You can't make this shit up folks. Our "justice system" at work, as applied by cops. She provided the required information during a traffic stop and then chose to remain silent. She was arrested for remaining silent. THEN she was told (as per Miranda) "You have the right to remain silent" [i.e. "Now that I, as supreme cop and dictator of when you do and don't have rights, now grant you the right you didn't have 5 seconds ago and that I used as grounds for arresting you."].

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_settles_suit_over_her_detention_for_refusing_to_speak_during_traffic#When:12:00:00Z

Lawyer settles suit over her detention for refusing to speak during traffic stop

A Philadelphia lawyer will receive a $30,000 settlement in a suit claiming her constitutional rights were violated when she was handcuffed and detained in a holding cell for refusing to answer police officers’ questions during a traffic stop.

Philadelphia lawyer Rebecca Musarra settled the federal case last month, report NJ Advance Media and the Associated Press. The July 6 deal, which has not received judicial approval, was reported by NJ Civil Settlements on Wednesday.

New Jersey did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement, which stems from actions taken by New Jersey state troopers in October 2015, when they pulled Musarra over for alleged speeding. NJ Advance Media reviewed dashboard video of the arrest.

Musarra had provided her driver’s license, registration and insurance information to the troopers, but did not answer when asked questions such as, “Do you know why you’re being pulled over tonight?”

When one of the troopers advised Musarra she would be arrested if she continued to keep quiet, Musarra said she was a lawyer and didn’t have to answer questions. Troopers arrested Musarra anyway, and read Miranda rights to her, advising that she had the right to remain silent.

A police supervisor later ordered Musarra’s release.

Musarra told NJ Advance Media she hoped the case would become a civil liberties lesson.

“Hopefully this gives average citizens a little more courage to assert their rights,” she said.

That is what I call "scary funny"

 

Dig your recap of the story PP.

Usually I side with cops, but she did provide her license, reg and insurance so he could have just issued her a ticket for what ever he pulled her over for.

It would be a different story if she provided no info or did one of those windows up and note saying "i choose to remain silent" BS.

A lot of people become police officers so they can intimidate whoever they want. For someone else missing a day of work could get them fired and kicked out on the street. Lucky she was a lawyer and when someone with half a brain figured out what was going on they immediately understood that the longer they held her the more expensive the civil suit payout would be.

Other people aren't so lucky.

A lot of people become police officers so they can intimidate whoever they want. For someone else missing a day of work could get them fired and kicked out on the street. Lucky she was a lawyer and when someone with half a brain figured out what was going on they immediately understood that the longer they held her the more expensive the civil suit payout would be.

Other people aren't so lucky.

Yeah, virtually everyone else. Then the cops are also protected by "qualified immunity" as well as from being a target of a criminal complaint by a civilian... and the laws weren't always that way... it's an invention of the 20th century that cops can literally get away with murder and walk just because they are government employees while they commit their crimes against ordinary people (and their dogs). Sorry, but 

I'll quote a posting by Charles Nichols (California Right To Carry) from just a couple of days ago:

A 9th circuit court of appeals decision issued today [August 23, 2017] had this to say:

"Qualified immunity protects government officers in the performance of their public, governmental functions. It does so not to benefit the agents of government, but “to safeguard government itself..."

Qualified immunity certainly does protect the government from The People which is contrary to the basic principle upon which our nation was founded (obviously, qualified immunity also benefits the agents of government when granted).

It is an historic tragedy that the courts have either forgotten the line by the ancient Roman writer Juvenal "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" which has been co-opted to mean various things. In this context it translates to "Who will protect us from the police/government?"

Until the 20th century those engaged in law enforcement in the United States had no qualified immunity. They could be sued for monetary damages AND they could be criminally prosecuted by private citizens.

Ironically, the worst of these decisions granting qualified immunity to police and absolute immunity to judges and prosecutors have occurred in my lifetime.

