Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to explain how you approached this thread and came to your conclusions.
“The officer never said he was being placed under arrest, under what authority, under what law. “
First, I don’t believe that they have to do so, at least until they have made sure you are restrained and the situation is under control.
“I am sure some of it is subjective so the investigation needs to play out. The rest is my formulated opinion on what will happen based on what I see, hear, and read”
Well, we agree on that point 100%.
“He made a decision to arrest for failure to sign the ticket from what I can gather and that is a judgement call.”
Again, We AGREE!
And I guess that has been the bottom line on the great division between the sides in this debate.
I do think the driver was going to get in his vehicle and drive off. He seemed to have made up his mind that he was not going to TAKE THE TICKET, no matter what it took. (My opinion) He gave that “I don’t have to listen to you” look and started towards his vehicle.
I think the officer thought the same thing.
However, none of that matters.
We each have our own, and varied opinions, and we will just have to see how it plays out in court.
~(: )
““The officer never said he was being placed under arrest, under what authority, under what law. “
First, I don’t believe that they have to do so, at least until they have made sure you are restrained and the situation is under control.”
77-7-6. Manner of making arrest.
(1) The person making the arrest shall inform the person being arrested of his intention, cause, and authority to arrest him. Such notice shall not be required when:
(a) there is reason to believe the notice will endanger the life or safety of the officer or another person or will likely enable the party being arrested to escape;
(b) the person being arrested is actually engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, an offense; or
(c) the person being arrested is pursued immediately after the commission of an offense or an escape.
(2) (a) If a hearing-impaired person, as defined in Subsection 78-24a-1(2), is arrested for an alleged violation of a criminal law, including a local ordinance, the arresting officer shall assess the communicative abilities of the hearing-impaired person and conduct this notification, and any further notifications of rights, warnings, interrogations, or taking of statements, in a manner that accurately and effectively communicates with the hearing-impaired person including qualified interpreters, lip reading, pen and paper, typewriters, computers with print-out capability, and telecommunications devices for the deaf.
(b) Compliance with this subsection is a factor to be considered by any court when evaluating whether statements of a hearing-impaired person were made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
Another Utah code thats interesting:
“77-7-7. Force in making arrest.
If a person is being arrested and flees or forcibly resists after being informed of the intention to make the arrest, the person arresting may use reasonable force to effect the arrest. Deadly force may be used only as provided in Section 76-2-404.”
Since Massey was never informed of the officers intent to arrest him it seems the officers only salvation would be if he can justify the man was fleeing. If I was on a jury I would not buy the fleeing argument.