• Latest News

    2 Apr 2015

    Woman arrested for "resisting arrest" after putting on hazard lights and driving less than a mile to a lit parking lot for safety - which is exactly what the police themselves recommend.

    Portage resident DelRea Good said she did not immediately pull over for the flashing lights behind her because, as a 52-year-old woman traveling alone at 11:21 p.m. on a dark county road, she was concerned for her safety.
    Assuming the car behind her was a police officer, Good said she slowed her vehicle, put on her emergency flashers, waved her arm out the window to acknowledge the pursing car and continued for less than a mile where she pulled over into the lighted parking lot at the Kohl's department store in Portage.
    The decision not to immediately stop resulted in her being handcuffed and taken to jail by Porter County Sheriff's Department Patrolman William Marshall on a felony charge of resisting arrest. It may also cost her her job, because a nurse cannot work after being convicted of a felony, she said.
    "I felt I didn't do anything wrong," Good said. "I got to a safe place and I told him that."
    Porter County Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Larry LaFlower said, "The sheriff's office supports our officer's decision in this matter."
    He cited state law requiring motorists to yield to emergency vehicles and said Marshall was driving a fully marked squad car and used the lights and siren.
    Marshall wrote in the incident report he initiated the March 20 traffic stop just north of County Road 700 North on northbound County Road 500 West (Airport Road) after clocking Good's car traveling 54 mph in a 35 mph zone. Good told The Times she was unsure how fast she was driving.
    Marshall acknowledged Good waved out her car window and turned on her flashers before pulling over less than a mile later in the store parking lot.
    Good said Marshall was very angry as he approached her car and said to her, "What in the hell are you doing? I could arrest you for this."
    Good said she was surprised by his reaction and told him to stop yelling at her.
    Marshall described Good in his report as "highly agitated and uncooperative." She reportedly told him she was aware he was a police officer, but drove to where she felt safe.
    "I don't care who you are I don't have to stop on a county road, I'm a single female," Marshall quoted her as saying.
    After Good refused to listen to how her actions put her and others in danger, Marshall said he arrested her.
    Good, who said she did not resist the arrest or make any further comments, claims the officer bruised her arm while leading her to his police car and continued to "bully" her at the jail by claiming Advil and other medications she had were controlled substances.
    Good, who reportedly has no prior criminal record, said as a nurse, she is accustomed to following rules.
    "I follow rules every day or people could get hurt," she said.
    She is scared about the impact of a felony conviction, but said the issue is bigger than just herself.
    "This is serious," she said. "This could be your mom, your sister, your daughter next time."
    Defense attorney Bob Harper, who is representing Good, said her concerns about pulling over along a dark county road are not unwarranted.
    He referred to a case in 1991 where a woman pulled over in Valparaiso for a car with flashing red lights and was attacked by a man pretending to be a police officer.

    • Blogger Comments
    • Facebook Comments


    1. desertspeaksApril 02, 2015

      Why does everyone blindly accept that the governments laws, codes, statutes, edicts, rules and regulations apply to the private person without EVER questioning it?? Obviously there are going to be some idiots whose opinions are in lock step with government employees, their indoctrination to blind obedience is unshakable.. BUT CAN ANYONE ACTUALLY PROVE THEIR LAWS APPLY TO THE PRIVATE PERSON?? Can you??

      IF you ask government employees if their CONstitution and laws automatically apply to everyone, their collective opinion is that YES, their CONstitution and laws apply to everyone, automatically. BUT if you ask them what facts they rely on that PROVE their BELIEF that it is applicable to you, they have no plausible answer, they’ll hang up on you, feign as though they don’t understand the question, tell you that they aren’t going to debate with you “EVEN THOUGH ALL YOU DID WAS ASK FOR FACTUAL PROOF OF THEIR ASSERTION OF JURISDICTION” They’ll tell you that it’s common knowledge that it applies, they’ll even tell you to prove it doesn’t apply to you, this is an attempt to avoid answering your question!!, but they’ll continue to refuse to answer as to what facts they rely on to prove any of it applies to you, BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE ANY FACTS THAT SUPPORT THEIR BELIEF!.. remember, they already told you it applies, it is their responsibility to prove it applies because they are the ones attempting to bring a charge against you, so the onus to prove it applies is theirs,.. It is not up to you to disprove anything applies!!!

