County: Salt Lake County
Woman#1=WitnessOne (Life Partner)
Woman#3=Antagonist (Fellow employee)
During a mutual separation of "Protagonist" from "HotelChain", "Antagonist" made a false report to localPD in attempts to persecute "Protagonist" stating that "Protagonist" was walking around the halls threatening people with a gun. "Protagonist" owned guns but never did as stated by "Antagonist" which is backed by signed, notarized affidavits filed with the clerk of the court and were made by "WitnessOne" and "WitnessTwo." There was a search conducted of "Protagonist." Right before the search began, "Protagonist" asked if he was being detained to which the officer replied, "No. I just want to search you before I put you in my cruiser." Then "Proragonist" replied emphatically, "I do not consent to any search of my person for any reason..." but was searched anyways. Upon being searched there was found contraband resembling narcotics found in the pocket of "Protagonist."
During the three days spent incarcerated the charge of "Threat of Violence - F3" and the various narcotics charges were on record and could be viewed on the government webpage for incarcerated individuals. Once "released on own recognizance" was posted (viewed by WitnessOne with screenshots to validate, btw) on the third day via web browser the "Threat of Violence - F3" charge remained. There was a bench warrant for a traffic violation that needed to be paid before release, it was paid. IMPORTANT FACT Then after release several hours later the webpage was viewed again and the "Threat of Violence - F3" was no longer listed as a charge against "Protagonist." Do recall, the entirety of their ("Protagonist" & LEO's) coming into contact with one another on the day in question was this "Threat of Violence - F3" allegedly made against "Protagonist" by "Antagonist."
Question_One: "If the initial factor, the entire reason behind law enforcement making contact with "Protagonist" on the day in question["Threat of Violence - F3"] can be proven to be farcical in nature (meaning it never happened and this was a false claim altogether) then would that invalidate the rest of the encounter?"
Question_Two: "If the initial factor, the entire reason behind law enforcement making contact with "Protagonist" on the day in question["Threat of Violence - F3"] is no longer on the list of charges after release but was listed hours prior and "released on own recognizance" was posted as well at the same time "Threat of Violence - F3" was still on list of charges but was changed thereafter (My assumptions are that their witness that made the call "Antagonist" didn't want to sign a statement or go on the record as telling the truth but I'm uncertain as to actually why the charge was removed) Then wouldn't that suggest that the police had zero reason to make contact, draw SWAT/TacticalForces with weapons hot, and then detain "Protagonist" at all in the first place? Ultimately, with no reason to be there (without securing signed testimony either that day(preferable) or soon thereafter) they are unable to use that charge as a pretext to making contact with "Protagonist" which would mean they violated the protections afforded to everyone by the fourth amendment to the Constitution, right? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation...."