re: These cops in North Louisiana need to go to prison for this unnecessary chokehold (Video)

quote:

---

It is pretty easy not to resist arrest. That doesn't take a great deal of intelligence

---

quote:

---

It is pretty easy not to resist arrest. That doesn't take a great deal of intelligence

---

quote:

---

It is pretty easy not to resist arrest. That doesn't take a great deal of intelligence.

---

I'm going to explain this to you all one time since you don't seem to fricking understand.

In the state of Louisiana law enforcement officers have a duty, even when not prompted by the affected party, to notify the arrested party for the reasons for his arrest or detention.

It's in the fricking Louisiana State Constitution in case you were wondering.

LA Constitution Article 1 Sec. 13
Rights of the Accused

Section 13. When any person has been arrested or detained in connection with the investigation or commission of any offense, he shall be advised fully of the reason for his arrest or detention,


... and if that wasn't enough...


Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, Title V, Article 218.1

Art. 218.1. Advice of reasons for arrest or detention and of rights

When any person has been arrested or detained in connection with the investigation or commission of any offense, he shall be advised fully of the reason for his arrest or detention,...

Added by Acts 1974, Ex.Sess., No. 27, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1975.

quote:

---

I am guessing you are interpreting “fully” to mean telling them all the details of the investigation and not just “you have a warrant”??

Just curious. If an officer is tasked with arresting someone for a warrant from another jurisdiction that he knows very little about how is he suppose to explain all those details. Such arrests are a pretty common occurrence.

---

Fair enough and no, don't expect the LEO to give a full legal description. I'm not that familiar with it but I would imagine case law has established it to mean, at the very least, reasons for the issuance of the warrant and its scope.

That's all I would expect anyway but I do think that should be a requirement at minimum. Believe it or not you do have a right to resist unlawful orders similar to a civilian version of conscientious objector but without basic facts for your arrest or detainment how can you make a decision as to whether or not such an order, arrest or detainment is unlawful?

quote:

---

I am guessing you are interpreting “fully” to mean telling them all the details of the investigation and not just “you have a warrant”??

---

Also, I think the inclusion of the word "fully" in this context is telling. Obviously the spirit in which this law was written was in fact to include something more than the notice of the issuance of the warrant. If not then what would be less than “you have a warrant”?

Are you suggesting that the difference between "fully" and not "fully" is difference between "you have a warrant" and silence?

quote:

---

I think fully = telling the person what he is under arrest for.

---

That's all I was asserting.

The post I was responding to is suggesting that merely notice of the issuance for existence of the warrant was enough to constitute "fully" advising arrested or detained party. The pieces of legislation that I referenced clearly state fully advised of the reason for the arrest or detainment. I think the argument we're having isn't over the word "fully" but more so over the word, "reason". To me "reason", in the context of these two cited laws, would not be the warrant itself but the reason the warrant was issued in the first place. In other words, the alleged charges that would have resulted in the detainment or in this case, arrest.

quote:

---

Example: Suspect shoots someone and immediately flees to a neighboring parish,town, or state. Responding officers may immediately notify the agency with jurisdiction to locate and take the person into custody. This often happens quickly before a warrant is issued and without the investigating officers knowing all of the exact charges. This is due to a rapid evolving and fluid situation. In such instances the officers are acting in good faith to take the suspect into custody.

---

What you're referencing, in this example, is exigent circumstances. But once the suspect is taken into custody, IE detainment or arrest, the person affecting the arrest is still required under Louisiana law to notify the detained or arrested party why he's being detained or arrested. It would be for the alleged crime of shooting someone, in your example. Whether that arrest or detainment comes about during exigent circumstances or not doesn't forgo the requirement of notification of the reasons for it. At least not based on the law as I'm reading it.

If I'm being honest, whether this requirement is required before or after the detainment or arrest is unclear. I imagine that was settled out in case law at some point but if it were up to me it would be required before the detainment or arrest takes place because, as I've stated in another post, your right to disobey unlawful orders, at, as the OT constantly likes to remind us, your own peril of course, requires basic information to make that determination, such as, the reason for the arrest or detainment.

Or Ville Platte, Mamou, Eunice, Church Point, etc etc.

I don't know the details but a citizen does not have to take a police officers word that they have a warrant. The man asked to see it and they could not provide it. At that point, the officers let the situation escalate out of control. Present the warrant and go from there.

Completely uncalled for situation.