We The People have the power to change that but "The People" allow themselves to be distracted by nonsense we read everyday in the news, the latest being Confederate monuments.

Here is an exemplary evil decision of the US Supreme Court regarding absolute judicial immunity from 1978 -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman

 So she didn't have the right to remain silent until the officer arrested her?

hmm, it doesn't mention what charge she was actually arrested for. There are certain things that could get you arrested if you didn't provide but it doesn't sound like that is the case. More information needed.

hmm, it doesn't mention what charge she was actually arrested for. There are certain things that could get you arrested if you didn't provide but it doesn't sound like that is the case. More information needed.

Yeah, well the telling fact is that the people who did have the "more information", the lawyers for the cops, decided it was best for their clients (the cops) to give the arrested citizen $30,000 rather than take the case to court where all that "more information" would be made public. Case closed.

Yeah, well the telling fact is that the people who did have the "more information", the lawyers for the cops, decided it was best for their clients (the cops) to give the arrested citizen $30,000 rather than take the case to court where all that "more information" would be made public. Case closed.

Yes and no. It can be misleading to interpret a small settlement  as trying to keep wrongdoing under wraps. Small settlements are often agreed upon outside of court because the cost of going to court and winning could be similar and losing would be much much more expensive.

Yes and no. It can be misleading to interpret a small settlement  as trying to keep wrongdoing under wraps. Small settlements are often agreed upon outside of court because the cost of going to court and winning could be similar and losing would be much much more expensive.

Yes and no. It can be misleading to interpret a small settlement  as NOT trying to keep wrongdoing under wraps.

If the cost of "winning could be similar", why wouldn't they go to court and prove the innocence of their client? Why would they allow the perception that they might be "keep[ing] wrongdoing under wraps" if they could spend the same amount of money and acquit of police officer of wrongdoing, and thus prove that there was no wrongdoing to be kept under wraps? You really think the cops are thinking "Well, it's going to cost us X dollars either way, and we have "all the information" and know our guy is innocent, but let's just give her the X dollars (30 grand) in a settlement and let it appear to the public as if we're covering up the details of just how ignorant and criminal our cops are"? That seems "logical" to you?

If they knew they could win, because they had "all the information" relevant to the case, and their officer/client was innocent of wrongdoing, and thus they could prove it in a court of law, then it wouldn't be any expense at all, much less "much much more expensive", and thus they would have no reason at all to settle. They could win and be awarded legal costs and it would basically cost them nothing to prove their client innocent (having "all the information" to prove such), and thus show that their client and the force in general were not the ignorant liars that they appear to otherwise be. If they could have won, they would have gone to court,  because they'd have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

They didn't go to court because they had "all the information" and knew they had everything to lose and nothing to gain because their client is an ignorant (bully) cop.

There are a lot of attorneys out there who know their case has no merit, but rely on the bad PR and a settlement instead.

So cop cleared of wrong doing, but the way times are, the news channels are looking for cops to burn regardless of the facts.  So the cost of defense and bad PR, is why they choose to settle.  And usually there is a hush hush clause in the settlement agreement.

We're talking about TWO DIFFERENT cases here.

#1 - the case where the police arrested and charged the driver for criminal conduct.  That case was never brought, because as soon as the supervisor saw the arrest report, he ordered the release of the driver.  No charges were ever filed.  That should be enough for the REASONABLE person to deduce there were no laws broken by the driver.  My guess is the Cop arrested her for obstruction of his investigation, which has been charged by other officers in other states and thrown out.  You can't charge obstruction if the suspect refuses to talk.  Only if they lie can you charge obstruction.  If the person being questioned is not a suspect and can't be charged with a crime, then they have no claim to the 5th amendment and must answer questions.  Failure to answer can be viewed as obstruction.  At the time she was stopped, the driver was suspected of breaking a traffic law.  If not, then there was no reason to pull her over.

