Is this a proper arrest?

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMQE9qyptDI&lc=ifCA5EANGGGe0gR62rhcjL7kwebH117aflG9NQX5tWI&feature=inbox[/youtube]

More information is needed to make a well-informed judgment/decision here -- What had been said prior to the video taping? -- but I am inclined to defend the arrest. That officer needs some practice in speaking simply and clearly rather than bantering, but his concern about personal safety was completely legitimate there in the dark.

there were three squad cars and all witnesses say the officer spoke first.
well except the officer he does not include a quote in the report.
his report also says there were 3 known gang members in the car
when there was only one man in the car (he was not arrested or ticketed)
Miss Good was the only one arrested.
but we all know how honest cops are

If there is a law justifying the arrest it is a -proper- arrest based on an unjust law which should be held unconstitutional in the courts. The propriety of an arrest is reckoned in relation to the applicable law prescribing the arrest.

If an officer of the law orders a citizen into his house, he is required to comply. The matter can be straightened out afterward in court.

ruveyn

That is actually irrelevant. She was arrested because she refused to comply with an order given for safety reasons.

I once got stopped for an alleged traffic violation and had one cop watching me while two others searched my car, and I nearly got arrested just for raising my hands to gesture when I talked. The officer could see I was trying to comply and keep my hands at my sides, but my inability to do so while responding to his questions would have made no difference if he had decided to interpret my actions as being in any way endangering.


I was not aware of that kind of law, but yes, it is always best to comply and then let a judge straighten things out.

I see no issue.

Generally speaking, peace officers required only "reasonable grounds to believe" that an order is necessary to authorize them to issue it, and a failure to obey is, generally speaking, an offence.

If it turns out that the peace officer had no reasonable grounds to believe that the initial order was required, then no offence will be made out, since the order will be a nullity.

But if it turns out that the officer did have reasonable grounds, even though it turned out that the order was not, in fact, required, then the offence is still made out.

Peace officers are not expected to be perfect--but they are expected to be reasonable (in the legal sense of the word). Ignore them at your peril.

The police don't get to make up the law as they go, and if they tell you to do something that they lack the authority to command you are under no obligation to do it. Under the logic I'm seeing in this thread, the LAPD could have confiscated the Rodney King tape and arrested the man who filmed it because "you should do what they say and sort it out later". Recording the cops should never be a crime, and certainly isn't grounds for officers to "fear for their safety".

More info on this case:

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_st ... d-dropped/

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/24/ro ... e-use.html

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/22/wo ... d-cop.html

The woman was not arrested for her videotaping, and the Rodney King cameraman was standing much, much farther away. I do not know where or how all of this particular situation started, but the woman is on some kind of campaign with the police in her sights and thinks she is being cute about it.

in denmark the officer would have been in court in a matter of days, the media would love it.

how your laws are in the us i dont know, but over here if there is no specific law for the policeman to cite when issuing an order (they dont have to cite it but if i ask for it they are expected to give it)then it is null and void.

i have on several occasions denied being searched worked about 50% of the time, rest they searched and found nothing with me berating their ears about why they are wrong, i hate wrongfull use of authority.

So what was she arrested for? You can play semantics and say she was arrested for refusing to obey an order, but when that order is itself unlawful she would not have been under any legal obligation to obey it. That's like justifying a free speech violation by saying someone wasn't being censored, they were simply ordered not to communicate and then refused to comply; it doesn't hold any water.

Also, why does her proximity to the police and/or personal motivation have any bearing on the law? To go back to the Rodney Kind incident, you think it would have been fine for the cops to arrest the cameraman and take the tape if he was standing closer and/or had an anti police abuse agenda? We give the police an awful lot of authority over us, and to use their own logic on them, if they have nothing to hide they should welcome being filmed in the line of duty.

When it comes to the legality of an order from a peace officer, the benefit of the doubt goes to the officer--an order is presumed to be lawful until such time as a court of competent jurisdiction determines that it is not.

It is not appropriate to second guess the legality of an officer's order on the spot, that is a proper area of inquiry for a court, after the fact. Now, if officers are found to have misconducted themselves, there are a range of sanctions that can be imposed for that behaviour--but the street is not the place to resolve these issues.

I find your "Rodney King" example to be a red herring. While the police might well confiscate a tape, they are compelled to preserve it.

I think you are due for some interesting litigation over the next few years about the legitimacy of laws prohibiting recording the police. I agree with your principled position, but the legislative trend is against you, unless the courts choose to intervene.

I do not know, but the cop said nothing at all about her videotaping. I only know she presumed to tell the cop she had a right to stand there and record, and then *she* played semantics and mimicked/mocked him about moving a foot back "if that would be okay", and then she lied to the cop and said she did not want to go inside "... because I feel like I need the fresh air right now."


... and it seems a judge has agreed, but there in the yard was no place to argue. If that had been me, I likely would have gone inside and called the police department and asked for a supervisor to come out to the scene and resolve the matter of an officer telling me I cannot stand in my yard and observe/record a traffic stop.


What law? The officers' right/responsibility to have and to maintain a sense of security and safety for anyone and/or everyone?


The question here has nothing to do with tape.


Not me. I just happen to know they have guns.


I suspect they do, and maybe next time they will set up barricades and stuff for everyone's overall safety while all of that is going on.