      Everyone has been told that the CONstitution and law automatically apply to everyone. it’s everyones opinion that it applies, everyone feels it applies, everyone believes it applies, everyone assumes and presumes it applies. HOWEVER; hearsay, opinions, feelings, beliefs, assumptions, presumptions and or so called common knowledge aren’t proof of a damn thing.

      What factual, first hand, irrefutable evidence can anyone offer that proves that their CONstitution and laws apply to the private person simply because they are physically in what we commonly refer to geographically as a state.

      Keeping in mind that slavery and involuntary servitude is illegal. Further, no private person is a party to their CONstitution nor is any private person a signatory to their CONstitution, nor has any private person sworn an oath to be bound by or to obey the CONstitution and laws.

      Do you grasp the gravity of NOT being a party to some agreement, contract, compact or constitution??
      When one is NOT a party to some agreement, contract, compact or CONstitution, then one is NOT BOUND TO OBEY IT OR ANY PROMULGATIONS ARISING FROM SAID INSTRUMENT! “those promulgations would be codes, policies, statutes and laws etc”

      Who precisely is a party to their CONstitution?? The States are parties to the CONstitution. NOT YOU, THE LIVING BREATHING FLESH AND BLOOD MAN/WOMAN!!

      Should you choose to accept the challenge to show your proof/evidence. You shall adhere to the following;

      Your proof/evidence MUST be factual and personal first hand information, your proof/evidence shall not be comprised of hearsay, your opinions, someone else’s opinions, your beliefs, someone else’s beliefs, your feelings, someone else’s feelings, assumptions, presumptions, hypotheticals, conjecture, sophistry, fraud, lies, scenarios or what if’s.

      And don't be stupid and quote statutes, codes, policies, or amendments from their CONstitution as that presupposes that it's applicable and in the land of the free, we are all PRESUMED innocent of ALL elements of any charge including JURISDICTION! You have to prove that WE ARE PARTIES TO YOUR CONstitution BEFORE anything is applicable, including your precious CONstitution!

      U.S. Supreme court; The Clara, 102 U.S. 200 (1880)
      the maxim applies quod non apparet non est. The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.

      Good luck!

    2. what an asshat. i hope it's dismissed before it ever gets to court... that's deplorable!

    3. SpeedersKillApril 02, 2015

      This should only apply to students majoring in STEM. The morons who want to study useless liberal arts crap shouldn't even be in college.

    4. NobodysaysBOOApril 02, 2015

      GERMANY has NO tuition for anybody! EVEN aliens from the USA!
      IF they CAN do it why not HERE?
      ANSWER IS: Because they are very GREEDY!

    5. legal eagleApril 02, 2015

      The police are not BECOMING insane they have solidly arrived.

    6. freewheelinfranklin543April 02, 2015

      The lady may lose her ability to feed herself because of this imbecilic piece of shit and his boss!

    7. Maybe the next person this cop pulls over will be in a place unsafe FOR THE COP! That would be grand irony!

    8. Maybe the next person this cop pulls over will be in a place unsafe FOR THE COP! That would be grand irony! What goes around . . .

    9. Is there anything that isn't an effing felony these days?
      If even sneezing the wrong way results in felony charges, how long before people start thinking they might as well get their felony's worth..?

    10. Well how else are they going to squeeze in their illegal alien quota?

    11. enzomediciApril 02, 2015

      The police are clearly wrong and hopefully the woman wins this case.

    12. Just another moron pig. oink oink

    13. Rocko JonesApril 03, 2015

      It's kind of her fault. The police officer was upset about her actions, but she decided to shoot off at the mouth, further pissing off the officer, and resulting in her arrest. He was mad, but he wasn't going to arrest her. If she would've calmly articulated her concerns instead of responding in the same manner in which the cop was speaking to her (rudely), she could've avoided the whole arrest episode. SMH.

    14. LibertyTreeBudApril 03, 2015

      I would have done the same thing as a woman. Where I live, cops were pulling women over and forcing them to undress or give sexual favors and some were left on the streets, half dressed. You can trust no one, these days and I don't care how many bells and whistles is on a supposed law enforcement car if it's a whack behind the wheel. If he was a good cop he would not have treated that woman like a Palestinian in Gaza


    Thanks For Sharing Your Views

    Item Reviewed: Woman arrested for "resisting arrest" after putting on hazard lights and driving less than a mile to a lit parking lot for safety - which is exactly what the police themselves recommend. Rating: 5 Reviewed By: Orraz
    Scroll to Top