Author Topic: Arrest mistake (Read 4058 times)

Martlet · « **Reply #75 on:** March 05, 2005, 04:34:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
that shows what? That officers can detain a suspect? I already knew that.It's called conducting an invetigation. The supreme court case you cited was about a guy not giving his name. That is a crime and he was charged. If you refuse to give your name the police have a right to hold you until you give it to them or they figure it out.

I thought you were saying police could take people to jail without arresting them. Which they cannot, except in the case above where the only "crime" he committed was not giving his info.

I'm saying the police can detain people, which Tweety specifically said wasn't allowed to happen. The length or restrictions on the detainment varies from state to state. You haven't submitted any code that backs up your claim.

Kegger26 · « **Reply #76 on:** March 05, 2005, 05:08:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
I say yes, because I have nothing to hide. If it makes the officer happy & feel safer (and less likely to ticket me), he can go for it. I'm glad I don't have his job. I said no once. I got to wait on the curb while they called in for a search warrant or whatever the procedure dicates they do. More cops & a K-9 showed up. They got excited and 1 was talking trash to me when the dog went nuts... it found my Quarter Pounder & fries. Turns out that's what the handler gives it as a reward for busting people.

I always say no, I also advise my gf and my friends to say no as well. Saying no to a search is in no way an admision to guilt. Saying no doesnt mean you have anything to hide. The reasion I say no is the simple fact you MIGHT have somthing in your car you dont know about. There have even been cases where someone bought a car that had drugs in it the dealer never found.
It is a bit of a pain but for the most part you have to wait for a K-9 to come out sometimes the wait for this is so long the officer will just say forget it unless he thinks there is somthing in the car.
There are officers out there that like to take every chance they get to search a car. Not for any good reasion other than the fact they try have permison to.
Back when I got pulled over and told I had a suspended licence I was put in cuffs and put in the back of a police car. The officer later claimed in court this was due to my status as a police officer and the fact I was armed at the time of the stop...again things with in my right.
He preformed a search on the car. I was the driver but the car belonged to my GF. She was also there at the time. He never asked her to search which he should have. In the trunk he found a shotgun, from when we went shooting earler in the day with friends. There was a shell in the loading tube, one that was forgot. He tried to charge me with that as well.
In the end all charges were dropped, the suspended licence bit was a mistake on there part, and the fact is I should have never been cuffed and placed in the back of there car, and our car should have never been searched. This is why I always say no.
In some states it is against the law to store a weapon and amunition in the trunk. You never know when you might have a gun in there with a stray 9mm round somewhere in your trunk. You can get a ticket for this or worse. The car is an extension of the home. Keep it that way.

crowMAW · « **Reply #77 on:** March 05, 2005, 05:22:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Sure. That's been said several times. However, not a single person has been able to point out where it says that.

However, the definition of detainment has been cited and is easily obtainable.

Let's see your source.

Here is another one:

http://dui.findlaw.com/articles/1501.html

Quote

An arrest is different from a stop. A stop involves brief questioning in the place where you were detained. If the officer wishes to hold you for a longer period of time, or decides to take you elsewhere, such as to the police station, he or she is no longer just stopping you, but is arresting you. Because an arrest deprives you of your freedom of movement for an even longer period of time than a stop, the law limits the instances when arrests can be made.

Nilsen · « **Reply #78 on:** March 05, 2005, 05:29:55 PM »

i remeber beeing pulled over by cops somewere in montana..

oh... no i dont

but my gf remebers

all to well

Curval · « **Reply #79 on:** March 05, 2005, 05:45:21 PM »

"You never know when you might have a gun in there with a stray 9mm round somewhere in your trunk."

Something that only an American could possibly say.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #80 on:** March 05, 2005, 05:48:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Something that only an American could possibly say.

Freedom is a wonderful thing.

SOB · « **Reply #81 on:** March 05, 2005, 05:51:29 PM »

Ain't it though.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #82 on:** March 05, 2005, 07:13:45 PM »

>>I'm saying the police can detain people, which Tweety specifically said wasn't allowed to happen. <<

No you are trying to wiggle out of being wrong.

To recap, you state:
>>They have no business telling you who is or isn't in custody, regardless how important you think you are.<<

Wrong, its public record. When proven wrong you attempt to bring up some red herring about juveniles, which doesn't even apply to the discussion.

Then you try another straw

>>Correct. When they are charged and booked it becomes public record. When they are detained, it is not.<<

Again you are wrong.
First of all someone being transported is NOT detained but arrested, and no, before they are even booked its public record and there is no expectation of privacy.

This is what I said about detainment…

>>In all states, detaining means you can hold them in the vicinity with just cause (i.e., cause to warrant an investigation). Removing them from the immediate vicinity requires arrest. In order to transport a person against their will, you must first arrest them. At anytime an individual can determine there is unjust cause for detention and simply walk away, forcing an arrest if the officers believe they have just cause for arrest. That's about any state.<<

That’s what I stated about detainment and stand by that statement, not your twisted summary.