#2 - the case for the civil suit.  This was IN RESPONSE TO the first case, where she was arrested and detained for exercising her Constitutional rights.  She should have asked for more compensation, to include punitive damages.  It's obvious to any REASONABLE person that the Cop was wrong to arrest the driver.

The outcomes of both cases are proof positive the Cop was wrong and violated the Constitution.  Any REASONABLE person would agree with that.  To argue "I can't tell" is either being obtuse or completely ignorant of the justice system.

My MIL participated in a mock trial for a frivolous PI case. The plaintiff hired a firm to determine if a reasonable jury would find in his favor. They didn't based on the provided evidence, so I'm guessing the PI lawsuit did not occur. For most lawyers, PI cases are the big ticket which is why they tend to chase after ambulances. Lawyers are usually trying to find a legal angle.

There are many police departments who haven't got the message that citizens have rights including the right to not self incriminate. Of course, the lawyer coulda just batted her eyes and said "why no Officer, little ol me has no idea" but that might be too demeaning. She had a vendetta to teach the PD a lesson.

OTOH, I see that Sessions has lifted the ban on PD receiving surplus military equipment. They need all the help they can get as long as they are proficiently trained on how to use the equipment when SHTF.

Looks like she was arrested for obstruction and a motion to dismiss was filed by the NJ AG in the Civil case and then the case settled out of court.

http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-except-in-new-jersey/9484

"officers are taught to ask the driver if they know why they are being stopped. Officers do this so that they can get the driver to admit that they committed the violation. It makes their job easier, and most people will answer the question. They want to cooperate and they do not realize that they are basically confessing to an offense if they admit that they were speeding, or that they ran a stop sign, or whatever.

Musarra did not answer or respond to Trooper Stazzone and he didn’t much like it, so he walked around to the driver’s side of the car. Stazzone then rapped on the window with his flashlight, allegedly chipping the window and told Musarra that if she did not answer his questions, she would be arrested for “obstruction.”

In New Jersey, obstructing administration of law or other governmental function is a crime. The problem is that the statute requires that the offender obstruct the officer “by means of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act.”[ii] Merely refusing to answer a trooper’s question, much less a question designed to incriminate oneself, is not obstruction.

You see, there’s this pesky little thing called the Fifth Amendment.
...
We know that Musarra was aware of this fact; she is an attorney.[iii] So when she refused to answer the trooper’s incriminating questions, she was arrested for “obstruction” and placed in the squad car. Musarra asked if she was being arrested for refusing to speak and Stazzone replied “yeah, obstruction.” She was then patted down and put in the squad car.

The trooper immediately read Musarra her Miranda rights. Including the right to remain silent.

Wait, what?

Okay, so before she’s arrested she has to answer your questions, but now that you’ve arrested her, she doesn’t?

It’s all okay though, because according to the trooper’s attorneys, they “acted in good faith and without fraud or malice.” The attorneys are involved because Musarra has filed a federal lawsuit."

Motion to Dismiss
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/311641513/Musarra-v-State-of-New-Jersey-Motion-to-Dismiss

Motion to Dismiss on Legal Grounds they allege she was barred from Civil Action against the PoPo for acts while in the course of their duties. Something like that.
Not egregious or malicious?
Looks like "Qualified Immunity" as stated by PP in his post above.

Settlement recap
"The case is captioned Musarra, v. State of New Jersey, Federal Case No. 3:16-cv-0485 and Musarra's attorney was Kevin M. Costello of Mount Laurel.  The complaint and and the release are on-line here.

None of the Musarra's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Settlement agreements typically state that payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the defendants.  All that is known for sure is that the State or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Musarra $30,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases resolve before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened."
http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com

I had a client who took out all of the telemetrics in their trucks because it was used against them in court. Usually telemetrics are great because it will tell the employer about how hard the driver is driving their vehicles. The plaintiff attorney was trying to use the data to show the defending truck was not fully functioning even though the plaintiff was at fault. The insurance manager decided to sweep in and settle even though they were probably gonna win.

