The courts took generations to work out a new definition of arrest, and it's still not satisfying. It's something more than a stop, but that's about all they know.

There you go: Two or three generations of jurisprudence in one panel.

Never fear.  The courts are chaotic here because they’re focusing on outcomes without a consistent underlying principle.  But I think I can give you one that makes everything clear.  Maybe next time I’ll explain it for you.  Watch this space!

Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's often the best part! The comments are never closed; you're always welcome to add to the discussion. Also, if you get tired of clicking on the buttons, you can always use the arrows on your keyboard ← → to move around.

Buy the books on Amazon ___ ___
Join the conversation! There are now 3 comments on “Police vs Privacy pg 51
  1. WJS says

    It really doesn’t seem like it should be that hard to figure out.
    Half these guy’s statements don’t even make sense.
    What’s wrong with:
    Stop: cop thinks you might have done something
    Arrest: cop thinks you probably did something
    Stop: cop is just investigating, doesn’t intend to charge you unless he finds more
    Arrest: cop may still investigate, but already has enough to charge you and plans to
    Stop: cop can detain you, but not transport you (besides minor movement within the same vicinity)
    Arrest: cop can “bring you in” to the station
    It seems obvious what that “something more” judge #10 alludes to should be. For there to be great dissent, I imagine there must be a problem with one of these ideas, but I can’t think which it might be.

  2. Anonymous says

    Thanks for using the phrase “begging the question” correctly.

  3. This is like asking the NFL what is considered a “catch”.

    Good to know that criminal law and professional football are equally vague.

Class Participation

___