Arrested at Mitt Romney Campaign's Request

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, legally.

Committing a tort is illegal. It is not possible to use trespass laws to contravene the Civil Rights Act and for that to be legal.

The police don't have the authority to fail to enforce the laws because of a possible discrimination lawsuit *against the complainant* later on.

False arrest would not be a suit filed against the complainant (or at least not the complainant only). In fact, the tort of false arrest is usually the subject of a suit against the police.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "the authority to fail to enforce the laws". Police are never obliged by a complainant to act. Prosecutors can decide which charges to pursue and which to ignore for any number of other reasons. (Police can even sit there and let hundreds of speeders pass them by.)

The comparison to a crime is invalid, because there is no statute criminalizing the legitimate enforcement of trespass laws, as I already pointed out.

But specifying "legitimate enforcement" is simply begging the question. If the arrest wasn't legit, it is a tort--and is not legal. (I'm not confusing crimes with torts--but both are in fact illegal.)

And every state I know of has licensing requirements for private security, especially armed, and cops who are moonlighting can't dodge behind, 'We were only private security'. If they are in police uniform, or show their police badges, then they're cops, moonlighting.

And no one's disputing that fact. But being police doesn't mean they are immune to suits for false arrest.

Again, by analogy, police also have the authority to use lethal force, but only in certain circumstances. The same is true of their authority to make arrests. It's an authority police have, but not in any and all circumstances.

Police are not obliged to make an arrest at the say so of a complainant. And the existence of a complainant doesn't mean they aren't committing false arrest.

And given the information we have, I'm not ready to say this was a case of false arrest, but I think it's problematic and at least merits some explanation or further comment, from both the Romney campaign staff involved and the Hudson police.

 

[crimresearch]

Committing a tort is illegal. It is not possible to use trespass laws to contravene the Civil Rights Act and for that to be legal.




False arrest would not be a suit filed against the complainant (or at least not the complainant only). In fact, the tort of false arrest is usually the subject of a suit against the police.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "the authority to fail to enforce the laws". Police are never obliged by a complainant to act. Prosecutors can decide which charges to pursue and which to ignore for any number of other reasons. (Police can even sit there and let hundreds of speeders pass them by.)



But specifying "legitimate enforcement" is simply begging the question. If the arrest wasn't legit, it is a tort--and is not legal. (I'm not confusing crimes with torts--but both are in fact illegal.)



And no one's disputing that fact. But being police doesn't mean they are immune to suits for false arrest.

Again, by analogy, police also have the authority to use lethal force, but only in certain circumstances. The same is true of their authority to make arrests. It's an authority police have, but not in any and all circumstances.

Police are not obliged to make an arrest at the say so of a complainant. And the existence of a complainant doesn't mean they aren't committing false arrest.

And given the information we have, I'm not ready to say this was a case of false arrest, but I think it's problematic and at least merits some explanation or further comment, from both the Romney campaign staff involved and the Hudson police.

Again, nice tap dance, moving of goal posts etc.

What you are now trying to say is not the original claim that I responded to.

You described a situation where a private property owner called the police to enforce the trespass laws against a minority, because the property owner did not want minorities on their property.

You made the claim that the police could not do that.

You are flat out wrong. If they see a situation that satisfies the elements of the crime, yes they can enforce the law.

And you will never produce any elements of trespass that contain what would be neccessary to support your claim.

There are CoA statutes and rulings where the police might be charged or sued under *similar* circumstances, but not under the specific and narrow circumstances you described.


ETA: And BTW, you are equally wrong with your new claim that the police are *never* obliged to enforce the law when they see it being violated in front of them... in the case of felonies, many states have specific requirements that police act in some manner. Whether they call it in, wait for backup, or something else, they are required to act to enforce the law in many cases.

 

[stilicho]

Where's the lawsuit for wrongful arrest? Bieber? Bieber?

Oh well, another attention whore. Yawn.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where's the lawsuit for wrongful arrest? Bieber? Bieber?

I've already answered this very weak argument: Bieber said he was sending a letter to the Romney campaign and would wait for their response. I have no idea how long he'll wait. Also, it might not be worth his time or effort to file a lawsuit for false arrest. It doesn't mean the arrest wasn't wrongful.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What you are now trying to say is not the original claim that I responded to.

My "claim" was in response to your claim which followed my mention of the Civil Rights Act. So my claim is that you can't use trespass laws to circumvent the Civil Rights Act legally.

If you weren't speaking in that context, then I withdraw my claim and admit that you are right. If trespass is being committed, then a property owner could complain such that his racist biases result in an arrest.

