Case Dismissed Against Woman Arrested While Videotaping Police

reply to post by butcherguy


I said in the other thread that if the charges are dropped I would appologize. However, I still believe she was in the wrong. Not because she was recording, but because of her proximity to the officers and what was going on. Ive pointed this out before with traffic stops at 2am.

When you get pulled over, you have a 99.9% gurantee that the person stopping you is Law Enforcement. You look for your ID and Proof of Insurance and start to wonder what you did to get pulled over.

We clock you doing 60 in a 45 and initiate a traffic stop. We are asking ourselves who is the person in the car? Are they armed? Emotionally disturbed? drunk / high? escaped convict? A murderer who just killed his family that no one has found yet etc etc etc. While this may be the 1st time in your life you have been stopped, chanes are its our 20th citizen contact for that shift.

I have show youtube video, apparently much to the irritation of people who dont care to see the opposing viewpoint and its validety. However I am going to do it one more time. In the video, 2 officers respond to a store to investigate reports of a robbery.

As you watch, put yourself into the officers shoes and ask yourself what you would have done based on your viewpoint. Just because a person is on private property doesnt mean they are innocent bystanders who just want to watch whats going on.

***WARNING - NSFW - GRAPHIC CONTENT*****
www.youtube.com...

Its incidents like the one in the video that makes us leary of people hovering around and watching. You guys iew it as Police over reaction. We view it as survival.

The death of one civillian is to many.
The death of one cop is to many.





A valid opinion, but the issue with that is you would be tieing the hands of all law enforcement to the extent of we not only could not do our jobs, but it would be absolute chaos.

When we make an arrest, its based on the investigation and evidence collected (whether it be physical / written statements etc). Once we collect that evidence, and conclude our investigation, we are making an arrest based on Probable Cause.

The term Probable Cause does not mean absolute - It is what it says - We have cause based on the facts of X, Y and Z that the person we arrest probably did in fact commit the crime. New evidence can surface that can change the course of the investigation, which means a person that was arrested for the crime is no longer the person of intrest and is released.

Even if I am standing right next to a person just decides to pull out a gun an kill someone, his arrest by me is still based on the facts of Probable Cause. I still have to prove the person did what I observed, and the PA has to prove that in court.

Someone a few pages back made the comment that its the responsibility of Law Enforcement to be current on the laws. We do get quartely updates on case law that affects our jobs, but that process is not all inclusive, which is why the PA and not the Police is the final say in whether charges go forward or not.

The flip side to this story with the lady recording. Just because the PA dismissed the charge, does not mean the officer was in the wrong or taking an illegal action. Based on the Officers view, she was interfering and he felt she met the criteria for the charge. Based on the PA;s review of the information, the PA felt there was not sufficient evidence to support the charge.

@ In general, and not directed at you
Again I find some of the comments in this thread humerous. People scream about the ladies rights, and how those rights were violated, how she is innocent until proven guilty etc etc etc. Yet I see absolutely no one making the same argument for the officer. All I see is he should be fired, sued etc etc etc.

Is he not innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Or do citizens get preferential treatment over the Police in the minds of the people in the thread?

reply to post by Xcathdra

If an officer makes an arrest, and in doing so believes the arrest is valid based on law, then there is no false arrest or anything like that.

woah, woah, woah. so if i *BELIEVE* a police officer is on my property to kill me for no reason, i can legally take their life? i did believe my life was threatened, and you can't prove in court that i didn't feel that way.

is that fair? of course not, and neither is arresting someone on belief alone without any consequences. i guess thats the only law you need to know, the "i don't know the law"...law.

that is the BIGGEST cop out (no pun intended) policy i've never heard of. and you believe that is right?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Uhm yeah.. you need to find someone who can read and comprehend and have them explain it to you. You guys come up with the most assinine comparisons that are based in fantasy land.

What I said was if an officer, during the course of his duties, makes an arrest based on the evidence present, and does so in good faith (which means based on his experiance and training he truely beleives the person violated the law), then there is no false arrest.

A False arrest ignores probable cause.

If a citizen walks into the Police station and confesses to a murder, and is arrested and put in jail, only to find out the guy decided he jut wanted a warm place to stay for the night ebcause he is homeless, does that make it a false arrest?

We do the investigation, and depending on the evidence we can either close the call out with no action taken, issue the person a butt chewing and close it out, issue a citation, or make an arrest. If we arrest, they are booked, and once again we do the report, send it to the PA and they go from there.

As far as all of the front yard lets shoot people comments. The one point you guys overlook is the fact law enforcement is in uniform. If a uniformed officer is performing their duties which takes them through your property, and you see they ar in uniform, and you hear them telling you they are a police officer, you dont have grounds to shoot / kill.

