Man Arrested For Drinking Ice Tea in Parking Lot

This site cracks me up.

Somebody can post a video of a tin can hanging on a fishing line, and 90% of the site thinks it's an alien spaceship.

People post a video of a cop clearly in the wrong, and 90% of the site says the guy deserved it.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't need one, all this can be gleaned from the video itself and a basic understanding of the law.
1) Police cannot trespass you off private property without the consent of the property owner, a legal renter, or agent.
2) The officer was either “undercover” or more likely working “off duty”.
3) The officer trespassed him, which means that there was some existing agreement between that officer and the owner of the property for him to have authority to police the area.
4) The fact that there was a pre-existing agreement between the officer and the owner tells me that there were ongoing problems in the area. Owners do not pay for “off duty” officers for no reason, its cost prohibitive.
5) “Reasonable Suspicion” and “Terry Stop” are about as basic as it gets in Law, look them up.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Ah, ok. So you are basing your opinion on what again? You have any proof the officer trespassed him after speaking with the store owner? How is it "fact" when you have no proof? All you are doing is surmising.
No need to look up the laws. Know them quite well. You actually have to be in defiance of a law to break one - so where is the proof he was? If indeed that is the story, then end of this thread. Just saying it is the "fact" does not make it so. Tsk tsk.

CJ

reply to post by garbageface

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Ah, ok. So you are basing your opinion on what again? You have any proof the officer trespassed him after speaking with the store owner? How is it "fact" when you have no proof?

There is proof...
The officer quite clearly stated he was “trespassing” and needed to leave the property.
The officer cannot “trespass” anyone off private property without the consent of the owner or agent.
The officer is not going to “arrest” someone if he cannot make the charges stick, or had no legal right to make such charges. There are too many other “fishing laws” that he could use instead of trespass, if he didn't have authority to actually trespass him.

reply to post by defcon5


Oh, ok, The officer said it thus it must be true. "Proof" is a cheap commodity apparently.
So why didn't he start with trespass and not "what's in the can'"?

CJ

reply to post by defcon5

If you are on the private parking lot of a store, and you're not a customer, you're loitering.

He may have purchased the beverage at the store. How quickly are we required to leave the premises before we are loitering?

Once he was trespassed, he should have left, and he would not have been arrested. His arrest had nothing to do with what he was drinking, it had to do with him loitering, trespassing, and creating a general disturbance with his car radio.

The officer says "You have 5 seconds to leave". Would it even have been possible for him to comply with that order? Is it possible to enter his car, shut the door, fasten his seatbelt, start the engine, check his rear, back out, signal, drive out of the parking lot in 5 seconds? If not it seems like an unreasonable demand on the part of the officer, one that would be impossible to comply with. He may as well have demanded that he levitate.

The police officer MUST be there at the behest of the business in order to trespass, police have no right to trespass you off private property unless they have the business owners consent. The fact that the business had an “off duty” or “undercover” police officer on the lot tells that they have had problems in that area with drinking and loitering already.

The officer seems to have no problem with the rest of the people who are also hanging around the parking lot, including the obviously intoxicated guy who, if I had to guess, was there to spare for some booze money.

Given that fact, the officer already has “reasonable suspicion” to preform a “terry stop”, and check what is in the can. When asked for it, this fool should have handed it over instead of playing games.

Following this logic an officer has a right to take a bite out of my burrito if he has "reasonable suspicion" that I stuffed it with magic mushrooms. Does an officer have a right to taste my burrito? Is he allowed to open it up and inspect it for contraband? If he is mistaken, and the burrito is clean, do I get a replacement burrito? Placing his nose to the top of the can contaminates the can, just the same as biting the burrito would.

Now, on top of his trespassing and loitering charges, he will also get “resisting”, which his friend clearly videotaped for the prosecution (I'm going to save this video for the next: “he was laying on the ground with his hands behind his back doing NOTHING when the police beat the crap out of him” thread).

The arrested man does not make any attempt to resist. He throws his hands up, and keeps them up even while he is being tackled. The only part that resembles resistance is verbal protest against the arrest.

It hurts the private business to have questionable looking folks standing in front of their storefront, and they will hire “off duty” officers to police those areas to deal with the problem. People do not want to patronize a business if they have to walk past loitering obnoxious folks...

Why was the obviously intoxicated man considered to be less of a nuisance than the one who was arrested? How does a screaming wasted mess scoot under the watchful eye of this officer if he is acting to protect the business, and given a lower priority than the guy wearing clean clothes, standing next to an expensive car, and speaking and behaving in a way that causes no disturbance and gives no indication of intoxication?

playing loud music...

The music was obviously added in post editing.

and acting like thugs in the parking lot.

If you could, please expand on what "acting like thugs" means.

