After Black driver is handcuffed and arrested, Va. prosecutor says she never should have been pulled

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Early on March 6, Juanisha C. Brooks was driving home on the Capital Beltway when she saw the flashing lights of an emergency vehicle behind her. At first she thought it was an ambulance and she steered to the shoulder of an exit ramp to let it pass.

Brooks soon realized she was being pulled over, drove from the ramp to the first side street and stopped.

There, Brooks repeatedly asked Virginia State Police Trooper Robert G. Hindenlang why he had pulled her over, and Hindenlang repeatedly refused to say, dashboard-camera video from the trooper’s car shows. He did not tell her he had noticed her taillights were out as she drove. Instead, he told Brooks that if she would step outside, he would show her why she had been stopped. Brooks told the trooper she didn’t want to get out.

Hindenlang then unlocked Brooks’s door and dragged her out of the car, while Brooks loudly pleaded with him to stop, the video shows. The trooper spun her against the car and handcuffed her. When Brooks refused to take a sobriety test, after telling the trooper she had had one drink, Hindenlang told her, “You’re under arrest for driving under the influence.”

-more-

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/after-black-driver-is-handcuffed-and-arrested-va-prosecutor-says-she-never-should-have-been-pulled-over/ar-BB1gzoLE

[dalton99a]

1. "Would he have done that to a White woman?"

Brooks’s ordeal didn’t end with being charged, though. Hindenlang had ordered her car towed, and left her wallet and phone inside the car. After Brooks was released on a signature bond, she said she asked Hindenlang where her car was, and he gave her a Post-it note with the name of the tow lot in Lorton, but nothing else. Brooks said Hindenlang told her that her mother was waiting in the lobby and could help her. Brooks’s mother is deceased.

“Oh,” Hindenlang said, then shut the door on her and walked out, Brooks said.

A bondsman tried to help her contact friends, and eventually the magistrate in the jail sympathized with Brooks and drove her to the Vienna Metro station and gave her $20, Brooks said. The station wasn’t yet open, so she stood outside in the frigid darkness for an hour. It took a train ride, two bus trips and a cab ride for Brooks to reach the tow lot, where she said she was charged $240 to extricate her car. She arrived home around noon, almost 10 hours after Hindenlang stopped her.

“Would he have done that to a White woman? No,” Brooks said. “He didn’t see me as a human being. … This has to stop. It’s racism at its core, and it should be seen as such.”

[Hortensis]

2. Well, someone like him would have. Many counties around the nation

have turned to preying on their own citizens to raise revenue after various devastating Republican tax cuts, recession, and now pandemic have again and again reduced revenue to emergency levels. White people here seem to imagine they're safe because they're not black. Not exactly. Just less likely to be attacked by their own government.

Our Danish-American daughter-in-law in a metro Atlanta county was stopped near her home and arrested for DUI for no cause. Her crime appeared to be driving on a Friday night. No test was performed at the scene (with witnesses in the business this took place in front of). She also had several witnesses that her only drink was much earlier in the evening because she was the designated driver. This county is actually known among locals for this, and we all have other stories.

She had a VERY good attorney, very competent and well connected (he was slumming by taking a DUI case), but this was Gwinnett County, GA, and this nicely groomed, good looking, middle class, nice car, 40s, white woman was advised to plead to a lesser charge rather than put her future in the hands of a GA jury -- since they too often rubber stamp the DA's charge regardless of lack of case (i.e., if you're charged, you're guilty).

Altogether, it took months of her life attending humiliating court-mandated DUI classes and meetings with whatever the version of a "parole" office was, and several thousand in extorted fines and fees -- all of which enriched the local government and provided jobs to humiliate and shake down those caught in this banditry. And we've all heard what happens to those who can't pay, but even those're not all minorities by a long shot. Attorney fees additional.

The point is, it's become a racket in many jurisdictions across the nation. And of course anyone who looks like a promising victim is at greater risk. That's always especially meant minorities.

[stopdiggin]

3. and taillights (safety) violation is a perfectly legitimate reason

for a stop. LE might have been 99% wrong about virtually everything that happened thereafter -- but taillights(s) (plural?) are a legitimate stop -- and you cannot refuse a breathalyzer (automatic violation and arrest in many jurisdictions)

Edit: the OP says 'sobriety test,' and I assumed that to mean breath test -- field sobriety tests are utter nonsense, and a waste of everybody's time. Not sure on the legality of 'refusing' -- but motorist should at very least be requesting breathalyzer (followed by a legitimate blood draw)

[Miguelito Loveless]

4. You are correct,

but that hardly excuses his conduct. He had legitimate cause to stop her, he did NOT have the right to drag her out of her car. The DUI charge while again, technically legal, would not have happened if he has simply run her plates/license, then told her her taillight was out, since there was NO mention of erratic driving.