Aieahound, thanks for the research. I followed a couple of links further down the stream and here is the video from the police dash cam of the "incident". Unfortunately this will not satisfy the "need more information" excuse used by eyeeatingfish to rationalize why the cops ignorance is justified, because, you know, the video is edited and there are several "inaudible" segments. You can certainly hear her say "Are you arresting me because I refused to answer your questions?" and the cops responding "Yes" and "Yeah. Obstruction". Too bad she didn't seek much greater damages and decided to settle before trial for such a small sum as that merely reinforces the cops behavior as they bully people into self-incrimination. Instead, those cops probably got a two sentence reprimand and were sent back out to the streets: "You know that sentence you read after you arrest people about "You have the right to remain silent"? People also have that right BEFORE you arrest them."

Too bad she didn't seek much greater damages and decided to settle before trial for such a small sum as that merely reinforces the cops behavior as they bully people into self-incrimination.

I would think that something like that would be at least $1M settlement.

You gotta love the trappy questions. It's one of the reasons I don't talk to cops any more. Too many times I've tried to be helpful and then suddenly realize they are treating me like a suspect. Interacting with them is usually a waste of time anyway.

  No, I'm not going to turn this into a thread on bully cops ignoring the law and asserting their supposed right, by their actions, to be "above the law" and do whatever the fuck they want to people just because, well, they're cops. (There are at least a couple of these "incidents" a day that make the mainstream media, so they probably deserve their own dedicated website... this one just "got to me" because of the video and how blatant it all is.) This is what happens when you tell (even very politely) some cops they AREN'T above the law and actually have to follow the law...

And, yeah, this is "only" 2 minutes of a 20 minute video, but what else ("need more information") could there be that would change what we do see as obvious bullying and bullshit cop-out-of-control illegality? The unfortunate thing is this nurse held a news conference with her attorney and rather than saying she's going to sue their asses into the ground, says she won't file a lawsuit unless it's necessary to force "education" upon the cops so that they know both 1. what the law is and 2. follow it. I guess you could educate them as to what the law is, but I don't know how you could educate them to stop being assholes. Meanwhile this particular asshole remains on active duty, pending "internal investigation", of course. Cops investigating their buddies. Wonder how that will turn out.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/This-is-crazy-sobs-Utah-hospital-nurse-as-cop-12166506.php

'This is crazy,' sobs Utah hospital nurse as cop roughs her up, arrests her for doing her job

By all accounts, the head nurse at the University of Utah Hospital's burn unit was professional and restrained when she told a Salt Lake City police detective he wasn't allowed to draw blood from a badly injured patient.

The detective didn't have a warrant, first off. And the patient wasn't conscious, so he couldn't give consent. Without that, the detective was barred from collecting blood samples - not just by hospital policy, but by basic constitutional law.

Still, Detective Jeff Payne insisted that he be let in to take the blood, saying the nurse would be arrested and charged if she refused.

Nurse Alex Wubbels politely stood her ground. She got her supervisor on the phone so Payne could hear the decision loud and clear. "Sir," said the supervisor, "you're making a huge mistake because you're threatening a nurse."

Payne snapped. He seized hold of the nurse, shoved her out of the building and cuffed her hands behind her back. A bewildered Wubbels screamed "help me" and "you're assaulting me" as the detective forced her into an unmarked car and accused her of interfering with an investigation. [Where have we heard that before? Essentially the same as the "obstruction" charge used by the assholes in the above story.]
* * * * *
On top of that, Wubbels was right. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that blood can only be drawn from drivers for probable cause, with a warrant.
* * * * *
In Thursday's news conference, Wubbels's attorney Karra Porter said that Payne believed he was authorized to collect the blood under "implied consent," according to the Tribune. But Porter said "implied consent" law changed in Utah a decade ago. And in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood tests were illegal. Porter called Wubbels's arrest unlawful.

"The law is well-established. And it's not what we were hearing in the video," she said. "I don't know what was driving this situation."