Police arrest mom after she requests to see a warrant (which they did not have). - Page 5
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 77

Thread: Police arrest mom after she requests to see a warrant (which they did not have).

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    We do, and so does the law. It's called the presumption of innocence, but that doesn't preclude an arrest. It never has.
    .
    As pointed out previously, that simply isn't true.
    .
    That would be true, assuming that's the way it really happened. I'm not totally convinced of that yet.
    .
    Hate to burst your bubble but that really isn't what the Bill of Rights says.
    .
    Which isn't a crime. I know you mean well, and you have the very noble intention of wanting to prevent government intrusion on the rights of citizens. I applaud you for that. But I don't think you fully understand the legal and constitutional principles at play here. No warrant is required to arrest someone in this country. That has never been the case. And the Bill of Rights does not forbid the arrest of suspected criminals without a warrant. The Bill of Rights guarantees due process and protection against undue search and seizure. That doesn't mean warrants are required for all arrests or for all searches. It has never meant that, even in the founders' time.
    How about instead of just saying "this isn't really true" to everything, back it up with evidence to show it's not true?

    I believe in this case, they did need a warrant. It wasn't like he was caught in the act.
    Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

    And the charges and detention of the mother can be illegal depending on the details:
    false arrest legal definition of false arrest. false arrest synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
    " Only when the arresting party knowingly holds someone who has not committed a crime, is the false arrest itself a crime. However, probable false arrest can be the basis of a lawsuit for damages, including mental distress and embarrassment. (See: false imprisonment)"
    You can have good intentions and not be right.

  2.   
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigcarlover View Post
    How about instead of just saying "this isn't really true" to everything, back it up with evidence to show it's not true?
    That's what you do in court. That's your due process.

    I believe in this case, they did need a warrant. It wasn't like he was caught in the act.
    Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement
    That's about search warrants, not arrest warrants. And you don't have to be caught in the act to be arrested on probable cause. There are three ways to be arrested, after being seen committing a crime, after having an arrest warrant issued and based on probable cause.

    And the charges and detention of the mother can be illegal depending on the details:
    false arrest legal definition of false arrest. false arrest synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
    " Only when the arresting party knowingly holds someone who has not committed a crime, is the false arrest itself a crime. However, probable false arrest can be the basis of a lawsuit for damages, including mental distress and embarrassment. (See: false imprisonment)"
    Yes, you said it, "depending on the details". That's the key phrase. I already said it sounded like there was some fault there, but we're sorely lacking in the details department. That's not exactly unusual when it comes to press reports, particularly press reports of a victim proclaiming wrongdoing by the police. Those things do happen. Don't get me wrong. But of all the press reports about victims claiming such wrongdoing, probably well over 90% of them turn out to be untrue. After hearing enough of them, you start to get skeptical until you have more of those missing details to back up the claims.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    This is an aside question;
    Is/are motor homes, weather in motion or parked, consider homes or vehicles and searchable as such?
    Automobile Exception
    Because vehicles are obviously highly mobile, a warrant is not required to search vehicles if police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, the instrumentalities of crime, contraband, or the fruits of a crime. Although commonly referred to as the “automobile exception,” this rule applies to any vehicle, including boats. While in some ways, it is quite a broad exception, this rule limits the ability to search those areas which might contain evidence of the type suspected to be present. In other words, if police suspect that the occupant of a boat is smuggling people across the border, searching a small tackle box on board would not be permissible. However, if they were looking for drugs, they could search the tackle box. The rationale is that, if an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle might be out of reach before the warrant can be issued and executed. See Carroll v. United States, 267 US. 132 (1925).
    EXAMPLE: Officer Demidum has reason to believe that an abandoned car on the corner contains illegal drugs in the trunk. The car is missing all four wheels and is up on cinder blocks, and the engine was stolen long ago. Assuming that the automobile exception applies, Officer Demidum uses a crowbar to force open the still-working lock on the trunk. There, he finds 10 kilos of cocaine. Rushing back to the station house to show off the evidence to his Captain, Officer Demidum runs into Judge Sosad. Judge Sosad says “You should have called me first. While it’s great to get the drugs off the street, unfortunately we can’t use this as evidence against anyone. The search was illegal, as the automobile exception to the warrant requirement only applies when the vehicle is actually capable of being moved. That’s the whole point of the exception!” A dejected Demidum continues on to the station, where he has to tolerate cars drawn in shaving cream on his locker for the next month.
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  5. " If you read the comments on the article though, her 11 year old son was accused of raping a 5 year old girl. Not that that changes her rights at all, but it does make me lack sympathy for her plight."
    Accused is NOT guilty. That is the belief on which our system is based. Regardless of whether the kid did the deed, the actions of the fuzzies exceed their authority. They knew damned well they didn't have a warrant so they committed a crime themselves in detaining the woman. Which is worse, an 11 year old supposedly committing a crime or a sworn police officer(s) positively committing a crime?

