Deseret News | Trooper's Taser use pops up on YouTube

Reader comments
Trooper's Taser use pops up on YouTube

324 comments | Read story

Not surprised | 6:09 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

I must say that I agree with Erik. The clip got on YouTube from Massey. Massey has an attitude that he is above the law. The ticket may or may not have been justified, but that is not the place to fight the ticket. Massey's true character came out on the video, a spoiled kid.

bdc | 6:17 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Well - this story has made international news.
Here in Australia it attracted some notice.
I had to say, from watching the video, while Mr Massey is no angel himself the patrolman totally overreacted.
In my view this type of approach - where you use potentially lethal force to show who is the boss - is totally inappropriate from a public officer.
Of course the cop has to approach every roadside stop with caution but that's not what I saw. What I saw was a cop punishing someone who dared question him.
I will be interested to hear what, if anything, is the result of the investigation together with any lawsuit that results (either criminal or civil).

Bob | 6:33 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

I am a traveling salesman that spends time on Utah roads but after seeing this vedio I would question ever spending time in this state. How disqusting this so called officer of the law has acted, his ego and badge both have a major problem, too heavy I would fear for my life with so called officers roaming the roads of Utah with this guys attitude, I believe he should be fired and charges brought against him for abuse. How sad that he represents a fine group of professenal law enforment officers and it certainly doesn"t say much for his leadership or superiors, just simply put, how sad that there kinds of people are given badges and the ability to use force and get away with it. Something wrong with the Utah Highway Patrol.

Comments continue below

Wow | 7:08 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Not only was the taze unjustified, he then proceeded to do an illegal search of the vehicle at the end to "try" and find anything that could justify his poor decision making.

Austin | 7:49 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

This officer clearly knew that what he had done was not proper conduct, why would he have lied to the other officer about what had taken place? It's comical to watch what went down and then hear 'officer' gardner's lame explanation on why massey deserved to 'take a ride' on the taser. I've been pulled over many times for speeding, but have ALWAYS been told my speed from the officer, 99% of the time without me even having to ask for it! I feel for massey's frustration with this power hungry so-called protector of the peace.

I'm glad the video was posted on youtube and that massey's refusing to just go quietly into the night like many people do because of fear or they feel they're powerless and can't fight 'the man'.

The government was formed by the people, for the people, and every citizen has the right and OBLIGATION to do all that they can in helping it stay on a true course. Whether that's informed voting, etc., or in mr. massey's case, exposing a corrupt officer and doing what he can to send a message and ensure nothing like this happens to anyone else.

Anonymous | 7:49 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

The article states that it has drawn nothing but unfavorable comments towards the officer. This is not true.

The officer was correct in his actions, although he might of handled it in another way.

The driver needs to learn the law from a credible source, like the state drivers handbook. He was wrong and abusive.

Len | 7:53 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

The driver was not simply being uncooperative, his was arrogant and abusive. He attempted to leverage control with his attitude and disrespect even making brash accusations about the trooper's attitude. However, the driver had the attitude problem and his arrogance got him what he had coming.

It will be a trevesty of justice if t his guy is somehow cajoled through the court system. The police have a tough job and there is too little respect for any authority in our culture. That needs to change.

Concerned Citizen | 9:16 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

The driver's attitude was wrong. That said the state of Utah has a PR disaster on its hand. It needs to be able to answer a few questions: 1. Was the video edited in such a way to remove scenes favorable to the trooper. 2. Why didn't the trooper explain to the driver what his options are. The trooper should cited authority doucments saying he has to sign, not I told you to follow my orders. 3. Did the trooper give a warning about firing the Taser; if so was this edited out. 4. The tape indicates that the trooper pulled over to let the car pass and then the car was stopped immediately after passing the sign. I suspect a good lawyer will argue that the trooper's car blocked the sign.

I don't know what the story is and the courts will have a chance to settle it. Bottom line: If Trooper Gardner was correct, there needs to be a detailed and transparent presentation. Gardner may not understand it but, but he needs this if he is to continue in a law enforcement career.

newsguy | 9:27 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Both people are wrong.
First the cop was wrong for his heavy handed method. And we have to determine if the driver really was speeding - this was never established.

