Guest column: Dalton police officers’ actions were constitutional

Published 6:00 am Thursday, November 21, 2013

Sometimes police officers make the lawful discretionary choice, with probable cause, to arrest people suspected of violating the law; the reasonableness of officers’ actions is measured by the standards established in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and various case law decisions.

As early as the 1820s, wise police administrators have acknowledged and actively sought the public’s trust and worked to maintain a sense of legitimacy through the judicious, reasonable actions of its officers. Sir Robert Peel, the British Home Secretary at the time, had the responsibility to implement the 1829 London Metropolitan Police Act.

From the start, Peel recognized the need to separate the status of a locally controlled, uniformed police force from that of a standing national army. Moreover, he understood that, “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior and the ability of police to secure and maintain public respect.” The principles established by Sir Robert Peel still inform the sensibilities of police executives, and are the foundation of modern American policing.

I have acknowledged many times publicly that our officers are given authority by the law, but the power to wield that authority comes from those we serve. When a citizen in our community files a grievance against a member of the police department, I consider that a matter of great concern. When this happens, we immediately locate the facts and take whatever action is necessary and warranted. On very rare occasions, citizens bypass local mechanisms designed to hold police accountable for their actions.

On Sept. 1, 2011, a young woman in our community died when she fell to the pavement from the vehicle she was riding in. According to witnesses in the vehicle, she was leaning out the window just prior to the fall. Fast forward 65 days to Nov. 5, 2011: on regular patrol, Dalton police officer Jason Robinson came within sight of a truck as it pulled out of the Oyster Pub bar on Chattanooga Road. Within a second, the passenger leaned out the window while the truck was traveling down the highway. Seeing this dangerous behavior, Officer Robinson made a lawful stop and learned the passenger was — in his own words — “drunk,” and was vomiting out the window. Officer Robinson’s lawful request for the passenger, Michael Keith, to identify himself was met with belligerent, obstinate refusal to cooperate. From there, the verbal discussion resulted in the typical lack of success when one tries to reason with an intoxicated person. Ultimately, Mr. Keith was arrested by the officer and Mr. Keith later filed suit.

On Oct. 11, 2013 that lawsuit was dismissed in federal court after United States District Court Judge Harold Murphy awarded summary judgment to the officer(s), which means the judge found no genuine issues of material fact to support Mr. Keith’s claims. I have spoken to Officer Robinson who told me if he had it to do over, he would cut short a fruitless debate with a person so convinced he was right, but very misinformed about the law.

To make an arrest, police officers must do so in accordance with constitutional guidelines, and with probable cause. The editors have offered a standard for officers’ actions which indicates a belief that enforcement decisions take place in a sterile, laboratory environment. The reality is law officers make decisions in a dynamic, stressful environment. They live in the gray area that most people try very hard to avoid. As Officer Robinson stated, if Mr. Keith had complied with his lawful request, he would likely have been on his way in short order; upon my review of the totality of the event, I noted Officer Robinson’s remarkable restraint … during 26 minutes of attempts at reason.

Legal concepts are seldom straightforward, but the crux of this case — whether a person is compelled to identify himself when requested by police — has been established in case law (Hiibel V. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nev., Humboldt County, 2003-5554) for quite some time, and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States (542 U.S. 177 (2004) 118 Nev. 868, 59 P.2d 1201). When a police officer makes a lawful stop, based on reasonable suspicion under the case law decision as noted in Terry V. Ohio,  392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968, the officer may reasonably request identification from individuals involved in the actions that prompted the officer to make this brief, investigatory stop. Refusal to comply with these lawful orders can result in arrest. Officer Robinson observed dangerous behavior displayed by Mr. Keith when he leaned out the window while riding down the road.

On first contact, Officer Robinson detected several clues indicating Keith was very intoxicated. Although Mr. Keith was riding in one when he caught the attention of Officer Robinson, being in a vehicle neither aids nor hinders when an officer may compel a person to identify themselves if the officer is conducting a brief investigation based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Contrary to the editors’ opinion, I believe Officer Robinson was clear on the constitutional concept guiding his decision to ask Mr. Keith for his name.

The following scenario did not involve Mr. Keith’s case, but is offered for the sake of clarity. When an officer stops a vehicle for some traffic infraction, the driver is required by Georgia law to produce a driver’s license. Passengers in a stopped vehicle who are detained by the stop, but are not suspected of any violation or other criminal activity, may be asked for identification by an officer; however, the officer may not convey any message that a response is required. During this brief stop, should an officer develop reasonable suspicion to believe that a passenger is engaged in criminal activity, they may detain him or her and request identification.

Police officers in America serve a dual role: on rare occasions, officers restrict some liberties through arrest of those who violate the law. At the same time, police officers work to preserve the constitutional rights of all we encounter, including protecting the right of citizens to lodge grievances against the government and its agents.

The original assertion by Mr. Keith was that he did not want taxpayers to shoulder the burden of defending the officers. Unfortunately, Dalton taxpayers’ precious resources were required to defend this action when other options existed. The same case outcome could have been secured by simply filing a prompt complaint with the police department, which would have been immediately investigated and subjected to multiple levels of scrutiny. If one fails to give the local government an opportunity to investigate a grievance, one should not be surprised to find that taxpayer money is needed to defend the lawful actions of its agents.

I take concerns from the community very seriously, and ask that we have an opportunity to hear about your concern before moving on to another venue. You can file a complaint or speak to us about an issue through several methods, including coming to the police department, calling us at (706) 278-9085 or by submitting your request through our website at www.daltonpd.com. In addition, you can reach me at (706) 217-2061.

The actions of the officers in this case were clearly constitutional, but even in cases like this we look to see whether our tactics and strategies can be improved in some way. Your participation and feedback helps us improve our service to you and the whole community.

Jason Parker is the chief of the Dalton Police Department.