Arrest mistake

[Martlet]

Off topic

[Jackal1]

Off topic

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Martlet
Why should they tell anyone that calls who they have in custody?

Well one person they better tell is someone who claims to be the detainee's legal counsel...otherwise, guilty or not, they are going to walk.

Basically, Tweet's request is called habeas corpus...literally: you should have the body (ie, the detainee).  And no, I cannot point to a statute...it does not exist.  It is an English Common Law procedure, which is the basis for US Judicial System despite radical beliefs that it should be the 10 Commandments.  However, the right of habeas corpus is protected by the US Constitution (Art. 1, sec 9) with some caveats for suspension in time of rebellion or invasion (thus we have the Gitmo Detainees).  

The concept of habeas corpus exists to prevent exactly what happened to Tweet.  Otherwise, law enforcement could hold someone indeterminately simply by refusing to admit that they were being held.  Tweet could have gone further after the initial denial by filing a petition of habeas corpus with the court (no attorney required), which would have led to a judge issuing a writ of habeas corpus...and probably the judge would have then issued some law enforcement officer a serious lecture about what he had done wrong by refusing to admit that the detainee was in custody.

Now in this particular case, failing to admit holding the person could have been a violation of Florida law...don't know about Mass law.  Since Tweet's nephew was arrested, the moment that information was entered into the criminal justice information system by the arresting agency it became public record (upheld by the FL courts...I can find the citation if you really want me to).  Custodians of public records in Florida must produce them within a reasonable time...trust me having responded to many public records requests, the courts would say reasonable time for producing a single name from a criminal justice information system is pretty close to immediate.   BTW, while some information held in a criminal justice information system is exempt from public records requests... Ch 119, F.S. specifically states that detainee's "name" is not exempt.

[Maverick]

Tweety,

A couple questions here.

What jusrisdiction are you talking about? The reason I ask is that I can't tell if you are even in the US on a bbs.

Secondly, are you an attorney qualified to practice law in whatever jurisdiction you claim this happened in?

I ask these questions to try and establish some factual information. So far all anyone here has is one side of an alleged situation. I say alleged as there is no corroborating information posted to confirm this happened. There certainly is no information from the "other side" nor is is likely would there be. Most, if not all US jurisdictions prohibit their employees from "discussing" activities that may or have led to court action except in limited methods such as a press conferance where the information to be released meets departmental / court guidelines. This bbs doesn't meet ANY of those considerations.

As far as the situation is concerned. IF it happened as listed, there is certainly cause for an internal investigation to determine if policy / procedures were followed. There may even be grounds for legal action in civil court. Not necessarily for the innitial contact but for the errors that may or may not have occurred as the story indicates. Frankly a mistake in DR information is not uncommon. Lack of confirmation of it IS a serious breach of reasonable conduct. A simple rerun of the information might have caugh the error in the number.

As to denial of whether the individual is in custody, there is insuffiecient information given to determine if there is a problem there. Example. If the individual has not completed booking then the detention facility may not have all the information regarding this persons presence there available to the person who answers the phone on inquiries from outside the building.

Tweety. When you state a law enforcement officer cannot detain without an arrest you are wrong. It is also incorrect to state that "probable cause" is necessary to detain. An officer can detain  for investigation based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is being committed. That does not mean the person being detained  is necessarily the subject of the investigation. (witness) It is typical that this detention is limited to no more than 20 minutes absent probable cause to arrest . FWIW most states list traffic offenses as a civil infraction, IE no jail if you don't sign the ticket or appear in court. (they just suspend your driving priveledges) By your statement then a person in a traffic stop could simply decide for themselves that no criminal action has happened and leave. Bad idea. Leaving then moves into the criminal arena and bad things will happen.

Lastly I would like to ask you to explain your contention that you have special position in your community. The way you stated it it sounds like you should have some kind of extraordinary authority not reserved for every day citizens. Not criticising, just asking. The term you used, "connected" implies special status or treatment not reserved for all citizens.

For all those following the thread I am not excusing or condemming the actions that led to the situation as described by Tweety. If it is true then they did "screw up" and are likely to face penalties for it. At this time there certainly is insufficient information to determine the facts of the situation and no information from anyone directly involved. It's all second hand information at this point. Given that situation, feel free to take sides and or castigate all involved.

[TweetyBird]

Again, its not some extraordinary power unavailable to ordinary citizens. Its knowing from professional experience who to call to get the information and how to expedite the process.

And again, this is not some huge city. Its a small city that contracts their legal work because they cant afford to retain city attorneys. They had 3 arrests that day. It wasn't a matter of someone getting lost in the shuffle.

