Attorney: Officer violated man's rights in traffic stop shooting; settlement talks underway
The officer involved, Mindy Cardwell, has since been fired, and newly surfaced video from her internal affairs interview is revealing how a routine traffic stop spiraled into what the victim's attorney said was a major violation of his rights.
Jason Arrington was pulled over in December near North Main Street and 27th Street in Brentwood. He had reportedly run a red light, but denied this.
During the stop, he told officers he had a legally owned gun on his waist. Officers instructed him to step out of the vehicle so they could retrieve it.
In a recorded interview with internal affairs, Cardwell described her attempt to remove the firearm.
RELATED: Jacksonville officer who shot man in leg during traffic stop terminated
'I tried to pull the metal clip, holster, and gun from his waistband. It was not coming out. I put my hand on the handle of the gun to get leverage, and the gun went off,' Cardwell said.
Arrington was shot in the leg. His attorney, Kay Harper Williams, said the shooting caused lasting physical damage — and that Arrington now walks with a cane and suffers ongoing pain.
Williams is currently in settlement negotiations with the City of Jacksonville. She said what happened during the incident is a violation of Arrington's Fourth Amendment rights.
RELATED: Man shot with his own gun during traffic stop with Jacksonville officer speaks
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, according to uscourts.gov.
'What we are accusing them of is a clear Fourth Amendment violation when the officer made the decision to seize Mr. Arrington's firearm and initiate this unlawful removal from his waist,' Williams said.
The case has drawn national attention, recently featured on the True Crime News YouTube channel, which has more than 5 million subscribers. The video includes clips from the body camera footage and the internal affairs interview, along with commentary from Arrington and his legal team.
[DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks]
At one point in the interview, Cardwell admitted she initially wasn't sure how the firearm discharged, but later concluded her own mistake played a role.
'I think I set myself up for failure by transitioning from my dominant hand to my not dominant hand,' she said.
JSO cited incompetence when terminating Cardwell's employment.
[SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Williams said if the city does not agree to a settlement, her next step is filing a federal lawsuit.
'We have not yet filed a lawsuit. However, we are in the settlement negotiations with the city. If that breaks down, then we absolutely will move forward and bring this case to federal court right here in Jacksonville,' Williams said.
She also said this case highlights the urgent need for more detailed officer training when it comes to safely handling firearms and respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
Big Brother is watching you — but this homeowner made him back down
Last month, Charlie Wolf attended a meeting of the Greers Ferry, Ark., city council to complain about a license-plate camera that he said was violating the Fourth Amendment by regularly taking pictures of his driveway and front yard. Greers Ferry Police Chief Kallen Lacy acknowledged Wolf's 'distress' but rejected his legal analysis, saying 'over 5,000 cities' across the country use such cameras, 'so there is no constitutional violation there.' Despite Lacy's assurance, the widespread acceptance of automated license-plate readers as a crime-fighting tool only magnifies the privacy concerns they raise. They enable routine surveillance of a sort that would have troubled the Fourth Amendment's framers. 'Unlike red-light cameras or speed cameras that are triggered by specific violations,' the Institute for Justice notes, ALPRs 'photograph every vehicle that drives by and can use artificial intelligence to create a profile with identifying information that then gets stored in a massive database. 'Once that happens, officials can search the database for any vehicle they wish, all without a warrant.' Worse, 'departments around the country are automatically sharing data with each other, making it simple for police anywhere to track drivers' movements. 'All of this arbitrary discretion threatens people's privacy, security and freedom of movement by creating an atmosphere where everyone knows they are being watched and tracked whenever they hit the road.' Wolf's experience crystallizes these concerns. As he noted at the city council meeting, the camera that was installed across the street from his house on May 13 was photographing 'our yard, curtilage and vehicles' whenever a car passed by. 'We're being photographed and entered into a database without consent or violation of any law,' Wolf said. The camera captured images of Wolf and his wife whenever they left their home or returned to it. The camera also documented the comings and goings of the Wolfs' visitors, including their friends, children and grandchildren. Depending on the vagaries of traffic, it might record trips to the mailbox, kids playing in the yard or anything else happening in front of the house. Local officials initially were unfazed by the Wolfs' complaints, insisting that the camera, one of five installed in the tiny town under a contract with the ALPR company Flock Safety, would stay where it was. But they reconsidered after receiving a letter from Institute for Justice attorney Joshua Windham, who explained why the couple's objections deserved more respect than they had received. In 2018, Windham noted, the Supreme Court held that the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when it collected cellphone location data without a warrant supported by probable cause. That ruling, he explained, was based on the principle that the Fourth Amendment 'must preserve at least as much privacy as Americans would have enjoyed when it was adopted.' Back then, Windham observed, 'police lacked the means to create a historical record of people's physical movements' because 'they simply did not have the manpower or the technology to do so.' He noted that a federal judge in Iowa and two state supreme courts have recognized that 'the placement of a surveillance camera in front of a home,' like tracking someone's movements via cellphone data, 'may violate a reasonable privacy expectation.' Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The morning after Windham sent that letter, Greers Ferry officials posted a defense of ALPRs that read like a Flock press release. But by the end of the month, they had agreed to remove the camera that was spying on the Wolfs. That small victory for privacy was followed a week later by another encouraging development: Scarsdale, NY, terminated its ALPR contract with Flock Safety after more than 400 residents signed a petition expressing concern about 'the broad and lasting implications of deploying such a surveillance system.' The official rationale for the town's decision was lack of funding. But the criticism provoked by the project suggests Americans are beginning to recognize the perils of surrendering their privacy in the name of public safety. Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
William McNeil Jr.'s SUV spotted at home under surveillance for drugs before traffic stop, SAO says
Action News Jax is getting new details from the State Attorney's Office about its investigation into the February arrest of William McNeil Jr., which got national attention after McNeil released a video in July from the arrest that went viral. McNeil Jr. was arrested on February 19 following a traffic stop conducted by Officer D. Bowers of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. In McNeil's video, Bowers can be seen striking McNeil after breaking his window. >>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<< McNeil is now being represented by prominent civil rights attorneys Benjamin Crump and Harry Daniels. The February incident began when Officer Donald Bowers initiated a traffic stop after observing McNeil's SUV parked at a house under surveillance for drug activity, according to a memo released Wednesday by State Attorney Melissa Nelson's office. The traffic stop occurred after Bowers observed McNeil driving without headlights and not wearing a seatbelt, the memo said. RELATED: Jacksonville Sheriff releases officer body-cam video from viral traffic stop video The State Attorney's Office said McNeil opened his door, claiming his window was broken, and questioned the reasons for the stop. After being informed of the violations, McNeil did not comply with Bowers' requests for his license, registration, and proof of insurance and continued to argue, demanding a supervisor. The SAO said the situation escalated when McNeil locked himself inside the vehicle and buckled his seatbelt after Bowers stopped him. Bowers eventually broke the window after giving McNeil multiple warnings. RELATED: First hit to man's face by JSO officer omitted in all police reports related to controversial arrest On July 21, the SAO said the JSO Integrity Unit interviewed Bowers about the stop. In the memo is Bowers' recollection of what happened after he broke McNeil's window and why his first strike of McNeil wasn't mentioned in the police report: 'Officer Bowers told investigators that after he broke the window, he delivered a 'distractionary' blow to McNeil (Exhibit G). Officer Bowers described the distraction strike as a tactic he was taught during his time as a narcotics officer when conducting the arrest of a vehicle's occupant. Officer Bowers explained that when evaluating how they would remove McNeil from the vehicle, he knew he would need to both unlock the door from the inside and unbuckle McNeil's seat belt. Officer Bowers stated his intended purpose in using this tactic was not to injure McNeil, but to distract him so that they could take control of McNeil. 'When asked why he did not report Use of Force 1 in his Response to Resistance report, Officer Bowers explained he considered his use of the distraction strike as a tool and did not consider it as the deployment of force. Officer Bowers' explanation is credible considering his stated training and the fact that he wrote a Response to Resistance report memorializing his closed fist punch to McNeil.' [DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks] Following the arrest, officers discovered marijuana in McNeil's pocket and drug paraphernalia in the vehicle's center console. A large knife was found at McNeil's feet, although Bowers was unaware of these items at the time of the stop, the SAO said. McNeil later pleaded guilty to resisting an officer without violence and driving with a suspended license. The SAO stated that McNeil's video from the arrest did not capture the full context of the encounter, which was documented by the officers' body-worn cameras. [SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter] When the SAO reviewed the incident, it concluded that Bowers' actions did not constitute a crime. 'Officer Bowers conducted a lawful traffic stop and gave McNeil 12 individual lawful commands, which McNeil refused to obey,' the memorandum stated. You can look at the SAO's full memo on the McNeil investigation below: William McNeil SAO4 Legal Memoranda Final by ActionNewsJax Action News Jax's Jake Stofan is digging into the details of the SAO's memo and will have the latest updates on FOX30 Action News Jax at 4. Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live. Solve the daily Crossword
Chicago Tribune
2 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Can ICE agents pull you over? Jailing of Kansas immigrant raises question.
