According to Duran v. City of Douglas (Arizona), what is insufficient alone for arrest?

In the case of Duran v. City of Douglas, the court ruled that merely being drunk and obnoxious does not provide sufficient grounds for an arrest. This emphasizes the legal principle that there must be more substantial evidence or behavior that indicates a clear violation of the law or poses a threat to public safety. The context behind this decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between disruptive but non-criminal behavior and actions that warrant arrest.

In scenarios where individuals may exhibit intoxication along with obnoxious behavior, it is essential to consider the overall circumstances and any potential threats to public order or safety. The ruling suggests that just causing a scene or being loud is not enough to justify an arrest without additional factors being present.

On the other hand, having a criminal record, failing a sobriety test, or exhibiting threatening behavior can each provide more concrete evidence of a crime or potential threat that supports law enforcement's justification for an arrest. These scenarios demonstrate more direct implications of illegal activity or danger, making them sufficient grounds for making an arrest.