Columbus Police detain wrong man. Lawsuit incoming

[Creedmoor]

Person call police because of suspicious people on his property.

Police find said suspicious people emptying a storage unit into a vehicle. When questioned why on private property, at a late hour, emptying a storage unit, the subjects immediately invoke their 4A and 5A rights.

What do you think happens next in this story?

Imagine, folks move stuff in and out of storage rentals. Renters are given access 24-7-365 for a reason.

 

[Creedmoor]

The owner called, knowing who those people were and why they were there. They weren't suspicious, they were vacating their unit. Even so, it was immediately obvious they were not breaking into multiple units to steal all the goodies.

What objective evidence of theft would there be?
If not theft, what probable cause for arrest did you assume from the facts at hand? They weren't even trespassing...

The owner had requested the renter remove his property, a passerbuyer called it in.

 

[Destro]

The owner had requested the renter remove his property, a passerbuyer called it in.

Absolutely reasonable. That's the kind of information that's great to share with the police.

A response of "I don't talk to police" or "I don't consent to searches" could seriously jeopardize getting that information.

 

[Creedmoor]

Absolutely reasonable. That's the kind of information that's great to share with the police.

A response of "I don't talk to police" or "I don't consent to searches" could seriously jeopardize getting that information.

So a driver by calls in, that im moving stuff out of a garage and it looks suspicious.
The good officer would need an reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is or has been commited.
Depending on how that interaction went, will determine what happens next.
We dont live under Chairman Mao Yet.

 

[DragonGunner]

Audit the Audit on YouTube is great if you wanna see some crazy stuff police do and get sued. There another one I Iike. It’s a WV lawyer that puts stuff up. I think he has a hot case now of police lying like crazy and covering up each other when they raided a trailer and had wrong guy. He came to door and asked what’s going on in dead of night and they opened fire on him immediately. His wife behind him almost got shot up also. Had his hands up no weapon. Guess what, they covered it all up and never saw his security camera that taped everything! Those guys need to get sued and locked up.

 

[Destro]

So a driver by calls in, that im moving stuff out of a garage and it looks suspicious.
The good officer would need an reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is or has been commited.
Depending on how that interaction went, will determine what happens next.
We dont live under Chairman Mao Yet.

Variables in a situation are infinite. RAS is an extremely low bar. Probable cause for arrest is not absolute proof.

 

[Denny347]

Another great reminder to exercise your rights at every opportunity (4A & 5A).

Anyone giving odds on the defense of Qualified Immunity?

It depends.

Qualified immunity

www.law.cornell.edu

"Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case."

The owner called, knowing who those people were and why they were there. They weren't suspicious, they were vacating their unit. Even so, it was immediately obvious they were not breaking into multiple units to steal all the goodies.

Are you basing this own the narrator's statement? Only looking at the original run will you know what the officers were told when they were dispatched there. They didn't just show up on their own. Do you think the officer were lying about being told a passerby called 911? If so, why?

What objective evidence of theft would there be?
If not theft, what probable cause for arrest did you assume from the facts at hand? They weren't even trespassing...

Objective evidence? What is that? PC for what arrest? The warrant?

 

[rosejm]

Do you think the officer were lying about being told a passerby called 911? If so, why?

I do think either the caller lied, dispatch omitted, something was lost in transmission, or the officer lied to the "suspects". It wouldn't be the first time (or a rare occurrence), even if everyone was acting in good faith. Obviously, there was nothing stated that theft was witnessed.

Regardless if this is true, or if a passerby did in fact call in a report -- ALL of that is nothing but hearsay from an anonymous caller.

When the officer arrived, nothing illegal was occurring. Any suspicion was immediately dispelled and the reason for the call was shown to be unfounded. Why ID & run the other two people? Fishing for warrants may be legal/authorized, but it was unnecessary and in this case detrimental.

"Have a good night folks, sorry to bother you. I hope things take a better turn for you soon." should have been the end of that call.

Objective evidence? What is that? PC for what arrest? The warrant?

The request for some objective evidence or PC for an arrest was in response to this:
(what makes them suspicious and/or subject to arrest?)

Person call police because of suspicious people on his property.

Police find said suspicious people emptying a storage unit into a vehicle. When questioned why on private property, at a late hour, emptying a storage unit, the subjects immediately invoke their 4A and 5A rights.

What do you think happens next in this story?

Does a person at a location they're allowed to be, during business hours, removing their own property need to cooperate in any way with a police investigation?

Would you arrest them simply for remaining silent and refusing to cooperate? All on the suspicion of an anonymous caller?
Is there something to tell a judge or prosecutor about what was witnessed by the officer that would even amount to RAS?

I don't believe there is, nor do I think you would arrest them. I'm not convinced that this officer would have arrested them.
However, some think another officer would be likely to do so.

 

[Mgderf]

Totally different scenario, but similar and humorous.
Several years ago I was asked to replace a large patio door.
It was on an upper deck on the back of the house and out of view of anything but squirrels and birds.
Located on a private drive, the house is in a very nice community.
We show up and begin our work removing the trim when the home owner tells us he is going to leave for a couple of hours.
I told him we would be there that long so he pulled away.
We finished removing the door, leaving a 6' wide opening in the back of the house.
We were headed for the detached garage when the sheriff's deputy walked around the corner wanting to know what we were doing.
Seems the homeowner failed to disarm the alarm we disconnected from the door frame we we removed the old door.
We explained to the deputy that we were there to affect repairs and showed him the new door.
He was just about ready to pull away when the homeowner returned and told the deputy what he did(didn't do).
It was all funny after the fact, but when that deputy first walked around the corner, I could see on his face that he meant business.

 

[Denny347]

Regardless if this is true, or if a passerby did in fact call in a report -- ALL of that is nothing but hearsay from an anonymous caller.

