• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    If they enter his home, and there is no evidence of a crime, then what is the basis for the arrest?
    One thing is to investigate the truth of a call, another is to act on it as if it’s verbatim truth.

    • freewheel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      It’s not technically an arrest. In a high-stakes call, the police will typically detain everybody until they can figure out what’s going on. That means potential victims as well as potential attackers. It’s a safety measure.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        In the US, the 4th Amendment says that’s unconstitutional. Fortunately. Too many dirty pigs out there.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Was he arrested? I don’t see follow up. It only says he was handcuffed which would be standard until they know what’s going on.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        In the US, the cops need RAS to handcuff you. The standard was never and is not “until they know what’s going on”. And RAS depends on the current cop knowledge. Even if they had legal grounds to break into your place, what they see in the next ten seconds is still relevant. For example, if someone said you attacked them with a knife, when the cops see no victim, knife, or blood, their legal authority ceases.

        Of course it’s all highly dependent on specific details.

        (On traffic stops, often they already have RAS. That’s why they pulled you over. So don’t be fooled by other comments about that topic.)