First of all, he is not the witness. He is a victim. Certainly he has the right to defend himself, just as any other citizen, but in this case he was in no danger and he should have called for another officer to respond. Preferably female. He clearly thinks she has his make-believe $20 on her person. I know of no departments that allow male officers to search female suspects, or vice-versa. Does yours allow it?

Because he is the victim, he can't look at this incident from a neutral viewpoint. He doesn't look at all the facts and make a rational judgement. He doesn't care that the manager has verified there are no $20 in the cash register. In his mind, she took his non-existant $20, and he's going to make her pay for it. He doesn't give her a citation, he decides to go as far as he can with it and take her to jail. He loses his temper and decides to spray her.

If a police officer responds to a call like this, wouldn't they question the victim, witnesses, suspects to get all the facts before taking the actions he did, of taking her to jail for a measley $10 mistake by the victim (him)? This is why he shouldn't have been the arresting officer. He saw it only from his viewpoint (which was wrong) and didn't gather all the facts to make a rational decision. His decision was skewed by his involvement. His decision cost $60k of taxpayers money.

[/QUOTE]

That's your reasoning for requesting a search, but not everyone carrying a badge would have the same thought process. If I'm asked for a permissive search to be conducted on my vehicle, I would probably decline. I know I'm not carrying anything illegal and it would be a waste of my time (and the officers). Plus I do not like the idea of someone going through my vehicle and potentially causing damage to it or it's contents. If the officer in turn wants to call in the dog, that would be his decision, but it shouldn't affect my right to refuse. If he violates my rights and conducts the search without probable cause, the burden is on him. If I give permission and he damages my vehicle in the process, well too bad for me, I told him he could search it.

 

It always amazes me the idea that if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't object to a search etc.

I'm pretty sure our founding fathers didn't express that idea in our Constitution.

Or is the Constitution just toilet paper now

I wonder, had that girl accused someone of stealing and the cop heard two different people say that it didn't happen, would he have arrested the person she accused or would he have deffered it for further investigation?

 

The Civil Right Act of 1964 states you cannot discriminate based on sex. While this law does not specifically apply to the government, law suits have been brought to the Supreme Court and a decisions have been made applying the law to the political subdivisions of the States. With that in mind it is unlawful to prohibit a male from searching a female based solely on sex. Many departments have a policy in place restricting the male-female search, but there are others that do not. These are strictly for PC reasons and if you really start to look at the policy you'd find that they are toothless tigers.

It sounds like your experience with law enforcement is the military. Having been on both sides there is a huge difference between the sheltered world of military law enforcement and the civilian side. In the real world of law enforcement the only difference between handling a juvenile offender and suspects is they go to a juvenile detention center rather than the jail. I don't recall the officer asking any accusatory questions, so Miranda does not come into play. I also don't see a need to call mommy or daddy for a 17 year old. They'd go to juvie and their parents would be called from there. I'm not wasting my time waiting around for them to pick up their kid.

She pulled her arm away from him right after they left the screen on the bottom. You can see her arm flail then you hear him spray her. So yes she was actively resisting. The next logical step is to either go hands on (bad idea in a kitchen with a bunch of metal around) or spray her. As I stated earlier there are several things I would have done differently, but from a legal standpoint the officer was correct.

 

Pretty much what you're saying is that a citizen should have to bear the humiliation of an arrest even when no good reason exists simply because a police officer's authority in any situation can not be questioned.

You realize that opens the door for an officer to abuse his or her authority with impunity and automatically makes any encounter with the police adversarial.

Not a good situation from where I'm standing.

 

Female searches are just another part of the job. We have no women in our force, tried to hire some, just nothing out there to hire. If you do find one, a larger department or county usually can pay more, so you just can't compete being a small department.
I'm not waiting on the county to send a female dep. to do my searches. Our policy requires back of hand search in those areas, and I usually will pull their bra about 6" away from the chest. That will allow 'stuff' to fall without having to touch them.
All is done in front of my camera and if another unit is available, we will have a witness, albeit another male.
As long as I am confident they do not have a weapon hidden, I'll wait and let the jail do it's search and tell me if they find any contraband.
Believe me too, most of the the women that I have arrested were meth heads, crack wh_res, and prostitutes. There is nothing exciting about searching them!

 

What I'm saying is arguing with an officer on the street is a very bad idea. You can do it, but you will pay the consequences, like the young woman in the video. Exactly how much legal training have you or most people not involved with the legal system had? Little to none. Even officers won't give a definitive opinion on laws in a separate jurisdiction, where they have not received training. The legal code is so large that many officers will not offer an opinion on laws they do not readily deal with. That is why many agencies have specialized units, vice, homicide, property crimes, etc. Use of force is pretty much standard across the nation, although some agencies restrict what and how forced may be applied.

If the arrest is bad, then it's time for a lawsuit. If no probable cause exists then it is up to the employing agency to take corrective actions. Obviously in this situation, the agency believed there was probable cause, they exonerated the officer.

The system is adversarial. That is the way it was designed.

 

YEah, those MP's on Ft. Hood searched my car after a car "matching my car's description" allegedly fired shots in a neighborhood.

The one cop drew his gun on me, the other cop (Sullivan) was a friend of mine. He was a mechanic at Ft. Huachuca who went back to AIT and reclassified as an MP. They had the bright lights in my face, and told me, "Freeze, get your hands up!" I was approaching my car to see who kept setting my alarm off. As we got closer I could see the overhead lights (They weren't on), and is I got closer to them, the one cop had me drawn down, and I saw the other guys's face... I said, "Sully?! What's this all about?" That's when the schyt went down.

