Really? So you think he was free to go at any time, despite being cuffed and being in a squad car/holding cell?
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
I think you should brush up on your legal definitions. While the police were there talking to him and trying to get him to give his ID to the Loomis guards, he was detained. At the time they cuffed him and put him in the squad car, he was arrested.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
Well with an argument that thorough, well-researched, and compelling, I don't see how I can question your expertise any longer. I will be sure to look you up if I ever need a lawyer.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,543
- 651
- 126
Where is your well-researched, compelling argument? Please learn the different between arrest and detain.
Please tell us why the victim or anyone else is complaining about an arrest? I suggest you read the other posts in this thread.
First, understand that I side with the suspect in this case. I believe the transport in this case was unconstitutional. Had the officer made an official arrest, even if later released, that would be a different story (even something cheesy, like impeding an investigation). Still, there is no crime involved in photographing an ATM, so the officer in this specific case could not make that contention.
There is room for argument in many cases about detained versus arrested however.
A.I.R.U.=elements of an arrest.
Authority-you must have the authority to arrest someone.
Intention-you must have the intention of placing someone under arrest
Restraint-they must be restrained (i.e. handcuffs).
Understanding-they must understand they are under arrest.
Those are the two key elements in this case. If the officer had no intention of arresting the person, there's a possible loophole. Likewise if the officer made it clear he was not under arrest, or if it was at least not specified, there's another possibility.
There's opposition to that stance. For instance, Norton V. Wonderly. However, there have been numerous other cases where being transported to the station was found to NOT constitute an arrest. In those instances it was either clear that they weren't under arrest, or there was at least serious question as to if a reasonable person would have concluded they were under arrest, and the suspect made no objections to being transported to the station. This is a precarious tightrope however, and no good officer would walk it.
Merely cuffing someone though, even for transport, does not in and of itself constitute arrest. You may be cuffed at ANY time during detention for officer safety. You may also be cuffed during transport...in fact, it's policy in many areas to do so. At least once you go in the back of the car. Even when no arrest is made or even intended. The key is rather or not that trip to the station was voluntary.
In other words, it's arguable. The police can argue he was never placed under arrest, but detained to gather information and identification surrounding a possible crime, and transported voluntarily. The individual can argue that he believed he was under arrest, due to the circumstances. That's why it's SO IMPORTANT to ALWAYS ask the officer - "Am I under arrest? Am I free to go?"
Most case law surrounding this topic is incidental to traffic stops, and revolves around the fulcrum of probable cause that a crime was committed. In most case law the transport requires reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a specific crime, and therefore follows that such a transport is equivalent to an arrest. The grey area comes when it's only for identification purposes. Washington, like many states, prohibits 'arrests' for failing to show identification, but many of these states have also held that refusing to give identification when there is suspicion of an actual crime is reason to charge with interfering with an investigation. For instance, Hiibel v. Nevada. And, as stated before, if you agree to go to the station for further investigation, it's a detention, not an arrest. Arrests are always involuntary.
At least as far as I understand the current argument.
There is room for argument in many cases about detained versus arrested however.
A.I.R.U.=elements of an arrest.
Authority-you must have the authority to arrest someone.
Intention-you must have the intention of placing someone under arrest
Restraint-they must be restrained (i.e. handcuffs).
Understanding-they must understand they are under arrest.
Those are the two key elements in this case. If the officer had no intention of arresting the person, there's a possible loophole. Likewise if the officer made it clear he was not under arrest, or if it was at least not specified, there's another possibility.
There's opposition to that stance. For instance, Norton V. Wonderly. However, there have been numerous other cases where being transported to the station was found to NOT constitute an arrest. In those instances it was either clear that they weren't under arrest, or there was at least serious question as to if a reasonable person would have concluded they were under arrest, and the suspect made no objections to being transported to the station. This is a precarious tightrope however, and no good officer would walk it.
Merely cuffing someone though, even for transport, does not in and of itself constitute arrest. You may be cuffed at ANY time during detention for officer safety. You may also be cuffed during transport...in fact, it's policy in many areas to do so. At least once you go in the back of the car. Even when no arrest is made or even intended. The key is rather or not that trip to the station was voluntary.
In other words, it's arguable. The police can argue he was never placed under arrest, but detained to gather information and identification surrounding a possible crime, and transported voluntarily. The individual can argue that he believed he was under arrest, due to the circumstances. That's why it's SO IMPORTANT to ALWAYS ask the officer - "Am I under arrest? Am I free to go?"
Most case law surrounding this topic is incidental to traffic stops, and revolves around the fulcrum of probable cause that a crime was committed. In most case law the transport requires reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a specific crime, and therefore follows that such a transport is equivalent to an arrest. The grey area comes when it's only for identification purposes. Washington, like many states, prohibits 'arrests' for failing to show identification, but many of these states have also held that refusing to give identification when there is suspicion of an actual crime is reason to charge with interfering with an investigation. For instance, Hiibel v. Nevada. And, as stated before, if you agree to go to the station for further investigation, it's a detention, not an arrest. Arrests are always involuntary.
At least as far as I understand the current argument.
Some of those guidelines apply but a few things should be made clearer. The officer does not have to verbalize his intent at any time. In Berkemer v. McCarty, the court states "a policeman's unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was "in custody" at a particular time; the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation."
In the cases where going to the station was not an arrest it was always voluntary on the suspect's part, e.g. California v. Beheler. In this particular situation it is clear that iPhone guy had no interest in going to the station or answering any questions. If the police had taken him there and taken a statement at an officer's desk or in a conference room or something, then it could be argued he was only being detained. But he remained handcuffed while they kept him in a holding cell for an extended period of time, and then remained cuffed for even longer while he was questioned by another officer. I think that conclusively shows he was under arrest. This isn't even going into the fact that there was no logical reason to take him to the station other than trying to get him to talk through a little intimidation/show of authority.
He doesn't say one way or the other, but it sounds like the police may have implied or told him he couldn't leave until after he signed that trespass form or whatever it was.
Yes no doubt. It is very important to know the law and know your rights.
We're not disagreeing, I was simply clarifying. In this case a court would likely find that he was under arrest after the fact, but at the time the officer was likely merely meaning to detain him. Had the circumstances been only slightly different, or if the suspects voluntary cooperation with the transport is missing from the record, then it would/could have been a lawful 'detention' (though still an extremely poor choice by the officer since he lacked a concrete underlying crime).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter