Patrick Lyoya's Death Casts A Light On How Police Mishandle Traffic Stops

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/christopher-schurr-patrick-lyoya-traffic-stops-shooting_n_62c46ad3e4b0a21d842c5c75

On April 4, a police officer shot Patrick Lyoya at point-blank range in the back of the head during a traffic stop in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Two months later, Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker announced he was charging the officer, Christopher Schurr, with second-degree murder — making Schurr the first officer from the Grand Rapids Police Department to be charged with felony murder in the shooting of a civilian.

The shooting, filmed by a witness, ignited outrage on social media. Lyoya’s death didn’t spark the same nationwide outrage as the killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, but it raised tensions in Grand Rapids and underlined the often-dangerous role police can play in minor traffic stops.

Schurr said he pulled over Lyoya, a 26-year-old Black man, because his license plates were expired. Lyoya attempted to get away, and after a brief struggle, Schurr pulled out his gun and shot Lyoya in the back of the head while kneeling on top of him.

Jack Glaser, a professor focusing on racial bias and law enforcement at the University of California, Berkeley, said body camera footage of the traffic stop shows Schurr approaching Lyoya aggressively.

“You can go back and say the stop itself started on a bad note and was probably unnecessary,” Glaser told HuffPost. “The officer is very aggressive and moved in quickly and really contributes to a fraught situation where he is trying to get compliance and Mr. Lyoya is confused.”

*snip*

[ProfessorGAC]

1. It Seems To Me...

...that at least 90% of moving violations require no stop.
They can be treated like red light camera & tollway/bridge tickets.
A citation with the info & a pic of the carn& plates gets mailed to the house.
No traffic stop required.
Eliminates a good portion of situations where jittery cops "fear for their life".

[The Magistrate]

2. Then, Where Would The Pretext For Unwarranted Search Be, Sir?

Most of these stops have nothing to do with enforcing traffic laws, they are excuses to see if someone has drugs or some misdemeanor warrant. The rest are to seize funds for the local government.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. Consistent With My Point

That suggests the violation of the said law is too trivial to bother.
Otherwise, it would be more convenient to ticket by mail.
Geez, i got one for not paying a causeway toll in Tampa, in 2016.
I haven't driven my personal vehicle in Florida since 1980.
It was the same color car and was my license number, but i think tjey got the wrong state.
I also had proof i was in Brazil that week.
I didn't have to pay it, but they ticketed me from a thousand miles away.

[The Magistrate]

4. Not Arguing With You, Sir

I agree traffic regulations ought to be enforced, and that today electronic means, once noted by a squad car, is the proper way to do it. It's just that enforcing traffic regulations isn't what's on the the mind of most officers sighting a cracked tail-light.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Agreed On That Part

But, I don't care about their motivations or wishes.
Too many "fear for their life" during routine stops. (Perhaps they picked the wrong job?).
So, taking those opportunities away seems a win-win, except to those looking for trouble. And, if they lose those opportunities, that makes me happy!

[The Magistrate]

7. I Don't Consider These 'Go Fish'Stops Legitimate Law Enforcement

Absolutely the 'I feared for my life' sort are in the wrong job.

An officer's plea of 'I feared for my life' should amount to a resignation, and an officer better have blood or bruises to show if telling someone to 'stop resisting'.

[Ms. Toad]

8. There would be some details to be worked out -

Generally in the photo tickets, it is the car being charged - not the person (sincem the person cannot be identified). The owner can either chase the actual offender, or not.

In addition - there are no points on the driver's license. To the extent that speeding violations, for example, create a risk of danger that is mitigated by eventually suspending the license of the habitual offender, that dampening effect on speeding vanishes.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Why?

Add the points anyway. If the owner has someone else habitually flouting traffic laws in their car, add the points to the owner's license. It incentivizes THEM to change the bad behavior of the driver.
That seems a trivial barrier, to me.

