Journalist shares the story of her son's unlawful arrest

[Axulus]

I wonder when Derec, Loren, RVonse et.al. will be calling for Justin Kahler's arrest and prosecution for lying.

Where are you getting the idea he was lying? The article states that his laptop was recently stolen and he thought Taylor was the thief selling it on Craigslist and thus contacted police reporting it as such. That does not equal a lie, just a dumb incident of jumping to conclusions. Because he had no good reason to think Taylor was the thief, I'm not really sure he should be prosecuted for a dumb mistake like that. He was probably desparate to get his laptop back and thought there might be a good chance this was the guy.

What do you think the penalty should be for mistakenly accusing someone of commiting a crime against you when you were legitimately victimized by a criminal?

 

[barbos]

I wonder when Derec, Loren, RVonse et.al. will be calling for Justin Kahler's arrest and prosecution for lying.

Where are you getting the idea he was lying? The article states that his laptop was recently stolen and he thought Taylor was the thief selling it on Craigslist and thus contacted police reporting it as such. That does not equal a lie, just a dumb incident of jumping to conclusions.

I think it was more of a jumping to a suspicion, police checked it, it turned out false suspicion, nobody was shot. I would call it a good day at a police station.

That being said, I think there should be a law forcing manufacturers to equip notebooks and such with anti-theft measures good enough that thieves lose interest, it will save public time and money.

 

[RavenSky]

Where are you getting the idea he was lying? The article states that his laptop was recently stolen and he thought Taylor was the thief selling it on Craigslist and thus contacted police reporting it as such. That does not equal a lie, just a dumb incident of jumping to conclusions.

I think it was more of a jumping to a suspicion, police checked it, it turned out false suspicion, nobody was shot. I would call it a good day at a police station.

That being said, I think there should be a law forcing manufacturers to equip notebooks and such with anti-theft measures good enough that thieves lose interest, it will save public time and money.

It's a good day when a completely innocent citizen is detained on the street with handcuffs and a tazer stuck in his back for engaging in the fully legal activity of selling one's own property? No, I disagree.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[barbos]

I think it was more of a jumping to a suspicion, police checked it, it turned out false suspicion, nobody was shot. I would call it a good day at a police station.

That being said, I think there should be a law forcing manufacturers to equip notebooks and such with anti-theft measures good enough that thieves lose interest, it will save public time and money.

It's a good day when a completely innocent citizen is detained on the street with handcuffs and a tazer stuck in his back for engaging in the fully legal activity of selling one's own property? No, I disagree.

You demand unattainable abilities from the police. They would not be able to do their job if you demand they to be always right in their suspicion.

 

[Deepak]

It's a good day when a completely innocent citizen is detained on the street with handcuffs and a tazer stuck in his back for engaging in the fully legal activity of selling one's own property? No, I disagree.

You demand unattainable abilities from the police. They would not be able to do their job if you demand they to be always right in their suspicion.

What people are demanding is for the police to act according to standards of behavior before detaining people and shoving weapons into their back to force a search. Acting so forcefully on a hunch (in this case the hunch of a third party) isn't sufficient. Laptops are stolen all the time, but that doesn't give police carte blanche to raid every Starbucks and check every computer someone is using. It would be one thing if the computer was stolen immediately before the encounter and they saw Taylor in the nearby area with the same make/model/color. It's another thing entirely when days have passed and the only reason they have is that it's the same type of computer.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's a good day when a completely innocent citizen is detained on the street with handcuffs and a tazer stuck in his back for engaging in the fully legal activity of selling one's own property? No, I disagree.

You demand unattainable abilities from the police. They would not be able to do their job if you demand they to be always right in their suspicion.

Or, they could have done the LEGAL thing, purchased the laptop, then scanned it to see if it was the complainant's laptop. They have no right to a search without a warrant. If it is, then they have him on sale of stolen property. If it isn't, he walks away none the wiser. Otherwise, get a goddamn warrant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since the incident is bogus, whether he was "arrested" or arrested is a moo point.

Here is more on the alleged incident. It says that, according to Atlanta police, a Justin Kahler assumed that the laptop was his so answered the ad as "Derek Charleston" and then contacted the police. This story also says that a police spokesperson said "the details of the incident is under an internal review." Something definitely happened or the police wouldn't have made the statement in the first place. Now, whether the police refused to identify themselves and had a taser (the weapon according to this story) drawn is another question, but it is highly unlikely that the entire incident was fabricated.

I wonder when Derec, Loren, RVonse et.al. will be calling for Justin Kahler's arrest and prosecution for lying.

In other words, someone thought they had found their stolen laptop and called the police.

As for whether Justin should be arrested it depends on what he told the police. If he said "I found someone selling what seems like my stolen laptop" everything makes sense, no crime was committed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it was more of a jumping to a suspicion, police checked it, it turned out false suspicion, nobody was shot. I would call it a good day at a police station.

That being said, I think there should be a law forcing manufacturers to equip notebooks and such with anti-theft measures good enough that thieves lose interest, it will save public time and money.

It's a good day when a completely innocent citizen is detained on the street with handcuffs and a tazer stuck in his back for engaging in the fully legal activity of selling one's own property? No, I disagree.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

In the real world the cops aren't going to be 100% correct in who they detain.

If the police were 100% correct we would have no need of trials.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You demand unattainable abilities from the police. They would not be able to do their job if you demand they to be always right in their suspicion.

Or, they could have done the LEGAL thing, purchased the laptop, then scanned it to see if it was the complainant's laptop. They have no right to a search without a warrant. If it is, then they have him on sale of stolen property. If it isn't, he walks away none the wiser. Otherwise, get a goddamn warrant.

I don't think they need a warrant to examine goods for sale.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Or, they could have done the LEGAL thing, purchased the laptop, then scanned it to see if it was the complainant's laptop. They have no right to a search without a warrant. If it is, then they have him on sale of stolen property. If it isn't, he walks away none the wiser. Otherwise, get a goddamn warrant.

I don't think they need a warrant to examine goods for sale.

the person buying the laptop consented to the search so it's an interesting question.

 

[dismal]

It's a good day when a completely innocent citizen is detained on the street with handcuffs and a tazer stuck in his back for engaging in the fully legal activity of selling one's own property? No, I disagree.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

In the real world the cops aren't going to be 100% correct in who they detain.

If the police were 100% correct we would have no need of trials.

It would seem to me they should have more of a case than:

1) Someone stole a laptop
2) This is a laptop

before they start arresting/detaining people for selling things.

Maybe they did. These sorts of stories are notorious for omitted facts.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

How do we know this if the "undercover cop" never ID himself and there is no trace of any sting operation ? The whole thing is bogus. The kid wasn't arrested either. I smell bullshit.

I share your concerns about the veracity of the details of the story, but if he was handcuffed then he was arrested.

Not necessarily. For example, probable cause isn't needed to detain a suspect, reasonable suspicion is. Reasonable suspicion requires the officer to be able to articulate with particularity facts that would lead him/her to believe that a person was up to criminal activity. "Probable cause" on the other hand is a horribly slippery term for which there is no single definition or standard that the Supreme Court has ever settled on. For example, the definition of reasonable suspicion is largely clear and provides a standard, but it has also been used as the definition for probable cause. And in a case like this, there may be federal national securities laws in place that allow for something like this (computer fraud across state lines maybe?), but I don't know.

At any rate, the article quoted in the OP is too short on details to get a grasp of what actually happened. I don't really like to defend the cops, but without knowing anything more, the article quoted isn't reliable.

ETA: we also don't know where this incident took place. That's important. Was it at home or in a public area? Was the guy in his car and then pulled over? If he was at home and the agents failed to identify themselves, then that's really bad. However, if he let these people into the house without knowing who they were, the story begins to get a little weird. If, if, if, if...

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think they need a warrant to examine goods for sale.

the person buying the laptop consented to the search so it's an interesting question.

The extent of an examination of goods for sale that is permissible is exactly as far as the seller consents to, not the buyer.

 

[coloradoatheist]

the person buying the laptop consented to the search so it's an interesting question.

The extent of an examination of goods for sale that is permissible is exactly as far as the seller consents to, not the buyer.

Is there case law on exactly when the change of property and permission changes hands. If they were meeting to change property then it changes on some point.

 

[Deepak]

The extent of an examination of goods for sale that is permissible is exactly as far as the seller consents to, not the buyer.

Is there case law on exactly when the change of property and permission changes hands. If they were meeting to change property then it changes on some point.

Unless there's a contract stating otherwise not until the deal has been executed - that is both the money and property have changed hands. If he handed the laptop to the buyer (for a pre-purchase examination) but had not received payment for it then it's still his property and he's the one who would consent to the search.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is there case law on exactly when the change of property and permission changes hands. If they were meeting to change property then it changes on some point.

Unless there's a contract stating otherwise not until the deal has been executed - that is both the money and property have changed hands. If he handed the laptop to the buyer (for a pre-purchase examination) but had not received payment for it then it's still his property and he's the one who would consent to the search.

That's why I asked about specific court cases. Because an exemption to the search is where there is no reasonableness to expectation of privacy. I would make the argument someone selling a piece of property has now given up the reasonableness of privacy.

 

[dismal]

Unless there's a contract stating otherwise not until the deal has been executed - that is both the money and property have changed hands. If he handed the laptop to the buyer (for a pre-purchase examination) but had not received payment for it then it's still his property and he's the one who would consent to the search.