Law enforcement can detain you if you consent. If you decide there is no cause to warrant an investigation, you can walk away. It would be wise to tell the officer to either arrest you or let you go before walking away, but its not mandatory. Walking away from an officer is not evading arrest.  If the officer arrests you, you must comply, and the officer must mirander you before continuing any investigation that requires your participation. What is a legal detention and what is an attempt to circumvent miranda rights is decided by a judge, and is probably specific to the case.

And I'm not knocking policemen in general either. Mistakes happen, I understand. Other than blowing off steam (because it seemed in this case they were stalling for time), the real point was to emphasize the importance of not taking short cuts or just skipping over things like due process.

The crack about "I'm not anyone" was more or less a snappy comeback directed to Martlet

[Martlet]

Originally posted by TweetyBird


Law enforcement can detain you if you consent. If you decide there is no cause to warrant an investigation, you can walk away. It would be wise to tell the officer to either arrest you or let you go before walking away, but its not mandatory. Walking away from an officer is not evading arrest.  If the officer arrests you, you must comply, and the officer must mirander you before continuing any investigation that requires your participation. What is a legal detention and what is an attempt to circumvent miranda rights is decided by a judge, and is probably specific to the case.
 

You obviously didn't read a thing anyone posted, nor do you have an understanding of law.  Heck, even do a quick google search.

Some states put a time limit on how long you may be detained.  Others don't.

[TweetyBird]

And you didn't read this..

>>What is a legal detention and what is an attempt to circumvent miranda rights is decided by a judge, and is probably specific to the case. <<

Just because something meets the time limit of a legal detention in a state, it doesn't follow the detention is legal.
In any state, the individual can decide its illegal and force the officer to either arrest him or let him go. Other than giving identification, no one should be compelled to participate in an investigation against them without legal council - not for 5 minutes, not for 50 minutes.

[Martlet]

Personal attack

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Thrawn
In Canada wether or not someone is in custody is a matter of public knowledge.  You know, so the goverment can't "disappear" people.  It's a little something that we like to call "transparency".  

But I can understand why freedom hating commies like Martlet might be against it.

Its the same in the USA.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Martlet
Personal attack

If they take you to jail against your own will, you are arrested. That is not detaining which is done during the course of the investigation. You dont go to jail if you are not under arrest. You would go for an interview at the station not the jail. Jail = Arrest.

[indy007]

On a barely marginally related note, saw in the paper somebody walked recently because they weren't read Miranda Rights. With how cheap car audio stuff is getting (and the fact most cruisers now have onboard computers), why not put a rear facing screen that automatically plays a video clip that reads somebody their rights in several languages whenever you put them in the back of the car?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Raider179
If they take you to jail against your own will, you are arrested. That is not detaining which is done during the course of the investigation. You dont go to jail if you are not under arrest. You would go for an interview at the station not the jail. Jail = Arrest.

Sure.  That's been said several times.  However, not a single person has been able to point out where it says that.

However, the definition of detainment has been cited and is easily obtainable.

Let's see your source.

[Maverick]

Tweetybird.

You still didn't answer my questions. I'm waiting for you to disclose your expertise here. From a few of your statements you are clearly confused on the concept of detention. Small town or not, exercising "influence" calls for a position based on proper authority.

There are a few situations that result in arrest without incarceration. It is common to arrest and release on the basis of a criminal citation. The arrestee does not go to jail but certainly is none the less under arrest. Miranda rights also are not a key element to an arrest as the TV shows seem to think. You can be arrested and never Mirandized. Miranda warnings only apply to questioning and only if the investigation focuses on the person being questioned as a suspect. They do not apply to a witness.

Handcuffs also do not confirm an arrest. It is certainly possible to be hand cuffed and not be under arrest.

Again, there is insufficient information to make a definate conclusion as to what actually happened or to determine if there are culpable actions, on either side.

[TweetyBird]

Personal attack

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Martlet
Sure.  That's been said several times.  However, not a single person has been able to point out where it says that.

However, the definition of detainment has been cited and is easily obtainable.

Let's see your source.

Oregon State Bar

If an officer orders you to go with him or her, or when you submit or surrender to custody, you have been arrested. If an officer merely requests or asks you to go with him or her to the police station, you have not been arrested.

If you are not sure whether or not you are being arrested, ask the police officer if he or she is placing you under arrest. Unless you are under arrest, you do not have to go with the officer.

At the time of arrest, the officer must tell you why you are being arrested and how the arrest is authorized.

If you are arrested, you have the right to request the help of a lawyer. Your number of phone calls may be limited, so you might want to telephone a relative or other person who can help you locate a lawyer. You will be taken to a police station where you are booked. You may be fingerprinted and photographed. You may ask to have these destroyed if the case against you is dismissed. You do not have to submit to an interview about the charge(s) against you.

You have the right to get out of jail on a release agreement unless you are charged with murder. There are three kinds of release agreements: security release, personal recognizance, and conditional release.


http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1077.htm