[Ms. Toad]

11. At least in Ohio, that's been taken to the state Supreme Court.

and it isn't possible. In order to be permitted at all (they were completely barred for a while), photo tickets can only generate civil penalties, not criminal. Points are part of the criminal penalty associated with the misdemeanor violation for speeding. Criminal penalties raise due process rissues (right to challenge the accuser and equipment involved in determining you were speeding) . . . a bit tough when the car, not the driver, is the offender (and the driver does not have that opportunity unless the owner chooses to bring them in).

It's not as trivial as you believe. It's a long-standing legal battle in Ohio - here's one article with a 10,000 foot summary. https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/state/in-depth-speed-cameras-raising-concerns-over-due-process-and-public-safety-revenue

[Mr.Bill]

14. Is that because red-light and other camera tickets

are actually done by the contractor that install and operate the camera rather than an actual law enforcement agency? I could see where they would not have the authority to put points on your license without the usual due process.

[Ms. Toad]

15. It is because the ticket is attached to the car, not to a specific person.

It's been a long drawn-out battle (well over a decade), and the inability to obtain a misdemeanor conviction, impose points, and impact insurance involves the due process rights to which you are entitled for criminal rather than civil penalties. The ticket is sent to the owner of the car, who may not have been operating the car at the time of the infraction. It is the owner, not the driver, on whom the civil penalty is imposed.

It violates due process to impose criminal penalties for a moving violation when the owner wasn't the driver - and, as a general rule, there are no police witnesses to the driver's actions.

At one point, tickets could only be issued if the camera was attended by an officer, but they are back in business - unattended. I've stoped following all of the legal wrangling.

[MichMan]

6. I dont agree that people driving drunk should be allowed to continue on their way

How would you send a summons over later if they had sobered up by then? That's assuming they didn't kill someone on the road first.

Mr Loyola was found in toxicology reports to have a BAL of 0.29, which is over 3 times the legal limit of 0.08, and had previously been convicted multiple times for DUI. License was suspended and he had a warrant for his arrest, yet he continued to drive while drunk. That may have been why he attempted to wrestle the cops Tasar away from him.

He did not deserve to be killed, but also shouldn't have been allowed to continue driving drunk until he eventually kills someone.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. That, I Buy

That's why in my post above I estimated 90% of stops could be eliminated.
Obvious & immediate threat to public safety would have to supersede any convenience gained in ticketing.

[MichMan]

12. Except you don't always know someone is driving drunk until they are stopped for other traffic viol.

Speeding, illegal lane changes, running red lights etc. Based on the behaviors of the driver and other sobriety checks is then cause for a breathalyzer.

If police aren't permitted to stop anyone for those things, then you would see the number of deaths and serious injuries to other drivers go way up as there would be less DUI enforcement.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. We Essentially Agree, Though

It's the reckless driving that is the signal. The recklessness is the public danger.
But, 62 in a 55 isn't worth a stop. A rolling right turn on red, same. A bad brake light, same. Even if that driver turns out to blow 0.09, those minor issues over don't require a stop.
But, blowing a stop sign, weaving, unnecessary lane changes are provide reasonable cause.
For that, I could accept the stop as mandatory.

[yardwork]

17. I think the poster is talking about pulling people over for expired tags.

As in this instance. Personally, I think the police who do this are planning to intimidate the drivers because they hope to find drugs or some other evidence. The stops are a pretext. They are overwhelmingly done against Black drivers or young white drivers in "Black" neighborhoods. I'm a white woman and when I was younger I was twice stopped for ridiculous reasons because I was driving "in the wrong part of town." Both times I was there for good reasons, and both times I had my children in the car, which the officers didn't realize until I was stopped.

[Lil Liberal Laura]

13. "Mishandle"

That's one way of puttiing it.

[Samrob]

18. It's not about the stops. It's about WHO is being stopped!

It matters not if it is a traffic stop. Walking or running while black is the issue. It's about who is in the gun sights. How many unarmed blacks are stopped or killed running or walking through a neighborhood? How many unarmed blacks are killed while sleeping in their own homes? Get real people! It is now and always has been about being black trying to live and breathe in America!

Not playing this game