That's why I asked about specific court cases. Because an exemption to the search is where there is no reasonableness to expectation of privacy. I would make the argument someone selling a piece of property has now given up the reasonableness of privacy.

I can't imagine you would forfeit your right to privacy because you decide to try to sell something. However, if I was trying to buy something and the seller wouldn't let me inspect it I would be very suspicious and probably not transact.

This all seems like an irrelevant point to me. The first question whether the police had any reason to be there at all. I would guess a report of a stolen laptop and a similar laptop appearing for sale on craigslist is enough for reasonable suspicion.

But I would expect them to treat the suspect as if he was innocent unless, as I said before, there was some evidence beyond 1) a laptop is missing 2) this is a laptop. You should not be detaining someone based on that alone. Of course, since we are without all the facts it's possible it may have been more than that.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That's why I asked about specific court cases. Because an exemption to the search is where there is no reasonableness to expectation of privacy. I would make the argument someone selling a piece of property has now given up the reasonableness of privacy.

I can't imagine you would forfeit your right to privacy because you decide to try to sell something. However, if I was trying to buy something and the seller wouldn't let me inspect it I would be very suspicious and probably not transact.

This all seems like an irrelevant point to me. The first question whether the police had any reason to be there at all. I would guess a report of a stolen laptop and a similar laptop appearing for sale on craigslist is enough for reasonable suspicion.

But I would expect them to treat the suspect as if he was innocent unless, as I said before, there was some evidence beyond 1) a laptop is missing 2) this is a laptop. You should not be detaining someone based on that alone. Of course, since we are without all the facts it's possible it may have been more than that.

I partially disagree with you on the first part because selling your property to someone else is a sign of relinquishing your privacy of that object. The other two parts good questions and may allow for civil action against the buyer and assault charges against the police for their handling.

 

[Artemus]

I share your concerns about the veracity of the details of the story, but if he was handcuffed then he was arrested.

Not necessarily. For example, probable cause isn't needed to detain a suspect, reasonable suspicion is. Reasonable suspicion requires the officer to be able to articulate with particularity facts that would lead him/her to believe that a person was up to criminal activity. "Probable cause" on the other hand is a horribly slippery term for which there is no single definition or standard that the Supreme Court has ever settled on. For example, the definition of reasonable suspicion is largely clear and provides a standard, but it has also been used as the definition for probable cause. And in a case like this, there may be federal national securities laws in place that allow for something like this (computer fraud across state lines maybe?), but I don't know.

I've read up on it more since I posted. From a fourth amendment point of view (which applies here), there is no differentiation between "detained" and "arrested". The term in the constitution is "seizure," which covers both. The most recent decision from the SCOTUS that directly addresses it would appear to be "Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988)" where they were careful to address if the suspect had been "seized" and rather than "arrested."

The separation into "detention" and "arrest" is an entirely artificial division that seems to be created only to imply that a person does not have Fourth Amendment rights when they in fact do.

 

[Deepak]

Unless there's a contract stating otherwise not until the deal has been executed - that is both the money and property have changed hands. If he handed the laptop to the buyer (for a pre-purchase examination) but had not received payment for it then it's still his property and he's the one who would consent to the search.

That's why I asked about specific court cases. Because an exemption to the search is where there is no reasonableness to expectation of privacy. I would make the argument someone selling a piece of property has now given up the reasonableness of privacy.

There's no case law that I'm aware of, but it breaks down pretty simply if you look at a couple of things.

In a sting operation the seller is offering the goods for examination, and it would be absurd for them not to, therefore the police officer (posing as a buyer) can find out what they need, such as whether the goods are counterfeit, based on that examination. If, in the case of a computer, the seller handed them the laptop to examine but hadn't logged into the system then they would only be able to externally examine the device. Compromising the system, if a general consumer did it without permission would be a crime, and is outside of the purview of the examination of goods. Had he volunteered to give them access that's a different story. Apart from that, unless the deal has been executed the seller retains ownership and the buyer does not have the rights of ownership.

To take a different tack, imagine party X had agreed to purchase a house, put forth his earnest money, escrowed the down payment, and all paperwork was in order for the sale to go through. No closing had occurred yet and the seller (party Y) was still living in the house. Party X can't agree to let police search the house while Y still resides there even though there's no barrier to the sale because party Y still has an expectation of privacy in the house. Likewise, there's still an expectation of privacy on the computer system unless he expressly gave permission to examine it beyond the physical examination.

I've seen pen-testers get successfully sued because they received specific permissions to look for vulnerabilities, found a vulnerability, and pressed further into the defect beyond the contracted parameters to see what data was compromised as a result of the defect.

Buying a car doesn't give me permission to rip out the rocker panels.