And here you delete information that doesn’t even apply to governmental agencies (i.e., police officers, civil sheriffs etc.)…

>>Edit: Never mind. Information substantiating my postion has already been posted<<

You’re trying to make a point out things that don’t even apply. A person being transported to lockup is not detained, they are arrested and that is public record at that point (I can write about it, print pictures of it, and sing about it without fear of infringing on privacy). You were wrong as to what constitutes arrest and when an arrest becomes public record and you're trying to wiggle out of being wrong. Its really that simple.

Curval · « **Reply #83 on:** March 05, 2005, 07:21:22 PM »

lol

Freedom.

Maverick · « **Reply #84 on:** March 05, 2005, 07:55:00 PM »

Still waiting for the answer to my original questions to you Tweety. I see you have started to dance around the post and are talking about something I was not discussing in my posts. Favorite tactic of trollers here on the bbs. Was this whole trhread just a troll? If so at least fess up as I don't waste time with trollers.

Martlet · « **Reply #85 on:** March 05, 2005, 08:01:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>I'm saying the police can detain people, which Tweety specifically said wasn't allowed to happen. <<

No you are trying to wiggle out of being wrong.

No, actually you said:

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
There is no detained! You're watching too many cops episodes. An officer cannot detain anyone without arresting them. A cop holding you against your will without arresting you is breaking the law.

Which, as we just learned, is entirely false.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #86 on:** March 05, 2005, 08:07:22 PM »

"Texas redneck hick"

Abundantly redundant.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #87 on:** March 05, 2005, 09:47:00 PM »

>>No, actually you said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TweetyBird
There is no detained! You're watching too many cops episodes. An officer cannot detain anyone without arresting them. A cop holding you against your will without arresting you is breaking the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which, as we just learned, is entirely false.<<

Yes that was an over simplification cleared up in the next post being more specific (the post quoted in my recap) but NOT entirely false even its oversimplification as you quickly learned while googling it. What is entirely false is your contention that someones arrest is not public record until they are booked or that someone can be transported out of the vicinity against there will without being arrested. You still failed to address that you were entirely wrong about both of these.

Also interesting you left out this bit of my post...

>> They sure as hell can't transport you without making an arrest. And even though for logistics reasons, arrests aren't made widely available till after booking, arrests before booking are PUBLIC RECORD.
<<

You know why you left that out? I do. Because it told you that you were wrong, and guess what - you WERE wrong about what is detention, what is arrest, and when arrest becomes public record.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #88 on:** March 05, 2005, 09:56:24 PM »

Maveric, I'm not dancing around anything. You're asking for specific personal information that I won't give to you. What the hell is your expertise? You're a cop. So what? Your expertise is transport-period. Everything else is very gray including efforts to circumvent Miranda even if not stated. Efforts to circumvent Miranda are violations of Miranda (more specifically the the precedent set in Miranda v. Arizona ) - "well if you don't talk to me I'll put you in a cell with people who know what you've done" or "if you talk to me I'll help you" All that is hollywood BS. Both violate Miranda.

You are stating I'm assigning too much importance to Miranda, and I'm telling you Miranda is based on constitutional rights that do NOT have to be read to be in place. Miranda is the precedent - the RIGHTS are in the constitution. How is that dancing around what you've asked?

As far as as this board is concerned, my name is TweetyBird and my expertise is putty tats. Your expertise is either horses, cars or old tv shows as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to post as an authority, post under your real name where your credentials can be checked -not under some pseudonym.

Martlet · « **Reply #89 on:** March 05, 2005, 10:53:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>No, actually you said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TweetyBird
There is no detained! You're watching too many cops episodes. An officer cannot detain anyone without arresting them. A cop holding you against your will without arresting you is breaking the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which, as we just learned, is entirely false.<<

Yes that was an over simplification cleared up in the next post being more specific (the post quoted in my recap) but NOT entirely false even its oversimplification as you quickly learned while googling it. What is entirely false is your contention that someones arrest is not public record until they are booked or that someone can be transported out of the vicinity against there will without being arrested. You still failed to address that you were entirely wrong about both of these.

Also interesting you left out this bit of my post...

>> They sure as hell can't transport you without making an arrest. And even though for logistics reasons, arrests aren't made widely available till after booking, arrests before booking are PUBLIC RECORD.
<<

You know why you left that out? I do. Because it told you that you were wrong, and guess what - you WERE wrong about what is detention, what is arrest, and when arrest becomes public record.

Or because it's completely irrelevant.

You were wrong. Your overstated self importance was recognized by the cops. They put you in your place. You came to a BBS to cry about it.

It's pretty cut and dry. If, of course, you didn't just make the whole thing up.