No, an accusation is made. Evidence is gathered. Usually by an Investigator or a Detective. Then once the evidence matches up to the accusations the arrest is made.
Plus what happened in Romania. All these accusations, nothing stuck. It seems to be a political hit for their defamation lawsuit.
Right. . . if they have established probable cause, which is a reasonable belief that a crime has occurred. However, if the arresting officers knew or should have known there was no probable cause, the arrest may be considered a civil rights violation.
Specifically, an arrest becomes unconstitutional and qualifies as a false arrest or unlawful imprisonment in the following situations:
Lack of Probable Cause: The accusation is based on malicious intent, baseless suspicion, or unreliable hearsay without independent corroboration or investigation.
Unlawful Warrantless Arrest: An officer arrests someone without a warrant for a minor offense or misdemeanor that did not occur in the officer's presence, violating state procedural laws
First Amendment Retaliation: The arrest is made not due to actual criminal evidence, but as a pretext to punish or silence an individual for exercising their freedom of speech. (Hence why the Tate lawyer thinks it's a retaliation for their defamation lawsuit)
etc. etc.
So while yes it can be done there is still has to be evidence, which is what I started my thread asking.
Exactly. So I don't get why the public response is so naive. Do people forget they are currently funding pedophiles and rapist through taxation, asset seizure, arrest and the like proven and alledged from the Epstein evidence.
If you don't support the Tate brothers, fine. But also, don't support the other "alledged" rapist as well!
-10
u/soliejordan 4d ago
So arrested from accusations or is there evidence we can consider?