This guy was even going so far as to stand there drinking from his “tall can”, and “dressing” his pants, to look the part.

I have no idea what '"dressing" his pants' means, but any convenience store has a wide selection of non-alcoholic beverages that come in tall cans, so I don't see that to be suspicious.

Your rights end when they cross the lines of another, in this case a business.

A fair point, but if his actions were infringing on the rights of the business then so were the actions of several other people who were not arrested.

And if you are going to try and goad on the “man”, at least know the REAL law, not the make believe, internet, or television version of the law...

The real law does not prohibit any of his actions, unless you really do expect him to leave the property in 5 seconds. The unwritten law says he looked like a "thug", his car was suspiciously expensive, he was not submissive enough when confronted, and therefore needed to be arrested and taught a lesson about authority. Fortunately for him, the unwritten laws don't hold up very well in court.

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation

Hear,hear Brother..I've been reading the comments off/on in this thread periodically through the day,and I dig your insight.I too know what it feels like to deal with knuckled headed Leo's..Anyway we need more people like you to fight their BS...
Ltr,
Dazed

Originally posted by Slugworth
He may have purchased the beverage at the store. How quickly are we required to leave the premises before we are loitering?

You do your business and you leave in a reasonable time. This guy was not doing business in there, which came up in the video, he was there waiting on someone.

Originally posted by Slugworth
The officer says "You have 5 seconds to leave".

That means he is expecting you to start leaving the premises immediately. He's not actually timing you. This is a rather sill remark.

Originally posted by Slugworth
The officer seems to have no problem with the rest of the people who are also hanging around the parking lot, including the obviously intoxicated guy who, if I had to guess, was there to spare for some booze money.

Its one officer, he's going to deal with one situation at a time.

Originally posted by Slugworth
Following this logic an officer has a right to take a bite out of my burrito if he has "reasonable suspicion" that I stuffed it with magic mushrooms. Does an officer have a right to taste my burrito? Is he allowed to open it up and inspect it for contraband? If he is mistaken, and the burrito is clean, do I get a replacement burrito? Placing his nose to the top of the can contaminates the can, just the same as biting the burrito would.

Yes he can...

[A] Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), made constitutionally permissible warrantless searches and seizures in limited circumstances. The Supreme Court ruled that in determining whether the Warrant and Probable Cause clauses of the Fourth Amendment apply to a given search and/or seizure, the “central inquiry” is the reasonableness of the government's activity under the circumstances; “reasonableness” is assessed by balancing the need to search or seize against the invasion the search or seizure entails. This is known as the “reasonableness balancing” test. [See § 3.02 for further discussion of Terry v. Ohio.]

If it ends up being nothing, and you feel the food is contaminated, I am sure that there is paperwork that you can fill you at the police station for reimbursement. If not, you can certainly take them to small claims court for your burrito.

Originally posted by Slugworth
The arrested man does not make any attempt to resist. He throws his hands up, and keeps them up even while he is being tackled. The only part that resembles resistance is verbal protest against the arrest.

You need to watch that again. Its VERY clear that he resists the officer putting the cuffs on him. That is resisting arrest.

Originally posted by Slugworth
Why was the obviously intoxicated man considered to be less of a nuisance than the one who was arrested? How does a screaming wasted mess scoot under the watchful eye of this officer if he is acting to protect the business, and given a lower priority than the guy wearing clean clothes, standing next to an expensive car, and speaking and behaving in a way that causes no disturbance and gives no indication of intoxication?

Because the officer was already engaged with another issue when that guy entered the area. The officer can only deal with one person at a time, and once an officer is making an arrest he cannot just stop to go arrest someone else.

Originally posted by Slugworth
The music was obviously added in post editing.

Why is this obvious?

Originally posted by Slugworth
If you could, please expand on what "acting like thugs" means.

Use your own common sense. Were they acting “gangster”, then most would consider that to be thuggish behavior, including all business owners that I know.

Originally posted by Slugworth
I have no idea what '"dressing" his pants' means, but any convenience store has a wide selection of non-alcoholic beverages that come in tall cans, so I don't see that to be suspicious.

I meant “housing” not “dressing” sorry.

Originally posted by Slugworth
A fair point, but if his actions were infringing on the rights of the business then so were the actions of several other people who were not arrested.

Again, he can only deal with on at a time. If he is there “off duty” he is going to go after the people who are not there to patronize the business first as that is who the business is paying him to deal with.

Originally posted by Slugworth[/i
The real law does not prohibit any of his actions, unless you really do expect him to leave the property in 5 seconds.

He was in that parking lot to wait for a friend, not do commerce with any of the businesses there, and therefore had no reason or right to be on that property. That is loitering and trespassing, regardless of any other issues involved he was already breaking the law from the start.