I would have signed the ticket and then gone to the police station to make a report on the officer.

Next I would get an attorney and place a suit in action. The cop needs more training or needs fired.

The driver should have been told how fast he was going - where is the radar reading?
And after he was arrested he should have been read his rights.
Whatever happened to the thought of protecting and serving?

tazed for speeding | 9:30 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Everyone needs to remember...

THIS WAS A SPEEDING VIOLATION!

The man got tazed over alleged speeding!
We do indeed live in a police state if we can be tazed at the drop of a hat.

This officer needs to be fired to send a message. However, everyone knows that UHP will conduct an investigation and find that the officer was without fault as all police investigations go. They always side with their own.

Protect and serve boys... protect and serve.

Another Opinion | 9:34 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

All these judgments based on a video that has been (by his own admission) edited by the offender then placed online. Now does anyone honestly think Massey edited it for any reason other than to make it look like he is being abused?

Most of the bleeding hearts here are complaining about the Tazer. It was invented to avoid lethal force, which is the officers other option. Which is better, Tazer or Glock?

There is a very simple solution. Obey the law and there are no Tazer's or Glock's.

What ever happened to respect for authority? I think it went down the tubes with family values.

Respect, Responsibility and Accountability don't seem to be in the vocabulary of a lot of people under 50.

Josh | 9:51 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Cops are not Constitutional interpreters, they are not God, and they certainly aren't Judge and jury.

If the cop was so threatened by this middle class white guy in a SUV, why did he walk in front of the guy, with the speeder at his back?

Why did he allow him to stay laying on the highway after he fell from the taser while he was 10 feet away from the speeder?

I dont' see any lights reflecting off of the SUV...that's another illegal act by the trooper; they're supposed to have their emergency lights on.

This guy doesn't deserve respect just because he has a badge and a gun. They choose this line of work; if he's not professional enough to not cause unnecessary pain and waste taxpayers money by unnecessary potential lawsuits, FIRE HIM!

Rebecca | 10:04 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Since such a minor offence the ticket could have been sent to the yound man in the mail and settled in court. There is good and bad authority. I even taught my children that they did not have to obey bad authority. No one has the right to abuse anyone. The speed limit can change from day to day. One day 75 can be the limit and the next day 55. There are some roads that have had no speed limit where you have to use your judgement.

Anonymous | 10:11 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

The real issue here is public safety. The most dangerous place to be on the road is parked on the shoulder. Here is man lying in the road and the officer completely oblivious to passing traffic. A gasoline tanker is seen to flash by at high speed. How is this doing any good for public safety?

What are the hiring standards for cops these days? They all seem to think they are Marines, and the public, the enemy. Being a policeman used to be an honorable "Joe job", like fireman or baker or bus driver. When did all this strutting and posturing start?

Former Officer | 10:29 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

I am a former officer now lawyer and a lot of posters really don't understand the law. A POLICE OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE TO ADVISE PEOPLE OF THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS AFTER EVERY ARREST! The only time Miranda is necessary is when the officer has the person in custody and is interrogating the person. The Miranda rights are designed to protect the parties 5th Amendment rights. This officer did not interrogate the defendant.

With that said, the officer is completely at fault in this incident. He could have simply explained the violation and citation clearly, which would have likely de-escalated the situation.

This is very typical of most officers I worked with in that most are high school geeks gone cop. I hope some serious discipline gets handed down on this guy.

l | 10:35 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

To Dave | 9:06 a.m. Nov. 21, 2007 who claims that he was pulled over when he was driving legally, when someone passed him on the right. Well, if someone passed you on the right, it's probably because you didn't follow the law and move to the right when a faster car came up behind you. No matter what the speed limit is or how fast or slow you're driving, you have to move to the right lane to let other cars pass you if they want. And while we're at it, you have to leave enough space between you and the car in front of you to allow another car to merge into your lane.

There are too many other stupid comments by others on here to even know where to go next, but I think I'll pick the supposed 4-year-olds being tazed for noncompliance (Francine | 1:37 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007). That one might be the dumbest comment.

