Private Campus Officers and Immunity

The Georgia Supreme Court recently decided a case concerning private campus officers and qualified immunity.

The first sentence of the decision is as follows:

“We granted certiorari to decide whether a campus police officer employed by a private college qualifies as a “state officer or employee” who may assert immunity from tort suits under the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA), OCGA §§ 50-21-20 to 50-21-37.”

In a previous piece, I outlined the statutory authority of campus law enforcement agencies.  Let me be very clear that this case pertains only to the the campus police agencies of private colleges.  It has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the campus police departments of public educational institutions.

The legal question arises from a case handled by the Agnes Scott College Department of Public Safety (ASCDPS).  The personnel involved are fully certified peace officers.  They attended the same academies as do deputy sheriffs and municipal police officers.

The ASCDPS received a report from a student claiming that she had been sexually assaulted in her dorm room.  She named a suspect.  An officer from the ASCDPS went to a judge and obtained an arrest warrant for the suspect named by the complainant.  The suspect was arrested in Knoxville, TN, and extradited to Georgia.  The suspect offered proof that she was in Knoxville at the time of the alleged assault, and the District Attorney dropped the charges.  The suspect then filed suit against the officers and Agnes Scott College for false arrest.

The officers sought to have the lawsuit dismissed claiming immunity under state law.  The initial trial court rejected this argument; however, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court.  To simplify the writing of this, the statute provides that law enforcement officers have immunity, but the statute also excludes private organizations.  The appellate decision was split.  The state Supreme Court recognized the reasoning of the appellate decision but overturned the decision due to Agnes Scott College being a private organization.

So, yes, the ASCDPS officers are in fact law enforcement officers, but as they work for a private organization, they are not covered under the state’s immunity laws.

Again, this ruling does not apply to the campus police officers of public institutions.

Now that the legal question has been settled, the actual lawsuit is clear to go forward.

Logic Me Not

Regardless of where you come down on private citizens carrying firearms in public, and no matter what your views are concerning Georgia’s House Bill 60, the complete failure of logic occurring among the governing authorities of some Georgia counties and municipalities is astounding.

Under current state law, it is illegal to carry a firearm into a “government building”.  Here is the definition of a government building from 16-11-127 O.C.G.A.:

(3) “Government building” means:

(A) The building in which a government entity is housed;

(B) The building where a government entity meets in its official capacity; provided, however, that if such building is not a publicly owned building, such building shall be considered a government building for the purposes of this Code section only during the time such government entity is meeting at such building; or

(C) The portion of any building that is not a publicly owned building that is occupied by a government entity.

(4) “Government entity” means an office, agency, authority, department, commission, board, body, division, instrumentality, or institution of the state or any county, municipal corporation, consolidated government, or local board of education within this state.

Currently, the only thing keeping armed criminals from entering many government buildings within the state is words on a piece of paper: a written law.  Outside of courthouses, active security screening is not present in the majority of government buildings.

HB60 changes state law as to carry into government buildings.  Effective July 1, 2014, it will be legal for the holder of a Georgia Weapons Carry License (GWCL) to carry into government buildings that do not have active security screening.  It will still be illegal for those who do not hold a GWCL to enter such buildings.

Now, as to the logic failure, a simple perusal of media outlets indicates that there are numerous city and county governments contemplating installing security equipment and hiring security staff to conduct screening at government buildings that do not currently have such security measures in place.

That’s right, the city and county governments in question who before were not worried about armed criminals entering their buildings thus they took no measures to stop it are now taking active measures to prevent legally armed citizens, citizens who have undergone background checks and obtained licenses no less, from entering.

One more time: no security measures to prevent armed criminals from entering versus security measures to prevent legally armed citizens from entering.

That’s right; people who took no steps to keep out armed criminals are taking steps to keep out people who have actually passed background checks.  I just wanted to make sure everybody was clear on that.

