RBP: I'm interested in your opinion on this.

[JoeyB]

Obviously, since I am posting this in the open and not PM'ing him directly, all comments are welcome. However, I am specifically interested in RBP's observations and opinions. This is an excerpt from something I read earlier:

The bill, House Bill 1581, would require police to witness domestic violence firsthand before being permitted to make an arrest.

That means that if a police officer came to a home and witnessed firsthand clear signs that abuse had occurred prior to their arrival – for example the face of the victim is bruised or bleeding – he or she could not make an arrest until a warrant was issued. The officer must leave the scene of the crime to obtain a warrant thus putting the victim in greater danger as the attacker might want to punish them for calling for help in the first place.

As the law stands an arrest can be made when police observe evidence of abuse. Evidence such as a bruised or bleeding face or overturned furniture could merit an arrest which would separate the victim from their attacker.

[MrsM]

IMHO - Just because you are arrested - doesn't mean that you will be found guilty. I would rather see the police do something about it while they are there and then let the courts figure things out when both parties have cooled off (and less drunk).

[DemonGeminiX]

Is this a state bill?

:-k

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Is this a state bill?

:-k

I might be wrong and Joey can correct it if I am, but it appears to be a New Hampshire bill:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/26/411865/new-hampshire-republicans-propose-bills-that-prevent-police-from-protecting-domestic-abuse-victims/?mobile=nc

[DemonGeminiX]

I might be wrong and Joey can correct it if I am, but it appears to be a New Hampshire bill:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/26/411865/new-hampshire-republicans-propose-bills-that-prevent-police-from-protecting-domestic-abuse-victims/?mobile=nc

Thanks.

Witness the violence itself firsthand? Or do they want to see evidence of the violence so that someone just can't call up and say, "He/she abused me. Come arrest him/her" and the police take it on blind faith and arrest the accused based on mere accusation?

[JoeyB]

Is this a state bill?

:-k


I might be wrong and Joey can correct it if I am, but it appears to be a New Hampshire bill:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/26/411865/new-hampshire-republicans-propose-bills-that-prevent-police-from-protecting-domestic-abuse-victims/?mobile=nc

Yes and yes, both correct. There is a lot I purposefully left out because it was superfluous to the central issue of police procedure in domestic violence situations.

I have also left out my opinions for three central reasons:

1. I feel I do not know enough to form an intelligent conclusion at this time.
2. I am seeking information to make the above possible.
3. Both sides of this issue have numerous pros and cons...I could make an extensive list for either side and also against either side. Literally, I could debate this in or out regardless of which point of view I adopted. Obviously, this is the first step to being able to reach a conclusion, but it's not the last. But, you have a laundry list of civil rights that could be considered violated either way...I find the flat arrest system wrong in many contexts, which would tend to support this bill. Yet, I also see merit in suspicion itself being justification for arrest, as such is basically the backbone of our entire police arrest system. This is one of those issues that seems simple enough on paper, but when you extrapolate out all the finer points it unfolds into a real puzzle of densely packed and conflicting needs and rights. It's a genuine clusterfuck of an issue and therefore, something I find very intriguing.


Thanks.

Witness the violence itself firsthand? Or do they want to see evidence of the violence so that someone just can't call up and say, "He/she abused me. Come arrest him/her" and the police take it on blind faith and arrest the accused based on mere accusation?

Well, currently evidence alone IS sufficient for arrest. That is what this bill is about, it would necessitate witnessing the act itself, rather than just the evidential aftermath for the police to make an immediate arrest.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: It should be noted that what the bill would require of police is to go and seek a warrant. In other words, the evidence itself is fine, if a judge says yes. As it stands, the police can make that call 'in the wild' and on their own, as it were. This bill would change how the arrest is made when the act of violence has not been directly witnessed. It would not, however, prevent arrests in such cases.

So, instead of the cops making the call and arresting someone based on circumstantial evidence right then and there, they would instead be required to seek a warrant first, and have a judge make an impartial call as to the validity of the observations of the cops.

[RBP]

I am both flattered and perplexed at the request for my specific opinion. :-k

However, it seems to me that if, as stated in the OP, there is clear evidence that abuse has taken place, the important thing would be to separate the two to prevent anything further from happening and allow for a cooling off period. In some states, like Illinois, such an arrest is not just permissible but required in all domestic cases. It's a night in jail automatically for the alleged abuser. It doesn't necessarily mean anything except an inconvenience for a night as the state's attorney will decide the next day whether to press charges.

Having said all that, I would limit what the officers can do inside the home without a warrant. Just because a domestic has occurred does not mean the police can turn the house over without specific permission from the court.

[JoeyB]

I am both flattered and perplexed at the request for my specific opinion. :-k

However, it seems to me that if, as stated in the OP, there is clear evidence that abuse has taken place, the important thing would be to separate the two to prevent anything further from happening and allow for a cooling off period. In some states, like Illinois, such an arrest is not just permissible but required in all domestic cases. It's a night in jail automatically for the alleged abuser. It doesn't necessarily mean anything except an inconvenience for a night as the state's attorney will decide the next day whether to press charges.

Having said all that, I would limit what the officers can do inside the home without a warrant. Just because a domestic has occurred does not mean the police can turn the house over without specific permission from the court.

You do realize this is going to turn into a woman's rights issue; despite the fact that women commit domestic abuse as well. There is always a popular perception that men are always the perpetrators.

How do you feel about the automatic night in jail rule, for that matter?

[perrhaps]

Nothing in this bill prevents the police from removing a victim, and/or his or her children from the scene of abuse while waiting to obtain the warrant. This cuts down on the need to have multiple officers remain at the scene of the alleged violence, and cuts down on the number of abuse cases that are later dismissed when a recalcitrant "victim" recants or refuses to testify.

It's a good bill.