Thoughts on this arrest

[HI629]

If the off duty is in fact “off duty”, then wouldn’t the swearing be protected speech, protected by 1A just like any other citizen?

On duty can request professional standards (or equivalent internal department) to investigate, but in the end, I don’t see where there is anything actionable for the on duty to act upon.


**** Edit ******


Just watched the video. Seems the on duty was a bit preemptive. Off duty requested sergeant. Why not wait until the sergeant arrived on scene before going hands on?

Didn’t seem like there were any other pressing issues that would require escalation of the situation.

Love the way the wife hops in there during the hands on and says “We know the law”.

Something tells me there’s a lot more to this incident.

[hold the air]

Yea people don't have to comply, but that is when things can get out of hand. Like I said in my original post, "

Bottom line, just cooperate. The time to fight the system is not while being confronted by law enforcement."

I agree that you would at a minimum be suspended and or fired. Remember this deputy ended up fighting with the police, he should be fired, bottom line. Even if somehow the deputy was in the right. Again, fight the system in court not while on scene.

Not In My Town, mentioned that it was reported children were present during the profanity rant so........it looks like Arkansas has a law for that.

When you are drunk the only safe place you can be is, is inside your private residence. So being drunk in public covers your private property too, there is case law on that. Same as a DUI, you can get a duece charge while driving around on your private property.

I did not watch the video, but if the officers asked the deputy to step outside to speak with them and then arrested him for being drunk in public that could be an issue. Even knocking on the deputy's door and the deputy stepped out, could also be an issue with arresting him for being drunk in public. Not as much as if the officers asked him to step out, but it could potentially be an issue.

Wrong

https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansa.../cr96-472.html

I’m saying if I was the on duty I would be suspended at the minimum. Public intoxication doesnt apply.

disorderly conduct is a stretch as It didn’t appear he was yelling and AR law says “public place”

would have been easier to just say “keep the music off” and walk away.

reference not getting a phone number, all it takes is one reply of “no” or “why” and I move on. I could give two ***** about a phone number.

Ya the drunk off duty was being a **** but the on duty got his panties in a bunch for being called a rookie and not getting his precious phone number

[westside popo]

Wrong

https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansa.../cr96-472.html

I’m saying if I was the on duty I would be suspended at the minimum. Public intoxication doesnt apply.

disorderly conduct is a stretch as It didn’t appear he was yelling and AR law says “public place”

would have been easier to just say “keep the music off” and walk away.

reference not getting a phone number, all it takes is one reply of “no” or “why” and I move on. I could give two ***** about a phone number.

Ya the drunk off duty was being a **** but the on duty got his panties in a bunch for being called a rookie and not getting his precious phone number

That only applies to the public intoxication law there. What we don't know is if the guy was charged under state laws or city ordinances.

Even if one of the charges don't float that doesn't mean the others are invalid and the arrest is improper.

[PtownVAMike]

I may be speaking out of turn on this (as I'm not a LEO) but based on what I've read in these forums, professional courtesy can only (and should only) get you so far..............

[southpaw1]

I'm sorry but without saying anything further how does a noise complaint that's not bonafide turn into THAT?! Wth??

[westside popo]

I'm sorry but without saying anything further how does a noise complaint that's not bonafide turn into THAT?! Wth??

Easily!

Understand that different states have different laws and cities will have their own ordinances. Officer went there for the music. Officer was getting info for a report. The subject played stupid games. Subject won stupid prizes.


I had a loud music call once that ended with subject getting more serious charges. We ended up forcing entry inside his house, using Tasers, impounding the guy's dogs and charging him with loud music (city ordinance), simple assault, disorderly conduct and felony obstruction of an officer.

For the usual loud music complaint we wouldn't do that. But the subject escalated it and under the facts and circumstances at the time we couldn't just walk away.

[southpaw1]

Oh i hear you. I have seen a seen it both ways and I understand what you're saying and all. This was an unfortunate situation where egos were hurt and I like to believe that this one could've been deescalated. That's just me though.

[westside popo]

Egos may have played a role in it but I would expect better from another LEO, even former LEOs.

[southpaw1]

I can agree on that.

[SAGoogle]

If they went there for a possible noise complaint, but don't see a crime being committed, and don't have enough to detain the person, LEO or not, then the officer's don't have enough to demand under threat of arrest, information. They can certainly ask and honestly the off duty officer should have understood they were doing their job and complied, however without enough RS to continue the investigation, he was under no obligation to comply. Watching 1A audits online is often a good tool to educate oneself in these areas. Were seeing more and more of these 1A audits being done purposely to get officer's in trouble, i.e bating them into a false arrest. If you get there to the call for service and there is no violation going on, it is a real stretch to get right to RS to detain someone without other factors present. As far as the public intoxication, I guess it depends on the particular state. I know I couldn't charge someone on his property with public intoxication, but AR may be different so I can't speak to that as an all encompassing authority.

[SOCAleo]

Well I know in California 647 (f) PC, "drunk in public" is articulated by the subject being SO drunk that they cannot care for their own safety. If an officer can articulate that the subject being arrested was so drunk that they could not care for their own safety and is a danger to themselves then they can be arrested, whether it is on their private property or not.

Here's a scenario:

Drunk subject has some liquid courage, starts talking crap to all the passer's by while standing in his front lawn. Won't stop talking crap and won't go back into his house. Angers the general public to such a point he is about to get his you know what handed to him by a group of people.

What do you do?

[not.in.MY.town]

Here's a scenario:

Drunk subject has some liquid courage, starts talking crap to all the passer's by while standing in his front lawn. Won't stop talking crap and won't go back into his house. Angers the general public to such a point he is about to get his you know what handed to him by a group of people.

What do you do?

In my jurisdiction I'd arrest him on a local ordinance violation of maintaining a nuisance. It's pretty much a "catch all" charge for just about any unwanted behavior. I'm sure most municipalities have similar ordinances.

[CCCSD]

Drunk in public.

[tanksoldier]

On private property is irrelevant. "In public" generally means in public view... including your porch or front yard.

[hold the air]

On private property is irrelevant. "In public" generally means in public view... including your porch or front yard.

not in Arkansas

[retired1995]

In my state you cannot resist an arrest, even if it is an unlawful one; that's what court is for.

He could have had a lucrative early retirement instead he got fired.

That is also the law here in Colorado. Resisting arrest is still an offense even if the arrest is unlawful.

But, for an interesting bit of research you can look up the US Supreme Court ruling in the Bad Elk decision. Bad Elk, a native American, was being arrested by police without a warrant, and it was later determined that probable cause did not exist. Bad Elk resisted, killing one of the arresting officers and was subsequently convicted of homicide. On appeal the US Supreme Court ruled that the use of force (including deadly force) is permissible in defense against violations of one's civil rights (in this case a warrantless arrest without probable cause). Bad Elk's conviction was overturned.

Interesting case. An old one, but I am not aware of any later precedents at the Supreme Court level.

I'd suggest that it is always good to be careful.

[just joe]

The Bad Elk case is from 1899, and it did not exonerate Bad Elk of the killing. Numerous court cases since then have overturned the decision.