Man In Wheelchair Ticketed For Riding In Street

[DeSwiss]

Man In Wheelchair Ticketed For Riding In Street

POSTED: 9:36 pm CDT June 21, 2007

WEST BEND, Wis. -- Andrew Schneider is in a wheelchair, but doesn't let his disability get in the way. His travels last week took him on a West Bend road that didn't have sidewalks. Some drivers didn't think that was a good idea and called police.

An officer stopped Schneider, but didn't get cooperation. Schneider said he didn't do what the officer said because he felt that he wasn't doing anything wrong and shouldn't have been pulled over. "I proceeded to go and he said, 'Wait, I want your name.' I said, 'Nope, I can't accommodate you,' and kept right on going," Schneider said of the incident.

The officer followed Schneider so he wouldn't get hit by a car. He made it home and when he still didn't cooperate, he was given a citation for obstructing an officer. "In many respects, if he would have just given us his name we would have assisted him and that would have been the end of the complaint," Lt. Gus Unertl of the West Bend Police Department said. Schneider said he's not going to pay the $300 fine. "Everyone has a right to use every street, alley, sidwalk, anything in this country," Schneider said.

Police said there are plenty of streets with sidewalks around the city and suggested Schneider stick to those. Schneider said he plans on going to court to fight the ticket.

Video link: http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/13549398/detail.html#

Story link: http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/13549398/detail.html

*** - See, this is the problem that I have with cops. Many of them seem to think that they've always got to do something. And obviously this man, albeit in a wheelchair, wasn't adequately respectful of a man of authority. He didn't cite him for riding in the street because he couldn't. So he wrote him up for "obstructing an officer," which is a bullshit Catch-22. And I noticed that the article made no mention of the fact that the city is in apparent noncompliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, since they don't have sidewalks in all the streets and he's being told he can only travel where there are sidewalks. But maybe now that the cops have made this mountain out of a molehill, the city will have to raise taxes to put sidewalks everywhere. I'm sure everyone in the city will just love the officer for that.

[Jonathan50]

1. Just wait..

A lot of DU'ers are going to say this guy is just an asshole and deserves prison time.

[Swamp Rat]

3. You just cut them all off at the pass, there 'pardner'.

:D

[Jonathan50]

4. I guess I did..

Didn't I?

[SeattleGirl]

24. The toon in your sig line is spot on!

:thumbsup:

[Jonathan50]

35. Thank you...

I wish I knew where I got it because I would like to credit the artist.

I've been saving cartoons to my hard drive for years and have no idea where I picked any of them up.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

32. This guy is an asshole and deserves prison time ..

But you probably meant the asshole in the wheelchair.
I'm thinking of the asshole in the cop car.
:rofl:

A lot of cops think the Fourth Amendment is a quaint idea, who's time has been and gone.

[hyphenate]

41. I wouldn't go that far

But I would suggest that being as contrary as he was was not in his favor. The fact is, a friendlier attitude would have worked. The cop was just trying to get him off a road that suggested hazardous conditions. Not all cops are assholes--I think a little cooperation would have gone a long way. The old saw "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar" remains true because of its accuracy.

[Pastiche423]

48. Why should he have had a "friendlier attitude"

when he was doing nothing illeagal? Moreover, where does it say there were hazardous conditions? The cop was the one w/the 'tude.

When there are no sidewalks, I wheel in the road.

[fed-up]

2. just wait until you try and get about in a w/chair w/out sidewalks/curb cuts nt

[Jonathan50]

6. I spent almost a year on crutches..

So I can sympathize with anyone in a wheelchair.

Crutches or a wheelchair can be an advantage sometimes though.

Go to any major amusement park and the disabled and their party go to the head of the line, no matter how long it is.

Thrift stores usually have dozens of crutches for a very low price.. :)

[fed-up]

8. yeah, close seats for STING really made up for my herniated discs from pushing my

mom and doing transfers for three years. Add in the many times I had to lift up and down improper curbs and I would be thrilled if this guys actions forced the city to put in sidewalks and curb cuts.


