Pascoe seeks inquiry of city traffic stop
By RICHARD WALKER, T&D Staff Writer Wednesday, January 28, 2009An investigation into an Orangeburg Department of Public Safety officer's actions during a traffic stop has been turned over to the U.S. Attorney's office.
On Tuesday, First Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe halted his investigation into whether excessive force was used against an Orangeburg man stopped by police for possible drunk driving in 2008.
"It is my opinion that after reviewing a video of the arrest and the incident reports (all of which I have enclosed with this letter) that there may be enough evidence to present evidence to the County Grand Jury to determine if excessive force was used," Pascoe said in a Jan. 27 letter to First Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin McDonald.
"At the very least, it is my opinion that a thorough investigation is warranted," he said.
Pascoe declined to comment on his investigation, directing questions to McDonald's office. Messages left with McDonald's office late Tuesday afternoon were not returned.
The investigation centers around an Oct. 18 traffic stop by city police.
On that date, police followed a driver suspected of drunk driving for about a mile, ending what appears to be a slow speed pursuit that began on Magnolia Street and ended on Stilton Road, according to an ODPS incident report.
The 53-year-old Orangeburg man's attorney says that, as a result of the stop, the man was admitted to the Regional Medical Center with a fractured rib.
Orangeburg attorney Clyde C. Dean said the man approached his office a few days after the incident to look into any possible civil rights violations committed by the officer.
"He was stopped by the Orangeburg Department of Public Safety for DUI," Dean said "I looked at the video and ... the conduct of that officer is very vicious."
The video to which Dean refers is an in-car camera in one of four ODPS units that followed the Orangeburg man's car for about a mile before the vehicle turned onto Stilton Road beyond the city limits.
With the stop being made beyond the city limits, a S.C. Highway Patrol trooper arrived to assist.
Meantime, the video shows the vehicle turning onto Stilton and appearing to stop and go several times before finally stopping about a block from Magnolia Street.
The officers then converge on the vehicle. As the driver steps out, the video captures him saying, "I'm sorry." He is then taken to the ground, sustaining what appear to be abrasions to his face.
Another officer is seen treating the man for his injuries.
Citing agency personnel issues, ODPS Chief Wendell Davis said he couldn't discuss the investigation in much detail.
Davis did confirm the investigation involved "the amount of force used" and said he welcomed other agencies looking into the matter.
As to the status of the public safety officer, Davis said that officer has been suspended from police duties.
"He's not eligible to perform law enforcement duties," Davis said.
The name of the officer has not been released. Dean said his office hadn't obtained that information, but he does plan to file a civil suit in the immediate future.
"We are in that process," he said.
T&D Staff Writer Richard Walker can be reached by e-mail at rwalker@timesanddemocrat.com or by telephone at 803-533-5516.
To subscribe to the print edition of The Times and Democrat, click here.
mikeutsey wrote on Feb 4, 2009 9:27 PM:
I would like to attempt to have an intellectual conversation with you, but I'm afraid from your responses that it would just result in a one sided conversation of me talking with myself.
First and foremost, you must have the common sense to know the difference in intiating a "STOP" and making a lawful "ARREST" these two are easily distinguishable for most people, notice I said MOST. Once you separate the two, and know the rules and laws pertaining to each separate incident you would understand better.
I challenge you to reasearch the SC Code of laws on both offenses, but then again people such as yourself start typing and respond with emotions instead of whats right under the law.
People such as yourself thinks that due process and the 4th amendment should not apply unless it lands on your front porch.
Just for yours and others information, I have had an aunt die as the result of a drunk driver, but the law is still the law.
As stated before, If this man is found guilty of DUI or any crime committed, I wish him to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. With that being said, if this officer is found to be guilty of abuse of power, police brutality, or misconduct by use of excessive force...I wish the same punishment upon him.
I don't make a distinguishment between Law Enforcement Officers or Average citizens when it comes to the Law.
