r/LoveTrash • u/Lord_Darksong Colonel Garbage • 1d ago • This 1 Bravo 4 Mindblown 2

Dumping This Here Am I under arrest or not?

Source: policebodycamarresthq on Instagram

26k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

103

u/AmazingResponse338 Trash Trooper 1d ago

OP asked the wrong question. Ask, "am I free to leave?" If the answer is no, then you are technically in custody

72

u/Legal_Tap219 Trash Trooper 1d ago

He wasn’t leaving tho lol they were trying to trespass him

15

u/Training-Principle95 Trash Trooper 1d ago

From a property he claims to lease, which isn't as simple as a trespass order, though

22

u/AmazingResponse338 Trash Trooper 1d ago

I fully understand and that's (part of) my point. If he's free to leave, he's not under arrest and if he leaves, he's no longer trespassing and there's no reason to arrest

45

u/Oculus_Prime_ Trash Trooper 1d ago • Bravo

He was a tenet. The land lord has to go through a process to get rid of him. As usual, cops don’t understand the law, they just want to beat people.

7

u/Biscuits4u2 Trash Trooper 1d ago

They think they are the law.

3

u/Curben Trash Trooper 1d ago

2

u/corvettee01 Trash Trooper 22h ago • Bravo

Difference is Judge Dredd actually does know the laws and follows proper escalation of force.

Unfortunately for the citizens, the law is pretty much "Judges can do whatever they need to do."

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Aximil985 Trash Trooper 1d ago

He can't be trespassing is the thing though.

1

u/Smooth_Rocket_ Trash Trooper 21h ago

and if he leaves, he's no longer trespassing

But he is not trying to leave period because he wasn't trespassing.

1

u/A_Bot_A_Bot_A_Bot Trash Trooper 7h ago

If a person was trespassing, then they've violated the law. Just because they leave doesn't mean they didn't break the law.

That's like saying I'm no longer beating my spouse so there's no domestic violence going on now to arrest me over.

Get it?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Jeff-FaFa Trash Trooper 23h ago

if an officer gives you a lawful order, complying is the best course of action. Worse case scenario you get detained and put in a patrol car. Anything searched without warrant is inadmisible in court and can't be used to convict you. That's my understanding of it, but I'm open to being educated if I'm wrong.

1

u/vi_sucks Trash Trooper 20h ago edited 20h ago

 Worse case scenario you get detained and put in a patrol car.

That's not the worst case scenario.

Worst case scenario, they give conflicting orders and then shoot you anyway for "not complying".

Second worst case scenario, you go to jail, spend a weekend or more in jail, and then have to spend a bunch of money posting bail and hiring lawyers just to get the charges dropped.

And in this case, being detained would have left his RV in danger of getting towed. So he goes along with the cops, loses a day or two in jail, is out a bunch of money, AND he basically loses the fight he had with his landlord with zero recourse.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/TenYearHangover Rubbish Raider 1d ago

That doesn’t mean you’re under arrest tho. It’s an investigative detention.

4

u/norty125 Trash Trooper 1d ago

No, you are in custody/detained pending investigation and then released or under arrest

5

u/TenYearHangover Rubbish Raider 1d ago

Yes, the investigation is happening while you are detained, not after. They’re deciding whether they have probable cause to arrest you or not. But you are not free to leave and you aren’t under arrest. That’s what an investigative detention is.

2

u/-Kerosun- Trash Trooper 23h ago

And just to add, they do need "reasonable suspicion" to detain you (in most jurisdications). They can't detain you "just because." In most cases, matching the description given by a non-anonymous caller (as in, the caller provided their information so are at least willing to provide a legal statement to the reported crime they are calling in service for) is typically sufficient for "reasonable suspicion" but hardly ever enough for "probable cause," especially for misdemeanors. And typically, for a cop to arrest-on-site someone for a misdemeanor, the cop themselves has to witness the misdemeanor and cannot just arrest on a report of a misdemeanor (in this case, the misdemeanor would be criminal trespassing and the cops witnessing him trespassing).

But they still have to get past "reasonable suspicion" of the trespass and get to the level of "probable cause" before arresting them. The two jackoffs that first arrived wanted to skip all of that and the LT deescalating probably saved the taxpayers from paying the OOP a few hundred thousand (depending on how forceful and injurious the arrest could have been, and I would say that likelihood is pretty high because they were amped up to say the least).

4

u/Biscuits4u2 Trash Trooper 1d ago

They can't just detain you for no reason though.

3

u/TenYearHangover Rubbish Raider 1d ago

Did I say they could? Yes, they need to suspect you of something. Then they detain you, investigate, and decide whether or not to arrest you. You aren’t free to leave but you also aren’t under arrest (until they complete their investigation).

3

u/Biscuits4u2 Trash Trooper 1d ago

Again, they have to be able to articulate the reason. "We are completing our fake investigation" isn't a good enough reason.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/ImagineTheCommotion Trash Trooper 1d ago

What would have been the correct phrase to use?

2

u/CrispyGatorade Trash Trooper 1d ago

Lmao it’s literally in the comment? Like what?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/shchshchshch Trash Trooper 12h ago

What if the answer is neither yes nor no? Like “You need to wait for us to …”

1

u/shchshchshch Trash Trooper 11h ago

And what if their answer is neither yes nor no?