> “Round ’em all up and let the judge sort it out” doesn’t square with the Fourth Amendment.
Why wouldn't it? The fourth amendment covers _unreasonable_ seizure.
> but to make an arrest, a higher standard must be met: the officer needs probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.
The vehicle is reported stolen. You are found in possession of it. That's probable cause.
> I’d expect an officer at least to try to contact the rental car company to confirm the situation
How do you propose they do that? Check the paperwork? How do they know it's accurate and not forged? How do they know they've reached the appropriate agency? How do they know if the person they're contacting through the paperwork would have any authority of the reporting of the vehicles status?
You're expecting a lot to be available to an officer that just isn't. The best they could do is directly call the reporting party back and tell them that this person claims it isn't stolen and is a mistake on their end.. and if they say "it's not a mistake, it's definitely stolen?"
The police should do what at that point?
This is why we have courts with evidentiary standards and formal procedures that are defined in law. You cannot expect an officer in the field to be capable of maintaining those same standards.
In the typical rental model the cars are either owned by a holding company or by a franchisee. In the typical DMV model there isn't a lot of other information other than "reported stolen." It may have been reported to an entirely different agency Local Police, State Police, Highway Patrol that whatever agency happens to effect the traffic stop.
You're expecting a traffic cop to perform a pretty thorough investigation, using just a cellphone and mobile PC, on the side of the road, without adequate facilities to properly identify the party on the other end of the telephone or even properly review the details of the initial report.
If it was your car that was stolen, I'm not sure you'd want someone trying to "Kojak" their way through the case. I wouldn't. Likewise, if I was pulled over in a rental and told it was stolen, I'd accept that the few hours of inconvenience I would face over it would easily be remedied and I would never rent from them again.
The police are functionaries with qualified immunity and no actual duty to protect or serve you. This is established law in the US. You want these people doing the most minimal, simple, procedural thing they can do in any given situation and you want to get yourself into an actual court as quickly as you can.
Why wouldn't it? The fourth amendment covers _unreasonable_ seizure.
> but to make an arrest, a higher standard must be met: the officer needs probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.
The vehicle is reported stolen. You are found in possession of it. That's probable cause.
> I’d expect an officer at least to try to contact the rental car company to confirm the situation
How do you propose they do that? Check the paperwork? How do they know it's accurate and not forged? How do they know they've reached the appropriate agency? How do they know if the person they're contacting through the paperwork would have any authority of the reporting of the vehicles status?
You're expecting a lot to be available to an officer that just isn't. The best they could do is directly call the reporting party back and tell them that this person claims it isn't stolen and is a mistake on their end.. and if they say "it's not a mistake, it's definitely stolen?"
The police should do what at that point?
This is why we have courts with evidentiary standards and formal procedures that are defined in law. You cannot expect an officer in the field to be capable of maintaining those same standards.