I bet if she wasn’t a menace and wasn’t having sex with 15 year-olds we’d not be discussing the finer points of a network crime drama.
To all the people who have never been on the wrong end of an encounter with the police: 1. If they want you to come to the station, you’re going to the station. Just shut up and go. 2. If your wife/sibling/friend/(hell, even child) is being taken to the station, they’re going to the station. Just shut up and take steps after. Otherwise, you’ll also be going, and if you’re lucky, you won’t get stick time. 3. Don’t say shit. Don’t do shit. You’ll get a resisting/obstruction charge, and if you’re lucky, you won’t get stick time. There is literally nothing you can do to win in that situation. Just wait to speak to an attorney. There is plenty you can do to make it worse. Signed, A guy who has made it worse a few times
All I know is that in an episode of Brooklyn 99 they detained a guy for questioning, they could only keep him for X hours and he didn’t have to say or do anything. If anyone understands the intricacies of the criminal justice system I trust it to be Andy Samberg.
I don’t know why you’re trying to play gotcha when you’re clearly not getting the key point. Being arrested does not trigger your Miranda rights. Being asked questions while you are in custody triggers your Miranda rights. The arresting officer didn’t ask her any questions. He didn’t tell her she’s free to go. He said they’re going to ask her questions at the station. If they did and didn’t Mirandize her first, that’s an issue. Regardless of what they do at the station, they’re on the clock to present her to a judge or release her.
Getting smacked around by their nightsticks. Shit, probably an archaic term. I haven’t gotten a cop beat down in almost 30 years.
I am not trying to play gotcha and I do in fact believe it is you that is missing a key point. They are not taking her to the station to play bingo or watch reruns of Friends. It is either to question her or to arrest her. There is an intent. They are operating in a created and allowed grey space in which there should be none. Sending an officer to pick someone up that “does not know the details of the investigation” is more leash created for an organization(s) that have shown time and time again that the deserve no leash. Her freedoms are gone at that point, as it has been said time and again itt. You are stuck on Miranda, I am not. This is about more than that.
I understand your point, but it’s always been that way. It’s not anything new. They can detain you for any reason they want, well not any reason, but they write up whatever they need to and then have to release you after a certain amount of time if you’re not charged.
why does it matter whether she is given her Miranda rights 30 seconds before they ask her questions or 3 hours before they ask her questions? There have been plenty of cases where the complaint goes the other way - someone is taken into custody and Mirandized immediately, but not interrogated until hours later by some other officer, and the detainee has no clue/memory of being Mirandized and starts talking because they don’t know they can shut up and ask for a lawyer.
You aren’t actually articulating a concern beyond the rights protected by Miranda. There are rights that attach upon being taken into custody. None of those were violated. There are rights that attach upon being asked questions when in custody. None of those were violated.
Would any of this matter if the cops had a warrant for her arrest? Because I think it’s safe to assume they did
Only the video where the officer said he needed to take her to the station to talk about some stuff and never told her she was under arrest. Mind you, the cop did not know any specifics about the investigation that was to be discussed so he could not have placed her under arrest for that as he did not know. Maybe that. That would be a clue that he did not place her under arrest. I am not talking about hours later by someone else. I am talking about the moment her freedom essentially ended. And all the time that occurred between when she was taken into custody and actually placed under arrest.
Why would he need to know the details of the investigation to arrest her if he was in possession of an arrest warrant saying “arrest this lady”?
That is a question for him. I would not really believe his answer though because he is already on video lying about how much knowledge he has about why he is detaining the lady. He said he has no knowledge about the investigation she is to be spoken to about yet has in his possession an arrest warrant that has come forth from said investigation.
I don’t know why you’re insistent that he knows about the investigation. He tells the woman that the detective will talk to her about the matter. The detective is the who knows about the investigation and is very likely the one who applied for the warrant. The warrant itself doesn’t detail the investigation. and again, what rights are implicated by an officer executing a warrant and telling the arrestee that some other officer will talk to her about it?
Is an arrest warrant part of the investigation? Yes. It is. It is a result of the investigation. Is him saying he has no details of the investigation on tape? Yes. It is. Is it on tape that he says he has no knowledge of any details of the investigation? Yes, it is. Does he tell her she is being placed under arrest due to the arrest warrant he has in his possession and was sent to execute (this was speculation brought by others) Not that I saw. But wasn’t he on tape saying he had no knowledge of the investigation? Yes, he was. I am done.
Are you saying he should have to tell her why she is being detained. Or that he is lying about not knowing why?
your entire semantic game is the possession of a warrant constitutes knowledge about the investigation. It doesn’t. but why does it matter if he does know more than he’s letting on? He doesn’t ask her any questions and tells her she’s going to talk to someone else about it. There’s no intimation that if she talks it through with him they can work this out and she won’t be in trouble. The opposite - he’s telling her to talk to someone else. So again, what right is implicated?
We will not be on the same page on this. You are arguing things I am not. You are okay with anyone’s freedoms, literally all freedom except breathing air and talking, being taken away at any point and only being told why when and only when it is convenient for the ones doing the taking. And then ask “what rights were violated?” We are having 2 different conversations and I have tried telling you that.
You are right, I do not find an arrest pursuant to a warrant to be procedurally troubling. It’s inherently consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Nor do I find the fact that he didn’t ask her anything or try to trick her into talking to him to be troubling. That’s inherently consistent with the Fifth Amendment. You’re assuming that it’s some sort of bizarro ice raid where they’re arresting her for looking like the kind of woman who fucks kids. If he arrested her without a warrant and without knowing anything about why he’s arresting her, that would be problematic! But that doesn’t seem to be the facts we have here. If he arrested her without a warrant but did have personal knowledge of facts sufficient to generate probable cause, and then lied to her that he didn’t know anything, you can not like that all you want but it doesn’t impact her at all because he doesn’t try to interrogate her and basically tells her not to talk to him about the case. The arrest is effectuated and he’s on the clock to get her to a judge. What difference does it make to her whether he knows or doesn’t know anything about the case? Either he has a sufficient basis to arrest her or he doesn’t. There are certainly times in which an officer lying impacts the rights of the arrested, but even if you assume he’s lying, how does it do so here?
If he'd had said "We have a warrant for your arrest for XYZ. Please turn around so we can cuff you." I think there wouldn't be any issues. At no point did he say she was being arrested, he just said she was being detained, cuffed her, and hauled her off.
outside of a disorderly for swimming across the Mississippi in college, my only other run in with enforcement was a tequila night. blew .32 and had a chipped out front teeth massacre. officer was like nope you're fine and let me sleep it off.
You can be detained and questioned thus not free to go without being arrested. What I believe a.tramp is arguing that whenever anyone is handcuffed and taken from one location to another they need to be told why because for all intents and purposes they are under arrest. I think bwi2 and Lawnole23 are saying that legally that’s not the case and therefore no rights have been violated. Although I understand what bwi and lawnole are saying I agree with Atramp that citizens shouldn’t be taken away by law enforcement without an explanation. The federal kidnappings we currently see are an extreme example of why it shouldn’t be tolerated.
Right, held in a location while things are being figured out is one thing. Cuffed and thrown in a car and hauled off to who knows where is another. It may be legal but that doesnt mean its not fucked up. If you're going to take someone away, I think they should be told why.
he talking in general but that’s exactly what happened in the video. She is handcuffed put in the car and taken to the station without be told why.
I assumed we were talking about what we were able to see and not some hypothetical to give the cops the benefit of the doubt.
Miranda needs to be read before custodial interrogation. From short clip I saw he wasn't asking her anything, thus Miranda is not required. Probably why he was vague with her too, he was transporting her to the station and the guy in charge of the case would read her Miranda when they bring her in the interrogation room. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary there from the clip provided
Wouldn’t it be a better system if we did it both times - or even multiple times throughout the encounter? I don’t think he’s arguing that the officer did anything that was out of line with currently accepted procedure - but we have to remember that we just invented these procedures. We can change ‘em too.