I'm not convinced that this woman did anything that was that great of threat to herself or others. I think if her offenses were that grievous that others around her would have intervened. The cops actions were all about revenue generation for the city and further entrenching the police/nanny state.

dougmc · 2014-03-11 00:31:10

Looks like the jaywalking crackdown is continuing.

"zero tolerance enforcement" for :

• Disobeying a pedestrian control signal
• Crossing at point other than crosswalk
• Solicitation by pedestrians

At least they're not calling their program PEST this time.

pjschaub · 2014-03-11 09:50:49

Has anyone confirmed what street she crossed to get cited for jaywalking, San Antonio or 24th? There aren't any pedestrian control signals on the side of 24th St. where she was arrested, and no crosswalk to use. It's not possible to fail to obey a pedestrian control signal that is not there. She may not have been jaywalking in the first place, according to its definition in the state transportation code, if she was crossing 24th to get to the spot where the video starts.

--Patricia

MichaelBluejay · 2014-03-11 10:12:01

pjschaub, there might not have been a signal, but that area has Stop signs and crosswalks. When a crosswalk is available, you're supposed to use it.

The City's press release about their "pedestrian safety initiative" that dougmc cited is offensive as it places all the responsibility (and implies blame) for pedestrian injuries on pedestrians, and none on drivers. They list seven "basic safety tips" for "reducing traffic crashes involving pedestrians", but not a single one is aimed at drivers. They're all about what pedestrians should do.

pjschaub · 2014-03-11 18:11:56

Nope, no stop signs or crosswalks to use for crossing 24th between Guadalupe and the far western edge of San Antonio. See for yourself on Google Street View. Remember, San Antonio at that intersection forms a T with 24th where she was arrested. San Antonio is one way going north so there isn't a need for traffic signals or signs to control vehicles crossing 24th in a southward direction because they all should be headed north. She was arrested on the south side of 24th. Of course, she may have ran the light controlling the western end of San Antonio without crossing 24th at all. I'm curious to hear her side of the story.

The police should focus their resources on modifying driver behavior around pedestrians, and not let their attention be diverted by "jaywalking" if they really want to make things safer for pedestrians.

Donald Lewis · 2014-03-12 05:34:00

pjschaub wrote:

The police should focus their resources on modifying driver behavior around pedestrians, and not let their attention be diverted by "jaywalking" if they really want to make things safer for pedestrians.

Pedestrians get killed on a regular basis trying to cross I35 and similar which is totally a jaywalking problem. Of course, that is very different from whatever went down at the university.

Don in Austin

badgnome · 2014-04-01 21:06:57

I not clear on the entire chain of events, but I can understand some of the frustration from the cop's point of view. I have a very loud bell on my bicycle and some trail users on the wrong part of the path still cannot hear it due to their voluntary hearing impairment via headphones. Are they also not hearing ambulances/police using sirens coming their way?

It is not feasible for me to get off my bike and politely tap each one of them on the shoulder to inform them that I'll be passing on the left. I waiting for the day one of the does not hear me and makes a sudden, last second movement in my direction. Won't be pretty for either party.

chavela · 2014-04-02 20:55:16

Yep--sudden pedestrian moves into the path of a bike: I ride at 5:30 am from west Austin through downtown on 5th St. Nice bike lane with a separation....but recently a running group with a couple dozen people has taken to running in the bike lane. And forcing me, therefore, into the regular traffic lane, where the cars zoom by at a pretty good pace. Just the other morning, they were running in the same direction, I had to pass them on the left--in the regular traffic lane--and a runner who was passing some of his running buddies made a move right in front of me. I had cars to the left of me, a horde of people on my right, and he saw me/heard me JUST in time to interrupt his dodge towards me. It was very close. I guess from now on, I'm going to yell "Bike! Bike! Bike" as I pass...

Bicycle Austin forum

#1 2014-03-09 00:03:07

Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#2 2014-03-09 01:10:16

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#3 2014-03-09 13:37:13

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#4 2014-03-09 14:10:47

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#5 2014-03-09 21:23:11

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#6 2014-03-09 21:45:06

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#7 2014-03-10 00:49:30

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#8 2014-03-10 01:10:28

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#9 2014-03-10 05:25:56

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#10 2014-03-10 12:42:27

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#11 2014-03-10 13:26:09

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#12 2014-03-10 22:03:59

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#13 2014-03-11 00:31:10

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#14 2014-03-11 09:50:49

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#15 2014-03-11 10:12:01

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#16 2014-03-11 18:11:56

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#17 2014-03-12 05:34:00

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#18 2014-04-01 21:06:57

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

#19 2014-04-02 20:55:16

Re: Video of Austin cops' arrest of jaywalker goes viral

Board footer