Police don't let suspects out of detention just because they complain they have to pee. High-tech state-of-the-art tracking technology from Google and Apple indicates that these people are somehow involved in the disappearance of a missing person. How dumb would the officer look if he let a suspect destroy evidence, escape, or otherwise pull something on the claim that they have to pee?
> High-tech state-of-the-art tracking technology from Google and Apple indicates that these people are somehow involved in the disappearance of a missing person.
It is rather odd that you insist on this when you know it to be false. The technology is not state-of-the art because it is missing the crucial feature of telling you how confident it is in its assessment. These people were clearly not involved and the tracking app was simply malfunctioning.
In my opinion this clearly shows how irresponsible it is to make an app like this which recklessly reports results without providing information on their accuracy and reliability. Of course the app will disclaim any sort of liability, but common sense tells you there will be life-and-death situations such as this where incorrect results will have consequences.
> How dumb would the officer look if he let a suspect destroy evidence, escape, or otherwise pull something on the claim that they have to pee?
There's a lot of ways in which the American system is deliberately set up to let some of the guilty go free and requires a certain degree of responsibility for those detained, charged, or imprisoned in order to preserve a set of rights that are important related to basic human dignity.
So yeah, particularly in situations like this, I'm comfortable saying sure, risk the possibility that (as yet established) evidence might be destroyed or that subjects of interest might escape detention. Strict detention practices should be sustained by meeting a high standard for suspicion.
But maybe better than that would be if we could have a system that included both reasonable pursuit of justice and a respect of basic rights. Seriously. Is it really impossible to give detainees and opportunity to urinate while protecting evidence? I doubt it. Search the damn bathroom, then search the detainee. Then, unless you've found anything that absolutely requires further undisturbed careful investigation and documentation, escort them to the bathroom for a reasonable amount of time. Part of the job. Particularly when you don't know that they're guilty of anything.
no one cares how you think the laws should be. The laws are the way they are. The police can detain you if they have reasonable suspicion to believe you are involved in a crime in any way
this was 100% legal according to the laws. no one cares what your fantasy interpretation is
TLDR - Please watch the tone of your comments (EDIT: here and in other comments on this topic). Thanks!
"""
Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
"""
> no one cares how you think the laws should be. The laws are the way they are.
The laws are the way they're written, and the way they're read, and open to discussion and revision on both sides. If you're upset or threatened by that (and I can't see any other reason for some of the gratuitous hostility in your comment), perhaps your position isn't anywhere near as strong as you might like your bluster to communicate, and perhaps it would be better to find some less distressing activity with which to pass time than discuss it on the internet.
> the police can detain you if they have reasonable suspicion to believe you are involved in a crime in any way
This isn't the point of contention at all. That's whether it's reasonable and legal to deny detainees access to a toilet on the basis that they might escape or might destroy evidence.
There's nothing in the article to say that the residents were arrested. An arrest is the threshold for controlling someone's legitimate actions: if the police don't have enough evidence to arrest the person, then they shouldn't be limiting their movements. That is the whole point of arrest (and the related burden of proof required to make an arrest).
To restrict someone's actions without legal authority - such as arresting them - is illegal.
An arrest is the threshold for controlling someone's legitimate actions
No it's not. You can be legally detained.
For example, if a cop stops you for speeding, he won't arrest you, but you will be detained until he gets the information he needs and gives you a ticket.
That's why you're supposed to ask "Am I free to go?". If you are legally detained, the answer is "no".
That's a good point, thanks. I ended up having a look through the differences between detention and arrest (finding different thresholds, e.g. "reasonable suspicion" vs "probable cause"[1], and that "20 minutes or so is a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone" [2]).
Police don't let suspects out of detention just because they complain they have to pee. High-tech state-of-the-art tracking technology from Google and Apple indicates that these people are somehow involved in the disappearance of a missing person. How dumb would the officer look if he let a suspect destroy evidence, escape, or otherwise pull something on the claim that they have to pee?