[stopdiggin]

6. total agreement

I don't think LE has any right to ask motorist to exit vehicle for a simple safety violation. And I'd prefer that the DA had made that point -- rather than saying no right to make the stop. (if in fact that was what they really said)

But, yeah -- no defense whatsoever for the patrolman's conduct. Clearly over the top. And (at least suspect) partially illegal?

[Hortensis]

5. Yes, but as you say, it became an excuse for the victimization that followed.

I don't know if she could subsequently refuse a breathalyzer if the officer did not have legal standing to order her out of the car in the first place. I believe important basics we all should know are on the ACLU website, but it's been a long time.

Regardless of legal details, it's obvious this iis a bad cop. If there was a problem with her lights, just perhaps he should have remained in the area to make sure she was safe while she waited for someone to pick her up? As is so often done? Ticket for the lights discretionary?

[stopdiggin]

7. no argument there. bad cop.

Just wish the DA had articulated what the real problem was here (dragging motorist out of the vehicle) a little better.

[Hortensis]

11. Just looked and apparently police may unequivocally order people out

of the car until the stop is over. I wondered because I noticed some black people in these videos are resisting orders to step out.

I've had some experience with police, personal interactions, and even more while working briefly in the LAPD, and my takeaway was that challenging police in any way can be a terrible mistake. Some you're very safe with if you're not a genuine threat, others become angry and aggressively dangerous.

My white teens got the talk, though my focus was on the real possibility that challenging the police could lead to being beaten and railroaded into jail and even prison on false charges, but in those days my talk to white kids didn't include being executed on the street.

[stopdiggin]

13. admit I am surprised to hear that

an officer can order a motorist from the vehicle -- regardless the reason. (but a brief search shows that you are correct) I can only say that a lot of people appear to be woefully misinformed on this point. (videos, etc.)

And -- as you emphasize (also correctly) -- non-compliance would seem to be a very risky option to entertain -- regardless of the legalities involved. As you point out -- even being 'right' might come at a terrible cost if you should decide to 'confront' and 'assert' yourself to one of these maniacs. It's just not safe at all! First order of business, get home safely! (second order -- record, if you can.)

[Hortensis]

16. That's what I told our kids. Being stopped can suddenly become very dangerous.

Also read that in most jurisdictions you have to inform the officer if you're recording -- not to protect the officer, but the privacy of others, and that can be an inflammatory act in a volatile situation. As you say, if you can.

[multigraincracker]

19. It's not "defunding police", but

if every civil lawsuit payment came out of the departments payroll budget, you'd see a big change in their attitude in dealing with civilians. Let the cops defund themselves.

It would also be a big blow to the good ole boy system. It might finally end the
"Professional courtesy" bull crap that most cops live by. It always starts with letting the gang and their families off on traffic stops and ends up with lying about the actions of the really crooked LEOs. I was married to a cop and learned a lot about cops. Many were gym rats and all pumped up on steroids that lead to roid rage. Any use of force, including drawing a weapon should be followed with blood test for the cops.
That would also make a big difference in how they act.

[uponit7771]

40. +1, Chi paid out 500 million the City were Floyd lived paid out and countless other cities around

... the country has paid out millions upon millions of dollars.

The police are defunding the cities, the mayors we elect have to get with these PDs and hold them accountable.

Dems have to have a hard talk ... a good sit down

[BGBD]

59. Not in Virginia

It's an implied consent state, so the law there says that if you operate a motor vehicle you also give consent to submit to a breathalyzer. The officer has to have a valid reason, but she gave him that reason when she admitted that she had a drink.

[Hortensis]

61. Thanks. So, have to submit even pre-arrest. I'm sure that's common.

Back when we lived in CA, though it may have changed, drivers could refuse before being arrested but not once in custody. It'd show up in TV shows with people hoping their alcohol level would drop with delay.

Of courser, bottom line is the decision that this driver should never have been pulled over in the first place. Thank goodness.

[BGBD]

63. Thats where is gets muddy

The roadside test isn't admissible in court and it's not against the law to refuse it.....but refusing it will end with an arrest on suspicion of DUI every time.

Once arrested you can't say no to the test that is admissible. So while not illegal you can't really refuse the roadside test either, or you'll get arrested.