But wait, the law said criminals can’t enter government buildings with firearms, and we all know criminals are so good at obeying laws…

Praise the Lord And Pass the Ammunition: Georgia HB60

The Georgia General Assembly passed House Bill 60 which made changes to Georgia’s firearms carry laws. For the most part, my opinion is that this a good piece of legislation in that it clarifies some ambiguities, and more importantly, it clearly codifies into law what the courts have already ruled: there is no firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment and the mere presence of a firearm alone is not sufficient reason to detain a citizen.

Unfortunately, there is one portion of the bill that will prove to be problematic. Currently, all places of worship are “off limits” for Georgia Weapons Carry License (GWCL) holders. Under HB60, the governing bodies of places of worship may take the affirmative step to allow firearms carry on their premisses and at their services. Unless this affirmative step is taken by a respective place of worship, it will remain an off limits location.

Rather than take the position that places of worship are private property and treating them just as any other private property in the state, the legislature has created tool of division that is going to ripple through congregations throughout the state. Some congregants will be mad because the governing body of their particular place of worship chose not to allow firearms carry. Likewise, some congregants will be mad because the governing body of their particular place of worship took the opposite approach.

Furthermore, suppose the congregants and governance of an individual church desire to allow carry; however, the church is part of a denomination and the powers that be for the denomination go the other way and impose said ruling upon all member churches. The individual church breaking away from the denomination is not a simple matter as that might seem. In some denominations, the congregation does not own the title to the church building, the denomination does. This could lead to court battles over control of church property.

I am not normally a “the sky is falling” type person, but I simply foresee a lot of consternation and strife coming from this. Stand by for the law of unintended consequences.

2014 Polite Society Tactical Conference

The 2014 Polite Society Tactical Conference was held on February 21-13, 2014, at the Rangemaster facility in Memphis, TN.  The three-day conference consisted of numerous presentations by an amazing collection of knowledgeable instructors.  Three different options were available at any given time to attendees, and a myriad of topics were covered.  While I did attend a few presentations on other topics,  I tried to attend those that dealt with what is known about what happens in violent encounters; especially what those who won the encounters did and how they prepared, and these are the presentations I will discuss in this piece.

Before I get to that, I would like to thank the folks Rangemaster for organizing and hosting this conference.   The chance to partake of that much collective knowledge was a wonderful learning opportunity.  There were times when it was difficult to choose which class to attend as the concurrent options were all equally appealing.  I took 24 pages worth of notes, and many of the takeaways from the sessions will be incorporated into our training program.

William Aprill’s presentation concerning how violent criminal actors (VCAs) select victims forms the cornerstone for this area of discussion.  It basically comes down to the VCA making a “go or no go” decision based on indicators by the person they have targeted.  This is really no different than a lion surveying a herd of lion food and picking which member of the herd will be dinner that night.

Shane Gosa, a fellow Georgia peace officer, presented “The Mental Trigger” based on Jeff Cooper’s Principles of Personal Defense as well as other pertinent information.  Shane also addressed items such as mental awareness and winning the violent encounter rather than merely surviving it.

Tom Givens’ presentation on “Defining the Threat” was outstandingly well done.  Mr. Givens approached the question from the perspective of a citizen and not that of those in the military or uniformed patrol officers, and his breakdown if the information is the best I have ever seen.  His presentation (as was Chuck Haggard’s) on active shooters was nicely done, and quite frankly, I don’t understand how anyone could receive that information and then go about without the means to defend themselves.  As for active shooters, or active murderers as they should be called, every examination of the topic that have seen shows that the more rapidly force is brought to bear on the murderer the lower the body count.

Jim Higginbotham’s “Fire for Effect” presentation focused on accuracy in a critical event.  I found his illustrations of how many of the qualifying and competition targets actually reward high point values to areas that are not likely to instantly incapacitate a violent attacker to be quite revealing.  In my words, a fellow can kill you a whole lot if you give him 15 seconds to do it.

John Hearne did an outstanding job of debunking many of the myths and outright falsehoods that permeate firearms training.  I’m not much of a “science guy”, but his explanation of how the brain works was done in an easy to understand manner, and he makes a strong case for training to the point of “overlearning” (fancy scientific term) and building the proper mental maps and skill level as predictors for success in a violent encounter.

