Please do not call 911 twice, you may be arrested and thrown in the back of the squad

http://www.pnj.com/article/20131107/NEWS01/131107010/Hoteliers-address-County-Commission-about-deputy-training-concerns


I have been a strong supporter of the Sheriff, but the training or lack therein for his deputy's almost requires turning the entire department over to an independent agency and starting over. The jail is being ran by the County, and somebody has to find a funding source to properly train and start over. A man who has never called 911 and has created economic development........is treated like a common criminal.....you know do not let the victims have a voice.....nope handcuff them. This is a disgrace, and I hope the Sheriff realizes the same and changes his tune quickly, because the tail is waggin the dog.

Over 50 years on this planet and I have never dialed 911. But my neighbor has. Once. He won't do that again. Even after his finger heals.

I've called a few times for drunk drivers and a business fire I saw from the road...never a problem, just gave them my name.

because the tail is waggin the dog


Nope. They shot the dog in side the peoples house a weeks ago. Remember?

I use the non emergency number....but the calls are still sent to a call taker and then information is sent to the dispatcher.

I think it is unclear how recent this burglary was.......did they catch the burglars in the act, or did the arrive home and call the police. I think it is always appropriate for a person coming home and seeing that someone has entered their home to call 911, but I also understand that an investigation is quite another thing from a crime in process......these victims should never have been treated this way, and some of the comments in the PNJ are totally inappropriate.

2seaoat wrote:I think it is unclear how recent this burglary was.......did they catch the burglars in the act, or did the arrive home and call the police.  I think it is always appropriate for a person coming home and seeing that someone has entered their home to call 911, but I also understand that an investigation is quite another thing from a crime in process......these victims should never have been treated this way, and some of the comments in the PNJ are totally inappropriate.

The homeowners should have had a gun. No need for cops. Just the undertaker.

Why do I have to think of everything?

2seaoat wrote:http://www.pnj.com/article/20131107/NEWS01/131107010/Hoteliers-address-County-Commission-about-deputy-training-concerns


I have been a strong supporter of the Sheriff, but the training or lack therein for his deputy's almost requires turning the entire department over to an independent agency and starting over.  The jail is being ran by the County, and somebody has to find a funding source to properly train and start over.   A man who has never called 911 and has created economic development........is treated like a common criminal.....you know do not let the victims have a voice.....nope handcuff them.   This is a disgrace, and I hope the Sheriff realizes the same and changes his tune quickly, because the tail is waggin the dog.

Mr SO. Mr Patel was not arrested, he was being detained for interfering with the possible burglary investigation.

Mr SO. Mr Patel was not arrested, he was being detained for interfering with the possible burglary investigation.

Sorry he was arrested if his story to the commissioners was true, but once they found out who he was they baked up this story that he was simply detained for interfering with the investigation. BS. There is no excuse for what happened to this man. The entire office is broken, and as hard as the Sheriff tried to fix it........well it is too damn broken and needs to be taken over and fixed. Again the tail has been waggin the dog, and the citizens are seen as the enemy not the employer of these folks.

2seaoat wrote:Mr SO. Mr Patel was not arrested, he was being detained for interfering with the possible burglary investigation.

Sorry he was arrested if his story to the commissioners was true, but once they found out who he was they baked up this story that he was simply detained for interfering with the investigation.  BS.   There is no excuse for what happened to this man.   The entire office is broken, and as hard as the Sheriff tried to fix it........well it is too damn broken and needs to be taken over and fixed.  Again the tail has been waggin the dog, and the citizens are seen as the enemy not the employer of these folks.

If you had watched the video clip, the cop that cuffed him never once used the word arrest, however he did say that he was being detained until they figured out what was going on. So I can only assume that the cop that placed him in the back of the vehicle did not say what was actually said on the tape?

You need to get familiar with 1983 civil right actions and false arrest. The criteria you allege is essential to make a prima facia case are not what you think. The only reason this guy will not file an action is that he will suffer a business backlash. You need to read what the Robert's court has been deciding on police stops and actions by the same...........An officer most certainly can arrest an individual for interference in an investigation, an officer most certainly can arrest an individual for prank 911 calls, but when you take a person into custody even temporarily you better be prepared for what will come if you have handcuffed that individual and put them in a locked cage......you think if an officer calls it something is the determining criteria.......it is not.

Ghost,
I guess you failed to read my answer to you. You decided to find another thread to address what I said. So, as the omnipotent one, as ceded by you, I declare that a person who has called the police on 911 and is handcuffed at the scene, and put in the back of the squad, and then his wife is handcuffed and put in the back of the squad, can be successful in a 1983 action against the SO and the deputies involved....REGARDLESS....of whether the citizens were told they were arrested.

They will take no legal action because of the business backlash, and the already racist feelings which clearly have been expressed in the comments section of the PNJ. An officer most certainly can arrest someone for interfering with an investigation, and they can most certainly arrest someone for fraudulent or nuisance 911 calls, but a jury will hear a 1983 action despite the alleged status of the reason for the arrest or the officer declaring they are under arrest.

2seaoat wrote:Ghost,
I guess you failed to read my answer to you.  You decided to find another thread to address what I said. So, as the omnipotent one, as ceded by you, I declare that a person who has called the police on 911 and is handcuffed at the scene, and put in the back of the squad, and then his wife is handcuffed and put in the back of the squad, can be successful in a 1983 action against the SO and the deputies involved....REGARDLESS....of whether the citizens were told they were arrested.

They will take no legal action because of the business backlash, and the already racist feelings which clearly have been expressed in the comments section of the PNJ.  An officer most certainly can arrest someone for interfering with an investigation, and they can most certainly arrest someone for fraudulent or nuisance 911 calls, but a jury will hear a 1983 action despite the alleged status of the reason for the arrest or the officer declaring they are under arrest.

The differences between a detention and an arrest are important because your rights change drastically from one to the other. In a detention, the police only need reasonable suspicion to stop an individual, and a reasonable person would feel as though they could leave in a short amount of time. This timeframe can vary a bit based on the circumstances, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that 20 minutes or so is a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone.

Ahhhhh, but you missed the most important part of the Supreme Court Analysis and certainly have not been reading Scalia's recent decisions.......it is the reasonable determination which is changing. These folks would win a 1983 action without any dissent in a jury, or a judge ruling on summary judgment. The comments in the PNJ and the history of training and actions of the Sheriff's department would be a 1983 counsel's wet dream.