Eighth Circuit Says Cops Can Come With Probable Cause For An Arrest AFTER They’ve Already Arrested Someone
Eighth Circuit Says Cops Can Come With Probable Cause For An Arrest AFTER They’ve Already Arrested Someone
Well, this is a bit of a doozy. This case — via the Institute for Justice — involves a possible First Amendment violation but somehow ends with a judicial blessing of cops who make thin…
Well, this is a bit of a doozy. This case — via the Institute for Justice — involves a possible First Amendment violation but somehow ends with a judicial blessing of cops who make things up after the fact to justify an arrest that has already taken place.
That’s literally what happened here. Mason Murphy was walking down a Missouri road when he was accosted by Officer Michael Schmitt. From the opening of this very unfortunate decision [PDF]:
Schmitt stopped his car, approached Murphy, and asked Murphy to identify himself. Murphy refused to identify himself, and Schmitt put Murphy in handcuffs after nine minutes of argument. Murphy asked why Schmitt arrested him, and Schmitt refused to answer.
So far, it would appear no criminal act was committed and that the cuffing of Murphy by Schmitt was in retaliation for Murphy’s refusal to identify himself and, First Amendment-wise, his refusal to shut up.
...
So now cops can arrest you just because and figure out some law you broke later (since the gargantuan bureaucracy of the government means you're always breaking some law, however minor). Anyone can be arrested at the whim of any cop.
But I guess we already knew that, since you can be charged and found guilty of resisting arrest while being charged with nothing else that would be a reason for you being arrested.
the gargantuan bureaucracy of the government means you’re always breaking some law, however minor
This isn't remotely true, yet somehow people keep repeating it. There are very few laws, be it federal, state, or local, that can plausibly be used to just randomly arrest someone who was unaware of the law.
I mean... what it looks like to me from a first reading is that they arrested him because he was being a dick and refusing to ID and being combative with the cops. It's not like they just put him in some kind of no-win Daniel Shaver bind where no matter what he did he was going to go to jail.
Was it illegal for him to do that? No (this crappy 8th circuit decision notwithstanding). Should they have arrested him for it? No. Is it appropriate for the officers involved to get some sort of consequence because they let him get under their skin and retaliated in an illegal fashion? Yes.
Is this the kind of thing that happens sometimes when you're a dick to some other human being in the world, even if you are within your rights to do so? Yuuuup.
It's fucked up you bring up Daniel Shaver and your outcome is going to jail and not being murdered like he was.
You couldn't just kneejerk your cop jerk off without trying to whitewash his name?
GTFO of here with your copaganda. ACAB. The only good cops got fired for telling the truth. 'Decent' cops keep their mouths shut about the internal criminal behavior they see; complicity means consent, which makes them just as bad. There is no middle ground.
If cops act criminal they should be treated like criminals, full stop. Violating constitutional rights, as a member of government, is criminal.
Not that it's directly related to this case, but: Daily reminder that probable cause refers to the reason the police can conduct an arrest or apply for a warrant. It does not mean they can search without a warrant, except in very specific circumstances. There's a mythology that "probable cause" means they can search, but it doesn't. They can search your person when arresting you, or your car when they're towing it, but that's not because "probable cause."
Be polite, don't be a dick. Being anything other than aboveboard and civil to them will make your interaction with them a lot worse for you. But also, if you're in their crosshairs in any capacity, be clear about saying when you do not consent to a search, and for the love of God shut the fuck up until you talk to a lawyer.
I thought I saw an open container.
I thought I heard someone cry for help.
I felt threatened for my life.
I used to genuinely respect police but I've seen so much abuse that it's impossible to trust them now.
Cool. Now, let's talk business. These judges have committed some seriously heinous crimes. I'll let you know what the evidence is soon, but for now let's just get these criminals into a jail cell. We'll work out the details later.
So it appears the problem was what Murphy sued over. His lawsuit claimed his first amendment rights were violated because he was exercising free speech and the cop retaliated. I think the key point is that Murphy agreed there was probable cause to arrest him.
He should have claimed a violation of his fourth amendment rights for the unlawful seizure as he was arrested without probable cause. Once he agreed there was probable cause, that negated that argument.
It sucks, but this is why having a good lawyer can help. And if you want to argue that a court should be able to elaborate beyond what was brought in the lawsuit, consider conservatives would have no qualms about shoving abortion restriction and all manner of bullshit through using tangentially related cases.
ACAB
#backtheblue? Nah not me.
backtheblueoffacliff
I love living in a dystopian police state...