On an unrelated note, I hear the Orem PD is hiring, so perhaps if Mr. Gardner does lose his UHP job, he might be able to get hired on their dead grass patrol.

Hold on a minute!!! | 10:39 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

What is with some people thinking this is a clear-cut case of one guy being wrong and the other right??

They are both WRONG!

The officer will have to be dealt with for the mishandling of several steps, but Massey cannot be let off the hook, or allowed to win a lawsuit, which could only serve to promulgate even more clueless and beligerent behavior from citizens.

Anonymous | 10:41 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Shocking.

This prompts several questions:

1) Why did the officer pull in front of the 40 mph sign and block the view for the driver, then pull him over seconds later for speeding?
2) Why did the officer refuse to tell the driver how fast he was going or exactly why he was being pulled over?
3) Why didn't the officer explain that the individual must sign the speeding ticket by law or be arrested - and why is that a law?
5) Why did the officer never explain he was being arrested before the taser and not read him his miranda rights?
6) And what are our basic rights as motorists when we are pulled over? Are we, as civilians, required by law to do whatever a police officer tells us to do?

I value our officers and the protection they provide for us, but this is unfair. Most people are upset when they are pulled over. Did the motorist behave great? No, but his behavior could have easily been handled with basic respect. How can you fight a ticket in court if you don't even have basic information?

Steve | 11:08 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Let's get the facts straight:

When you are pulled over and the cop has your license, you are DETAINED, not ARRRESTED. There is a huge legal difference.

Cops do have to tel you what you are CHARGED with.

Signing a ticket is a promise to appear, not an admission of guilt.

You DO NOT have to sign a ticket.

A cop does not HAVE TO arrest you for refusing to sign a ticket. He can, but does not have to.

As a citizen, you only have to obey LAWFUL commands of a police officer. A cop can't order you to do a hand stand, kiss your wife, or to perform a field sobriety test.

After an officer INFORMS you that you are under arrest, you must not resist arrest.

This cop never told Massey he was under arrest until after he was tazed. The cop even tells the wife "I tazed him because we wouldn't obey my commands" not because he felt threatened. Massey may not have been nice and docile, but thankfully we live in America where it is your God given right to be a jerk.

This cop should be disciplined.

C.L. | 11:52 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Bottom line: these two guys deserved each other.

Pocatello | 11:54 a.m. Nov. 22, 2007

So many of you (rightfully so)are saying that he should have signed the citation, and that signing it doesn't admit any guilt.

So what the officer should have done was to say, "Sir, signing this citation doesn't imply guilt. If you read right here, it says that your signature only says that you agree to appear at the time and date listed above. It simply shoes that you received the citation. That's all. Now, will you please sign?"

Massey: No!

"Sir, Utah law allows for only two choices, to either sign the citation or be arrested and the bail you'll post will act as your agreement to appear." Those are my choices, sir. Which one would you prefer I do?

Massey: well, I'll sign, but I'm not guilty of anything!

"Yes sir. We'll both appear in court and let the judge decide that. Okay?"

It would have been just that easy. No one can possibly believe that if Massey knew that his signature wasn't an admission of guilt that he would have continued to refuse to sign.

Had the officer had some people skills, had he been willing to defuse the situation with some "either or" statements, nothing-would-have-happened.

An observer | 12:32 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Several readers point out that "you can't approach a cop from behind" but, if you notice, at 7:36 the officer tells Massey to "Hop out of the car". How can Massey do that and not follow behind? Should he have stayed in the car, thus further disobeying Gardner's order?

Then they say he was "resisting arrest", but if you notice carefully, at 7:31 Gardner is approaching his patrol and is already making the motion, as he is looking backwards, of putting his notebook down and already going for his "Tazer". At 7:30 Massey is seen walking, not towards Gardner, but pointing towards the sign posted in the Highway and, when he turns around, Gardner is already pointing the "tazer" at him. At that point Massey reacts scared and tries to get away from danger.

