Can a cop arrest anyone?

[pinqy]

A false arrest should be considered false imprisonment and cops should be held responsible, especially if they make a habit of it.

What are you defining as a false arrest, though? A mistaken arrest is not unlawful.

 

[Ravi]

A false arrest should be considered false imprisonment and cops should be held responsible, especially if they make a habit of it.

What are you defining as a false arrest, though? A mistaken arrest is not unlawful.

Something along the lines of the guy in NYC that got killed because he had sold loosies in the past.

A mistaken arrest should be compensated if you lose job time or incur any costs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad Ravi is shifting a bit. The arrest on the NYC guy was absolutely legit. How it was carried out was probably criminal.

 

[Ravi]

No, it wasn't legit.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I say a cop can arrest anyone they want and its up to a judge to decide after the fact if it is lawful or not.

Can anyone resist arrest? Even if its Unlawful, that isnt for you to decide, is it?

If you're positive you're 100% innocent and within your rights, you hypothetically can resist arrest. But I wouldn't recommend it. If not a criminal defense lawyer who might be certain you're within you're rights resisting, don't.

Always better to submit then, if truly innocent sue for millions.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

You could for example deny entry to police without a warrant who (if you're certain) lack probable cause to believe something illegal is in plain view or otherwise suspected of going on. But it's a lot simpler, and safer, to go along with things then avail yourself of your rights at a hearing or trial.

People who get pulled over in a vehicle for example can refuse to allow an officer to search the vehicle (IF, and only IF, you are certain you didn't do anything to warrant being pulled over. Maybe you were 1 mph over the speed limit. If not willing to bet your life (literally) on your not having done so, don't start mouthing off asserting rights you THINK you have.) What'll happen then though is they'll call a K9 unit to come snif around the perimeter of the vehicle. If the dog 'alerts' or the officer claims it did, they can search whether you allow it or not.

You basicly have to know more about the intricacies of criminal law and arrest procedures than the officer to lawfully resist anything they tell you to do. Not an easy bar to meet.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Any citizen can arrest someone in clear circumstances of felony. S/he better be ready to accept the consequences, however.
Technically, the police have to have probable cause to even interrogate someone (which is why the random stopping of vehicles to check for sobriety and papers should have been found unconstitutional).
You don't have to prove your innocence; it is for them to prove your guilt.

They banned those here in Texas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any citizen can arrest someone in clear circumstances of felony. S/he better be ready to accept the consequences, however.
Technically, the police have to have probable cause to even interrogate someone (which is why the random stopping of vehicles to check for sobriety and papers should have been found unconstitutional).
You don't have to prove your innocence; it is for them to prove your guilt.

They banned those here in Texas.

A citizen's arrest was banned?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Any citizen can arrest someone in clear circumstances of felony. S/he better be ready to accept the consequences, however.
Technically, the police have to have probable cause to even interrogate someone (which is why the random stopping of vehicles to check for sobriety and papers should have been found unconstitutional).
You don't have to prove your innocence; it is for them to prove your guilt.

They banned those here in Texas.

A citizen's arrest was banned?

Sobriety checkpoints.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Any citizen can arrest someone in clear circumstances of felony. S/he better be ready to accept the consequences, however.
Technically, the police have to have probable cause to even interrogate someone (which is why the random stopping of vehicles to check for sobriety and papers should have been found unconstitutional).
You don't have to prove your innocence; it is for them to prove your guilt.

They banned those here in Texas.

A citizen's arrest was banned?

Sobriety checkpoints.

Randomness of a given 'closer scrutiny' being why. That's unconstitutional. If yous earch everyone, it's legal. If randomly, it's illegal.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Any citizen can arrest someone in clear circumstances of felony. S/he better be ready to accept the consequences, however.
Technically, the police have to have probable cause to even interrogate someone (which is why the random stopping of vehicles to check for sobriety and papers should have been found unconstitutional).
You don't have to prove your innocence; it is for them to prove your guilt.

They banned those here in Texas.

A citizen's arrest was banned?

Sobriety checkpoints.

Randomness of a given 'closer scrutiny' being why. That's unconstitutional. If yous earch everyone, it's legal. If randomly, it's illegal.

What the hell are you talking about?
Texas doesnt allow sobriety checkpoints. Not sure where the confusion is.