[Hortensis]

65. And refusal is often portrayed as consciousness of guilt.

What a mill. In my DIL's case, in a county with a corrupt, predatory system, her hash was mostly settled once the cop decided to pull her over without cause. He knew how it'd grind once he started it even if she and we didn't. At least this one did better, and she helped a lot more people than just herself.

[phylny]

62. Police in Virginia can no longer pull you over for a tail light violation.

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=202&typ=bil&val=HB5058&submit=GO

"No law-enforcement officer shall stop a motor vehicle for a violation of this subsection. No evidence discovered or obtained as the result of a stop in violation of this subsection, including evidence discovered or obtained with the operator's consent, shall be admissible in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding."

[stopdiggin]

66. yes. that is true (and curious to a lot of us

from other jurisdictions) Also true (from reading the complete statute):

No law-enforcement officer shall stop a motor vehicle for a violation of this section, except that a law-enforcement officer may stop a vehicle if it displays no lighted headlights during the time periods set forth in subsection A. No evidence discovered or obtained as the result of a stop in violation of this subsection, including evidence discovered or obtained with the operator's consent, shall be admissible in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding.

The motorist subsequently admitted that she "forgot to turn on my headlights." So there were other factors involved. (whether the officer lied his ass off about this and everything else regarding the stop can only be a guess on our part) But, you are entirely correct about the 'taillight' stop(s).

[Trueblue1968]

18. sue the PIG COP and the POLICE DEPT for $781,659,203.99

and then THROW THE PIGS IN JAIL......

[fescuerescue]

8. Protip: Never say "one drink"

Because they will assume 5 drinks then. Every single time.

Say no drinks.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. Did you read the whole article?

7th paragraph:

At the Fairfax County jail, Brooks and her attorney said, she twice took a breathalyzer test. The results: a 0.0 blood alcohol level. So Hindenlang charged her with resisting arrest, eluding police, failing to have headlights on and reckless driving.

[fescuerescue]

12. I don't see how that refutes my tip

Never say "one drink". Cops will always assume more.

This is ESPECIALLY true if you have drank zero.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

14. Explain how applies to the situation then.

0.0 for God sakes.

[fescuerescue]

32. Well it's really simple.

If you had zero drinks, don't say "1 drink". They will assume more.
If you had one drink, don't say "1 drink" they will assume more.
If you had 2 drinks, don't say "1 drink", they will assume more.

Why is this so complicated?

Just say "nothing to drink".

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

35. Would you stop defending an incompetent cop?

[Iggo]

37. That's not defending the cop.

That’s telling people how to NOT volunteer information to the cops.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

43. Saying "one drink" gives them probable cause to arrest. At that point, your arrest is assured.

Saying “one drink” lets the cop off on an otherwise illegal arrest. It covers his ass.

Absent the “one drink” admission the cop has to explain why he arrested a perfectly sober person. With the one drink admission he can fall back on your own confession.

Never admit to drinking. Never take field sobriety tests. Field sobriety tests are you helping them to obtain probable cause to arrest you and force a breathalyzer.

If you are on the side of the road walking a line you are going to jail. If you refuse you are still going to jail but your attorney has something to work with.


Dummy up.

[fescuerescue]

54. I'm not even talking about the cop

I'm talking about all cops.

Good lord. Read the message.

[LanternWaste]

38. More importantly, you should ask yourself, "why are my responses so irrelevant to the OP?"

"Why is this so complicated?"

More importantly, you should ask yourself, "why are my responses so irrelevant to the OP?" Or at least support your premise with objective data rather than finger-waving.

[stopdiggin]

41. actually, that's fairly sound advice

"Have you been drinking this evening?" "NO."

"Just one drink" or "just a couple" serves no purpose whatsoever -- except to confirm to LE that you HAVE been drinking. And of course the percentage of drinkers reporting "just one" after a stop .. is somehow astonishingly high!

Here's another safety tip -- don't have "just one" -- and then drive down the highway with your headlights off.

[fescuerescue]

55. I tried to make it simpler.

But it just seems to confuse him more.

Why is Red the color red?

[multigraincracker]

21. Number one rule. Do not talk to the cops.

You can do it nicely, but don't say anything when they start their fishing for info. They do not need to know where you are coming from or where you are going. Then It's, My lawyer told not to say anything without him being there. You are paid by the hour and I'd be glad to wait for a search warrant or for the dog to search the outside of my car.

[fescuerescue]

33. Totally agree.

"what you say can and will be held against you" is one of the most true things ever said.

[AZLD4Candidate]

20. Better yet, invoke your right to remain silent and say nothing except "am I under arrest"

then say "lawyer."

