Cops can hold you for some amount of time, generally around 24 hours without cause.
> What are the repercussions for these officers for falsely arresting people?
None
> Do they suffer any consequences, or do they suffer no punishment for this injustice?
No punishment.
This is simply not true. Police may not keep you detained if they do not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. However, in real life, they do this sometimes, even though it's been ruled unconstitutional.
They do occasionally face repercussions. Thousands of civil rights lawsuits are settled quietly around the country every year, and some go to court and establish precedents, such as Turner v. Driver.
They don't suffer consequences enough, though, and depend on citizens not knowing that what the police are doing is wrong. It's also difficult due to the "thin blue line" BS where cops are elevated above the rest of society.
They don't have to charge you, so they don't have to prove it.
> They don't suffer consequences enough, though, and depend on citizens not knowing that what the police are doing is wrong. It's also difficult due to the "thin blue line" BS where cops are elevated above the rest of society.
The police themselves hardly ever face consequences; the settlements come from the taxpayer.
They have to have PC to arrest someone. Even if you're not charged, PC has to be there for an arrest to be justified.
I believe this is called a distinction without difference. The police can always say you behaved suspiciously or they felt threatened by you. You can also be found guilty of resisting arrest, even if there was no reason for the arrest except that you were resisting it.
"Daniel Chong Drank Urine To Survive 5 Days In Holding Cell Without Food, Water"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/daniel-chong-dea-urine-cell-5...
This isn't totally true, at least not for the casual use of "cause". Cops must have "reasonable suspicion"[1][2] to detain, during that detainment they can discover more information which creates "probable cause", and probable cause allows them to arrest.
My guess is they were arrested for what is commonly called "resisting arrest"[3]. The way resisting arrest laws are unfortunately written, obstructing an officer in their duty is enough, they don't have to actually be resisting arrest. Basically of the cops told the CNN crew to get off the street, and the crew didn't, that would be "resisting arrest".
Minnesota's law:
> obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties
Note that they were arrested, you can hear an officer say they are under arrest, but they haven't been charged or convicted. I doubt they will be charged. It is up to the county district attorney to press charges (the same DA who isn't pressing charges against the officer who killed George Floyd).
The press in the US are usually given a lot of freedom, and are allowed to be in places that the police don't allow regular citizens (riots areas, wildfire areas, etc.).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
[2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-reasonable-susp...
Recently, in Minnesota, hundreds of people gathered in a protest on precisely this topic. They gathered to say (for their elected representatives and everyone else to hear) that they wanted a change to the laws and the system that permits police officers to kill people by kneeling on their neck when attempting to arrest them.
It was during this very protest that the CNN reporters were arrested.
So, as you can see, people are trying to solve that problem. They have been protesting loudly about it for the past decade (much longer, in truth, but there has been a renewed focus by the media within the past decade). And so far... well, you tell me whether you think it's working.
If the public so adamantly wants laws that elected representatives refuse to pass, then it seems that enabling direct democracy would be one solution to getting these laws passed.
At this point I'm basically waiting for a politician to adopt "soft on crime" as a campaign slogan and rebrand it as a rehabilitation program where you turn drug dealers into docile flower shop owners as opposed to opponents who "make crime tough" by sending people to "crime school" prisons and turning them into hardened career criminals with switchblades and facial tattoos.
The real problem is the same as it is in general -- special interest groups (in this case police and prison guard unions and private prison companies) are the ones who spend the most effort lobbying on the issue. It also doesn't help at all when we disenfranchise "convicts" because we're then disenfranchising the victims of the system whenever it makes a mistake (which is often).
The reason for this is that no politician is going to willingly step up for more police oversight and restricted powers, for at least a couple of reasons:
1) They will be painted by their opponents as "weak on crime" or even "supporting criminals" at election time.
2) They risk losing votes from emergency services workers, which are quite a large demographic in local elections.
Obviously cops only act in good faith, so any restrictions on them are restrictions on getting criminals off the street. </s>
This doesn't happen all the time, but when police do break the law, or don't follow it correctly their actions come under scrutiny, data collected can be discarded from court, and even suffer personal blowback.
What you're asking is how did it happen? That's because it's illegal for a citizen to resist arrest (even unlawful arrest), so in the USA if you are being arrested, SAY you do not willingly submit, but DO whatever the officer tells you.
The thing many people forget is that the law doesn't happen just on the street in the US. It is a slow and flawed process, but police are just the front line of it, not the whole thing.
As someone else said, this will probably cost the police and city in a settlement.
Edit: Cops CANNOT just hold you for 24 hours. They have to have something to charge you with even if it's disorderly conduct. And you can then sue the local police if you have evidence that you were wrongly imprisoned. It is easy for cops to get cause so your chances of this are low, but it does happen. Once detained (with cause) I believe the 24 hour bit is true.
IANAL, this is based on my unprofessional research. I'd suggest you (everyone) do the same.
This varies state-by-state, actually. Even in those where it is legal, it is very foolish, of course.
It probably won't cost the police anything, it'll come out of the taxpayer.
They can, but they don't because it would be political suicide.
Can and does. I'm not saying this is indicative of what frequently happens. But there can be real consequences for the police officers based on lawsuits. I also recognize this was not being pushed down from the city. My statement was an example of how police departments shutting down affect police and how that can happen.
I won't argue that police are appropriately punished due to misconduct. I will argue that they are punished.
In a larger department, neither would have lost their jobs, and the larger insurance would have handled it.
You said doesn't happen. An absolute. I am saying it can happen and it's not the only form of punishment I'm referring to.
Police (the individuals) can be punished for their infractions. It doesn't happen nearly often enough (my opinion). But if you're saying it can't/won't happen I disagree with you. I'd even go so far as to say I believe you to be factually incorrect. While I will 100% change my opinion on this if given a study that proves this has never happened. It's easier for me to assert a shmeybe than for you to assert it never happens. All I need is one instance where as you need none.
Now if you want to say, that's not enough. We won't disagree at all.
Sexual assault is, and there's nothing a union can do to protect you from that.
For police? In the US? Very funny.
Police carry guns. Legal is not relevant.
The difference is "qualified immunity", not weaponry.
Cops ultimately aren't disciplined because there's no political will. And there's no consequences on the ground because they have more weapons, and importantly ready backup from other cops.
If you were in a gang, and carried a gun, you could indeed arbitrarily force your will on others for some time.
The video camera turns on while they were (likely) already told they will be arrested. They were perhaps ordered to move and did not move. The National Guard and state troopers in that particular area (< 15 miles from me) started ordering people to disperse or face arrest. I don't believe that press are exempt from this order especially when a state of emergency is declared.
Downvoters: please add comment why, or else this isn't discourse
What chaos? The scene shown in the video looks really calm, with one protester, several reporters, and a very large number of police standing around apparently doing nothing more than looking intimidating at that moment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/podcasts/1619-podcast.htm...
Perhaps it’s naïve of me to think people will want to learn about what it really means to be Black in America. But I think if you really listen to what history is saying and really listen to what Black people are experiencing right now it will change how you think about events like this.
The 1776 Wikipedia page does not appear to be slated for deletion, I'm not sure what you're talking about there.
When a group of white people and a group with a black person are doing the exact same thing (reporting for cable news), positioned equidistant on opposite sides of a group of police offers and one group gets arrested and the other does not, how is that not racism? It is literally a natural experiment with a single variable (race) changed.
This is extremely disturbing, and further evidence that the U.S. is a police state. I've never felt more ashamed of my country.