From [HERE] The Marietta police department on Monday released its version of the events they say began with officers responding to a call of a man making threats and “gesturing like he had a gun” at the restaurant. 

However, prior to the arrest of Renardo Lewis (39), it is unlikely that the police had corroborated what the threats were with any witnesses present at the IHOP. It also unlikely that police had established whether Lewis had actually made any threats. In the video the cops appear to have just arrived on the scene and had no articulable facts to support the threat complaint that led to the call. Even if cops had established a reasonable suspicion [based on ?] to briefly detain him inside the IHOP they still had no basis to place him under arrest [an act that indicates an intent to take into custody and subject him to the will of the officer]. As such, it is doubtful probable cause existed to place him under arrest. A black employee had called 911 complaining about a threat made by someone - it is also unknown whether said caller or anyone else at the IHOP identified Lewis to the cops prior to his arrest.

In order for the police to stop you the Supreme Court has ruled that police must have reasonable articulable suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot and that you are involved in the activity. Police may not act on on the basis of an unclear and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch - there must be some specific articulable facts along with reasonable inferences from those facts to justify the intrusion. The police will need significantly more evidence to meet the probable cause standard than to justify the intrusion of a Terry stop or brief detention. Whether there was probable cause to make an arrest is viewed from the perspective of “‘a reasonable, cautious and prudent peace officer’ and must be judged in light of his experience and training.” The question is whether officers in the particular circumstances, conditioned by their observation and information, and guided by their experience, reasonably could have believed that a crime had been committed by the person to be arrested. However, said rules depend upon on a “consensus reality” In a police state don’t they? If an officer does not share in the illusion or agree with your belief that your so-called rights exist, then they don’t.

At IHOP, the cops probably had not established probable cause before putting their hands on Lewis, in a consensus reality.

Nevertheless, similar to mainstream media coverage, Marietta police gave the 4th Amendment no consideration; “While the video may seem shocking to some, we are very proud that all officers used only the force necessary to place Mr. Lewis in handcuffs,” Marietta police said in video below. 

Marietta police spokesman Chuck McPhilamy said the officer seen on video striking Lewis has not been placed on administrative leave, as the use of “short-strike punches” did not appear to violate the agency’s guidelines. [MORE]