Yeah, those wheelchair users just get all the breaks.....NOT

My sis and I put on an MS walk years ago in a town with steep curbs and almost couldn't design the short version for those with mobility issues as the terrain was too dangerous..

[Jonathan50]

9. Every silver lining has a dark cloud

Wasn't trying to make light of anyone's pain..

Sorry if I offended you.

[slowry]

5. Sorry, but this guy is a DICK.

As for the dude in the wheelchair -- his time was wasted, and worse!

[DeSwiss]

10. I'll see your DICK, and raise you a...

Better Than You DICK!!!



:rofl:

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Alas, he's probably going to have to pay...

the ticket because many, if not most, places a cop can ask for your name and ID at any time and you're supposed to give it. I do understand the guy being pissed to begin with and then having the cop demand his ID, but you never know how it really went down in these stories.

Be interesting to see how this plays out, but it will probably fall into the memory hole just like the stories of busted drunken wheelchair operators have.

[DeSwiss]

11. I'm not certain I agree....

...with that interpretation of the law. We're required under most laws to cooperate with the police who are investigating a crime. But there was no crime here until the police officer decided that this man was "obstructing an officer."

No police officer has a right to demand to know your name.

[TreasonousBastard]

54. Each state has different versions of...

stop&frisk and ID rules and here's one that made it to the Supreme Court:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

"Terry" stops, investigative rights, state laws and local ordinances... all sorts of legal complications here that only local lawyers can work out.

So, this guy might have a tough time arguing his point since a local judge rarely wants to rock the boat on local ordinances.

It's not whether or not he was screwed by an asshole cop, but how the law reads. And now it's if the prosecutor wants to drop it because of the bad publicity.

And we still don't know just how he told the cop to fuck off. Mentioning your rights works most of the the time if the cop has a brain, but telling him to fuck a flying donut usually doesn't.

[Pastiche423]

12. I hope like hell that he fights the stupid ass citation

and wins. I'd pay for his court costs myself. I applaud this man.

To those of you out there that are able bodied, let me tell you, if fucking sucks when you're in a w/c and there are either no sidewalks, or sidewalks that are broken up by tree roots and/or piss poor maintenance.

Btw, there are no laws that state that you have to say jack shit to a cop when have done NOTHING WRONG.

Ignorant stupid and condescending mf'ing cop!

[DeSwiss]

17. Thanks, I knew I was right...

And to make matters worse from my POV is this:

"In many respects, if he would have just given us his name we would have assisted him and that would have been the end of the complaint," Lt. Gus Unertl of the West Bend Police Department said.... Police said there are plenty of streets with sidewalks around the city and suggested Schneider stick to those."

What complaint? Some JoeBlow Citizen they claim drove by and saw him and thought it wasn't right. So they called the police. But there was no crime. So there is no complaint. And to patently tell the man that he should stick to streets with sidewalks is an invitation to an ACLU lawsuit. Americans With Disabilities Act required cities receiving federal highway funds to put sidewalks in. I've been waiting almost 25 years in the same spot for mine here in Nashville. People in wheelchairs and on crutches deserve to be treated fairly. But with Bush in office no one's holding the cities and state's feet to the fire. So things like this don't matter...

IMHO

DeSwiss :)

[Occulus]

14. That's just untrue

This exact thing happened to me ten years ago... except I was ON FOOT an ON A SIDEWALK.

You are not not not required to show your papers on request. I know because I defied it and literally walked away.

The cop car pulled up next to me as I was walking and the cop started questioning me out of the blue. I knew it was bullshit and acted as if I knew. They don't much like it when people know exactly what their rights are and his car (sheepishly, I might add) pulled away. There was no other traffic- he could have simply left, but it was as if his car itself was betraying his embarassment.

