Legal experts: Feds' viral arrest in Portland violated the Fourth Amendment

[Agit8r]

The Non-Duly Appointed Secretary of DHS Ken Cuccinelli has no legal authority to give any orders resulting in anyone's detainment. Those acting on his orders (or those of Non-Duly Appointed Chad Wolf) are acting in a non-constitutional capacity. If they act in any threatening manner, Oregonians have No Duty to Retreat.

 

[Agit8r]

Meanwhile.... Portland is turning into a 3rd world country... but to the OP... the most important thing here is somebody said someone was held for an undetermined moment to see if he was the one who did something.

And THAT is the leftist mind.

Get real. The inner-city passenger rail is still running and everything. How many Republican districts can you say that about?

 

[martybegan]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Meanwhile.... Portland is turning into a 3rd world country... but to the OP... the most important thing here is somebody said someone was held for an undetermined moment to see if he was the one who did something.

And THAT is the leftist mind.

It's third world countries that brush aside people's constitutional rights.

Absolutely!!!
People who own private property have the right to it not to be vandalized
Store owners have the right to not be stolen from
Citizens have the right to be able to drive down public roads without other people blocking their way and harassing them
Citizens have the right to feel secure in their own town

GLAD YOU FINALLY SEE IT OUR WAY!!...... THANKS!

 

[pknopp]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

 

[martybegan]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

And?

They released him. They had the wrong guy.

Why are you crying about this?

Considering the guy detained was all in black and had is face covered, just like pretty much every other protester/rioter in the area, I wonder how surprised they really are that sometimes a wrong person would be detained.

 

[pknopp]

Meanwhile.... Portland is turning into a 3rd world country... but to the OP... the most important thing here is somebody said someone was held for an undetermined moment to see if he was the one who did something.

And THAT is the leftist mind.

It's third world countries that brush aside people's constitutional rights.

Absolutely!!!
People who own private property have the right to it not to be vandalized
Store owners have the right to not be stolen from
Citizens have the right to be able to drive down public roads without other people blocking their way and harassing them
Citizens have the right to feel secure in their own town

GLAD TO FINALLY SEE IT OUR WAY!!...... THANKS!

Finally see it your way? I said from the beginning that they had a right to stand on their property with their guns. No, your problem is that I see everyone's rights and defend them no matter which way it blows the partisan flags.

 

[martybegan]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

 

[pknopp]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Meanwhile.... Portland is turning into a 3rd world country... but to the OP... the most important thing here is somebody said someone was held for an undetermined moment to see if he was the one who did something.

And THAT is the leftist mind.

It's third world countries that brush aside people's constitutional rights.

Absolutely!!!
People who own private property have the right to it not to be vandalized
Store owners have the right to not be stolen from
Citizens have the right to be able to drive down public roads without other people blocking their way and harassing them
Citizens have the right to feel secure in their own town

GLAD TO FINALLY SEE IT OUR WAY!!...... THANKS!

Finally see it your way? I said from the beginning that they had a right to stand on their property with their guns. No, your problem is that I see everyone's rights and defend them no matter which way it blows the partisan flags.

No one in Portland stood on property with guns.
I realize only watching CNN you haven't really seen the destruction going on in Portland. people can't go out at night in areas of their own town. Store owners have been forced t close their businesses due to having to board up the building to keep looters out after busting windows out.
You won't see that on CNN.

 

[martybegan]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

 

[pknopp]

Meanwhile.... Portland is turning into a 3rd world country... but to the OP... the most important thing here is somebody said someone was held for an undetermined moment to see if he was the one who did something.

And THAT is the leftist mind.

It's third world countries that brush aside people's constitutional rights.

Absolutely!!!
People who own private property have the right to it not to be vandalized
Store owners have the right to not be stolen from
Citizens have the right to be able to drive down public roads without other people blocking their way and harassing them
Citizens have the right to feel secure in their own town

GLAD TO FINALLY SEE IT OUR WAY!!...... THANKS!

Finally see it your way? I said from the beginning that they had a right to stand on their property with their guns. No, your problem is that I see everyone's rights and defend them no matter which way it blows the partisan flags.

No one in Portland stood on property with guns.
I realize only watching CNN you haven't really seen the destruction going on in Portland. people can't go out at night in areas of their own town. Store owners have been forced t close their businesses due to having to board up the building to keep looters out after busting windows out.
You won't see that on CNN.

I guess you are the one that watches CNN to know that. The solution is easy. It really is.

 

[pknopp]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

 

[martybegan]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this, I saw pictures of the supposed arrest, and read many stories on this. I based my view of what I think happened based on all of those.

Now if you have any evidence to the contrary, feel free to provide it.

If not, all you are doing is going "nu-uh" like a drooling idiot.

 

[Lysistrata]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

Did the people who detained him give him their names, agencies, and badge numbers? They appear not even to have been in proper uniform.

 

[pknopp]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Twitter as a news source.... and there you have it.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The Non-Duly Appointed Secretary of DHS Ken Cuccinelli has no legal authority to give any orders resulting in anyone's detainment. Those acting on his orders (or those of Non-Duly Appointed Chad Wolf) are acting in a non-constitutional capacity. If they act in any threatening manner, Oregonians have No Duty to Retreat.

What on earth are you babbling about?

 

[martybegan]

The feds arrested a man because someone somewhere near him allegedly pointed a laser at police.
Guilt by association has been ruled to be no grounds for arrest.
The man was released 20 minutes after questioning because the Feds had nothing on him

~~~~~~
He was detained but not arrested. Totally legal.....

"The Fourth Amendment applies to “seizures” and it is not necessary that a detention be a formal arrest in order to bring to bear the requirements of warrants, or probable cause in instances in which warrants are not required."

Arrests and Other Detentions

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated)

law.justia.com

.

So any time cops want to arrest someone, or even detain them for questioning, they have to have a warrant first?

Once again your side is now creating new and completely false standards in your quest to get the BAD ORANGE MAN.

They have to have probable cause. Being outside is not probable cause.

Some guy dressed in black, with a covered face did something worthy of detention, they found a guy in the area dressed in black, with a covered face, probably matching the description of the guy they were looking for.

They wanted to question him, however whenever the rioters see police action they try to interfere, so they took him somewhere safe to question him.

When they determined they had the wrong guy, they released him.

You are now just making things up.

It is my view of what happened based on the information I have seen so far.

You never saw what you made up.

I read an interview of someone from DHS on this..........................

No you didn't.

DHS Official On Reports Of Federal Officers Detaining Protesters In Portland, Ore.

 

[pknopp]

The Non-Duly Appointed Secretary of DHS Ken Cuccinelli has no legal authority to give any orders resulting in anyone's detainment. Those acting on his orders (or those of Non-Duly Appointed Chad Wolf) are acting in a non-constitutional capacity. If they act in any threatening manner, Oregonians have No Duty to Retreat.

What on earth are you babbling about?

I found what they said quiet clear.