@Humpleupagus@TrevorGoodchild Detainment is arrest. Don't know why more Americans don't hate this practice. Isn't it against their constitution to arrest someone without a warrant or something?
Been a long time since I studied criminal law, but my memory is that detainment only requires reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed, though it can be done for the officers safety in the course of an investigation, reasonable suspicion still required, but the detained person may not be the target if its a safety concern. It's ultimately for the purpose of investigation.
Arrest requires probable cause that a crime has been committed, and the person arrested is the accused.
Do you think the majority of us are actually taught what’s inside the United States Constitution? Or for in fact of that matter how to interact with a police officer? Not to sound like a dick, but the easiest way to strip rights is to not teach you that you have any.
The constitution doesn't prohibit detainment though, or investigation per se. The warrant requirement only applies to searches and seizures. It's always been thought to apply to tangible property, not persons, as far as I understand.
Arrests without warrants are legal. They happen every day. Perp breaks in your house. You hog tie him and call the cops. The officer arrests him. There's no need to get a judge involved.
To the extent that the 4th amendment includes persons, that's typically been applied where the crime occurs outside of the presence of a direct witness.
But I'm not a criminal lawyer. This area is largely Greek to me.
You wanna discuss easements or reciprocal servitudes? 😏
I think there's a case that says it doesn't have to the right reason though. Something about probable cause being objective, not subjective, so as long as there was a justification, when of the officer found it afterward, it's legal.
That's another wrinkle I actually can opine on, unlike the direct criminal rules. People often think the bill of rights applies against the states, but it's not quite the case. It's very nuanced.
They didn't initially. They were incorporated via the incorporation doctrine during the 20th century. It applies them through the 14th amendment. It's still not quite a direct application though. There's typically a balancing test involved, the states interest vs. The federal citizens interest.
Unfortunately, these balancing tests were later backbuilt into cases where the BoR was applied against the fed itself. 🙄
Before the 14th, it made a bit more sense. States were more like countries. They couldn't even be sued in federal court by a citizen (after 11Am) and they could have their own state churches, regulate speech, take property without compensation, etc.
@Humpleupagus@Dudebro@TrevorGoodchild All the states had to ratify the constitution didn't they? Didn't that happen after the declaration by like years or something?
Honestly, that was before 1860, not even before the 14th amendment. Lincoln looked at the constitution and rubbed his ass all over it. The reason there was no court marshals, for anybody in the south is because Lincoln would’ve had to face it himself along with his cabinet.
In Australia recently an intruder was raped, then died as a result of their injuries. The gay rapist was acquitted, as I recall.
Refreshing to see a crim actually getting some justice for once
Add comment