For those that say Gardner fired at Massey because he was getting away, Massey did NOT start moving away until AFTER he saw Gardner pointing the "Tazer" at him. IF Gardner had pulled the "Tazer" AFTER Massey was going away, THEN it could be argued that Gardner was trying to stop him from running away.

Unexcusable | 12:47 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

The officer should be arrested! All the justifications above are utterly ridiculous. The officer should be held accountable. Unbelievable!

Dan | 3:16 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Former federal LEO. Every competent law enforcement agency has a continuum of force policy, giving guidelines what level of force is appropriate for what situation. A taser is either the second- or third-highest level of force available to an officer in most agencies, and while use of it often looks extreme to civilians in many cases it saves both the life of the officer and the detainee.

In this case, though, the officer went flying up the spectrum with no justifiable reason except that the guy was being a jerk and the officer felt like it. To compound things, he put himself at significantly greater risk by doing so - ordering the guy out of the SUV made zero sense, having his back turned even less so, and most importantly of all he didn't use the first level of force - verbal - effectively. The driver was being obnoxious, but had the officer taken control of the situation earlier with that level of force, none of this would have ever happened.

The officer in question should be off duty until retraining at a minimum. He's a danger to himself right now. The detainee should get nailed on the ticket, though.

Cop Out | 5:33 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

S-H-O-C-K-I-N-G !

WOW!!! | 5:42 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

This is why people don't like the police. Yes they were both wrong however this Officer didn't try to defuse the situation. He clearly exculated it. If he would have taken the time to talk with the motorist I believe it would have resolved itself. If I was tasered because I wanted an explaination I would sue. The motorist could have signed the ticket and never been tasered but the Officer never helped the situation either.
Secondly, if somebody pointed a gun or taser gun at you, you would back away too! Maybe the motorist was scaried at that moment. You can see he was shocked by the Officers actions! He evens says, "why are you doing this?"
It is the Officers responsability to handle situations like this better. I think the guy deserves to pay the ticket. I also believe the Officer should be disiplined very harshly too. Not a slap on the hand.

Farrell | 8:46 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

The discussion is getting tedious with the same points being repeated ad nauseum.

I would welcome, however, more discussion on the assertions made that traffic enforcement is managed with a focus on revenue generation.

Do officers have quotas? Are construction zones exploited for their money-making potential? I would be quite interested in objective, facutal and, preferrably, first-hand information on this topic.

Philip in VA | 9:19 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Every few seconds somone types in and put in their two cents worth. What you should do is go vote. Both men have a problem. Video proves it. Don't depend on someone to do something about it. You do something about it. Never argue with an officer of the law. See the Judge or get a lawyer. But don't smart mouth somone who is enforceing the law. The officer should be retrained.

ZIONBLUESKY | 9:22 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Hmmm, Interesting my comment was erased! Nothing that violated anything. Deseretnews in bed with UHP? Really Bizarre!

aquantence of massey | 9:43 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Jared is not the type of person to try to cause a situation, however is a person who demands to have things explained to him. He is a person who is very intellegent, and tries to be a good citizen. This officer is clearly trying to be cool, and should have some sort of repremand to the situation he caused. HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS JARED!!!!

smalley | 9:58 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

This guy should never be a cop again.

Steven | 10:22 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

The officer was using his "power" and "authority" to defend his own reasons for pulling the kid over. He obviously does not understand the true power of honest communication. It's concerning to me that our police force could actually be this immature, ineffective, dishonest and out of line. Although the boy in the incident did seem a bit entitled, he did not deserve something like this. It seems that a badge should not give any individual the right to taze a man to the ground in front of his pregnant wife and children over a simple speeding violation. Mountain out of a mole hill, all for the sake of pride.

John | 10:26 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Several questions get repeatedly asked, here are some answers:

Do you have to sign the ticket - Utah Code 77-7-24, yes or go to jail. FYI, the code says that officers who fail to follow any portion of that code are guilty of misconduct.

Do you have to do what an officer tells you on a stop - pretty much, Utah Code 76-8-301 Interfering with a public servant, 76-8-305 Interfering with arresting officer, 76-8-305.5 Failure to stop at command.