This is what I mean when I keep saying people ned to learn the law and their rights and how they work.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Just because the PA withdraws the charges, does not make the officers actins illegal.

The DA said that there was no legal basis to continue. If there was no legal basis for the charges to stick, that means that there was no legal basis for the arrest, thus making the arrest illegal.

the District Attorney’s office says based on a review of the evidence, there was no legal basis to go forward. The charge was withdrawn and the judge dismissed the case.

www.whec.com...

I don't see how it can be argued any other way.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Except in the case it is clearly to nearly everyone that this officer was not acting in good faith. He was on an ego trip and decided to violate an innocent woman's rights. There is no use defending the indefensible.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

If an officer makes an arrest, and in doing so believes the arrest is valid based on law, then there is no false arrest or anything like that.

woah, woah, woah. so if i *BELIEVE* a police officer is on my property to kill me for no reason, i can legally take their life? i did believe my life was threatened, and you can't prove in court that i didn't feel that way.

is that fair? of course not, and neither is arresting someone on belief alone without any consequences. i guess thats the only law you need to know, the "i don't know the law"...law.

that is the BIGGEST cop out (no pun intended) policy i've never heard of. and you believe that is right?

Big difference between arresting someone and killing someone. But yes, as a matter of fact, if you can prove that you had reasonable cause to believe that a police officer was on your property to murder you, then yes, you could legally kill him first.

Aside from that though, sworn officers do have special powers that civilians do not. Namely, the power to detain a person whether or not a crime has in fact been committed.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Sir, excellent responses. In text book.

You and I both know this lad is most likely in for a heap of crap by the higher ups.

He may not have broken the law-technically-but he did violate one of the highest rules (internally). Don't bring shame or unwarranted attention on the Department.

He'll be at the impound gate for a long time for this one. I think you know what I mean.

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Just because the PA withdraws the charges, does not make the officers actins illegal.

The DA said that there was no legal basis to continue. If there was no legal basis for the charges to stick, that means that there was no legal basis for the arrest, thus making the arrest illegal.

the District Attorney’s office says based on a review of the evidence, there was no legal basis to go forward. The charge was withdrawn and the judge dismissed the case.

www.whec.com...

I don't see how it can be argued any other way.

There was legal basis for the arrest. Police powers. Yes, the police can hook you up just for standing there if they feel unsafe. Often times police will handcuff someone during a traffic stop, only to release them after the stop is concluded. If I am not mistaken, the driver in this original video of this case was cuffed in fact. No false arrest.

Were the police who arrested OJ guilty of false arrest? After all, he was innocent right?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yes I would have actually. I do commend you for doing that.

And regarding the false arrest issue . . .

--False arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause--

So what was the probable cause?


--In the United States and other jurisdictions, police officers and other government officials are shielded from false arrest lawsuits through a process known as qualified immunity. This doctrine protects such officials from liability when engaged in discretionary actions such as arrests of suspects. However, the officer's actions must still not violate "clearly established law," or this protection is void.--

So what "clearly established law" was she breaking? And if so . . . why was it thrown out?


Edit: Meh. I am out of this thread. You guys have fun with it. I do not feel like arguing with a brick wall who has been proven wrong at least 4 times by myself and this story.

The facts and the truth don't lie.

Have a great one folks.

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Sir, excellent responses. In text book.

You and I both know this lad is most likely in for a heap of crap by the higher ups.

He may not have broken the law-technically-but he did violate one of the highest rules (internally). Don't bring shame or unwarranted attention on the Department.

He'll be at the impound gate for a long time for this one. I think you know what I mean.

As he should be. Because you me and him know he was just being ornery. I would have warned her to go back into the house. If she refused, then no skin off my teeth if she catches a stray round if the stop goes bad. She been told.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Bob Sholtz


i know what you said, because i quoted you directly. arresting someone because you "believe" they are breaking the law is no different than me killing someone because i "believed" my life was threatened. did the arresting officer have any proof of her wrongdoing? no. he misused his power.

If a citizen walks into the Police station and confesses to a murder, and is arrested and put in jail, only to find out the guy decided he jut wanted a warm place to stay for the night ebcause he is homeless, does that make it a false arrest?

that is a terrible analogy, because the woman in this case never admitted to breaking any law, neither did she wish to be arrested.

If a uniformed officer is performing their duties which takes them through your property, and you see they ar in uniform, and you hear them telling you they are a police officer, you dont have grounds to shoot / kill.

what an officers "duties" seems to be the source of much confusion. arresting people for not committing crimes? thats somewhere in the handbook

what evidence was she arrested on? intuition? the officer should pay her compensation out of his own pocket.

Originally posted by Sparky63
The DA said that there was no legal basis to continue.

