“In this case there is no claim that officers witnessed the felony. There is no claim that they were in hot pursuit of a felon. Do you think perhaps that your statement is so overly-broad that it constitutes misinformation and might be completely false in this case?”
Police do not have to witness a felony (or be in hot pursuit) to make an arrest; they need probable cause.
Whether my state constitutes misinformation; here is what I was responding to:
‘warrant not issued until after the fact, thus no authority to arrest’.
I pointed out that ‘Police do not need a warrant for an arrest in a felony’. Feel free to decide which is the more accurate.
For the Bill of Rights to mean anything, police must also be required to articulate that probable cause on demand. I'm well aware of courts' practice of saying that action which isn't patently illegitimate is not actionable and should thus be regarded as de facto legitimate. I would posit that regardless of what judges say, such inference is not valid. Those who are sworn to uphold the Constitution aren't compelled merely to keep their violations of suspects' rights just below the level that would trigger a judicial response. Even in cases where rights may have to yield to necessity, upholding the Constitution requires making a good faith effort to not abridge rights in any measure unnecessarily.
While having to go to the courthouse to get a warrant may have been inconvenient, a person is well within her rights to demand that a cop either show a warrant or articulate a basis for believing that the situation at hand justifies an exception to the normal requirement [if a cop's personal belief that he had probable cause to believe someone committed a crime was sufficient even absent any sort of exigent circumstances, why bother with warrants at all?]
Regardless of whether they needed a warrant or not, don’t you still have the right to ask if they have one, and expect an answer?