Miranda - Not unless being questioned while in custody.

Is tazer deadly force - Compare stats for deaths due to pepper spray, batton, physical restraint, etc and you will see it is pretty much one of the lowest and almost all tazer related deaths also have illegal drugs involved. How many people die after running from police and taking cocaine?

This video should be shown at POST for new officers to pick apart all the things the trooper did wrong. While extreme, the officer involved will be able to easily justify as within the law and probably UHP policy due to Masseys actions.

Anonymous | 10:43 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

The biggest problem I see with everything is that the subject was never informed that he was going to be arrested. It is clear that when the officer ask Massey to step out of the car, he believed they were going to discuss it more. Had the officer simply informed him that he was going to be arrested, MUCH of this would have been avoied.

Trooper was Correct! | 10:44 p.m. Nov. 22, 2007

Any lawyer worth his salt will tell you a law enforcement officer has the right to use force when a person is resisting arrest as this man clearly was. By not complying with the officerï¿½s orders and walking away, he was sending a clear signal that he was not going to comply. If I had been the officer, I might have even drawn my handgun when he put his hand in his right pocket instead of behind his back as ordered. Many officers have been killed because they did not react to such signs of danger and a gun suddenly appeared. I say keep up the good work and stay safe.

Bnick | 12:09 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

I finally had a chance to view the whole video. Yes the driver was understandably curious to find out what he had done wrong. The officer's communication skills were horrible. That is what caused the driver to to get frustrated - not mad!! The driver never was informed that he was being placed under arrest. The officer never mentioned that by not signing the citation he was going to be arrested. And finally, I find it interesting that once the other officer appeared his demeanor changed to how it should have been when he pulled the driver over.

Also, he lied to his backup!

I also get the feeling that the officer's pulling over appeared to block the 40mph sign. It looked kind of suspicious. Maybe that is why he didn't want to answer the driver's questions. In the end maybe what the officer did was legal, but their procedures need to be changed, for all our safety.

As a final note, I have been pulled over for speeding five times and have been treated respectfully on ever occasion except once. And the one was a real jerk on a power trip. He reminded me of this officer!

Lawful Citizen | 1:22 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

I would have understood the wife if she tried to ram the cop with her car. He is a rogue. I am a bit surprised that she didn't take off in fear that she was going to be next to go by this wacko. This cop escalated a totally controllable situation into a near catastrophe.

John | 1:49 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

As Sgt. Friday on Dragnet used to say, "Just the facts, please." Without question, the officer used excessive force in dealing with Mr. Massey. At no time did Mr. Massey appear to be a threat to himself, to others, or to the arresting officer. And those are UHP published guidelines for using a Taser. Certainly, Mr. Massey's behavior was less than exemplary. But, his poor behavior cannot be used to justify the use of a Taser against him.

I look forward to perhaps being called to jury duty in case Mr. Massey's lawsuit comes to trial. The UHP can expect to be slapped with a very "stiff fine" if they condone this sort of behavior from their officers and haven't addressed this matter appropriately.

Chitown | 2:46 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

Bad decisions were made by both men. However, the UHP officer is the paid professional who is supposed to take control of these situations and not allow things to get out of control. Strike 1-very poor at communicating what Massey's responsibilities/options were when it came time to sign the citation. As a few other posters mentioned previously that could have diffused the situation. Strike 2-Gardner turning his back on Massey once he ordered him out of the car. Strike 3-not telling Massey he was under arrest as he pulled then pointed the Taser at Massey (right there IMO is unlawful use of force as Massey had not shown he was a threat). Strike 4-leaving Massey unattended next to the busy highway (placing Massey's life in jeopardy....big no-no there). Strike 5-unlawful search of vehicle (for an alleged speeder?) Strike 6-lying that he told Massey he was under arrest and would be tased. Massey-stupid for not signing the citation and arguing with officer. Does not justify use of force. Bottom line...Gardner likely reprimanded, maybe fired and definitely will be sued. I have alot of respect for most officers but this is an ugly black eye.