The other "cop" started talking schyt, so I started talking schyt. Long story short, when you drive on a military post, you give up your rights, and authorize search & seizure. So, they searched my car, pulled out the spare tire, everything... I said, "You can pull the seats out of this *****---ka if you want to, you aren't gonna find any guns because I don't have a gun, and I have never owned a gun." Then I looked at Sully, in disbelief, as the azzhole Seargeant kept goign through my schyt. I said, "Aren't you gonna say something Sully? He looked embarrassed, but that wasn't helping me.

I had been on Fort Hood all of two weeks before this happened. (1992)

Long story short, he didn't find anything... I said, "Aren't you gonna put my schyt back the way you found it? They did...

Needless to say, that's the last time I ever had anything to say to Sully...

P h u c k e r...

 

So can you explain why she got 60k?

 

In this example the offense supposedly occured in his presence, so now there are no additional steps. If you are investigating an incident after the fact and a juvinile is involved then yes they have extra rights, but if an officer actually witnesses the offense then the juvinile may be questioned in the same manner as an adult. The only differences with juviniles and adults are where they are taken and the booking sheet you fill out. Also with the juviniles you have to make an attempt to notify both the school and the parents. Juviniles also have to be photographed and finger printed.

 

If I've determined that you've commited an offense and I tell you to put your hands behind your back and that you are under arrest you can ask me what for but your not going to get an explanation till after you are in cuffs.

We dont give individuals the opportunity to question why they are under arrest untill after they are safely in restraints and no longer a danger to themselves or us.

 

How often in your entire life time have you been placed under arrest for something you didn't do? I'm not asking how many time's you've been accused but how many times have you actually been arrested by a police officer for something you didn't do?

Police Officers aren't heros they are humans, and they do make mistakes which is where the whole court/trial/attorney thing comes in. An officers primary duty is to protect the citizens in the community he/she serves. When you have a set of circumstances that occur that lead an officer to believe that an offense has been commited say family violence, the officer has a duty to protect the victims. In most situations where an offense over a class C has been commited with the exception of public intoxication the action taken is typically arrest.

It is not the duty of an officer to investigate the incident to the point where their is 99% proof that the person arrested actually commited the offense, that's called proof beyond any resonable doubt which is the duty of the attorney's in court. An officer only needs probable cause which can be shown to a resonable and prudent person and a judge to effect an arrest.

See post #80, pretty good explanation to answer your question.

 

Man, that might be safer, but that still doesn't mean it's not bull****...
Especially in the case we saw. I admit, having someone mouth off like that would make you want to beat the snot out of them, but if you are charged with protecting & serving, I think you need thicker skin.

Much respect for the po-po's, but this guy was out of line. The fact that he was exonnerated only goes to show their system is corrupt. If I'd gotten word he was "exonnerated" before I accepted the $60K, I would not have stopped until I broke the town.

 

Hersh you need to understand, unless it's an aggravated offense or an offense that poses an immedate officer safety issue your going to be given your chance to explain what happened before any type of arrest is made. But after all the talking is done if it's clear that you have commited an offense where an arrest should be made we dont want to sit there and argue the law while were trying to put the person in handcuffs (the most dangerous part of the process). Once the cuffs are on we will answer any questions including why your under arrest, but at that point where the officer decides to take someone into custody the time for talk, for that period of time, has to be over.

 

I understand what you're trying to say, I just don't agree.

It sounds as if you want police officers to be treated as persons with absolute authority. That doesn't just open the door for abuse, it knocks it right out of the jamb.

Even though I'll accept that bad officers are a very minute percentage of any force, there have to be clear limits on both authority and those who are asked to submit to it.

Perhaps then the ambiguity that exists (if I understand you) is the problem and needs to be addressed.

I can't accept that "do it and worry if it's legal later". I have personally witnessed a few officers do some very rotten things, in situations where they technically may be within their authority but they excercised it in an unwarranted and malicious manner with the sole intent of harming the individual(s) their actions were targeting.

At least in Iowa, unless an officers actions are clearly outside the law, most people who might be subjected to their abuse can't afford the shark it would take to see justice served. Setting clear boundaries would help I would think.

Especially when this type of incident usually begins with something that really doesn't require immediate action.

 

That sounds reasonable.

And it sounds like that's what should have happened in this incident, but it seems it didn't.

You had an officer/victim make an accusation, and despite a denial from the accused, and substantiating evidence and statements from a third party not accused of the crime, he decided to go forward with an arrest he had to have at least considered was not proper unless he's a jerkwad like the majority seems to think he is.

I wasn't there, I didn't see the video (wouldn't load) but from the comments, it seems this incident went the way it did because the officer wasn't following the game plan you just laid out.

addendum: finally got the video to load, it was exactly as I saw it, I can't imagine any jury finding that the officer in question had probable cause to do jack squat.

In fact, I guarantee you that if that officer had been called to the scene based on the same complaint from an ordinary citizen and confronted with the same evidence, he would not have made an arrest and no prosecutor would have even tried to take it on.

Doesn't make every cop bad of course, but I wouldn't extend an ounce of trust towards any officer who defends the one involved in this incident.

The manager should have called the police and reported an assault and trespass.