Correct, the PA is stating that the the evidence submitted with the charge does not meet the requirement for the charge to go forward. As I said before, the PA files charges, not the police.

Originally posted by Sparky63
If there was no legal basis for the charges to stick, that means that there was no legal basis for the arrest, thus making the arrest illegal.

At the time of her arrest, the legal basis the officer used was failure to obey a lawful command. As I said before, from the officers perspective he felt she was interfering. Its up to the PA to decide if the charges will go forward, not the officer.

An arrest based on good faith is not an illegal arrest. If a Cop from jurisdiction A calls up your police department and tells you to go to said address and arrest john smith for murder and you comply, your acting on good faith the information provided is valid.

If it turns out the officer from jurisdiction A lied, are you guilty of making a false arrest? The answer is no because you were acting in good faith that the information you had a the time was valid. The same holds true for this officer. While I see where you are making your argument, you are not taking into account the law or the requirements.

Originally posted by Sparky63

the District Attorney’s office says based on a review of the evidence, there was no legal basis to go forward. The charge was withdrawn and the judge dismissed the case.

www.whec.com...

I don't see how it can be argued any other way.

Correct - The PA's decision when they reviewed the case and charge was there is not enough evidence present to support the charge, or the evidence present meets the minimum, but its on shaky grounds. As I said, thats the PA's job to either prosecute or decline to prosecute.

When a PA declines to prosecute, it does not make the arrest illegal or false.

reply to post by CobraCommander


There is a difference between detain and arrest.

Police may detain you. They may not arrest you willy-nilly.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Yes I would have actually. I do commend you for doing that.

And regarding the false arrest issue . . .

--False arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause--

So what was the probable cause?


--In the United States and other jurisdictions, police officers and other government officials are shielded from false arrest lawsuits through a process known as qualified immunity. This doctrine protects such officials from liability when engaged in discretionary actions such as arrests of suspects. However, the officer's actions must still not violate "clearly established law," or this protection is void.--

So what "clearly established law" was she breaking? And if so . . . why was it thrown out?

Obstruction of governmental administration. It was tossed "in the interest of justice." You see, prosecutor's and judges actually do this all the time. It's time that jurors start doing this too.

Jury Nullification

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

There is a difference between detain and arrest.

Police may detain you. They may not arrest you willy-nilly.

The minute an officer throws in his take-downs during a traffic stop, you are under arrest.

Appears that the plot thickens. Good's home may have broken into and the incriminating ipod stolen? I'm not sure what to make of this. My first thought was that someone is trying to make the cop look even more guilty. It's just too obvious. We'll see if this is even true.
Indymedia

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Except in the case it is clearly to nearly everyone that this officer was not acting in good faith. He was on an ego trip and decided to violate an innocent woman's rights. There is no use defending the indefensible.

edit on 6/27/2011 by Sparky63 because: toned it down a bit

I think he was acting on good faith. If he was going to just arrest her, why did he take the time to tell her to back of multiple times? He could of just as easily nipped it in the bud at the begining of the video instead of playing point - counter point with her.

The other issue is, again, while I respect your opinion, how can you claim he wasnt acting in good faith? That is up to the officer at the moment it occurs, not 20/20 hindsight. Her rights were not violated at all - review 42 usc 1983 to find out why.

reply to post by anon72


That actually is still in the works. The Chief already announced their would be an IA investigation. If the officer violated departmental policy then he can receive a punishment. If the lady truely beleives her rights were violated, then her recourse would be to file a civil rights violation complaint with the FBI, since thats their jurisdiction.

Personally speaking, I am going to say he wont face and disciplinary actions since he didnt violate departmental policy. He wont face any charges at the state level since his actions are within the guidelines for an arrest.

If local charges are not filed, I think she will be hard pressed to get an FBI investgation going, since the FBI will look at the local level action first. If the officer is not facing local charges, it says he did not violate any laws, and by extension a persons civil rights.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Again, you are seeing what you want. The Officer arrested the female because he viewed her actions as interfering with his duties.

I can stop a car / detain an individual based on Reasonable Suspicion. I have reasonable suspicion that person violated the law. From that moment of contact, my investigation will then continue to look for evidence / info etc to confirm that a crime has indeed occured, which at that point I can make an arrest based on probable cause a crime occured.

Thats what the officer did, step by step from initial contact to arrest. The officer felt her actions violated the obstruction law. The PA said the evidence does not support the charge and dismissed it.

Whats so difficult to understand about this?

reply to post by Xcathdra


how was she interfering? video taping him from her own property? that's illegal now? sounds more like the police officer didn't want to be taped by a citizen, so he arrested her, knowing he wouldn't really be punished. he had no probable cause or evidence.