Priorities | 5:18 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

The officer displays no concern for his own safety,
(turning his back to Massey), and displays no concern for Massey's safety, (leaving him lying on the highway), but is focused on the safety of his ticket book, taking the trouble to walk all the way back to his vehicle to set it down. Mind boggling.

A Failure of LEADERSHIP | 6:03 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

It is an unfortunate event; however, it is a look into the Officer's judgement and interpersonal skills. He has lost his effectiveness and is now a liability to his Department. (With that said, the young man also behaved inappropriately)

If he is allowed to remain on duty on the highway, it will not be long until a similar situation results in a fatality. The Department's policy and training on the use of the taser should be revisited. The Department's Superintendent should be called to task as well. If there is any leadership in the Utah Highway Police, it begins at the top. The Officer's action demonstrate a general lack of leadership.

Jeff in TX | 7:34 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

The Deseret News is deleting comments?! What's up with that? Are you (the DN) trying to help the UHP sweep this under the rug?

Judge Well | 8:40 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

When are people going to learn. When the officer stopped Massey, Massey was already "arrested."

Would Massey have been justified if he had refused to pull over because he didn't agree that he was speeding? I hope everyone would agree that would NOT be justified.

The officer witnessed a violation of the law. He "arrested" Massey by pulling him over. If the officer wanted to, he could have just cuffed him and hauled him in without having Massey sign a citation!

Massey was ready to run at any given moment. Did you see the reverse lights on his car going on and off? He was shifting his transmission in and out trying to decide whether to drive off or not!

Once Massey decided to resist "arrest" in ANY form, a level of force was required.

Too many people are taking "traffic stops" for granted and thinking they are trivial things. They are not. Learn the law and quit being ignorant arm-chair judges!

Steve | 8:50 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

Cop told driver to get out and follow him. He did as he was told. When cop pulled taser he started to retreat to vehicle. Cop did not have to arrest due to non-signature on ticket. Could have written refused to sign on ticket and sent on his way. You do not have to sign something you disagree with. Cop overstepped his authority and kid should not have returned to his vehicle. It also appeared he was trying to calm his wife when he went to the vehicle which would have helped the situation, when the cop did not let him he exacerbated the situation more. Both parties are at fault but the cop has to keep the higher ground and he did not do so. I don't know that he should be fired but he should be counciled and supervised for a significant time.

Concerned | 8:53 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

According to UHP you do not have to sign the ticket. The officer can then take three options:
1) Write "refused to sign" on the ticket
2) Issue another citation with "refused to sign" on it
3) Arrest the driver and take to a magistrate

I have more information available for people wondering what the latest is on this. You can link to it from my site. Jared has been informing me when something new happens: TridellUtah

To NY Cop | 9:49 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

NY cop..... stay in NY. You are part of what's wrong with America. By your own words you are a disgrace!

I would throw the book at this short fused, no people skills officer and the UHP.

UHP should require officers to be better educated and have competency evaluations to weed out those with poor people skills.

Roger | 10:56 a.m. Nov. 23, 2007

The video is a clear example of how America is becoming or has become a police state. But the thing I find equally offensive is the article to which we are all responding. This article is definitely biased toward the cop. It expresses an underlying opinion and seems to portrait the arrestee as a combative outlaw. The man was merely asking for his lawful right to be formally charged and read his rights, which are supposed to be the cornerstones of a free society. What happened to fair an unbiased reporting? Hopefully this was in the editorial section of the paper. Seems like the journalist are as messed up as the trooper.

Anon | 12:11 p.m. Nov. 23, 2007

The cop was just doing his job.

Roger | 12:14 p.m. Nov. 23, 2007

Kudos to this forum for not censoring my last comments, which were directed at them. Perhaps there is hope after all.

John | 12:32 p.m. Nov. 23, 2007

Its realy scary how many posters here seem to have learned all about their rights from TV. My recommendation is to either learn about Miranda, search and seizure (especially search incident to arrest) and the Supreme Court rulings about their other rights, or just not show their ignorance in the future and stay quiet. Massey is a prime example of someone who learned about his rights on TV, just listen to what he says on the tape.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.