Originally Posted by Koyote

This part is just fyi: eyewitness testimony is considered direct evidence, not circumstantial.

The other part: I'm not arguing whether they should've been arrested and held for ten hours, as I do not know which statute(s) they were suspected of violating. But the second part of your statement that I put in bold font is naive in the extreme. Almost as a matter of course, criminals start by denying that they broke laws. If that were enough to allow them to avoid arrest, then again -- no one would ever be arrested.

Until a prosecutor or defense attorney familiar with OK law (and perhaps even with the particular municipality's law) weighs in, then all of these posts about whether or not they should've been arrested and held for ten hours are just uninformed opinions. In a potential criminal matter, forming strong opinions based on only ONE side of the story -- especially the suspects' side -- is very foolish.