Luis Diaz Inestroza — a native Honduran, a father, a Kansas City, Kansas, homeowner and small business owner who entered the United States illegally 13 years ago— was driving to work in July when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents pulled him over in his truck. His company's name, 'Diaz Repair and Remodeling,' was emblazoned across the doors. Besides entering the United States when he was 15, Diaz Inestroza had done nothing wrong. He had no criminal history. There was no previous warrant for his arrest. In fact, said Megan Galicia, Diaz Inestroza's Kansas City attorney, when ICE agents first turned up outside of Diaz Inestroza's home, they weren't looking for Diaz Inestroza, who, in 2019, was featured in the Selena Gomez documentary 'Living Undocumented.' 'They were looking for someone else,' Galicia said. What happened next was legal. ICE ran Diaz Inestroza's plates and pulled his name. They saw he had a history with ICE; he was in the U.S. illegally. That was enough. They obtained and printed a warrant. The very next day — although Diaz Inestroza hadn't sped, he hadn't run a red light, he hadn't failed to come to a full stop — ICE officers stopped him in his truck and arrested him. Last week, having been turned down for release on bond, Diaz Inestroza chose to self-deport, leaving his pregnant fiancée and three children (two of whom are U.S. citizens) behind. Diaz Inestroza's is a real-life scenario that raises a real question: Do ICE officers have the authority to make traffic stops? The answer, immigration attorneys and advocates say, is both simple … and not. Technically, ICE and other federal agents do not have statutory authority to make stops for traffic or vehicle violations — such as running a red light, or having expired tags, low tire pressure, excessively tinted windows, or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. That authority, in general, lies with state and local police departments. But that doesn't mean that ICE agents still can't stop motorists. If they have a warrant, as occurred with Diaz Inestroza, they can certainly pull someone over. 'They're law enforcement officers,' Galicia, Diaz Inestroza's attorney said. 'They have the power to stop people.' But even without a warrant, ICE officers can still stop a vehicle if they have 'reasonable suspicion' that the driver or passengers are in the U.S. illegally. Although an individual's race or ethnicity can be one factor in creating 'reasonable suspicion,' it cannot be the only factor. The U.S. Supreme Court made this ruling nearly 50 years ago in the 1975 case, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. In that case, border patrol agents stopped Felix Humberto Brignoni-Ponce in his car with other passengers based soley on the fact that he appeared to be of Mexican descent. The Supreme Court ruled that the border agents had no probable cause for the stop other than Brignoni-Ponce's ethnicity and, as such, further violated Brignoni-Ponce's Fourth Amendment gaurantee against illegal search and seizure. But if the agents, however, know a driver is in the country illegally, they do have the authority to make a stop and, perhaps, a warrantless arrest — although immigration advocates fear that ICE agents have begun to interpret that authority too broadly and misuse it. 'The process,' said Kansas City immigration attorney Michael Sharma-Crawford, 'isn't being followed.' The prime law at play, Sharma-Crawford said, is the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 287(a), also written as Title 8 of U.S. Code 1357 (a) The law spells out the powers of immigration officers without a warrant. Section (a)(1) says an officer 'shall have power without a warrant to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.' Section (a)(2) goes on to say that immigration officers also have the 'power without a warrant to arrest any alien' who they see illegally 'entering or attempting to enter the United States.' That section of law generally relates to indviduals viewed crossing illegally at U.S. borders. The clause that Sharma-Crawford and others fear immigration officers are misusing is the very next one that says that agents can also arrest any alien in the U.S. if an officer has 'reason to believe' that an individual so arrested 'is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.' Sharma-Crawford's said that agents have begun making such arrests, claiming that individuals are threats for escape, although that is often not the case. After ICE has an individual's name, their