Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

otiswrath t1_jdcd6bl wrote

Reply to comment by RickyDaytonaJr in North Hampton Chief Leaves After Investigation Into Questionable Arrest by L-V-4-2-6

Well...to be fair...the tax payers of North Hampton are definitely going to be paying out to the lady who got arrested.

Those cops though...yeah...they will just go on their merry way; breaking the law and violating people's rights.

5

thenagain11 t1_jdh2t9y wrote

He didn't break the law. This article was crappy. She was put in protective custody, not arrested. While it kind of a dumb and unhelpful thing to do- it was well within the law for him to do so.

1

otiswrath t1_jdhdq9i wrote

Just because she was not formally arrested does not mean that her 4th Amendment rights were not violated. Police do not just get to declare protective custody and put anyone they so chose in custody. Also, they searched her home without permission which is another 4th violation.

2

thenagain11 t1_jdhfy44 wrote

They didn't search her house. They were inside with her while she was trying to call someone to come watch over her because they thought she way too drunk and when they went allowed inside they were even more concerned because you couldn't even walk around. I dont necessarily agree with the law or the officers' actions- but it is the law we have in this state, and they did not break the law or even the spirit. The misguided officer was worried about this woman's health and safety. He wasn't trying to teach her a lesson. He didnt infringe upon any rights as they are currently laid out. Maybe we should change the law or maybe even defund the police and fund other social programs that might actually help this poor lady. But right now, this is the system we have. Detention and short-term protective custody are all the state does to for the homeless, addicts and the mentally ill.

1

otiswrath t1_jdhhbfb wrote

From the article,

“(McCue) said he did not observe any sign of impairment at that point. He explained that (Loud) seemed steady on her feet and he could not observe any odor (of alcohol) at that time,” MRI’s report states. Johnson, who was the lead officer, wanted to investigate further."

"...the officers went through her home taking photos of the mess."

They had no apparent reason to detain her. You are saying she was wasted but that is not what the article says. Furthermore, going into someone's home and taking pictures is considered a search.

1

thenagain11 t1_jdhqow7 wrote

In this article (which reads like a misguided hit piece) yeah. They fucking cherry picked a bunch of quotes from a long list of reports. But if you read other news articles from across state the MRI investigation also reports (which is the independent consultant brought in to evaluate the incident and whether the cops behaved badly) the woman herself says she drank 3 beers and a hard lemonade, that she blew over a .08 when tested and that she seemed even more inebriated by the time she was dropped off for overnight custody.

This article also works really hard to keep saying arrest arrest arrest like she was charged with a crime. Protective custody is not an arrest. if that was the facts, sure, but that article is deliberately trying to make a mountain out of mole hill. The lady needs help and the officer made a bad choice. But it was legal. Like there are plenty of actual fucked up things the cops do in this state. Like the cop in dover who beat his wife and stole edibles out of evidence lockers and then just got off scott free. Where's the outrage for that shit?

1