As a lawyer friend said to me YEARS ago:

Rule #1: Shut up.
Rule #2: If they ask you a question, shut up.
Rule #3: If they arrest you, say lawyer, then shut up.
Rule #4: Shut up until you are with a lawyer
Rule #5: Did I say shut up yet?

[BGBD]

60. Make sure you invoke your right to remain silent

It isn't just assumed. You have to tell them that you are exercising it.

So if they start asking you questions you can't just sit there in silence the whole time. You have to say "I'm choosing to remain silent." or something along those lines.

[HariSeldon]

25. "Officer, I've been advised not to answer questions until my attorney is present."

If you lie to the police, there are plenty of heavy books they can throw at you. Even if you answer truthfully, they can misremember what you said. Even if they remember what you said correctly, if it would help you in court, the statement will not be allowed. If they remember correctly and some other witness provides opposing testimony, now you look like a liar to the jury.

I'm not a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice, but if you feel you must make a statement -- contrary to some really excellent advice from a real lawyer (

) -- make it true: "I haven't had any alcoholic drink in the last ___ hours."

[barbtries]

29. better just not to drink and drive.

says the mother whose daughter was run over and killed by a drunk.

this woman told the truth. if she said none he still was going to brutalize and jail her.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. Pigs. Unnecessary escalation for contempt of cop by a black person.

You can hear his voice cracking he is so upset.

[Demovictory9]

15. After Brooks was released on a signature bond, she said she asked Hindenlang where her car was, and

After Brooks was released on a signature bond, she said she asked Hindenlang where her car was, and he gave her a Post-it note with the name of the tow lot in Lorton, but nothing else. Brooks said Hindenlang told her that her mother was waiting in the lobby and could help her. Brooks’s mother is deceased.

“Oh,” Hindenlang said, then shut the door on her and walked out, Brooks said.

A bondsman tried to help her contact friends, and eventually the magistrate in the jail sympathized with Brooks and drove her to the Vienna Metro station and gave her $20, Brooks said. The station wasn’t yet open, so she stood outside in the frigid darkness for an hour. It took a train ride, two bus trips and a cab ride for Brooks to reach the tow lot, where she said she was charged $240 to extricate her car. She arrived home around noon, almost 10 hours after Hindenlang stopped her.

[DFW]

17. I wish the DoD would get involved.

Have a corps of uniformed soldiers show up at the cop's station, take his weapon, cuff him, put him in an interrogation room. Then interview him as to why he was harassing a Defense Department employee with a high security clearance, and interrogate the hell out of him, informing him that treating a high security Defense employee in the manner he did meant he was automatically suspect of working for a hostile power. He would make things easier for himself if he were to immediately identify if he was working for Russia, China, or Islamic terrorists.

When starts screaming that this is harassment and wants a lawyer, he should be told his lawyer is "right outside, but can't have access just yet, as he had made himself suspect of being an active agent of enemies of the United States. This is now a national security issue."

When the cop protests that he didn't know that his victim was a high security DoD worker, the interrogator should then answer, "BULLSHIT!! You don't mean to tell me you treat every Black person you pull over that way, do you? You would have been fired years ago if you did. Now tell me the REAL reason you were harassing our co-worker, or we will continue the rest of this interview in the Pentagon until you tell us who you are REALLY working for."

THAT might inspire an attitude change. Ain't never gonna happen, I know, but if DoD set up a few stings like this, it would be such a beautiful thing.

Maybe THEN he will realize what it means to be on the other end of the treatment he dishes out.

[multigraincracker]

22. You mean like this.

[DFW]

24. Yes, but to the tenth power

Have uniformed soldiers, carrying Government-issued assault rifles out and pointed at the offending cop, demanding that he present concrete proof that he is not acting as an agent of a foreign power looking to illegally obtain information from a Defense Department worker with a top security clearance. I would love to hear his reaction to the statement that something is amiss because there's no way he could treat ordinary people like this all the time and still have a job (i.e. therefore he must have known he was targeting a top security DoD worker, and he had better come clean as to why if he wants to see the light of day again).

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

26. The guy who did the video has some balls

I'll give him that.

[Pepsidog]

23. The story is much worse than the headline. As a criminal defense attorney I have handled

thousands of bullshit pre-textual stops like this. Worse yet, the woman was charged with resisting arrest and other offenses. Before the days of dash cams it’s was the cops word against the driver’s word and there is no chance in a bench trial of beating the charges. The article is dead on. Cops follow people for 4-6 miles until they find any type of BS reason to stop a car. Before dash cams it was always swerving out of the lane or speeding. Some cams in cops cars aren’t on all the time and cops claim the offense occurred before they activated the cam. Every state should make it mandatory for traffic enforcement cars be equipped with cams that run continuously and are automatically uploaded to a server and preserved.