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    I view the two sets of charges against the two different defendants to be two wholly separate issues. I don't care how the charges against the son play out. If he's guilty, I hope he's found guilty and put under the prison. If he's innocent, I hope he's found innocent and goes on to do great things in life. I have no vested interests in that case whatsoever. I care very much about the authorities' actions in the resolution of the second case. I'm thankful that their bogus charges were thrown out, but this woman still has an arrest record now for no other reason than she held the authorities' feet to the fire and forced them to adhere to the letter of the law. That is admirable, not criminal. For the authorities to have treated her in the manner they have is not admirable, it's criminal.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    I view the two sets of charges against the two different defendants to be two wholly separate issues. I don't care how the charges against the son play out. If he's guilty, I hope he's found guilty and put under the prison. If he's innocent, I hope he's found innocent and goes on to do great things in life. I have no vested interests in that case whatsoever. I care very much about the authorities' actions in the resolution of the second case. I'm thankful that their bogus charges were thrown out, but this woman still has an arrest record now for no other reason than she held the authorities' feet to the fire and forced them to adhere to the letter of the law. That is admirable, not criminal. For the authorities to have treated her in the manner they have is not admirable, it's criminal.
    Not necessarily. The arrest of the kid without a warrant would have been legal because probable cause existed. The mother was a different story. But for false arrest to elevate to the level of a crime, it has to be done knowingly. In other words, the arresting officer or officers would had to have known they were arresting her without probable cause. The courts grant qualified immunity to law enforcement in such circumstances, and proving that they did so knowingly is an incredibly high hurdle to clear. There is one exception granted to the immunity law enforcement is granted, and that's in cases where the arrested individual was arrested for engaging in an activity that they clearly had a right to engage in, even if the arresting officer believed it to be illegal. That's to prevent law enforcement from using bullying tactics to suppress legal activity. Obviously free speech is a clearly rightful activity. The crux of the matter here is if that's what happened with this woman. If it is, then the police obviously screwed up. But if it didn't occur quite the way she claims, then that's a horse of a different color. As I said before, since the majority of such claims turn out to be different from what was originally depicted, I refuse to jump to judgement against the police. They are by no means infallible. They most certainly make mistakes, but they are statistically extremely rare. They most certainly have their bad apples, but those are a minute percentage of the overall total as well. I've heard many such complaints against the police before. If you follow current events in the news you will have heard them too. In my experience, far more than 90% of them turn out to be something entirely different than what the supposedly 'wronged' party claimed, and the police were in the right all along. I can't sat that's absolutely what happened here. There aren't enough facts to make that call. But there aren't enough facts to simply believe what she's claiming either. And based on the law of averages on claims such as this, I'm going to remain skeptical until more facts come out to prove what happened one way or another. YMMV.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    That is most likely to never happen. Theres her story, then their story, then there's the truth.
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    They most certainly have their bad apples, but those are a minute percentage of the overall total as well.
    I keep hearing that.

    Of course I also REPEATEDLY heard that the Kathryn Johnston and Danziger Bridge cases were "hoaxes" too...

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by gejoslin View Post
    That is most likely to never happen. Theres her story, then their story, then there's the truth.
    That too, unfortunately. We often never find out the true story. If it isn't sensational, the media will often ignore it.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    I keep hearing that.

    Of course I also REPEATEDLY heard that the Kathryn Johnston and Danziger Bridge cases were "hoaxes" too...
    I never heard anyone say they were hoaxes. Guess I don't frequent the same places you do. Even still, those eight officers would constitute a minute percentage of the overall total, just as I said. You judge the whole based on the actions of a few. I don't do that.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast