I think this whole matter sucks in the way the "not ready for prime time" police who thought they could go a little hardball in their "fringe" Philly fiefdom (I think lack of competency may be why Wilson had been assigned to the Francisville precinct). That said, can a lawyer clear up whether there's actually case precedent in police's ability to detain people without charges? Yes, the four were detained while their house was processed by various law enforcements types, but I think there's actually an established window wherein police can "hold" people uncharged, sounds like the 1/2 day spent in custody was the limit they could spend while figuring out whether they could "drum anything up."

From what I understand, and I believe these come from Moffat himself, Moffat was evasive and never claimed to be an owner or tenant of the house (from what I've seen of police investigating actual break ins, that does seem to give them some access to a property) until after being detained under suspicion (of course there's the "police should have looked it up" defense, but I think there's more precedent nationally for police to make a judgement call on the spot or back at the precinct without doing deed and title research). The keys, which to the police's knowledge Moffat had no right to since he refused to divulge his relationship with the property, were not taken from his person but recovered after Moffat tossed them.

I think we can all agree that police instincts tend to be pretty blunt instruments, and Moffat's behavior would certainly show up positive on the Philly PD "suspicious guy" detector. Now, has anyone any real knowledge of what the police can do in that situation?

Frankly, my hunch tells me the "procedure" underwent by the PD et al. post doorway encounter really won't stick to much in any sort of civil rights suit, unless the Mayor's office tells the city to suck it up and just settle before trial. What really matters, and should be focused on is this "targetting." If there were indeed complaints, what was the nature of the complaints, and what access does the public, and "victims" in this situation have to records of those complaints and documentation of the police's decision to move on those complaints? I mean if the _captain_ of a precinct is going out in the precinct (which may just be a consequence of Ramsey's "everyone regardless of stripe goes in the field" directives) to move on a property, there must be some log of that.

Re: the injustice of being without access to a phone call. In my own trivial experience, it's a catch 22, you don't get access to a phone call until you have an actual charge and documentation of that charge on you (you probably got documentation of being brought in, but that's not the charge sheet that grants you the magic phone call). This is why "detention," as opposed to arrest on charges, while I believe is granted in case precedent as a necessary law enforcement tool, is subject to a limit of "reasonable duration."

Totally different legal foundation (Louisiana), but I was detained in a holding cell (which was a very educational "Group W bench" style scenario) once for 11 hours prior to receiving my charge sheet and granted access to a phone ... part of the reason it took so long my attorney and police in other cities (and a few regulars in the holding cell) told me was that the jail system is funded by an equation based on the number of people in the jail by the hour. If the population isn't at a certain level over time, Orleans parish sheriff deputies lose their jobs. Wonderful way to protect a society, eh?