• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

How is one arrested solely for resisting arrest/

The police also arrest knowing that charges will never be filed, knowing that there is no case.
That is a perversion of the system.
 
Human Ills said:
The police also arrest knowing that charges will never be filed, knowing that there is no case.
That is a perversion of the system.
Click to expand...

Thank God they never do anything decent. That would ruin things.
 
HappyHighwayman said:
Once again...police might have been technically correct, but this was not justice, and this was not good.
Click to expand...

Well actually, if the ends suit the means...the police got what they wanted, when you really track things back: picture and interview of target unimpeded; done. The fact that they had to arrest counsel to do so doesn't take away from their investigation, especially if it's for a candy bar line up picture. So in that respect, +1 police.

corndog67 said:
"i'll taze your ass."
Click to expand...

"Hands Up!"

afm199 said:
The Police don't charge. The DA charges. The police arrest on suspicion.
Click to expand...

Or arrest to remove someone temporarily. The whole "arrest" thing is a fairly loose standard in many respects. I the report and an "oops" worth it? Maybe in this case it was (especially if the pic the investigator got ended up sealing the deal on this other case). So, I now see this as a calculated move and shift back to the "smart move, officer" part...and of course, see it as how LEO's are able to work around the very system that criminals do.
 
Holeshot said:
Well actually, if the ends suit the means...the police got what they wanted, when you really track things back: picture and interview of target unimpeded; done. The fact that they had to arrest counsel to do so doesn't take away from their investigation, especially if it's for a candy bar line up picture. So in that respect, +1 police.
Click to expand...

Too soon to tell.

If the fact that the suspect has availed himself of counsel in other cases is taken to mean he might have been trying to exercise it here, then it's going to depend on how it's seen in court or on a potential appeal.

They are probably okay, but you never know.
 
byke said:
I know, I know, rights should be held in the secret club so the average Joe unknowingly allows them to be violated. Ask any officer and they'll tell you they're often amazing at what people let them do.

In this case, I assume he was being detained, but they did say they "want" to take photos. If he were legally detained, but they needed his consent for the photos, does silence equate to consent?
Click to expand...

First of all, one thing some of you guys can't get through your head... If a person talks to the police, gives consent to search, whatever, it is NOT a violation of their civil rights. They allowed it. No violation. None! I'm not amazed at what anyone does. I've seen it all. Nothing surprises me. But as far as taking to police, if course I'm not amazed... I expect it.

When it comes to taking pictures of someone in public, silence makes it perfectly legal.

Holeshot said:
It's pretty murky and confusing though. Here the Attorney is in the same vicinity for the suspect and comes to the suspect's side during the questioning. While this may be a separate action, under the reasonable person logic, one could assume that she was representing him at that time for this "new" investigation. I'm reasonably confident that when we have "representation" in the legal world, it's a larger umbrella, rather than smaller. IOW, each new crime we are charged with isn't one that we must name an our counsel and ask for specific counsel (clear me where wrong here, please). Her proximity to the suspect and interference may count as acceptance as counsel. Did he ask for counsel? What is the standard there? A look? Pleading eyes? Specific words? Considering the ongoing representation, I'm leaning towards the officer taking a bit of a slap from the court, even if he was technically in the right.



How would the investigator know either way? IOW, how would the investigator know to arrest her? How did he assertion she was not representing the subject in general matters too? I don't have the answers to that...it's a real question.



Correct, however it would be smart for the investigator to ascertain who the attorney was and the level of representation. there's a consistent problem we're seeing in the US and this fits right into the theme...



In this case, I'm not sure very much is obvious aside from the majority of America not knowing the basics of law.

And that brings me to my overall point: If we want to avoid these types of polarizing issues in the future, every high school in this country should have a year of civics and half a year of US law and interaction with law enforcement, etc...IOW, what are ones real rights and obligations under the law. The fact that know one knows is an ongoing problem that prosecutors and law enforcement are able to use (to great effect too), which leads to this animus we see pervading society. Ignorance is anger, these days...and if we can cure that ignorance...
Click to expand...

1). That's exactly what it means. Each new case a defendant is charged with requires the retention of counsel over that case. Since the man had not yet been charged with any crime in the new case under investigation, he had not yet retained counsel to represent him for that case. Therefore, the public defender did not have standing, and was out of line trying to assert the man's rights, on his behalf, without his request.

2). She worked for the public defender's office. I would think the inspector knew this. A public defender can be assigned by the court, at arraignment, if the defendant can't afford an attorney. She wouldn't be assigned to represent someone during the investigation stages before charges are filed.

tuxumino said:
it does not seem unreasonable for a lawyer in court with a client when leaving that court room to see police talking to that client to assume it's about what happened in that court or with that case and thus she would believe that she has a right to advise her client on how to talk to the police.

