Fooled me. She was arrested for failing to identify herself when requested. Or at least that’s the justification that was given at the time, according to her. Have you watched the video or read the linked article. It is all there. She was being arrested. Then she resisted. This is not complicated.

She was initially arrested for failing to identify herself when requested. That was a crime because the officer had probably cause to believe she had committed a crime by failing to run on a sidewalk.

Failing to identify herself when asked to. Failing to run on a sidewalk.

You are legally obligated if the cop has reasonable suspicion OR state law makes failing to answer a crime.

Well, IF Michigan does have a stop and identify law, she had to ID herself regardless of whether the cop had reasonable suspicion. I believe SCOTUS’ holding on this matter is that officers need no reasonable suspicion to ask for identifying information, but if the state does not make it illegal to refuse to provide…

She wasn’t arrested for that. Charging =/= arresting. She was charged only with resisting arrest. To support that charge, it must be prove that the officer had probably cause to believe she had committed a crime, not that she actually committed the crime. That makes the arrest lawful, and then they have to prove she…

It seems that there is. More information in the linked article in the post on that. However, the officer told her—according to her—that he arrested her for failing to identify herself when he requested her name, not running in the road. It seems that both are crimes in this state. Based on what I have seen, the cop…

Based on the linked article, he arrested her for failing to identify herself when requested. As it seems you may already know, SCOTUS has ruled that an officer requires no justification whatsoever before asking a person for identifying information. In this state (and about half of the 50 states) it is illegal to…

From what I can gather, it is a crime to refuse to give your name in about half of the states. It looks like this is one of them.

She WAS arrested. They don’t need to charge her with the underlying reason for the arrest of they don’t want to. To support the charge, they have to prove the officer had probable cause to believe she had committed a crime. Not that she is actually guilty of said crime.

That's not true on the reasonable suspicion part. Has been specifically addressed by scotus. Police can walk up to anyone and ask who they are for any reason or no reason at all. That site is wrong if it says otherwise. I didn't click it.

Read the linked article.

Unclear. One thing is for sure—this is a monster ass dog that cannot be killed by one person taking a knife to it. Has to be a collective effort. It does need to die though. Or at least be instilled with a better temperament.

She was arrested for something.

It’s been a while since con law, but I don’t think you can. Officers can stop to ask for your name without legal basis whatsoever—that much I know for sure. My understanding is that many states (all?) make it a crime to refuse to identify yourself. If you got a link, I could be persuaded that I’m wrong depending on…

I’ll admit that what you talk about is a serious problem in prosecutions—especially at the federal level. Systemic problem, imo. It’s infuriating to witness.

I’m assuming you’re attempting to be sarcastic here.

That doesn’t mean much. Prosecutors probably charged the easy to prove and more serious violation because proving the misdemeanor isn’t worth it. This is not the postal worker case. Far from it. Prosecutors decline to file charges when they could all the time. I have a case right now where the da charged for…

....for breaking the law. And possibly for failing to comply with a lawful order depending on state law.

Why is that?