They WILL probably arrest you every time, but you will not be charged after they determine who you are, and since you've been arrested, all they need to do is fingerprint you to find out who you are. You get your property back, an apology, and a quick exit from the station house.

At no point should you ever talk to an officer for any reason other than to say "I would like to speak to my lawyer"; "am i being detained" or "am i free to go" – those THREE things, and three things ONLY will never result in a conviction of resisting arrest, or any other conviction if you aren't doing anything wrong.

Don't take my word for it, ask your lawyer, ask any off duty cop if you should talk to police or answer their questions. the honest ones will tell you that you shouldn't.

I know you have a quick wit and tongue, carlos, and i am sure it has gotten you in trouble, and WRONGFULLY so, i add. But if, in the future, you're ever approached by police while taking pictures of ANYTHING, try what i said, and see how it pans out. The constitution has more than 1 amendment. The fifth is as important if not more important than the first.

Exposure Compensation +1/3
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
Exposure Time 1/50
F Number 1.6
Flash Off, Did not fire
Focal Length 50.0 mm
Focal Plane X Resolution 3,086.925795 pixels/inch
Focal Plane Y Resolution 3,091.295117 pixels/inch
ISO 3,200
Make Canon
Max Aperture Value 1.4
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Camera Model Name Canon EOS 5D

Second, you've made a much more cogent statement here, but completely different from your statement to which I replied. In your original you state, "In short, the cops can deprive you of your freedom /on a whim/, and you and JL support the action, IMO. And again IMO, you and JL support the cops' right to do so /without a shred of supporting law/, and without retribution, as well." AND "That's the world which, IMO, you and JL are espousing." AND "Or, in short, why do you seem to believe that when you are being arrested under an utterly BS excuse, you have forfeited your 1st amendment rights. Explain that, please, Torg."

None of those statements have any support in any prior position I've taken. Please feel free to quote me to me to support those insane (and speaking of ad hominem) assertions about me.

Finally, you "explained in short words" what exactly? He was arrested on real charges, for which he should not have been arrested. I believe the police lacked a good faith basis to arrest him. You apparently agree, if I'm reading your hyperbole right. He was also charged with resisting without violence, so we are in full agreement so far. He was tried. . . you've got some important details wrong, but he was ultimately acquitted of the charges that were used to justify his original arrest.

Funny you stop there since none of that are the points of contention. Mostly, in my opinion, because there is no support for your arguments, e.g. that I'm some sort of police state advocate. Where I suspect we differ is that I pointed out, correctly, that being acquitted of the underlying charges is not an inconsistent verdict with being convicted of resisting arrest, as a matter of law. All while agreeing that in this case, Carlos has a pretty good argument that the original arrest was in fact unlawful, which WOULD be a defense to the resisting arrest charge.

Try again.

"Carlos: let me clarify something for you. First, I think your initial arrest was incorrect, and I am not taking the side of the police. However, as a matter of law, you are incorrect about resisting arrest." and "There was nothing inconsistent about your verdicts. You may well have NOT resisted, but if you had, it's not inconsistent with an acquittal of the underlying crime."

From my second post here: "Resisting, with or without violence, is illegal (some places). If, as you propose, the arrest was unlawful, then even some physical violence could be permitted. Police have to be acting within the color of the law to have immunity."

From my fourth or fifth post: "I think you have a strong'ish case that they did not have reasonable suspicion. I think you are actually innocent. I do not think it was an inconsistent verdict, the only point I'm making here."

You ask me to clarify, but you haven't bothered to read my position…it's not possible to conclude I hold the positions you equate with me and the posts I've actually made.

If your words have led me to the wrong conclusion, I welcome hearing your clarification. If all you have is self-justification, don't waste your time, because you'll just be re-hashing what you have already written.

In the interest of transparency, though, I will say that having Johnny Law supporting you leads me to suspect that my initial analysis was correct. IME, JL won't admit that a cop did anything wrong unless all possible excuses and dodges have been exhausted.