At this point, I would like the readers to take note that there is some commonality when both peace officers and private citizens are faced with a violent encounter, and overcoming the “initiative deficit” is imperative.   The difference here is that peace officers often initiate contact with the VCA whereas the private citizen is targeted; however, it is the response to that violence that must come swiftly and decisively, and the preparation shouldn’t begin at the point a person realizes there is a need for such.






Apparently Tone Does Make A Difference

The following video shows a group officers stopping a person who was walking down a sidewalk with a slung rifle. The lead officer indicates that he stopped the individual because he was armed and wanted to check to see if the guy was “just exerting his Constitutional rights.”  The officer also made a general reference to active shooters, but went on to say, “I think I know what is going on here.” During the stop, the lead officer makes several references shooting the individual in the head.  His only articulation of anything criminal was a general reference to active shooters.

This incident is actually being portrayed in some circles as the officer being pro-Second Amendment. I suppose this is because the officer does make several “pro” statements, but, in my opinion, these statements are clearly overshadowed by the repeated references to shooting the individual in the head. I am further baffled by some people with whom I am acquainted who are themselves very pro-carry holding this out as a positive example of how officers should handle such situations.

I do not understand this. The lead officer stated that he stopped the guy solely for being armed, which is clearly contrary to numerous holdings by the United States Supreme Court, and made numerous references to shooting the individual in the head. This leads to the question of whether these same people would be okay with being stopped when legally carrying simply for carrying and then being threatened with being shot in the head. The Reasonable Articulable Suspicion standard for an investigative (Tier 2) stop requires specific and articulable facts when taken together and based upon the officer’s knowledge, training, and experience lead the officer to believe that criminal activity is afoot. Is it reasonable to believe that just because someone is armed that they are a mass shooter?

The officer does have an even tone, and under the circumstances of the contact, his tone could even be described as somewhat genial. The officer then sets forth to lecture the individual concerning his open carrying in such a manner as being ultimately detrimental to Second Amendment rights. With this part, I actually am in large part in agreement; however, this is simply a personal opinion.  I do understand that my personal opinion is not a valid reason to shoot people in the head, or any other part of their anatomy; thus, I can’t say such things to those who root for that bastion of evil inhabiting a football stadium in the suburbs of Dallas.

According to my philosophy professor in college, all Beagles are dogs but not all dogs are Beagles…

Compare the above video to those below where another officer pretty much says the same things except that his statements were made in the middle of a tirade. He was rightfully on the receiving end of copious amounts of outrage.


I guess he should have used a calm and even tone, and then everything would have been okay as he calmly states that he could murder a person and make their body disappear.

If you would like to listen to the non-emergency line call to dispatch for the first video, you can do so by clicking here.

50 Years of the McFadden Stop

On The Job

On October 31, 1963, Detective Martin McFadden, age 62 at the time of the incident, took action that would lead to one of the landmark cases in criminal procedure: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). At the time of the incident, Detective McFadden was a 39 year veteran of the Cleveland Police Department. His career ultimately would span 45 years with 41 of those years as a Detective, and he was noted for his ability to capture thieves and pickpockets especially “Louie the Dip” Finkelstein.

On the day in question, Detective McFadden would spot two individuals (later joined by a third) in front of a store “casing a job, a stick-up”. He had watched the individuals repeatedly walking to a store window, looking inside, and then walking away and conferring. He eventually confronted the individuals and ultimately arrested two of them on weapon’s charges after “frisking” them and finding their pistols.

The individuals were convicted and the case ultimately wound up before the Supreme Court where it was upheld. In short, the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard is not violated when a peace officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to conduct an investigatory stop. Two important notes from the ruling was that, first, the Court stated that mere “good faith” of the peace officer is not enough to justify such a stop.  Second, The Court also drew (and continues to draw) a distinction between that of a person being armed and that of a person being “armed and presently dangerous”. In other cases, the Court has ruled that there is not a firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment and thus their presence alone is no different that a person being in possession of a wallet (an actual example from a Supreme Court ruling).