You described a situation where a private property owner called the police to enforce the trespass laws against a minority, because the property owner did not want minorities on their property.

You made the claim that the police could not do that.

I'm not sure where I described this situation, but I was speaking in context of the Civil Rights Act in particular with regard to public accommodations. This was in response to someone's claim that a sports venue could have patrons thrown out for any or no reason at all.

And BTW, you are equally wrong with your new claim that the police are *never* obliged to enforce the law when they see it being violated in front of them... in the case of felonies, many states have specific requirements that police act in some manner. Whether they call it in, wait for backup, or something else, they are required to act to enforce the law in many cases.

Fair enough. There are some circumstances where they are obliged to act (generally issues of safety), but they are certainly not always obliged to act whenever they see a crime. Police can let lots of things slide if they so choose.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Fair enough. There are some circumstances where they are obliged to act (generally issues of safety), but they are certainly not always obliged to act whenever they see a crime. Police can let lots of things slide if they so choose.

Too late to ETA, but I wanted to tack this on. . .

I admit I was wrong to say that police are never obliged to make an arrest, however, I still have issues with the term "the authority to fail to enforce the laws". In fact, they have that "authority" (I would call it "discretion") in all but a few rare situations when they have a duty to act.

And in the context of trespassing and removing people in the absence of violent or disruptive behavior--the context of this discussion-- they definitely do not have such a duty.

And the point I made originally, police certainly don't have a duty to arrest someone based on the complaint of a property owner only. If they don't witness the law being broken, they are certainly not bound to make an arrest, as someone earlier had suggested.

 

[stilicho]

I've already answered this very weak argument: Bieber said he was sending a letter to the Romney campaign and would wait for their response. I have no idea how long he'll wait. Also, it might not be worth his time or effort to file a lawsuit for false arrest. It doesn't mean the arrest wasn't wrongful.

Are you a lawyer? A professional activist like Bieber has lots of time on his hands. I noticed this laugher from his blog recently:

A few weeks ago, I spent about four hours in a cell at a police station in New Hampshire. Not for a moment would I compare my experience to anything approaching full-time confinement in prison. Still, it’s worth saying that even those few hours messed with my head. I felt foggy and small, restless and bored, jumpy and exhausted, anxious and depressed. I didn’t know how long it would last or when it would end. And while I knew that each minute brought me closer to my release, it wasn’t clear how much closer – which meant that the passage of time couldn’t provide much solace.

They messed with his head. I would say he's got a really good case. I suppose all he's missing is any evidence that his arrest and detention was wrongful.

 

[Spindrift]

Are you a lawyer? A professional activist like Bieber has lots of time on his hands. I noticed this laugher from his blog recently:



They messed with his head. I would say he's got a really good case. I suppose all he's missing is any evidence that his arrest and detention was wrongful.

He said the experience messed with his head, not that 'they' messed with his head.

 

[stilicho]

He said the experience messed with his head, not that 'they' messed with his head.

He went into the cell for four hours on his own?

 

[Spindrift]

He went into the cell for four hours on his own?

No, but that doesn't mean they messed with his head. They put him in a cell to detain him not to mess with his head.

 

[stilicho]

No, but that doesn't mean they messed with his head. They put him in a cell to detain him not to mess with his head.

Yes, but we're considering the emotional distress component of his lawsuit, and that's emerging gradually as he embellishes his experience.

I don't think he's thought this out very well but a competent lawyer might be able to make something of it.

 

[Nova Land]

Case Dismissed! Charges Dropped in My Bizarre Arrest at a January Romney Event

In January, I had one of the weirder and more unsettling experiences of my life – after (possibly) being mistaken for a protester, I was removed and then arrested for “criminal trespass” at a public Mitt Romney event in Hudson, NH.

Recently, I got some great news: the case has been dismissed! No charges, no trial, and thanks to the wonderful pro-bono legal work of Andru Volinsky (with an assist from Jim Rosenberg), no legal fees...

I wish there were more details in that post, but the excerpt I posted is pretty much it.

Glancing through the list of interviews archived on his site, though, Bieber appears to be exactly what he represented himself as being.

Edited to add: This post is from July 15, several months ago.

 

[Bob001]

If the guy was in fact arrested and charged under the circumstances he describes, it sounds like he should file a suit for false arrest. Either the town will settle out of court, or a trial will shine some light on how a small-town police department operates. He'll get to depose every cop who had anything to do with the case and the Romney volunteers who fingered him, and cross-examine them on the stand, and obtain all the cops' records about their private duty pay, and it'll all be made public. In my city a scandal about police doing the bidding of nightclubs where they worked security led to a major restructuring of how cops get such assignments.