 

[pinqy]

A false arrest should be considered false imprisonment and cops should be held responsible, especially if they make a habit of it.

What are you defining as a false arrest, though? A mistaken arrest is not unlawful.

Something along the lines of the guy in NYC that got killed because he had sold loosies in the past.

"Something along the lines of...." hmmmm not a phrase I'm used to seeing criminal statutes. The definitions are usually actually definitions.

Looking at Eric Garner's death, there does not appear to be reasonable suspicion to warrant an arrest. IF there had been direct complaints that day that he was selling loosies, then the arrest would have been fine.

Freddie Gray is tougher as it could be considered a reasonable mistake of law to believe the knife was illegal under Baltimore law, though it was clearly legal under Maryland law.

And Maryland case law provides a good example that existing law does punish false arrest.

In 1996, police were called for a theft at a mall in Waldorf Md. They stopped 4 yutes who matched the description, and patted them down. The store owner showed up and declared that they were not the thieves. Crispin Sorrell was arrested anyway for possession of a 3" folding pocket knife.

So, any folding knife that is not a switchblade is not a weapon under Maryland law, and that had already been established in court. So the officer had no probable cause for arrest and should have known he did not. So the court waived his qualified immunity and allowed a suit for false arrest.

 

[Ravi]

A false arrest should be considered false imprisonment and cops should be held responsible, especially if they make a habit of it.

What are you defining as a false arrest, though? A mistaken arrest is not unlawful.

Something along the lines of the guy in NYC that got killed because he had sold loosies in the past.

"Something along the lines of...." hmmmm not a phrase I'm used to seeing criminal statutes. The definitions are usually actually definitions.

Looking at Eric Garner's death, there does not appear to be reasonable suspicion to warrant an arrest. IF there had been direct complaints that day that he was selling loosies, then the arrest would have been fine.

Freddie Gray is tougher as it could be considered a reasonable mistake of law to believe the knife was illegal under Baltimore law, though it was clearly legal under Maryland law.

And Maryland case law provides a good example that existing law does punish false arrest.

In 1996, police were called for a theft at a mall in Waldorf Md. They stopped 4 yutes who matched the description, and patted them down. The store owner showed up and declared that they were not the thieves. Crispin Sorrell was arrested anyway for possession of a 3" folding pocket knife.

So, any folding knife that is not a switchblade is not a weapon under Maryland law, and that had already been established in court. So the officer had no probable cause for arrest and should have known he did not. So the court waived his qualified immunity and allowed a suit for false arrest.

Gray was arrested before the knife was discovered. And for what exactly? Looking at a cop and running away.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Arresting people is dangerous. We have to think about the safety of the cop and arresting someone can put them at risk. It's better that they just shoot the person until they're dead and then justify it later.

Damn someone agreed with me? Sick world we live in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ravi, a cop can always arrest you, whether legally or not.

 

[Mad Scientist]

A Cop can't just "arrest anyone they want and let a Judge decide".

If a Cop doesn't have an Arrest Warrant or see the crime committed in his presence then he'll have difficulty explaining the "crime" to a Judge.

Guess what happens to Cops who arrest for no reason too often? The complaints add up, his insurance goes up, he becomes a liability to his Employer and he's eventually let go.

And that's getting off easy.

 

[pinqy]

A false arrest should be considered false imprisonment and cops should be held responsible, especially if they make a habit of it.

What are you defining as a false arrest, though? A mistaken arrest is not unlawful.

Something along the lines of the guy in NYC that got killed because he had sold loosies in the past.

"Something along the lines of...." hmmmm not a phrase I'm used to seeing criminal statutes. The definitions are usually actually definitions.

Looking at Eric Garner's death, there does not appear to be reasonable suspicion to warrant an arrest. IF there had been direct complaints that day that he was selling loosies, then the arrest would have been fine.

Freddie Gray is tougher as it could be considered a reasonable mistake of law to believe the knife was illegal under Baltimore law, though it was clearly legal under Maryland law.

And Maryland case law provides a good example that existing law does punish false arrest.

In 1996, police were called for a theft at a mall in Waldorf Md. They stopped 4 yutes who matched the description, and patted them down. The store owner showed up and declared that they were not the thieves. Crispin Sorrell was arrested anyway for possession of a 3" folding pocket knife.

So, any folding knife that is not a switchblade is not a weapon under Maryland law, and that had already been established in court. So the officer had no probable cause for arrest and should have known he did not. So the court waived his qualified immunity and allowed a suit for false arrest.

Gray was arrested before the knife was discovered. And for what exactly? Looking at a cop and running away.

No, he was not. Running from the police is reasonable suspicion and the cops can pursue to investigate. Once detained because of that reasonable suspicion, they found the knife. The arrest was for the knife. (which I maintain was legal under Baltimore law and the arrest was wrong)

 

[Ravi]

A false arrest should be considered false imprisonment and cops should be held responsible, especially if they make a habit of it.

What are you defining as a false arrest, though? A mistaken arrest is not unlawful.

Something along the lines of the guy in NYC that got killed because he had sold loosies in the past.

"Something along the lines of...." hmmmm not a phrase I'm used to seeing criminal statutes. The definitions are usually actually definitions.

Looking at Eric Garner's death, there does not appear to be reasonable suspicion to warrant an arrest. IF there had been direct complaints that day that he was selling loosies, then the arrest would have been fine.

Freddie Gray is tougher as it could be considered a reasonable mistake of law to believe the knife was illegal under Baltimore law, though it was clearly legal under Maryland law.

And Maryland case law provides a good example that existing law does punish false arrest.

In 1996, police were called for a theft at a mall in Waldorf Md. They stopped 4 yutes who matched the description, and patted them down. The store owner showed up and declared that they were not the thieves. Crispin Sorrell was arrested anyway for possession of a 3" folding pocket knife.

So, any folding knife that is not a switchblade is not a weapon under Maryland law, and that had already been established in court. So the officer had no probable cause for arrest and should have known he did not. So the court waived his qualified immunity and allowed a suit for false arrest.

Gray was arrested before the knife was discovered. And for what exactly? Looking at a cop and running away.

No, he was not. Running from the police is reasonable suspicion and the cops can pursue to investigate. Once detained because of that reasonable suspicion, they found the knife. The arrest was for the knife. (which I maintain was legal under Baltimore law and the arrest was wrong)

"once detained" "they found the knife" I believe that is what I said. Making eye contact and running is reasonable suspicion of what crime exactly?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Interesting rundown of theFreddie Gray case here:
Freddie Gray Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby Baltimore

 

[pinqy]

What are you defining as a false arrest, though? A mistaken arrest is not unlawful.

Something along the lines of the guy in NYC that got killed because he had sold loosies in the past.

"Something along the lines of...." hmmmm not a phrase I'm used to seeing criminal statutes. The definitions are usually actually definitions.

Looking at Eric Garner's death, there does not appear to be reasonable suspicion to warrant an arrest. IF there had been direct complaints that day that he was selling loosies, then the arrest would have been fine.

Freddie Gray is tougher as it could be considered a reasonable mistake of law to believe the knife was illegal under Baltimore law, though it was clearly legal under Maryland law.

And Maryland case law provides a good example that existing law does punish false arrest.

In 1996, police were called for a theft at a mall in Waldorf Md. They stopped 4 yutes who matched the description, and patted them down. The store owner showed up and declared that they were not the thieves. Crispin Sorrell was arrested anyway for possession of a 3" folding pocket knife.

So, any folding knife that is not a switchblade is not a weapon under Maryland law, and that had already been established in court. So the officer had no probable cause for arrest and should have known he did not. So the court waived his qualified immunity and allowed a suit for false arrest.

Gray was arrested before the knife was discovered. And for what exactly? Looking at a cop and running away.

No, he was not. Running from the police is reasonable suspicion and the cops can pursue to investigate. Once detained because of that reasonable suspicion, they found the knife. The arrest was for the knife. (which I maintain was legal under Baltimore law and the arrest was wrong)

"once detained" "they found the knife" I believe that is what I said.

Your belief is incorrect. You wrote "Gray was arrested before the knife was discovered. "

Making eye contact and running is reasonable suspicion of what crime exactly?

Any number. You don't need to articulate a particular crime to have reasonable suspicion that a crime was or had been committed.

If the cops see you climbing into the window of a house, it is reasonable suspicion to question you even though it could be perfectly innocent