Minneapolis Police Chief: "It has absolutely become an unlawful assembly."

[Delldude]

You were trying to make the case they can hold people for two days based on reasonable suspicion, which is how little you understand what you’re talking about.

Wide latitude. Developing evidence to file charges while an investigation proceeds?

No specific detention rules or timeframe, varies by state and often is stated as a time period not a set specific.

Wide latitude.

 

[Marener]

Wide latitude. Developing evidence to file charges while an investigation proceeds?

No specific detention rules or timeframe, varies by state and often is stated as a time period not a set specific.

Wide latitude.

If you think police can lock you up for days without probable cause, the fourth amendment means nothing.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

How do you lose control of a peaceful protest?

Easy: If you are Walz or Fry, that's easy to do. You encourage these brain-washed paid Liberal rioters to go psycho and film it on their phone

 

[Delldude]

If you think police can lock you up for days without probable cause, the fourth amendment means nothing.

Loop holes.

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

 

[Delldude]

"There are individuals throwing fireworks at police officers, individuals throwing ice, rocks, other projectiles at police officers. Um, it is well past the line, and people need to leave."


The mayor of Minneapolis was standing right next to him when he said it. It seems that these Democrats now recognize the difference between a peaceful protest and a riot. Did they see a new internal poll?

I saw the mayor rambling on with the Chief beside him, not sure if it was this event, but the mayor made a comment about the protests and the Chief's eyes popped at what was said.

 

[Marener]

Loop holes.

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

If the founding fathers were alive today, they’d be on our side and very likely talking about armed resistance against this kind of insanity.

 

[Delldude]

If the founding fathers were alive today, they’d be on our side and very likely talking about armed resistance against this kind of insanity.

I doubt it. You fail to accept the fact that the line between detention and arrest isn't as cut and dried as you'd like it to be.

 

[Marener]

I doubt it. You fail to accept the fact that the line between detention and arrest isn't as cut and dried as you'd like it to be.

There is a gray zone, but what they did to this man is nowhere near that area.

The founding fathers would have never accepted such an intrusion of the state into our lives

 

[Delldude]

There is a gray zone, but what they did to this man is nowhere near that area.

Debatable. I haven't heard anything from DHS.

I liked the 'I was going grocery shopping and decided instead to jackoff some feds' line.

Maybe maybe not.

The founding fathers would have never accepted such an intrusion of the state into our lives

And what do you think they would have done?

 

[22lcidw]

If the founding fathers were alive today, they’d be on our side and very likely talking about armed resistance against this kind of insanity.

1913 and some of the amendments helped to cause what we see, and they would have told you so on it.

 

[Marener]

Debatable. I haven't heard anything from DHS.

I liked the 'I was going grocery shopping and decided instead to jackoff some feds' line.

Maybe maybe not.

It’s not debatable for anyone who isn’t completely delusional.

And what do you think they would have done?

They took up arms against violating people’s rights before.

 

[Delldude]

It’s not debatable for anyone who isn’t completely delusional.

Like I said, there's wide latitude here. I'd say people are detained more often than not without being arrested, and you know it. So somewhere between Terry v Ohio and 48 hours is a grey area. About the only thing that would happen is if evidence was found and someone wasn't charged in a timely manner, that evidence is tossed. Other than that the subject is released with limited recourse.

You fit the definition of delusional, my man.

They took up arms against violating people’s rights before.

Yeah, who chased them across the pond.

 

[OODA_Loop]

He was arrested.

Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You've Been Arrested or Detained

In general, if a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes wouldn’t feel free to leave an encounter with the police, then there’s been either a detention or an

www.nolo.com

Detainments don’t last for 8 hours, they don’t involve being physically assaulted, thrown to the ground, shackled and carted off to jail.

They might when it involves identification through fingerprinting and NCIS.

CRM 1-499

​

The Fourth Amendment does not bar the fingerprinting of a properly seized person. "Fingerprinting involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search." See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 727 (1969). So long as the initial seizure of the person is reasonable, as in a lawful arrest, subsequent fingerprinting is permissible. It is also possible that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment could be met through "narrowly circumscribed procedures for obtaining, during the course of a criminal investigation, the fingerprints of individuals for whom there is no probable cause for arrest." See Davis v. Mississippi, supra, at 728; see also Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985).

 

[Seymour Flops]

I saw the mayor rambling on with the Chief beside him, not sure if it was this event, but the mayor made a comment about the protests and the Chief's eyes popped at what was said.

Jesus.

Chief o'hara needs work on his poker face, which I guess you have to have.If you're a democrat police chief with a democrat mayor.

 

[Marener]

They might when it involves identification through fingerprinting and NCIS.

CRM 1-499

​

The Fourth Amendment does not bar the fingerprinting of a properly seized person. "Fingerprinting involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search." See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 727 (1969). So long as the initial seizure of the person is reasonable, as in a lawful arrest, subsequent fingerprinting is permissible. It is also possible that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment could be met through "narrowly circumscribed procedures for obtaining, during the course of a criminal investigation, the fingerprints of individuals for whom there is no probable cause for arrest." See Davis v. Mississippi, supra, at 728; see also Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985).

Davis v Mississippi doesn’t actually say what those circumstances would be, and just hypothesizes about them.

In Hayes v Florida, the court held that taking someone to the police station to detain them for investigation and fingerprinting was arrest and required probable cause. They determined it was a violation of the 4th amendment.

 

[Delldude]

Jesus.

Chief o'hara needs work on his poker face, which I guess you have to have.If you're a democrat police chief with a democrat mayor.

Sorry, that was the best copy I could quickly find. His looks has me thinking he may want to distance him self from the craziness.
Hard to say.

In Hayes v Florida, the court held that taking someone to the police station to detain them for investigation and fingerprinting was arrest and required probable cause. They determined it was a violation of the 4th amendment.

So it absolutely, positively stopped it from ever happening again?

 

[Marener]

So it absolutely, positively stopped it from ever happening again?

It would have if law enforcement would respect the constitution.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Davis v Mississippi doesn’t actually say what those circumstances would be, and just hypothesizes about them.

That means there is reasonable discretion on the LE part.

 

[Delldude]

It would have if law enforcement would respect the constitution.

Nope............too much leeway.

 

[Marener]

That means there is reasonable discretion on the LE part.

Not even close. In fact, when it hypothesizes about the circumstances, it considers that it need not be done urgently and can be done at an individuals convenience as part of a criminal investigation (none of which is happening in the circumstances at play).

Why did you edit out the rest of my response? You should read Hayes v Florida because it explains that scooping someone up and taking them to the police station clearly indicates an arrest.