>> "Miller was charged with a single count of resisting arrest. ... 'we do not understand how, absent some other underlying charge for which there was probable cause, a charge of resisting arrest can stand on its own?'
That's settled law. The cop's mistake wrt whether an arrest is valid is not a defense against a resisting arrest charge.
Supposedly you get to make up for the unlawful arrest later.
I'm not claiming that this is good (or bad), just that it is fairly settled law.
There's a difference between arresting someone when you have a probable cause and arresting someone just because you can.
The standard for probable cause might be low, much lower than a standard for proving a crime has been committed, but surely there is a standard.
If the cop cannot show that there was probable cause to arrest someone, he a) should be accountable in some way b) he shouldn't be able to arrest someone for resisting the arrest that he had no right to make in the first place as that's absurd.
Not to mention that based on the description of the events, the "resisting arrest" in this case is an excuse and not something that actually happened.
That's not how it works. You may be able to sue later for lack of probable cause (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_arrest ) but you still can not resist the arrest even if you are sure you are right.
Doesn't this conflict with that law that says citizens can intervene and stop cops from arresting someone? It was something to do with citizen arrest and arresting the cops themselves if they do something very bad.
What law is this? I've never heard of such a law. Normally if police are corrupt then the next level up law enforcement is called, i.e. city->state->federal
That's not true. It is specifically on the books that you can resist unlawful arrest up to and including killing the officer. People have done it and not received penalty for it.
Read the wiki article I linked. You can only resist unlawful arrest by a police office in very very limited circumstances. Simple mistake by the police is not included.
You are probably confusing resisting arrest by someone who is not actually a police officer.
No. (Note that probable cause doesn't actually have the nice clean definition that you'd like.)
> There's a difference between arresting someone when you have a probable cause and arresting someone just because you can.
Yes there is, but your legal responses based on that difference do not include resisting arrest.
> If the cop cannot show that there was probable cause to arrest someone, he a) should be accountable in some way
Absolutely.
> b) he shouldn't be able to arrest someone for resisting the arrest that he had no right to make in the first place as that's absurd.
"The law" disagrees.
One argument in favor of "resisting is almost always illegal" is basically that if you resist, the force continuum starts. The end-point is with someone dead.
Suppose that you resist and end up dead. Is the officer guilty of murder? How about you resist and the officer ends up dead - are you guilty of murder?
Do you really want to argue that the answers to those questions depends on the definition of probable cause, which is actually defined by what a court says later?
> Not to mention that based on the description of the events, the "resisting arrest" in this case is an excuse and not something that actually happened.
Welcome to modern policing.
Whenever you ask govt to do something, you're asking police to get involved.
That's settled law. The cop's mistake wrt whether an arrest is valid is not a defense against a resisting arrest charge.
Supposedly you get to make up for the unlawful arrest later.
I'm not claiming that this is good (or bad), just that it is fairly settled law.