Since the ruling in this case was handed down, investigatory stops have often been termed as “Terry Stops”. I take umbrage with this. Terry was one of the bad guys. Detective McFadden was the one that put forth some excellent police work; so, we should be calling these “McFadden Stops”, but alas, cops are like offensive lineman in that we only get close-up shots and our number called when forget the snap count or get caught holding.

The concept of reasonable articulable suspicion and the facts of the case are more detailed than what I have condensed here. The purpose of this article is to pay respects to Detective McFadden on the 50th anniversary of the incident.

Special thanks go out to retired Commander Bob Cermack of the Cleveland Police Department and the Cleveland Police Museum for providing pictures of Detective McFadden as well as other documents.

2004012021Marty at work
Detective McFadden at work.

Detective McFadden at his retirement party.

Obituary 1981
Detective McFadden’s obituary.

Oaths of Office: Sheriffs, Deputies, and Jailers (and a rant)

One of the things that I like about this blog software is that I get to see what search terms are leading readers here.  Sometimes these search terms inspire a new posting, and this is one of those instances.  I have gotten quite a few hits lately seeking information on the oath of office for Sheriffs and Deputies.  Please note that the oath is the same for Sheriffs and Deputies alike:




I, ____________ do swear that I will faithfully execute all writs, precepts and processes directed to me as Deputy Sheriff of the County, or which are directed to all Sheriffs of this State, or to any other Sheriff specially, I can lawfully execute and true returns make, and in all things well and truly, without malice or partiality, perform the duties of the office of Deputy Sheriff of Oconee County, during my continuance therein, and take only my lawful fees.

I do further swear that I am not the holder of any unaccounted for public money due this State, political subdivision or authority thereof, that I am not the holder of any office of trust under the government of the United States (except Postmaster), nor either of the several States, nor any foreign State, and that I am otherwise qualified to hold said office according to the Constitution laws of Georgia, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of this State.  So help me God.

Signed: …………………………………………….

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this ___  day of _____________


Sheriff, Scott R. Berry

Oconee County Georgia

Jailers also take an oath of office; so, I have included it here as well.   A Deputy Sheriff who is assigned to the jail takes the oath of office for both positions.


Oconee County Sheriff’s Office


 I, _____________,do swear that I will, well and truly do and perform, all and singular, the duties of jailer for the County of Oconee; and that I will humanely treat prisoners who may be brought to the jail of which I am keeper and not suffer them to escape by any negligence or inattention of mine, so help me God.


Signed: _____________________ Date:______________



Scott R. Berry , Sheriff

Personnel who are hired initially to work in a jail have six months from their date of employment to complete an 80 hour Basic Jail School.  In order to become a certified peace officer, those personnel must complete the 408 hour Basic Law Enforcement Training Course.  If a person is already certified as a peace officer and gets assigned to a jail, they have six months to get certified as a Jailer.

Now, for one of life’s little injustices, Deputies are eligible for the Peace Officer’s Annuity Benefit Fund (POAB).  Jailers are not.  So, a Deputy assigned to the jail is eligible for POAB, but a Jailer doing the exact same job is not.  Why?  Because the State of Georgia says so, that’s why.  It should be noted that the State has seen fit to include state correctional officers in POAB but not Jailers.

From Subjects to Citizens

A few hundred years ago, there was a prevailing political theory that asserted that certain men should have dominion over all others. They claimed this power was a divine right bestowed upon them and their posterity and that any disobedience to their rule equated to defying the very will of God. Individual merit, talent, or achievement meant nothing. Morality meant nothing. Sound judgement meant nothing. All it took to rule was to be the closest living blood relative to previous occupant of the big chair.

A counterpoint view began to emerge that man possessed inalienable individual rights and that government not haveing the consent of the governed was not legitimate. In order to stamp out this political theory, a king sent forth his troops to seize the very means to resist from those who opposed him.

Those that rejected absolutism resisted. They resisted with weapons exactly the equivalent of the arms being sent by those seeking to keep them subjugated. In fact, they actually captured the king’s cannon and used his own weapons against him.