[live love laugh]

44. +1: if the camera is not working the stop shouldn't be legit.

[Pepsidog]

48. Exactly.

[uponit7771]

49. Boom, hell the average driver can by 24 hour looped video cam for under 100 dollars now ...

... with 1080p there's no way these PDs shouldn't have this tech and streaming so the other bullshit about equipment etc isn't there.

It helps the LEO and it helps the communities.

[llashram]

27. rarely is

a caucasian driver mistreated and inconvenienced like this. But does happens more than often to African Americans specifically. POC generally, given a real suspicion like DUI-- weaving ect ect. There is no argument from me.

[Shrike47]

30. I live in an area with relatively few Black people. Police in nearby town harass poor white people.

They also harass Black people when they find one. My point is, some cops are bullies and go for anybody they can.

[llashram]

31. no argument

bullies in all walks of life will always be here. I try to look at motives for the bullying, harassing, lynching, burning, assaulting innocents under the shield of badge and gun. When disparate races are involved. Poor whites have always faced harassment as you say. Yet rarely are they, being unarmed, executed in the streets like an animal...

African-Americans are ALWAYS a target in America. Always have been.

[BobTheSubgenius]

28. How is white privilege working for you now?

[lindysalsagal]

34. Arrested for not getting out of a car?

The ticket for the lights should have sufficed. Period.

[ProfessorGAC]

36. And, They Could Have Mailed The Ticket

No stop was necessary.

[stopdiggin]

42. you allow a motorist without headlights

to continue (for how long, and at what risk?) toward an unknown destination? Red light camera, or a speed camera, yes. But this is a question of real safety concerns. Not a 'ticket in the mail' situation.

No defense of the officer involved here -- but the line going around that there was no 'reason' for a stop is bunk.

[live love laugh]

45. A dark tail light is an arrestable offense? Since when? nt

[stopdiggin]

47. no, sir (or mam)

that is not what I said. But driving without your headlights (which the motorist admitted to) is most certainly a 'stoppable' infraction. Most likely involving a citation.

I have offered no defense of the LE involved here -- beyond the fact that this was a perfectly legal (and rational) stop. Initially, and clearly in the interest of safety. Everything that happened subsequent is, as all have observed, pretty much indefensible -- and that is totally on the officer. Driving without headlights, however -- is not.

[obamanut2012]

52. She was stopped for a TAILLIGHT

He lied and made it driving without headlights when he stacked false charges against her after she blew 0.0.You are mistaken.

[stopdiggin]

56. no sir, I am not

the motorist admitted "forgot to turn on my headlights" in the story. And that's serious enough to at least justify a stop.

What happened after .... Clearly six different kinds of wrong.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

64. It's a huge flag for drunk driving.

Not defending the pig’s actions but cops see no lights at night and they think drunk driver.


Though it is much more common because all cars have backlit instruments and or daytime running lights.

It’s much easier to make that mistake. Though a sober person MIGHT notice dim headlights more often.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. I Thought It Was A Taillight

Not plural. And, given the DA saying stop shouldn't have happened makes me question whether a taillight was out.
Headlights? We agree. That poses a direct danger to other motorists.
Taillights? Much less. One taillight, nearly none.

[obamanut2012]

53. It was a taillight

He lied and made it driving without headlights when he stacked false charges against her after she blew 0.0. The poster is wrong, you are correct.

Also, I bought a nice used 7W for giggles, and it is my new go-to off the deck when I'm too far out for a 7i or 9i.

[stopdiggin]

57. the motorist admitted "forgot to turn on ..." in the linked story

don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong -- but you could check before correcting

- snip - Brooks said she had forgotten to turn her headlights on that night and hadn’t noticed on the brightly lit Beltway. The Virginia General Assembly banned pulling people over for dark taillights, effective March 1, because it led to the type of pretextual traffic stops that can cause unnecessary conflict and consequences for otherwise law-abiding citizens.

[obamanut2012]

51. There should be NO ticket for the lights

A warning, then if it happens again because the taillights weren't fixed, a ticket. People should not be harassed and arrested OR fined if they have a light out.

[stopdiggin]

58. yes. often amounts to a 'fix it' ticket. no fine

but you have a certain amount of time to prove "corrected."

[uponit7771]

39. WORST ...... FUCKING ........ NIGHTMARE !!!

[live love laugh]

46. +1 These bullies' goal is being someone's worst nightmare. nt