All it does is get police to the area to check. Happens ALL the time.

When the officer arrived, nothing illegal was occurring. Any suspicion was immediately dispelled and the reason for the call was shown to be unfounded. Why ID & run the other two people? Fishing for warrants may be legal/authorized, but it was unnecessary and in this case detrimental.

"Have a good night folks, sorry to bother you. I hope things take a better turn for you soon." should have been the end of that call.

Lots of warrants found that way. Also, it documents in the computer dispatch WHO you interacted with. It will be in the run forever. Usually how these runs go is that the officers explain the situation and ASK for ID while they are figuring out what exactly is going on. They are not required to provide ID. Sometimes it starts off as a consensual encounter and sometimes it starts off as a Terry Stop, the bar is VERY low for Reasonable Suspicion.

Does a person at a location they're allowed to be, during business hours, removing their own property need to cooperate in any way with a police investigation?

No

Would you arrest them simply for remaining silent and refusing to cooperate? All on the suspicion of an anonymous caller?
Is there something to tell a judge or prosecutor about what was witnessed by the officer that would even amount to RAS?

I don't believe there is, nor do I think you would arrest them. I'm not convinced that this officer would have arrested them.
However, some think another officer would be likely to do so.

No, They cannot be arrested for remaining silent. An anonymous caller gets us to the area to check for suspicious activity but the officer might only drive by, not even get out of the car. The officer might see someone and they can have a consensual encounter, maybe seeing what is going on. The officer must develop RS to go from a consensual encounter to a Terry Stop. Then of course, develop PC for an arrest. Sure, an officer can see something that rises to the LOW level of Reasonable Suspicion, a lock cut off, door pried open, etc. However, to rise to the level of PC, the officer MUST contact the "owner" of that unit and confirm the people stopped did not have permission to enter and remove property from the unit. Without that, there is no arrest.

 

[Denny347]

Imagine, folks move stuff in and out of storage rentals. Renters are given access 24-7-365 for a reason.

Yeah, and somehow they still get broken into ALL the time.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Another great reminder to exercise your rights at every opportunity (4A & 5A).

Anyone giving odds on the defense of Qualified Immunity?

Very high.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You want to sue the police where there is no qualified immunity. E.g., a clearly established Constitutional right.

Lafayette lawyer sues county over courthouse removal

May 10—A Lafayette lawyer is suing Howard County and the Howard County Sheriff's Office, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was forced to leave after arguing with a bailiff over what article of clothing set off the courthouse metal detector. Kirk Freeman is suing the...

finance.yahoo.com

 

[chipbennett]

Person call police because of suspicious people on his property.

Police find said suspicious people emptying a storage unit into a vehicle. When questioned why on private property, at a late hour, emptying a storage unit, the subjects immediately invoke their 4A and 5A rights.

What do you think happens next in this story?

What about their appearance or behavior makes them "suspicious"? The storage facility was open for business when they were there - and further, the owner of the storage facility apparently asked/demanded the renter remove his property from the storage unit. The storage unit renter presented documentation that he was, in fact, the rightful renter of the storage unit.

The entire interaction should have ended, right then and there. Once the investigation revealed that no unlawful activity was taking place, the officer no longer had reason or authority to take anyone's ID.

What should have happened next? The officer should have said, "thank you all; have a good evening."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What about their appearance or behavior makes them "suspicious"? The storage facility was open for business when they were there - and further, the owner of the storage facility apparently asked/demanded the renter remove his property from the storage unit. The storage unit renter presented documentation that he was, in fact, the rightful renter of the storage unit.

The entire interaction should have ended, right then and there. Once the investigation revealed that no unlawful activity was taking place, the officer no longer had reason or authority to take anyone's ID.

What should have happened next? The officer should have said, "thank you all; have a good evening."

ID is crack to the cops. They MUST have it.

The only time you must identify yourself to the police is if you are accused of an ordinance violation or an infraction.

 

[chipbennett]

A "passerby" called according to the narrator.

What makes it immediately obvious they were vacating the unit?

What evidence of a crime existed based on a call from a "passerby"? What specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime existed, based on a third-party report of people removing property from a storage unit during open hours of a storage facility? What RAS remained, once the rightful renter of that storage unit produced documentation proving that he was the rightful renter of said unit?

 

[Denny347]

The entire interaction should have ended, right then and there. Once the investigation revealed that no unlawful activity was taking place, the officer no longer had reason or authority to take anyone's ID.

What should have happened next? The officer should have said, "thank you all; have a good evening."

The ID was provided at the same time they were figuring out what was going on. The warrant was going to pop up regardless of what they determined at the scene.

 

[Denny347]

What evidence of a crime existed based on a call from a "passerby"? What specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime existed, based on a third-party report of people removing property from a storage unit during open hours of a storage facility? What RAS remained, once the rightful renter of that storage unit produced documentation proving that he was the rightful renter of said unit?

Not enough info here to determine that

 

[dlandersson]

There is no "bankrupting" of state. Cost is burdened by the taxpayers.

Nice point

 

[chipbennett]

The ID was provided at the same time they were figuring out what was going on. The warrant was going to pop up regardless of what they determined at the scene.

The storage unit renter provided ID and rental documentation, which should have sufficed to satisfy whatever RAS existed. The other two shouldn't have been asked for their IDs and shouldn't have complied with the request to provide them, unless/until they were being cited for some violation.

Now, at worst, this guy took an unwanted ride in a police car. Yes, he was unlawfully detained. IMHO, though, it's probably grounds for some retraining of the deputy and not much more. I'm having a difficult time believing that LEO arrest people for outstanding warrants without minimal verification beyond name: birthdate, social, address - something.