I don't in anyway condone Drunk Driving, Excessive Force by LEO, nor do I condone arrogance and stupidity and that sir or madam includes you.
A Mind is a Terrible Thing Waste!
Nuff Said! Have a Nice Day! "
sickofcrying wrote on Feb 4, 2009 2:01 PM:
What are you talking about? "
beerslinger wrote on Feb 4, 2009 1:01 PM:
norwegian wrote on Feb 4, 2009 8:23 AM:
cm83 wrote on Feb 4, 2009 7:00 AM:
Reddawg wrote on Feb 3, 2009 6:49 PM:
ANNUAL wrote on Feb 3, 2009 2:56 PM:
you mean after he lead them on a 5 minute chase. it does not matter how fast he was going a chase is a chase and faliure TO STOP FOR BLUE LIGHT, he was trying to ESCAPE. The officer does have a right to use whatever force is required to get this drunk on the ground, he did not stop for a blue light, he did not get out of car after 3 commands, what are the police to do, should they have said "will you pretty pretty please get out the car, I mean we dont want to inconvenience your drunken joy ride"
-type of arrest: faliure to stop for police, and DWI
-degree of resistance: isnt running from police the same as resistance. If he did not resistance he would have stopped before he ran. Should the police have given him another chance to run.
-weapons: none were used by police in the arrest - weapons used by the drunk a 3000lb car.
-size of the person being arrested: what in the wide world of sport does that have to do with anything. You mean since he was medium build that he does not present a danger WRONG there mikeeboy. Size has nothing to do with how dangerous a person can be.
-size of the officer making the arrest: again what in the world are you talking about.
- The number of persons involved in the incident: ok there was one drunk, several officers, didnt you see that fact there was a chase. More than one officer will help out.
-The feasibility of alternative actions by the arresting officer: hello the police did try other actions, ya know when you see BLUE LIGHTS FLASHING BEHIND YOU IT MEANS TO STOP NOT RUN. If he would have stopped when commanded to none of this would have happened. His actions were sealed when he attempted to escape. Get him on the ground before he can try to escape again. Let him escape then maybe he could have killed someone. Did they kick him, punch him, tazer him, spray him, once he was secured on the ground, nope none of the above.
The next time you see a drunk driver arrested maybe you should thank the police rather than blaming them for removing a loaded weapon off the road. But folks like you are more worried about that the way he was arrested. Hello he was running from police. Think Mike I know your smarter than this, well then again I guess your not.
Have a nice day. "
FU1982 wrote on Feb 3, 2009 10:19 AM:
What use of force is necessary ?
Is that level of use of force needed in that particular situation?
We, as a community, cannot give carte blanche to
law enforcement-
The argument that. "The criminals are so bad, we need to have police who use this level of force
in DUI car stops", misses the point entirely.
"we need excessive force in all car stops" allows for abuse which is unacceptable- "
sickofcrying wrote on Feb 3, 2009 8:36 AM:
mikeutsey wrote on Feb 2, 2009 9:01 PM:
I absolutely agree with all of the comments against drunk driving...but you have to separate the two. I wish that anyone who gets caught for DUI, DWI get punished to the fullest extent of the law.
With that being said....it has absolutely nothing to do with what follows AFTER they have initiated the stop. Their are LAWS on the books for this crime and its not called STREET Justice by law enforcement. Their is also a PENAL code on the books for DUI and DWI, those are to adjudicated in a court of law and not on side of the road.
Generally, an officer may use a reasonable amount of force necessary to make an arrest. Broadly stated, a reasonable amount of force is considered to be the minimum needed for self-defense and only to effect a lawful arrest. The decision to use or escalate force is contingent upon several important factors. Some of these include the following:
The type of arrest being made: DWI
The degree of resistance being offered: NONE
What weapons are involved, if any: NONE, only by LEO.
The size of the person being arrested: Medium Build
The size of the officer making the arrest: Medium Build
The number of persons involved in the incident: ONE, he was alone in vehicle.