Subjects became citizens. When the shooting was all over, those same men who had just fought a bloody war to achieve a new status and establish a new political order wrote a document outlining and limiting the power of government. Included in this document was an enumeration that the people have an un-infringed right to possess arms. These men had just used very same type of weapons that the king sent against them to defeat his forces. It does not stand to reason that they would enumerate such a statement and not intend for it not to follow through the ages along with the evolution of technology. That right was not frozen in 1791 just as the right to freedom of speech is not restricted to writing letters on parchment with a quill and sending it via horse and rider.

Now, let us move forward to a more modern age.

My grandfather was drafted into the Army for World War II and was sent to Italy to serve as an infantryman. He was issued a rifle and sent into battle.

In the 1960s, my father was in command of a National Guard unit that took part in protecting Civil Rights marches in Georgia.

In the days after the horrific events at a Connecticut elementary school, I put on my badge and uniform and stood in front of a local middle school with a not only a semi-automatic rifle close at hand but a select-fire fire weapon as well.

In the three examples above, each individual was receiving a government paycheck and was carrying the respective firearms in the service of the government.

Why was it acceptable to some for my grandfather to have fought in defense of his country with a rifle while using that same rifle to protect his wife and children is considered wrong by some people? Why was it acceptable to some for my father to carry a rifle to defend the civil rights movement while possessing that same rifle to protect his wife and children is somehow wrong? Why was it acceptable for me to have a rifle at the ready to protect school children while having that same firearm to protect those that I hold dear is wrong?

Let us take that one step further. Does somehow being in the service of government grant a special dispensation of morality while only evil is bestowed upon the same rifle when in the hands of someone not receiving a government paycheck? I answer firmly in the negative. Are electricians, systems analysts, statisticians, or whatever else somehow devoid of the moral clarity to defend their own homes and families? Again, I answer firmly in the negative. Should they be restricted from having the very same tools as those they are being taxed to purchase for those whose salaries they are also being taxed to fund? No shocker here as I again answer firmly in the negative.

I end with this quote from Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper:

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”

The 2-3-4 Rule

Below is the 2-3-4 rule. The “2” is for the two types of legal authority possessed by a peace officer. In order to detain a citizen either of the authorities must be in play. The “3” is for the three tiers of police-citizen encounters as outlined by the courts, and the “4” list the four ways in which a peace officer may legally enter a dwelling.

Two Types of Legal Authority (LA)

  • Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS):  A set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent peace officer based on his or her knowledge, training, and experience to believe that criminal activity is afoot.  Case Reference: Ornelas v. US, 517 US 691, 95-5259 (1996)
  • Probable Cause (PC):  A set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent person when using all of their senses to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed by the suspected person.  IMPORTANT NOTE per Wagner v. State, 206 Ga.App. 180, 424 S.E.2d 861 (1992): The mere fact that someone calls the police does not constitute probable cause.

Three Types of Police-Citizen Encounters

  • Verbal/Consensual Encounter (Tier 1):  No legal authority is needed to approach a citizen.  The encounter must be voluntary on the part of the citizen, and the officer must display no show of authority other than to identify him or herself as a peace officer.  An officer may ask for consent to search during a verbal encounter.  Case References: Florida v. Bostic, 501 US 429; US v. Baker, 01-16585 (2002)
  • Investigatory Detention/Brief Stop (Tier 2):  An officer must have RAS to make an investigative stop.  The suspect can only be held for a reasonable amount of time.  Barring any other RAS or PC developed during the stop, the officer must release the suspect once the officer’s initial suspicion has been satisfied and all identification checks have been made.  NOTE:  An officer may handcuff a suspect during a brief stop only when necessary for the officer’s, the public’s, or the suspect’s safety.  The suspect must be advised that they are not under arrest.  An officer may frisk for weapons if the officer has RAS that the suspect is armed and presents a threat.  Case References: Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968); United Sates v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002)
  • Arrest (Tier 3): An officer must have PC to make an arrest.  The officer should conduct a search incident to arrest.  The officer must take the suspect before a judge and must read the suspect his/her Miranda warning if the suspect is questioned after being taken into custody.