Today, that would have resulted in a fine and possibly jail time. This is not because it is legal- it is because far, far too many cops are bullies with a badge.

[TreasonousBastard]

55. Well, I answered this a couple of posts above, and...

it's a little more complicated than that.

No, most places they can't just walk up to you and ask for ID, but they usually can ask who you are. Methinks that if there's no real reason to know, they'll simply avoid the hassle of busting you for not telling them.

Not to say they can't think of a reason to detain you if you piss them off, or if they're assholes.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. I saw this on television and it pissed me off -- why

pick on a guy in a wheelchair? Bikes are allowed on the streets so why not wheelchairs? Bikers often ride side by side and force traffic to stop until it can pass them. A wheelchair is no worse than that.

There are not sidewalks everywhere a person might want to go so I say wheelchairs are street legal!

[Occulus]

15. It's worse than that

As far as I'm concerned, the guy in the wheelchair was technically on foot. Pedestrian traffic is always allowed unless specifically posted otherwise- such as highways.

Since the man was on foot, the officer had no reason to stop in the first place. If he had been truly concerned, his first question would have been, "do you need any help?" I know some people may take offense to even being asked, but if the cop truly was concerned, that's what he should have done as a public servant.

But noooooooo. What we end up with is a guy in a wheelchair getting ticketed for, essentially, walking down the street. He could file a very major federal suit against the city if he were so inclined. He would likely win such a suit.

[hlthe2b]

29. That was my thought too...

My first instinct was damn, this is dangerous...maybe the cop had a point, even if on a larger level I find it horrendous that streets in so many areas are not only pedestrian unfriendly, but impossible for those with disabilities.

But, with further thought... How is it more dangerous for the guy in the wheelchair than those on bikes--especially those low-to-the ground recumbant cycles? Seems to me, that the cop might have required the guy to get one of those bright orange pole flags--like those used on bicycle trailers and many use on recumbant cycles to increase visibility, but I don't see how he could restrict him from using public residential streets, that simply do not have sidewalks. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

16. They're all over my town

Nobody would dream of complaining about any of the old people on their various mobile scooters and whatnot. There's no difference between them and kids on bikes.

People really need to remember that slowing down is a perfectly acceptable option to a traffic hazard.

[Nikki Stone1]

18. The cop's 'tude aside, wasn't the wheelchair guy making things more dangerous for drivers & himself

by being in the street the whole time? At least a sidewalk offers some measure of protection. In the street, one sudden swerve by a car (for whatever reason, a deer, a small child darting out of nowhere, etc.) could mean the end of wheelchair guy's life and lifetime of guilt and pain for some driver who had no intention of hitting anyone. While I sympathize with the guy's wanting mobility and with his impatience with an annoying cop, I still think the impulse to get him out of the street was the right one.

[DeSwiss]

19. According to the article....

...the people who allegedly saw him called the police because they thought it wasn't right for him to be able to do this. It is perfectly legal. And they didn't hit him, nor did they cause any danger to themselves. So what's to complain about? And this man is known for driving his wheelchair all over the city. He's a fixture in the community. It's a small community so the traffic from the video appears to be minimal, or what one would expect in a small town. He's not trying to cross interstates or major highways. Just travel down the street in town where he lives. And that unfortunately aren't in compliance with the ADA under federal law.

There are always objects, people and obstacles that one must encounter on the roadways. We can't limit someone's right to move about freely simply because its an inconvenience for us, or a perceived threat they may be risking to themselves. We take these risks ourselves every time we cross the street, but never think in those terms because we're ambulatory. In that respect, its a matter of perception.

And as a movie that I love is entitled: "Whose Life Is It Anyway?"