address, their license plate number, Sharma-Crawford argues, 'how is he going to escape?' In 2018, the accusation that Homeland Security agents had been missuing the law led to a class action lawsuit in Chicago federal court, Margarito Castañon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security. The case centers on a number of plaintiffs including Castañon Nava, who is Hispanic and had been living in Chicago for 17 years when he was stopped in his work truck. Castañon Nava was driving with other passengers when ICE agents in vests marked 'Police' pulled him over, asked Castañon Nava and the others for identification, fingerprinted them, took their photographs, handcuffed and arrested them. Another plaintiff was driving in his van with coworkers when he was also stopped, ostensibly for low tire pressure, and also subsequenlty taken into custody by ICE agents. The case, in 2022, ultimately led to a decision and settlement agreement in which ICE agents can't just have a vague 'reason to believe' that individual is potentially going to escape. They instead are legally required to document the specific facts establishing that believe, while also articulating the facts that leave them to believe that an individual inside a vehicle is in the country illegally. The three-year Castañon Nava settlement agreement, however, expired in May. Immigration advocates are now waiting for a decision by the court as to whether the agreement will be extended for an additional three years. Some ICE officers, meanwhile, have arrested people at their cars in league with local or state police. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, ruled unanimously that state and local police have the authority to make what are known as 'pretextual traffic stops.' 'They held that if a police officer witnesses a traffic violation, they can go ahead and conduct a traffic stop, pull someone over, even if that stop is 'pretexual'' — meaning the real motivation was to investigate other potential crimes.' said Kenyu Ching, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas. 'Obviously, pretextual stops are a really powerful took that allow cops to stop somebody on what might be a technicality, when the real reason they wanted to stop that person is something completely different.' ICE officers, however, are not authorized to make pretextual stops. Because ICE officers cannot make stops for traffic violations and because state and local police are, typically, not allowed to make immigration arrests, the separate law enforcement agencies have been working together in some states to make immigration arrests. ICE, in May, for example, noted that a weeklong cooperative agreement between state police and federal officers resulted in the arrests of 196 'criminal illegal aliens,' some which they claimed had 'significant criminal histories and outstanding final orders of removal.' 'This enforcement effort underscores ICE's unwavering commitment to public safety and the rule of law,' Brian Acuna, the field office director for Enforcement and Removal Operations at New Orleans Field Office, said in a release at the time. 'Our officers are focused on identifying and removing individuals who pose a threat to the safety and security of Tennessee residents. 'During the operation, I witnessed the men and women of the Tennessee Highway Patrol carry out significant public safety efforts. The New Orleans Field Office is grateful for their support.' Concerns over the treatment of immigrants at traffic stops in Kansas City to President Donald Trump's first administration when, in July 2019, Kansas City police officers smashed the window of Florencio MIllan's car, and forcibly removed him in front of his children, while the 32-minute encounter was live-streamed by his partner. Similar encounters, recorded on video, have occurred in other cities throughout 2025. Trinidad Raj Molina, a board member with Advocates for Immigrant Rights and Reconciliation (AIRR) in Kansas City, emphasized that individuals without legal status in the country still have rights. In a written statement, the organization noted, the the Fifth Amendment gives people the right to remain silent, inluding when being stopped or question or detained by ICE officers. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to refuse search or entry to property without a valid and signed judicial warrant. 'If there is not probable cause of arrest, you can question it,' Molina said of traffic stops. 'You can ask, 'Am I free to go?' Video the whole interaction.'