The availability of back-up officers: PLENTY AVAILABLE OFFICERS, I think I saw like 4 others
The feasibility of alternative actions by the arresting officer: ALOT...could have followed proper procedure and gave commands prior to apporaching the individual.
Those are a few simple statements to consider when writing your comments as to wether this Excessive force. Was it a Lawful Arrest? absolutely, but it also was Excessive Force used to make this LAWFUL arrest. Just because a person broke the law does not mean they should lose their civil rights simply because they broke the law.
Think People, I know you are smarter than this!
It was excessive....Nuff Said!
Have A Nice Day! "
minimouse wrote on Feb 2, 2009 8:13 PM:
Save the whoop as$ for someone that deserves it. "
cherokee wrote on Feb 2, 2009 6:40 PM:
Yes i have no compassion with any driver who operates a vehicle impaired. If you have ever had an impaired driver kill a relative or friend, it is hard to find any compassion. If you are an emergency worker or policeman you would feel the same if you witnessed multiple deaths from an impaired driver that knew he was impaired before starting his/her engine. I was once a cop, fireman, and EMT all at the same time. Yes there are agencies that take care of multiple duties.
Impaired drivers DO NOT have the right to drive while they are impaired. Driving impaired is ILLEGAL in every state. I suspect that people who disagree with this last paragraph are people that commit the offense themselves. If you do drive impaired, it is only a matter of time until you get caught, kill yourself, or someone else.
Agree or disagree people?
And Thank you. I do have a life because I watch out for these miscreants. And yes - I have not had a moving violation in over fifty years of driving - not even a parking ticket. And yes - I have completed an emergency driving class and multiple refresher classes in emergency driving. but all of this could cease if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time. my killer could be you! Think about it.
Stop impaired drivers before they kill or injure you. "
ambulance1 wrote on Feb 2, 2009 5:07 PM:
I have absolutely no idea as to what in the world you are talking about with your last comment, but if you are referring to the officer asking do you have AIDS, I will help you. He first asked the question, "Do you have any blood bourne disease's?" When he got no response (just like the no response he got after three times of being told to get on the ground, get out of the car, stop for blue lights and siren, ect.) he asked the man "Do you have AIDS". This was asked because he had exposure to bodily fluids or blood. It was also put into simpilar terms so the obvious drunk could better understand. Would you have liked it better if he had sat down on the ground with the man, had tea and crumpets, forgave him for being an idiot, and then asked him politely if he might have any diseases such as HEP A, B,or C, HIV, AIDS, TB or anything else that he could think of. He could have begged him for the answer so he would know if he might get whatever or even worse yet to take it home to his family unknowingly. Drunk drivers have no place in my world, but obviously all of you that thinks this cop did wrong disagree with me. One night when you get the call that one of your loved ones was killed by a drunk driver, don't bother to ask the cop what happened because he might be in jail from some idiot thinking he violated a civil right! "
trytohard wrote on Feb 2, 2009 2:10 PM:
orangeburger wrote on Feb 2, 2009 1:40 PM:
I like the lawyer who claims the "CIVIL RIGHTS" of the drunk driver were violated. What about the "CIVIL RIGHTS" of people who bear the brunt of the lax laws against drunk drivers? The victims do not get publicly funded attorneys to defend their civil rights! We need to put our tax dollars to work in better places. I doubt the lawyer would accept this case if he had to use his own resources to defend the drunk's civil rights. "
Reddawg wrote on Feb 1, 2009 11:26 AM:
AIDs. This site demostrates the level of compontence. This man did'nt appears to have AIDS and he could have said NO! "
cherokee wrote on Feb 1, 2009 10:15 AM:
Drunk drivers kill about 13,000 Americans each year and injure hundreds of thousands more. Now, California and Wisconsin are considering new laws that would require people convicted of drunk driving to use a technology called an ignition interlock. Drivers blow into a device that measures blood-alcohol content. If the level is too high, the car will not start. Fourteen states already routinely use the technology, which experts say can reduce subsequent drunk-driving offenses by up to 64%.