DeSwiss :)

[Nikki Stone1]

20. No, the article says, "Some drivers didn't think that was a good idea and called police."

Not "not right" or "not legal", (like he shouldn't be "allowed") but "not a good idea" (like, he created a potentially dangerous situation.)

http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/13549398/detail.html (Your link)


And yes, we may take risks in life everyday, but we also tend to try to minimize them, especially when a potential loss of life is involved. That's why we have so many traffic laws, why we wear seatbelts and why we have our kids in car seats. It's why we put our headlights on in the fog or why we go 25 or less in a school zone. It's why pedestrians are not supposed to jaywalk (providing sudden obstacles for oncoming cars) or walk in the street for extended periods. And people in scooters, wheelchairs, segues, and other slow moving personal vehicles, should not be in the street for extended periods. For their own good as well as for the safety of everyone else.

[DeSwiss]

25. I agree....

..."That's why we have so many traffic laws"

And the law says he has a right to travel about in his wheelchair. Including when that means traveling in the road. Traffic laws can't usurpt the authority of the Constitution.....

[China_cat]

21. What I read said that it was an area

where there were NO sidewalks. You can't use something that doesn't exist. And if there are no curb cuts or ways to get your chair on and off a sidewalk without the chance of turning over or ripping out the bottom of your chair, there might as well not be one.

Not to mention that wheelchairs and mobility scooters are classed as pedestrians. Anywhere you have the right to walk, you have the right to use a mobility device.

[guruoo]

22. The cop was right. Wheelchairs and traffic don't mix

Man in wheelchair hit, killed
The News-Press, FL - Jun 20, 2007
One vehicle struck and killed a man on an electric
wheelchair on Fowler Street around 9 pm...
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070621/NEWS0110/70620081/1075

Wheelchair-Bound Man Struck by SUV
WTOC, GA - Jun 18, 2007
... around 11am Monday, a woman driving an SUV hit a man in wheelchair at one of the
busiest intersections in town, Montgomery Street and DeRenne Avenue. ...
http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp%3FS%3D6675308%26nav%3D0qq6&cid=0

[AndreaCG]

23. What part of "no sidewalks" did you not understand?

[philosophie_en_rose]

44. Should pedestrians be allowed to walk in the road?

Wheelchairs aren't bicycles. They're designed to go walking speed.

[Pastiche423]

46. "They're designed to go walking speed"

:wtf:

I don't believe I've heard anything so fucking ignorant in many, many moons.

When you don't know jack shit about a topic, it might behoove you to stay out of said topic.

[Telly Savalas]

58. On roads where a city is too cheap to build a sidewalk

then cars should be aware that they'll be sharing the road with slower-moving traffic.

[guruoo]

52. I understood that....

Did you understand the maimed, and deceased part?

[DeSwiss]

26. The cop was wrong and knew he was....

...that's why he didn't try to ticket him for traveling in his wheelchair in the road. And while I'm sure that accidents and even deaths of persons in wheelchairs occur, its most likely pales in comparison to the deaths of pedestrians who are walking on both feet.

This is the bottom line: We can't arbitrarily tell anyone in a wheelchair, "sorry you don't have the legs for it, so you can't go on this street because there's no sidewalk!!!"

That's what a Police Lt. told him. He's a taxpayer and a citizen. Why can't he use those streets like everyone else???

[guruoo]

53. He can, just like everyone else,

in an automobile...




BTW: A few months back we all chipped in at work to buy a strobe light
for this guy who, after numerious near misses, (forced one car off the road
into a yard) still shelfishly instisted on riding his wheelchair down a two lane stretch of
highway 41a after dark.

[Telly Savalas]

57. But the article indicates that this is one of those backwards places

that didn't have sidewalks.

[TheMadMonk]

27. Here, the law is clear. You're a pedestrian whether on foot or...

in a mobility device. You may also be considered in charge of a vehicle for the purposes of intoxication, but that's another story.

Pedestrians are entitled to be on any road from which they have not been specifically excluded, but if they are, they are to a some degree required to adhere to the rules of the road. The most relevant here being remaining as close to the shoulder as practicable. As a courtesy (and for your own safety) it's recommended you travel facing oncoming traffic (ie on the "wrong" side of the road).