Either the detective is extremely clever in knowing that the lawyer would view it this way and interject herself in to the situation and he'd get a chance to cuff a lawyer, which I bet he loved: or when the lawyer behaved in a rather predictable fashion instead of realizing the situation and communicating to defuse it, he went full cop and insisted that she respect his authority.

to me it seems like two people that both have professions that require large egos bumping egos. time will tell how this plays out, but by the end of it I bet both the cop and the lawyer will wish they had acted differently.
Click to expand...

Yup! Exactly! Like I suggested in my first post, an officer would be well advised to tread very lightly before considering arresting an attorney in those circumstances. Better know what you're doing. But, when it comes down to it, the police were doing their job and the attorney created the issue by interfering where she did not belong.

byke said:
Might not be wise to be biased towards a system that is biased against you. Just the fact that your words are only allowed to hurt you and never help is...just a pinch...of a red flag.
Click to expand...

You can choose not to believe me when I write that talking to the police can sometimes get you out of trouble... Avoid an arrest, but it doesn't make your statement correct. :laughing

byke said:
If you're being tried and an officers says you said X (not in your favor), it's admitted, if an officers says you said X (in your favor), it's hearsay.



Fully agree with the first two sentences, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't be using extreme caution when their lives intertwine with a heavily flawed process. Second part there suggests that one is only allowed to recognize flaws when they have a solution for those flaws...which I find to be a flawed thought process. :p
Click to expand...

You are absolutely incorrect.
 
Marcoose said:
I did date a policewoman, and man, what a delicious juicy p--

Sorry, different kind of fuck the police. :laughing

What you mean "some"? Please put forth one law enforcement department that never intentionally bent the rules, especially constitutional rights, to get away with something. Go ahead, spend all the time you want.

This attitude is pervasive all across the board.
Click to expand...

I had to read that like three times before I understood what you wrote... "And man!". :rofl

clutchslip said:
As soon as someone refuses to answer anything but identification, what do you do? If you don't arrest them, then they are free to do whatever they want. If you do take them into custody, they can talk through an attorney from then on. So you can't get anything, unless it is voluntary.

The same is true with a lineup. Unless the person volunteers to be in a line-up, they have the right to have an attorney present to witness the proceedings.
Click to expand...

Oh, I was referring in an in field show up. It isn't practical for many agencies to do those in-facility line ups thread they love to show on TV and the movies. I've never done one. Only in field show ups shortly after a crime occurred, of photo lineups.
 
Human Ills said:
Doesn't matter, my position is correct. Refute it with case law, if you have it.
Click to expand...

In a group of cases that the United States Supreme Court decided or declined to review within the last year, the strict doctrinal limits of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel held firm despite fact patterns that challenged the wisdom and soundness of those limits. Two related principles-that the right only attaches at the commencement of formal judicial proceedings and that the right is "offense specific"-remained intact because the Supreme Court adopted and endorsed a formalistic approach to the Sixth Amendment.
Click to expand...

http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...gazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_16_2_montanta.html

There you go. Right to counsel only attaches at the time of arraignment of formal charges, and counsel representation is offense specific. The attorney was not representing him for the case the cops were investigating, since he had not been charged with a crime, and it matters not if she was representing him on another unrelated case. In such case, she cannot invoke the rights of another person, and her attempt to do so was obstructing and delaying police in their investigation.

The arrest served the purpose of removing her from the scene, since she wouldn't leave on her own. I doubt the DA will file charges against a PD for actions such as those. They are not egregious enough to warrant it. It will likely be dismissed in the interest of justice.
 
Good find Dave. Agree with your last few lines as well. It was a means to an end, albeit, legal.
 
At what point does it go from investigation to harassment or detention? Seems like they were kinda cornering the POI at the least and he clearly did not want to talk to the officer.

Say nothing, cover face and walk away.
 
Last edited:
bojangle said:
http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...gazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_16_2_montanta.html

There you go. Right to counsel only attaches at the time of arraignment of formal charges, and counsel representation is offense specific. The attorney was not representing him for the case the cops were investigating, since he had not been charged with a crime, and it matters not if she was representing him on another unrelated case. In such case, she cannot invoke the rights of another person, and her attempt to do so was obstructing and delaying police in their investigation.

The arrest served the purpose of removing her from the scene, since she wouldn't leave on her own. I doubt the DA will file charges against a PD for actions such as those. They are not egregious enough to warrant it. It will likely be dismissed in the interest of justice.
Click to expand...

exactly my point. We cannot allow cops to remove defense attorneys from the scene, it would not have taken place were that an attorney on retainer for the suspect, therefore setting up a two tiered justice system in america.

The reason why the charges will be dropped is because the DA will not want case law to be established which will put a stop to this egregious perversion of justice.

It's gotta suck to so often be on the wrong side of justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top