Hiku said:
| sundin13 said:
Unless there is something specific in that area, there is usually no law mandating officers to explain the reason for an arrest at the time. However, it seems the arrest was for the failure to comply with a lawful order. That lawful order being "get out of the car", case law on which seems to indicate you can order someone out of their car during a routine traffic stop without probable cause. Additionally, you can compel someone to follow a lawful order through force if they refuse to comply. This is further compounded into a potential "resisting arrest" charge.
While, like I said, the exact laws are loosely worded, it doesn't seem to be enough to take any legal action against the officer and any disciplinary action will likely be more symbolic than anything.
|
In order to resist an arrest, you have to be in the process of being arrested first. Simply refusing to get out of the car is not resisting arrest unless the officer asked her get out so that he could arrest her. And in this case, he was. He did say that she was under arrest. But no one knows what she was arrested for in the first place.
You can't be arrested solely for resisting arrest. There has to be a reason for the arrest, leading up the the resistance of being arrested.
And that officers don't have to tell you why you are being arrested is sad, and scary.
|
Did you just ignore the rest of that paragraph? The initial arrest order seemed to be for failure to comply with a lawful order (although others have brought up a few potential things to be arrested for). Also, why is that sad and scary? Its not like you are going to be sent to prison if the arrest fizzles.