Looks to me that the bloke did that (well we don't know which side). And it looks like the cop knew he didn't have a leg to stand on, but he wasn't going to have gotten off his comfortable duff without something for it.

[ikojo]

28. I've seen this in suburban St Louis with pedestrians and

wheelchairs. Sometimes the sidewalks are in such disrepair it is actually safer for people to walk in the streets. Because the US is a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" country, we have allowed our infrastructure to decay to the point of almost no return.

[hlthe2b]

30. Yes... you are right... Why is it that so much of Europe

has beautifully maintained streets and residential areas that include shopping and cultural areas within easy walking distance via safe and immaculate sidewalks--in towns, cities, villages hundreds of years old? We get subdivisions built along highway interstate exits that make walking further than your driveway impossible. And, we wonder why we are fat, stressed, angry.....:shrug:

[book_worm]

31. he has a legitimate complaint about lack of side walks, but

from the sound of it he was right in the middle of the street rather than more on the side (the cop followed him in his police car for his protection). He could have been hit by a car endangering his life and perhaps even somebody elses who might have swerved to avoid him and hit something else. So I don't fault the police as this is something that they did have a responsibility to intervene on rather than not because it does involve the public safety. If that cop had just ignored the guy with a warning "you should really get out of the middle of the street" and drove off and the guy then got hit and killed then the cop would be in trouble.

As for the city too bad if their taxes go up a few cents to pay for some assessible sidewalks. It should be done.

[JANdad]

33. Was this ever overturned?

Court: Names Must Be Revealed
Associated Press 06.21.04 | 11:29 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.

The decision was a defeat for privacy rights advocates who argued that the government could use this power to force people who have done nothing wrong, other than catch the attention of police, to divulge information that may be used for broad database searches.

Police, meanwhile, had argued that identification requests are a routine part of detective work, including efforts to get information about terrorists.

The justices upheld a Nevada cattle rancher's misdemeanor conviction. He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/06/63926
----------------------------------------------

Can't fight the powers that be I guess..."In many respects, if he would have just given us his name we would have assisted him and that would have been the end of the complaint,"

[DeSwiss]

36. While I might seem to be splitting hairs....

...aside from the reality of the stupidity that now reigns upon our U.S. Supreme Court, I would say that in the Hiibel case is different from this one in a major respect. A report of an argument taking place in a truck with a woman had been reported to the police. This is a possible case of "battery." That it seems to be a spurious claim remains a doubt in my mind, nevertheless, probable cause that a crime may have been committed. Even Justice Kennedy in writing for the majority said, "Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests."

And although I don't agree with the rationale the court used to justify it, in that instance an investigation as follow-up to the report was underway. To insure the safety of everyone concerned, I think the cop was within his/her rights in asking the name of the subjects involved. If they don't want to come under the scrutiny of the police, people should argue in private. If the cop had just walked away and the woman had been injured or killed, there'd be all sorts of hell raised about the incompetence of the police and how they don't care about their primary mission: "to serve and protect."

But in this case of the man in the wheelchair, he wasn't a "suspect" and no other person(s) were at risk. Even the person(s) who called the police said they weren't sure it was right for him to do this. But the cops should have known immediately that it was perfectly okay for him to do so. I think most people who see others in wheelchairs in public see them as "vulnerable" and wish to protect them from themselves. And I believe that is what was at play here as well.

And as to another poster who said that "it sounds like" he was in the middle of the road, that's not the case. He was traveling on the shoulder as he's done for quite some time apparently. Just like a bike rider would, or any other pedestrian.

So in this case, with no "crime" having been committed, there was no probable cause. And with no probable cause, the police have no right to know your name.

[Tesha]

37. That's still the law.

You have to tell the cops your name; you may also
have to tell them your birthday (I can't recall the
specifics about that).