Four Legal Ways to Enter a Dwelling

  • Consent:  Consent can only be obtained from the owner of the property to be searched, someone with valid authority of the property, or someone with valid control over the property (in that order).  Consent can be given verbally or written.  The burden of proving consent is on the peace officer, and consent can be withdrawn at any time (must maintain contact) or may be qualified consent.
  • Warrant/Court Order: An officer can enter a suspect’s home to arrest the suspect if the officer has a warrant for the arrest of the suspect and the officer reasonably believes the suspect to be in the dwelling.  Case Reference: Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
  • Exigent Circumstances: An officer may enter a dwelling without a warrant when exigent circumstances exist.  Examples include situations where an officer has to enter in order to prevent death or injury to those inside of the dwelling, to prevent the destruction of evidence, or to prevent the immediate escape of a suspect.
  • Hot Pursuit: The officer must be pursuing the suspect for an arrestable offense.  The suspect must know that he or she is being pursued, and the suspect must be in actual flight.


Note:  I first saw this original framework in materials from my agency’s FTO program.  Wally Marchant, then an instructor at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center, is the likely originator of the “2-3-4 Rule”.  I took the original framework and added in the case references and notes to create this format.

Miranda: A Real Fiction

Alphabetically-ordered seating in school generally meant that I had a seat in the back of the room, but that left me free to do as I pleased for the most part; however, the elevated platform used by Mrs. Carol Thomas negated that advantage, and I actually paid attention in her seventh grade civics class. Among the many of her lessons that I remember was the lesson on the Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments to the Constitution enumerating such things as the right to counsel, the right not to be a witness against oneself, the right to due process, and the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. They aren’t exactly a secret.

In 1966 the nine wise souls of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) voted in a 5-4 decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), to require peace officers to read what is now commonly known as the Miranda warning to suspects in custody prior to questioning. However, as Messrs Harlan and White pointed out in their dissenting opinions there is no requirement in the text of the Constitution that requires such a warning. The requirement to do so is purely a creation of the court. I repeat, there is nothing in the Constitution that places any requirement whatsoever on the government or its agents to formally advise people of all said rights. The Constitution itself does that, and it did so 175 years prior to the Court’s creation of a real fiction.

Please note that I am by no means arguing against these rights as such a presumption would be false. I’m just pointing out that all the Court did in Miranda was create a procedural step that has spawned four decades worth of court cases. Earlier this year, SCOTUS handed down its decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins (docket 08-1470). In this decision, the Court held that individuals must explicitly invoke their right to silence. Headlines and talking heads have proclaimed this decision as “turning back the clock” on legal protections and as “trimming Miranda rights”. Well, this is just a nit that I have to pick. Miranda didn’t and doesn’t grant or guarantee rights. It’s the United States Constitution that enumerates our rights. Again, the Court with Miranda created nothing but a procedural hoop through which to jump. Even without said warning, the rights are still there and can still be invoked by the individual. If the SCOTUS wiped out Miranda completely, those rights would still exist.


-Noted civil rights attorney Thurgood Marshall argued the case on behalf of the government, thus he argued against the Miranda procedure. Marhsall, who later become a SCOTUS Justice, was the lawyer who successfully argued in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), against the “separate but equal” policy that allowed racial segregation in schools.

-The defendant in this case, Ernesto Miranda, was convicted of burglary while in high school. He served time on numerous offenses and was later dishonorably discharged from the Army after repeated AWOL and peeping tom offenses for which he also served time in a military stockade. In the case in question, he was arrested, confessed to, was positively identified by the victim, and was later convicted of the rape and robbery of an 18 year old girl (he couldn’t be positively linked to other victims abducted and raped from the same area). A warning very similar to the wording created by Miranda was printed on each page on which he wrote his confession. After SCOTUS overturned his conviction, he was re-tried without his confession being entered into evidence. He was convicted and sentenced to over 20 years in prison but was paroled a few short years later after which he made money by selling autographed Miranda cards. He was killed in a bar fight in 1976.

Miranda is often misunderstood. A suspect must be both in custody and being asked investigatory questions before it is required. Other than that, a peace officer may ask any question they so choose to anyone not in custody. Also, a peace officer with probable cause may make an arrest and never ask any questions of the suspect thus never crossing the threshold of Miranda being applicable.