You are ignoring me and moving the goalpost. Everyone agrees that a police office must have probable cause in order to arrest.
In regard to being arrested you said:
“You need to prove that she intended to leave without paying for the sandwich.”
Do you want to stick with that or is your goalpost moving a retraction?
Probable cause is not the same as having to prove a crime was committed. Probable cause can come from information from witnesses and circumstantial evidence (an item left a store that wasn’t paid for).
You don’t? You said:
"He needs to have probable cause to arrest someone. So I suppose he needs to first prove it to himself. And then prove it to the judge, and perhaps then to a jury when he is sued for wrongful arrest.
How does the situation in this thread differ from the hypothetical example I gave above?
Who is “he” in your above statement? I asked you more than one question, twice, and you’re not answering them.
The police officer doesn’t have to prove anything to the judge. The police won’t be delivering the case. That’s the district attorney’s job.
Now you’re just playing semantic games. But I’ll go along with it.
You’re confusing standards for conviction with standards for arrest. All the police have to do is show that they have probable cause that a person committed a crime in order to arrest them.
Now go back to my post #123. All the probable cause you need is there. Check Illinois v. Gates. The police need to have a “fair probability” that a person committed a crime in order to establish sufficient probable cause. Heck, he could have established probable cause from reading the article.
As you yourself just pointed out, you have no idea where the wrappers were. Seems reasonable to me that they were out in the basket. If they were stuffed hidden away into their pockets, that would be somewhat different, although I suspect that that detail would have made it into the news story, if so. (Maybe not.)
As far as “you wouldn’t forget it if it were in the basket,” maybe and maybe not. I made it all the way to the door of the store once before realizing that there was a box of cookies in the cart we hadn’t paid for. It was a little box of animal crackers for my kid and had been at the bottom of the cart. I didn’t see it when I was unloading, and then the bagger put the grocery bags right on top of it. Then my 3-year-old started pointing at it and asking for it when we were leaving the store, which is when I found it and went back and paid for it. It was in plain sight in the basket the entire time, but I forgot it, the cashier didn’t say anything about it, and neither did the bagger. Things happen.
I think you need to get straight about what I am confusing here. Am I confusing grounds for conviction and arrest, or standards for conviction and arrest?
What in the article establishes her intent to steal the sandwich?
But the outcome of the story is the officer saw reason to arrest them. I have a hard time believing the officer simply decided these people needed to be taught a lesson for an accidental theft. I have a much easier time believing the officer felt he was being lied to and responded by being heavy handed.
I’m going to stick with the position until a police report says otherwise these people intended to steal the sandwiches the police had reason to arrest them.
OK. As long as you understand that this belief is based on zero evidence, and just your gut feeling.
Maybe the officer felt constrained by the fact that the store wanted to press charges. Shrug.
Edit: And I really don’t have a huge amount of respect for the judgment of an officer who decided to arrest two people and separate them from their child even if he did believe they fully intended to shoplift $5 of sandwiches. That seems ludicrously over the top to me.
If they are caught disposing of the wrappers in the store their intent is clear. If they are caught walking out of the store with the wrappers someone like treis can come along and argue they had no intent to steal.
People who ditch wrappers in the store are more likely to be caught by reviewing camera’s. At Home Depot we caught many people this way. If you find an empty package you have a point where you know someone was committing a crime and can review the log till you find that person. Any employee finding an open package reports it to LP. If they walked out the front door with it they leave no record of the theft to be reviewed.
I’m not sure what you are intending to prove but, while I was there they started carrying soda. We fired and prosecuted 2 different employees for drinking soda’s they did not pay for.
After I left Home Depot in one of their shining moments detained a man for taking a pencil he had used while in the store. They went the Safeway route and simply apologized for that one.
Let’s just call it the legal thing-a-ma-bob for conviction and the legal thing-a-ma-bob for arrest so we don’t have to debate whether grounds or standards is the correct term. That set, we apparently both agree that arrest and conviction have differing legal thing-a-ma-bobs.
That depends on what you mean by establishes. Do you mean establishes with a fair probability (which is all that is required for an arrest)? If so, then I’d say the fact that she stole the sandwich establishes with a fair probability that she intended to steal the sandwich. It doesn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but that’s a decision for a judge and/or jury to make.
It just seemed to me that perhaps the type of item a customer would tend to try to steal from Home Depot would probably be quite a bit larger and more difficult to conceal than, say, a sandwich wrapper.
I think that the problem of employees taking soda that they didn’t pay for is a lot different from store customers failing to pay for one item out of an entire cart full of groceries. Particularly considering that, as has now been pointed out, the wrapper was right there in the cart. I feel like you are really bending over backwards to make it seem plausible that these two people could have been deliberately intending to shoplift $5 of sandwiches from the store. They ate the sandwiches, they put the wrapper in the cart, it was a hectic day (they got lost on the bus, they had their toddler with them, the wife was pregnant and feeling light-headed anyway), they forgot to pay. I find this a lot more plausible than “they intended to steal the sandwiches and craftily hid the wrappers in plain view in their shopping cart so that later on when prosecuted for this $5 crime they could claim plausible deniability and get away with their master scheme.”
Is your store infested with hip hop artists?