On the other hand, in general, while you have to
identify yourself, you DO NOT have to show any
form of ID. (Showing a driver's license when you're
stopped while driving your car is different; you
must have a license to be eligible to drive and
that's what you're being asked to demonstrate).

Tesha

[DeSwiss]

40. If you are a suspect of a crime....

...or a potential witness in a crime they are investigating. The Hiibel case and this one differ on this main point. He wasn't and isn't a suspect of a crime nor did he witness a crime. So the Supreme Court's ruling is not in-play here...

[Tesha]

45. I believe you are wrong.

You must be willing to identify yourself to the police
any time you are asked.

Tesha

[karlrschneider]

49. You are a good German!

:eyes:

[Tesha]

56. Ahh, argumentation by insult; how enlightening.

Look, cops can *ALWAYS* cook up their favorite three
charges against you:

o Disobeying (the orders of a police officer),

o Assault (somewhere along the way, you touched them,
even if it was your face touching their fist), and

o Resisting arrest

You'd do far better to meet the initial request for
your name. At least then you're on firmer legal ground
when they arrest you for violating their "unholy trinity".

Tesha

[DeSwiss]

51. No, I'm quoting from the Supreme Court....

...opinion as written by Justice Kennedy. It is he who used the word "suspect," not me.

Justice Kennedy: "Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests."

Article on the opinion:

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/06/63926

[VP505]

34. Only one answer

for that "LAW SUIT" one for ADA non compliance to the city and one for a rights violation against the officer.

[qdemn7]

38. Assist him?

"In many respects, if he would have just given us his name we would have assisted him and that would have been the end of the complaint,"

How the hell were they going to "assist him"? Put in the cruiser and give him a ride? Someone would have complained about that.

[marshall]

59. He assisted him by escroting him home

It's not right that the road did't have a sidewalk, and driving the motorized chair down the street might have been his only recourse, but that doesn't make it any less safe. A friend of my mother's hit and killed a man in a wheelchair who was riding down the middle of a road. She was coming to the rise of a hill and he was on the other side and she didn't see him until it was too late.

The title of the article is misleading--the ticket was not for riding a wheelchair in the street, it was for not cooperating with the officer.

[Edweird]

39. The result of corporatization of law enforcement.

Everything is a crime. Everything is serious. Your value as a law enforcement officer is based on how many arrests you make, not your ability to be just.
The primary benefactor being the prison-industrial complex.

[DeSwiss]

42. Most unfortunate, but mostly true too.... n/t

[philosophie_en_rose]

43. Yikes.

On the one hand, there really is no excuse for not having accessible transportation or, at the very least, accessible sidewalks. However, there are times when it is just not safe to be on the highway. And I think that people that use wheelchairs should also be reasonable. While I don't think that this person was malicious, I wonder if he could have at least acknowledged the officer or found a safer route.

I say this because I almost crashed into a woman on a motorized wheelchair, who thought it was a great idea to cross the street in front of a green light. Sccccccccccreeeeeeeeeeeching to a halt and fearing for her life was not very fun for me. So, while there really should be free public transport systems for everyone, we all have a duty to be reasonable. I don't know enough about the circumstances in the OP to cast aspersions at the pedestrian, but I wonder if there wasn't another way.

Wheelchairs = pedestrian. If a pedestrian shouldn't walk in the road, neither should a wheelchair be there. The city needs to make its sidewalks accessible.

[Pastiche423]

50. He wasn't on a HIGHWAY

he was on a road.

I do hope the incident you spoke about regarding the woman in a powerchair, makes you slow down.

Recently, my town had exercises in crosswalks. All vehicles must stop if someone is in the crosswalk. You get caught, you get a ticket for breaking that law.

[karlrschneider]

47. Of course, he should be able to roll around on ANY road in the U.S.A.!

And kids on skateboards should be, too!

The fact here appears quite clearly to be the cop was an asshole and so is this Schneider guy. And I hope to hell he's not one of my northern relatives. :eyes: