Cops enter home to arrest woman for not talking to them - legal?

[wishbone]

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy

She should have stopped resisting.

[Heat]

I think that we can safely assume that the police officers were not vampires. Else, they would not have been able to enter without invitation.

[mndtrp]

What about a domestic violence call? I've watched enough COPS to see the similarities.

[jfoobar]

Originally Posted by Numanoid

People use the term "arrested" way too loosely.

Really, the term is pretty loose anyway. Whenever someone with arrest powers exercises those powers to deprive you of your liberty of free movement, you are effectively under arrest (as in, your liberty of movement has been arrested). For example, when you pulled over for speeding, you are legally under arrest because you are not just free to drive off until released by the officer.

Obviously, the arrest in "arrest warrant" refers to what most people traditionally think of as an "arrest", which would include the apprehension, arrest and taking into custody.

Quatermass is likely the closest to the truth. They had an arrest warrant and were just trying to be coy about it, to get her to step outside as that was much preferable (see: safer) than trying to take her in the house.

Miranda does not have to be read until you are actually placed under arrest (which involves mug shots, finger prints, court dates, bail, perhaps jail time, etc.) Sounds like she was most likely detained for questioning.

Miranda need only be read prior to questioning. The police might choose to wait hours before Mirandizing someone, or might choose to not do it at all.

[crazyronin]

Originally Posted by abrg923

So I'm talking to a friend who just witnessed her neighbor being arrested. Here's what happened.

My friend is standing outside on her doorstep smoking when a cop car pulls up, and two officers get out. They knock next door (just a few feet away from my friend), and the neighbor opens the door. Cops say they want to talk to her about her ex-husband. Neighbor refuses, cop #1 grabs her arm and says she needs to come with them. Neighbor begins yelling for her boyfriend, cops enter property, are inside for approximately 30 seconds, and then bring neighbor outside in handcuffs. My friend says no warrant was given, and no miranda rights were read, although she cannot say that this didn't happen at the vehicle.

Is that legal? My thinking was if they had an arrest warrant it would be, but I'm not sure. Just curious.

Have you tried searching local news sites to find out more than "a friend said?"

inquiring minds want to know

[wishbone]

Neighbors feuding over dog
10:17 PM, Apr. 25, 2012

MUNCIE -- A dispute over ownership of a dog has resulted in police twice being sent to a near-downtown neighborhood in recent days, with one related arrest.

Brandon Charles Smith, 29, of the 600 block of North Mulberry Street, says his puppy named Weezy -- a husky/German shepherd/pit bull mix -- apparently ran away from home on
April 14.

Last Saturday night, Smith was walking in his neighborhood when he saw a dog he believed to be Weezy in a fenced-in yard.

According to Smith, a youngster in the yard indicated that dog had lived with his family for about a week.

In a police report, Smith said a man then emerged from a house on the property "enraged" and threatened to beat him.

That prompted Smith to call police, he recalled this week, and officers ultimately told him he was "out of luck" when it came to reclaiming the dog.

On Tuesday, Smith filed a theft report at City Hall, resulting in police returning to the house where the dog in question now lives. The man there told an officer that his family had owned the dog for more than a month.

That officer wrote that the dog "looks similar" to cellphone photographs Smith provided of Weezy.

However, a Muncie Animal Shelter employee called to the scene reported the dog appeared to be younger than 8-10 months, Weezy's estimated age. (Smith on Wednesday said he had recalculated his dog's age, and now believes it to be five months.)

Because both the dog owner and Smith lacked any paperwork proving purchase of the dog, or documenting their pet had been vaccinated for rabies, the shelter worker suggested ownership of the dog would likely have to be resolved through a civil lawsuit.

Tempers again flared, and Smith's sister-in-law, 22-year-old Telia Jessie, was arrested for disorderly conduct. Police said she had refused to stop yelling and cursing.

The dog owner, meanwhile, was cited for harboring a non-immunized dog, which Phil Peckinpaugh, superintendent of the animal shelter, said would likely result in a fine and imposition of court costs.

"There are two great reasons to immunize your dog," Peckinpaugh said. "It's state law. And it could immediately resolve (such an ownership dispute)."

Smith said Wednesday he had been back in touch with city police, and was hopeful DNA tests could be conducted on his puppy's mother and father and the dog he believes to be Weezy.

He also said pursuing litigation would be a challenge, even if limited to the filing fee needed to represent himself in a small claims case.

"I don't make much money, and I've got bills to pay, and four kids," he said.

But he doesn't rule out that option.

http://www.thestarpress.com/article/...age%20DontMiss

Is this your friend?

[burnside986]

Originally Posted by jfoobar

Really, the term is pretty loose anyway. Whenever someone with arrest powers exercises those powers to deprive you of your liberty of free movement, you are effectively under arrest (as in, your liberty of movement has been arrested). For example, when you pulled over for speeding, you are legally under arrest because you are not just free to drive off until released by the officer.

Obviously, the arrest in "arrest warrant" refers to what most people traditionally think of as an "arrest", which would include the apprehension, arrest and taking into custody.

Quatermass is likely the closest to the truth. They had an arrest warrant and were just trying to be coy about it, to get her to step outside as that was much preferable (see: safer) than trying to take her in the house.



Miranda need only be read prior to questioning. The police might choose to wait hours before Mirandizing someone, or might choose to not do it at all.

You're confusing the dictionary definition of the word arrest and the legal definition of arrest.

[argh923]

Originally Posted by crazyronin

Have you tried searching local news sites to find out more than "a friend said?"

inquiring minds want to know

Just searched the newspaper arrest log, and asked my friend the neighbor's name...according to the newspaper, she was jailed for theft. Soooo...yeah. Pretty much confirms they already had an arrest warrant.

Originally Posted by wishbone

http://www.thestarpress.com/article/...age%20DontMiss

Is this your friend?

Nope. Not sure who those people are.

[DVD Polizei]

Originally Posted by jfoobar

Really, the term is pretty loose anyway. Whenever someone with arrest powers exercises those powers to deprive you of your liberty of free movement, you are effectively under arrest (as in, your liberty of movement has been arrested). For example, when you pulled over for speeding, you are legally under arrest because you are not just free to drive off until released by the officer.

Obviously, the arrest in "arrest warrant" refers to what most people traditionally think of as an "arrest", which would include the apprehension, arrest and taking into custody.

Quatermass is likely the closest to the truth. They had an arrest warrant and were just trying to be coy about it, to get her to step outside as that was much preferable (see: safer) than trying to take her in the house.



Miranda need only be read prior to questioning. The police might choose to wait hours before Mirandizing someone, or might choose to not do it at all.

In the case of being pulled-over for speeding, you are NOT under arrest. Because if you are, this means you committed a CRIME.

Speeding is a moving violation and technically, has yet to be proven in a court of law. So technically, you haven't violated any laws, eventhough you will have a violation ticket in your hands within a few moments. Your duty is to give the officer your ID and vehicle registration, and accept the alleged violation, and have a choice of paying the fine or going to court and defending yourself.

If you decide to AVOID THE TICKET by driving off, which is a form of obstructing the procedure of a police officer, then you more than likely will be written up for more than just moving violations which will more than likely require an arrest.

[Numanoid]

Originally Posted by burnside986

You're confusing the dictionary definition of the word arrest and the legal definition of arrest.

He sure is, which why I tried to clarify the idea of being "detained". When you are detained, you aren't free to move either, but you are not legally under arrest.