Your cites do not agree with you, nowhere in your cites does the Supreme Court say that you can ignore the intent requirement in determining probable cause. nowhere in those cases does the Supreme Court say that a mere possibility of crime is sufficient to constitute probable cause. They merely set forth a standard for probable cause and that standard was not met.
The people who believe that a crime was committed don’t appear to have a full grasp on the law. We are now on page 8, and as far as I can tell no one has offered any evidence of intent. It is all based on assumptions, which isn’t a legally sound argument.
A judge , not a jury generally makes a probable cause determination. And that judge will hear from at least one store employee and the police officer who may paint a very different picture from Nicole's . And if Nicole chooses to testify (and she might not) she will be subject to cross-examination and not just telling her story to a sympathetic reporter.
There simply aren't enough facts available to us to determine whether or not there was probable cause- but the facts do exist and were known to the store employee and police officer. The facts are not unknowable but **we** don't know them. And therefore we cannot, any of us , determine whether or not the officer had probable cause- because that determination is based on the facts , all the facts, **available to the officer at the time.** It doesn't matter if the store now wishes not to have had the bad publicity. It doesn't matter if the store rethought its policy after the fact. It doesn't matter if the store manager violated the store policy by calling the police- store policy doesn't determine whether an arrest was lawful. It doesn't even matter if some store employee comes forward the next day and says " Oh, she paid me before she ate the sandwich ". That might cause the store some legal trouble , but not the officer if there was probable cause **based on the facts available at the time of arrest. **
And the people who are saying that a crime wasn’t committed and the officer unlawfully arrested her are making at least as many assumptions.
We’re not ignoring the element of intent. We are saying there is a probability of intent. Not a 100% probability but a probability.
It doesn’t have to be a 100% probability for arrest. That’s just something you and treis have invented.
We are making presumptions. The presumption is that people are innocent crimes, and there must be evidence to show their guilt. You can’t just assume parts of the crime are true.
No, that’s some ridiculous straw man you have invented.
Did you miss my cite where mere possibility is rejected as a standard for probable cause?
can a business do that? ban a customer for life because they [del]did not like their face[/del] suspect they tried to steal from their store?
four hours is an eternity for a toddler. who would be willing to be held that long unless it’s against their will?
Unless you’re discriminating based on a legally defined suspect classification, yes, you can refuse service to someone for no good reason whatsoever.
I’m not talking about the presumption of innocence- of course , there must be evidence to prove her guilt and even to establish probable cause , which is much easier than proving guilt. (And it seems to me the police officer is entitled to that same presumption before people accuse him or her of unlawfully arresting someone- that presumption doesn’t only apply in criminal cases, you know) You are assuming that the evidence to show her guilt doesn’t exist, when in fact it might. At the same time, you criticize those who assume it does exist. There is a factual answer to what type of wrapping it was, but we don’t know it. There is a factual answer to where,when and in what condition the wrapper was found- we don’t know the answer to that either. There’s a factual answer to how she reacted when she was confronted - don’t have any answer to that either. Yes, if the police officer somehow had no knowledge of anything other than the fact that she ate the sandwich and didn’t pay , then he didn’t have probable cause and he shouldn’t have arrested her. But you aren’t justified in assuming the officer didn’t have additional information just because you don’t. The officer certainly had more information than we do - if nothing else , he or she observed Nicole’s demeanor. We just don’t know whether that information tended to be evidence that she intended to pay or that she didn’t intend to pay.
( and what I find amusing is that I am almost certainly the only person in this thread who routinely decides whether there is probable cause for the issuance of a warrant)
Well actually we are 8 pages in and no one has provided any evidence they were arrested for shoplifting. You can continue making your ridiculous argument about intent using facts that may or may not be part of the evidence used for the arrest. The officer could have arrested them for any number of things.
treis, I don’t think that they should have been arrested, or even detained beyond asking them to pay for the eaten sandwich, but even I recognize the fact that a hard-assed retailer would be within his or her rights to detain them and that the story as told by the lady left enough room for “probable cause” for an arrest.
It is one thing to note that the matter was handled badly and a rather different one to claim that they could not legally have been arrested.
8 pages? :eek:
I’m not assuming it. The store has come out and said they don’t believe that this couple intended to shoplift.
The first post has a link to an article that says they were arrested for stealing the sandwiches.
It’s a story almost entirely based on the women’s recollection of events. Until I see a police report, I’m not going to take her word on it even if you find a newspaper so lacking in journalistic standards they will.
And that’s a conclusion the company made - it’s not a fact. The woman could have thrown the wrapper behind a box, stuffed it down her pants, denied eating the sandwich, claimed the wrapper was already in her cart when she got the cart- and none of those possibilities would prevent the store from “accepting” her claim that she intended to pay for it, which doesn’t mean they actually believe it, just that they are willing to act as if it’s true. And it certainly doesn’t mean that the officer at the scene is required to adopt the same position that the store took after the bad publicity.
Just so we are clear, you think the couple is lying about being arrested, having to bail themselves out of jail, and their kid being held by CPS for 18 hours?
Ok. It still means that I am basing my conclusion on something, and not merely assuming it.
Yeah, you can base your conclusion that she intended to pay on the store’s willingness to accept her claim (which still means you’re making assumptions regarding why the store is accepting the claim) . However, you’re not basing your conclusion that there was no probable cause on the store’s statement - they never said anything of the kind.
Just so we are clear I did not say that, but feel free to continue to make stuff up.
The facts of this case remain unknown to us.
You just posted that you wouldn’t take her word on it:
So colour me confused. Do you think she was arrested for shoplifting, or don’t you?
The store has already admitted that they don’t think Nicole was trying to steal the sandwich, why do you insist that everyone on both sides of this case is lying. You assume facts not in evidence and ignore facts as they have been presented.
Yeah and everything we know right now point to a lack of probable cause. You want to assume that there is something there that hasn’t revealed itself. Well, when if those facts reveal themselves we can reassess whether or not the new facts support probable cause but with everyone being given an opportunity to comment, the cops have chosen not to comment, the supermarket has admitted they do not think Nicole was trying to steal the sandwich and Nicole agrees that she was not trying to steal the sandwich.
Its as if you can’t believe anyone could fuck up so royally. I on the other hand see such a failure of judgment in the arrest of two parents over a $5 sandwich that led to the involvement of child protective services to take the child for a day that I don’t try to fabricate scenarios that contradict the facts and statements we have before us to make the supermarket or the cops right.
Where have either of us said you need 100% probability or are you just making shit up again? I think I said on at least two occasions that the do not meet the low threshhold of evidence required to meet probable cause.
Come back when you can cite either of us saying that probable cause requires 100% probability.
Probable cause means more than “there is some possibility that a crime might have been committed because we meet two out of three factors of a crime”