If they enter his home, and there is no evidence of a crime, then what is the basis for the arrest?
One thing is to investigate the truth of a call, another is to act on it as if it’s verbatim truth.
It’s not technically an arrest. In a high-stakes call, the police will typically detain everybody until they can figure out what’s going on. That means potential victims as well as potential attackers. It’s a safety measure.
Usually swat teams break a lot of your shit, maybe kill a baby, and then leave without arresting you.
Was he arrested? I don’t see follow up. It only says he was handcuffed which would be standard until they know what’s going on.
In the US, the cops need RAS to handcuff you. The standard was never and is not “until they know what’s going on”. And RAS depends on the current cop knowledge. Even if they had legal grounds to break into your place, what they see in the next ten seconds is still relevant. For example, if someone said you attacked them with a knife, when the cops see no victim, knife, or blood, their legal authority ceases.
Of course it’s all highly dependent on specific details.
(On traffic stops, often they already have RAS. That’s why they pulled you over. So don’t be fooled by other comments about that topic.)
“Law enforcement officers typically have fairly broad leeway to place someone in handcuffs during an interaction if they believe that it’s necessary to protect themselves from harm. In those cases, they can do so even if the person being handcuffed hasn’t been arrested.”
“When a search warrant is being executed”
Handcuffs do not mean an arrest.
OK, here it’s the other way around, you don’t normally handcuff somebody unless they are arrested.
You get handcuffed as a precaution. You do not have to be arrested. You can het handcuffed on a traffic stop if the officer decides they have cause to search your car. Etc.
