Police do this to build a story retroactively -- we shot a person, so ... to make it excusable we arrest their "accomplices" because officer so and so will make up some report about how they threatened his life with a gun. If they don't arrest her, then it looks like murder. Also if she was arrested, her side of the story immediately is less believable -- "clearly officer had a good reason to arrest her, we can't trust her words".
This happened in another case, where a person was shot in a store (Wal-Mart perhaps). Police then proceeded to heavily interrogate the partner and try to get them to admit the victim was "unstable", "drunk", "violent" and so on. Because it builds an excusable story so the officer is cleared of charges quicker (they don't have to actually resign and move one town over to another dept., but just get a 10 days paid vacation).
"Earlier today I spoke to their deputy leader Rory O'Connor, who under broadcasting regulations must inhale helium to subtract credibility from his statements."
(The actual broadcasting regulation was that Sinn Fein politicians couldn't have their voices heard on TV at all -- interviews, statements etc. had to be dubbed over.)
> In Minnesota, it is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02.
> A number of states do bar people from recording private conversations without consent. But as long as the recording is made “openly and not surreptitiously,” said Osterreicher, it’s fair game. According to Osterreicher, “assuming the position of holding up a camera or phone at arm’s length while looking at the viewing screen should be enough to put someone on notice that they are being photographed or recorded.”
She was detained until the scene could be cleared. All those backup officers know when responding is that an officer called in a shooting and that there is a gun in the car. They detain her until they can get all of the information and then she is released so long as they are not pressing any type of charges against her.
That seems within the law. If she is a direct witness to a fatal shooting there would be a critical need to get her side of the story as soon as possible, and usually that would be done by detectives at a police station, not the responding officers at a crime scene.
This happened in another case, where a person was shot in a store (Wal-Mart perhaps). Police then proceeded to heavily interrogate the partner and try to get them to admit the victim was "unstable", "drunk", "violent" and so on. Because it builds an excusable story so the officer is cleared of charges quicker (they don't have to actually resign and move one town over to another dept., but just get a 10 days paid vacation).