Should ignition interlocks be mandatory for drunk drivers nationwide?
Yes
Critics say that manufacturers of the devices—for which convicted drunk drivers must pay up to $110 a month—have aggressively lobbied to make the units mandatory to increase profits. But law-enforcement officials say ignition interlocks work. “When the device is on, you see a decrease in repeat offenders. “Once it’s off, the numbers go right back up.
Will South Carolina get onto the bandwagon? Probably not. Why? There are too many lawyers against the device because their earnings would be affected. Also our legislature won't enact this law because some of the members are lawyers who get their money from defending these miscreants. Also do you have any idea of to the number of DUI/DWIs commented by people of influence? The number may surprise you (includes those never charged)1 "
ambulance1 wrote on Jan 30, 2009 10:18 PM:
SCBC4 wrote on Jan 30, 2009 8:26 PM:
clockworkorange wrote on Jan 30, 2009 3:49 PM:
Maybe because the cop doesn't WANT to get AIDS?
Apparently the suspect was bleeding and I'm assuming the officer got an abrasion from hitting the asphalt. Should the suspect have been infected with some sort of virus, it could've been transmitted to the officer. Also, if you pay attention, you can hear the officer ask him if he has any "blood-born" diseases. "
sickofcrying wrote on Jan 30, 2009 2:05 PM:
" Those of you who are not supporting this officer are sadly mistaken. Law Enforcement is inherently dangerous and not to approach this traffic stop as being potentially dangerous could have cost this officer his life had the situation been different. Remember, this officer didn't know why this guy wasn't stopping.”
I don’t support idiot cops that place other cops in the line of fire for future problems.Every traffic stop is high risk even if the guy had stopped immediately there is always a danger. The point is that when you feel there is evidence that this may be a felony stop you don’t get out of your vehicle and approach it that way. There are procedures that you should follow to ensure as an officer you are not harmed. On felony stops you should order the person out of the vehicle and have them come towards you. Most drunk drivers are more passive rather than combative because they are always trying to convince you that they are not drunk.
ambulance1 wrote
This was the back-up officer and the officer that made initial contact. From the time his video starts to play until the time when the so called aggresive officer "slams" him is one minute and fourty seven seconds. In this time, he had more than enough time to pull over. He is repeatedly told to get out of the vehicle and told three times to get on the ground, in which he made no attempt to do so. As for young, hot headed officers, he is a military vet with over 10 years of LE experience. Don't judge people because you think you're better than them. Give this guy a fair optimistic chance. ”
I don’t know what video you are watching but you never run up to a car with your gun in one hand and trying to grab a subject with the other hand. What if the guy did become combative then what. Oops, somebody may have gotten shot. For some one with so much experience I can bet he will be on the next Criminal Justice Academy training film as how NOT to conduct a traffic stop. And yes the officer was aggressive because he immediately got out of his car and body slammed a drunken man, WHOOP DE DO, what a brave cop. As for asking about AIDS if, THE IDIOT, didn’t slam him he would not have to ask that question. In fact did you drive the ambulance to the seen to check his ribs. if his adrenaline is pumping and he is intoxicated I’m pretty sure he would not realize it right away that he may be injured.
With all that being said why do you think the Solicitor turned it over to the AG if he felt that it was a good stop. "
orangeburger wrote on Jan 30, 2009 11:38 AM:
Cops actions should be judged with the entire scenario in which the incident happened.
Why not educate the public that if you do not stop a car to a flashign light and obey the orders of the policemen, you can be shot by cop depending on the circumstnces and you would have no legal redress? "
huh wrote on Jan 29, 2009 9:56 PM:
he doesn't have brittle bone disease. And even if he did, it wouldn't matter. You take your plaintiff as they come. So if you negligently and/or willfully harm someone you are responsible for the damage caused regardless of whether they had a predisposition for being hurt or not.
Secondly, being a cop is a difficult and scary job. It is also one that requires immense judgment and respect for the boundaries of the law. If you do not have that, it isn't the job for you. The person in this video was getting out their vehicle peacefully. There is no indication he was reaching for any weapon. The first officer had the matter in hand. The second guy was out of line.
And Mikeutsey, while I agree with much of what you said, I don't think we can eliminate race as an equation. Particularly since we know all kinds of statistics on black men being profiled more regardless of social-economic status.
Finally, I wish we would stop saying he didn't stop for the sirens. It isn't like he was leading the police on some high speed chase throughout Orangeburg. The cop turned out the Siren, and he pulled over. This guy overstepped his bounds, and he would well served to own up to that and learn from it rather than make excuses for. Moneymorning quarterbacking is how we learned what NOT to do next Sunday. "
ambulance1 wrote on Jan 29, 2009 8:27 PM:
ClockworkORANGE wrote on Jan 29, 2009 1:13 PM:
TextTwisting wrote on Jan 29, 2009 12:52 PM:
This Monday morning quarterbacking is what causes officers to make unwise choices about their personal safety. They are always wondering who is going to be watching the video and will their jobs be in jeopardy the next day. We need to stop this nonsense. Anybody watching this video can see that it clearly shows that once the handcuffs were on, no futher action was taken.
My next question is when was the man's rib broken? For all we know, he has brittle bone disease. Maybe he fell off a bar stool while he was out drinking. Maybe he broke his rib a day or two before this incident happened. Who knows? "
norwegian wrote on Jan 29, 2009 10:07 AM:
sickofcrying wrote on Jan 29, 2009 10:00 AM:
russert wrote on Jan 29, 2009 7:29 AM:
danson wrote on Jan 29, 2009 6:47 AM:
Reddawg wrote on Jan 29, 2009 6:13 AM:
huh wrote on Jan 29, 2009 1:15 AM:
mikeutsey wrote on Jan 28, 2009 10:58 PM:
Nuff Said,
Have a Nice Day! "
ambulance1 wrote on Jan 28, 2009 10:37 PM:
AQC82 wrote on Jan 28, 2009 10:01 PM:
orangeburger wrote on Jan 28, 2009 9:06 PM:
lowcountry wrote on Jan 28, 2009 8:33 PM:
orangeburger wrote on Jan 28, 2009 8:08 PM:
orangeburger wrote on Jan 28, 2009 8:03 PM:
cherokee wrote on Jan 28, 2009 7:51 PM:
DUI/DWI driving is "Russian R**lette". The only difference is that a gun isn't the weapon. The vehicle is the weapon and it is pointed at the innocent!
When are Judges going to start imposing tougher sentences on these idiots? Actually the question is why haven't tougher laws been enacted by all States to counteract DUI/DWI drivers. I say put them in jail for a few years (at least they could dry out) and confiscate the vehicles so that they cannot repeat the offense for awhile. It's legal to confiscate cars when drugs or s*x is involved in most States. Why not DUI/DWI offenses?
Maybe too many of our law makers are lawyers who "sometimes" make their living defending these miscreants to enact tougher laws. Think about it! Remember these are the same ones that refuse to raise taxes on beer, wine, and spirits. "
Reddawg wrote on Jan 28, 2009 7:25 PM:
blueeyes0511 wrote on Jan 28, 2009 2:05 PM:
clpdcczorn wrote on Jan 28, 2009 1:45 PM:
catgrl84 wrote on Jan 28, 2009 1:25 PM:
marik wrote on Jan 28, 2009 10:55 AM:
confisus_sum wrote on Jan 28, 2009 9:25 AM:
ANNUAL wrote on Jan 28, 2009 9:16 AM:
rlthomas55 wrote on Jan 28, 2009 9:14 AM: