DOCSLIB.ORG

Probable Cause to Arrest and Admissibility of Evidence Bonnie Lee Martin Office Ofh T E Attorney General

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Probable Cause to Arrest and Admissibility of Evidence Bonnie Lee Martin Office Ofh T E Attorney General Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 1960 Probable Cause to Arrest and Admissibility of Evidence Bonnie Lee Martin Office ofh t e Attorney General Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Martin, Bonnie Lee, "Probable Cause to Arrest and Admissibility of Evidence" (1960). California Agencies. Paper 252. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/252 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROBABlE CAUSE TO ARREST AND ADMISSIBILITY OF IDENCE By BONNIE lEE MARTIN Deputy Attorney General of the State of California Authorized by STANLEY MOSK Attorney General of the State of California 1960 Revised Edition Sold by PRINTING DIVISION, DOCUMENTS SECTION Sacramento 14, California Price $1.25, plus tax PREFACE Following the decision in People v. Cahan, in April of 1955, Cali­ fornia adopted as a judicially declared rule of evidence, that illegally obtained evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal proceeding. There are only a few general statutes governing the laws of arrest which aid the court and police officers in determining whether a given arrest is lawful and a search and seizure of evidence proper. 'l'hus it remained for judicial decisions to define and answer the problems which have arisen in this area. Since our digest systems are never quite current and since to my knowledge, these cases have never been compiled and thoroughly in­ dexed, it was felt that such a work as this 1vas needed. The first print­ ing of this syllabus was a compilation of cases following the Cahan decision through December 10, 1957. Since that time there have been significant changes and additional refinements in the law, particularly in regard to confidential informers. 'rhis revised edition includes the California cases relating to searches and seiznres and probable cause to arrest through January 1, 1960, as well as those cases reported in the earlier edition. BoNNIE LEE l\IARTIN Deputy Attorney General 3 TOPICAL INDEX Page INTRODUCTION: The Exclusionary Rule ~­ L WHAT CO:{STI'l'UTES AN ARREST ~ 15 II. LEGALITY OF ARREST 17 A. With a Warrant ~~~~~ 17 B. Without a ·warranL--~~ 19 1. By Peace 0 fficers 19 2. Private Persons 21 3. Con1n1itted Pres0nce 23 C. Presumption of Leg-ality of Arrest and 25 Ill. RIGHT TO SUSPECTS OR WITNESSEJS 27 A. In 27 B. Outdoors 29 33 IV. WHAT CONSTITUTES REASONABLEi OH PHOHA HLE CA r~ll'i TO BELTE\VE AHRIGSTf~E HAS COJ'vL:\HTTED FI~LONY A. General ::;;; 1. 2. 39 B. 41 41 41 45 47 49 51 5~ 5!) 57 59 61 63 GD 67 67 Gfl 71 Iii 12. 75 1 S1 85 14. 89 15. 91 16. 93 17. 97 18. Counterfeiting 99 19. Sex Offenses 101 C. Inforn1er Cases 103 1. Reliable Information lOB a. Reliable Confidential Informant - 103 b. Police Officers and Radio Broadcasts 109 Information From Ordinary Citizen 111 d. Informant Known to Police Officers 113 2. Information u;; Corroborated _____ _ 3. Revealing of Inforn1ant a. Infonnation is Basis Probal,Ie b. Informer Is a Participant or a Material c. Nondisclosure Not Prejudicial Error d. Defendant Must Request That Identity of Informer Be Revealed 133 e. Name of Informant Unknuwn 135 f. Prosecution Need Not Produce InformanL_ 137 g. Need Kot Be Revealed ___ -~ 139 D. Heasonable to Search Vehicle ~--- 1. General Rule ~~~~~~~~ _ a. Reasonable Cause to Believe Contraband Contained 'l'herein 5 TOPICAL INDEX-Continued Page b. Distinction Between Homes and Automobiles c. Impounded Vehicle Traffic Violations and Automobile ___________________ _ 3. Defendant Arrested From Vehicle __________________________ _ V. REASONABLENESS OF' THE SEARCH -------------- ...--\. General Definition 1. Question of Law ---------------------------- _ B. Search as Incident to Lawful Arrest 1. May Be Before or After Arrest ------·- 2. Exploratory Searches _____________________ _ C. Need Not Procure Search Warrant 163 D. Consent -------------------------------------- 165 Substitute for Reasonable Cause or Seareh Vvarrant lGG of Fact and Burden of Proof __ _ by Defendant ------------- Consent by Another ______ -----------------· a. Person in Joint Possession __________________________ _ b. Apparent Authority _______________________________________________ _ Voluntary Nature of Consent Defendant in Custody Coercion 6. Cannot Go Search of Pren1ises Licensee -~- to Enter to Render Aid ____ _ -- 18Z. a Search and Used Conversation and Mechanical Which Is Patent Person and Use of Force G. Arrest and Search for One Crime Turns Up Evidence Bearing on a Dif­ ferent Crime ---------------------------- 1-I. Area of Search 1. Premises Under Control of 2. Defendant Arrested Away 3. Or;en Fields and \Voods Duration of Cannot De .Justified YI. INFOHMING ARHESTEE OF' A. B. c. Excuses for Failure to 1. Unrelated to Securing to Use Caution VIII. RELY ON RIGHTS OF' OTHr;ns ------ IX. STATEMENTS MADE DURING ILLEGAL DETENTION X. TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS UNHELATED TO SECUHING EVIDENCE XI. TESTIMONY HELATING TO PHOBABLE A. ::Ylust Testify to Details of Information 227 XII. OBJECTIONS ::YIUST BE MADE AT TRIAL TO RAISE ON APPEAL __ _ A. Preliminary Motions In Advance of Trial B. vVrit of Prohibition to Review Huling on Admissibility of XIIL TESTIMONY RELATING TO EVIDENCE UNLAWFULLY IS INADMISSIBLE XIV. XV. \Vhat May Be 1. Statements 2. 4. 6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED CASES Page Agnello v. United States, 46 S. Ct. 4, 269 T:.S. 20_ l:J5, 198 Allen v. }\IcCoy_ 135 Cal. App. 500 -- --- 209 Amos v. United States, 41 S. Ct. 17fl Arata v. Superior Court, 153 Cal. 17 Badillo v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 2:J, 52, 231 Breithaupt v. Abram, 77 S. Ct. 408, 352 U.S. 434 (N.M.) ____ _ 71, 172, 191 Brinegar v. United States, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 338 U.S. 160 __ _ 141 Cash v. Superior Court, 53 A.C. 73. 239, 247 Castiel v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. App. 2d 710 _____ _ -- 243 Cooley v. State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, 141 Cal. App. 2d 293_ ___________________________________________________ 183, 189 Cordry v. Superior Court, 161 Cal. App. 2d 267_ _ _____ 2~9 Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal. 2d 315 19 Coy v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 2d 471._______ _ ______ 133 De Losa v. Superior Court, 166 Cal. App. 2d L 127, 1~4. 24:1 Dixon, In re, 41 Cal. 2d 756--- ___________ ____ ___ 99, 171 Fobbs v. City of Los Angeles, 154 Cal. App. 2d 464 ------------ 19 Funk v. Superior Court, 52 A. C. 436_ __ ______________ 242, 247, 251 Gascon v. Superior Court, 169 Cal. App. 2d 356__ .52, 59, 87, 150 Gibson v. J. C. Penney, 165 Cal. App. 2d 6•10_ 37, 38 Gisske v. Sanders, 9 Cal. App. 13---- _ 29, 49, 63 Harris v. United States, 67 S. Ct. 1098, 331 U.S. 145____ 201 Hatjis v. Superior Court, 144 Cal. App. 2d 426_ ___ 25, 79, 121 Hernandez v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 2d 20 __ 65, 86, 197 Hester v. United States, 44 S. Ct. 445, 26!i U.S. 57___________ _ 199 Johnson v. United States, 68 S. Ct. 367, 333 U.S. 10__________ 179 Lorenzen v. Superior Court, 150 Cal. App. 2d 506 38, 103, 106, 133, 163 McAllister v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 2d 297 ______ _____ 221, 240 ::\icCarthy v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. 2d 7G5 _ _____ 239 ::\fitchel! v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. 2d ___ 127, 131 Montgomery v. Superior Court, 146 Cal. 66a, 77, 109 Panzich v. United Statee, 285 Fed. 87L - 231 People v. Acosta, 142 Cal. App. 2d 59 78 People v. Adame, Cal. App. 2d 587.. 66a, 157 People v. Alaniz, 149 Cal. App. 2d 560. 125, 197 People v. Alcala, 169, CaL App. 2d 468. _ 139, 157 People v. Alesi, 169, Cal. App. 2d 758 119, 139 People v. Alexander, 168 Cal. App. 2d 753 _ 137 People v. Allen, 142 Cal. 2d 267 - 157, 163, 165, 221 People v. Alvarez, 154 Cal. 2d 694-- 127, 133 People v. Alvidrez, 158 Cal. 2d 2!J9 . __ 133, 229 People v. Amado, 167 Cal. App. 2d 3,15 53, 120, 133 People v. Ambrose, 155 Cal. App. 2d 513 ~-55, 6~ 93,176,190 People v. Ames, 151 Cal. App. 2d 714_ _38, 101, 109 People v. Anders, 167 Cal. App. 2d 65 .53, 150 People v. Anderson, 145 Cal. App. 2d 20L _____ _ 187 People v. Andrews, 153 Cal. App. 2d 333_ __ 106 People v. Arter, 169 Cal. 2d 439_ ______ _ 230 People v. Asheraft, 138 Cal. 2d 820 --~--- _ 177 People v. Augustine, 152 Cal. 264 ____ _ -- 54, 57, 78, 106 People v. A vas, 144 Cal. App. - 187 People v. Baker, 135 Cal. App. 2d --- .147, 150 People v. Baker, 170 Cal. App. 2d 240 ... 105, 128 People v. Ball, 162 Cal. App. 2d 465 ______ _ __21, 157, 165 People v. Baltazar, 1ii9 Cal. App. 2d 595 __________ _ 105 People v. Barnett, lfJG Cal. 2d SOL _____ ------ 217 People v. Bashor, 48 Cal. 2d 221 People v. Bates, 163 Cal. 120 People v. Beard, 46 Cal. 207 People v. Berger, 44 Cal. 2d 459 ~---------------- _ 235 People v. Bernal, 174 A.C.A. 836 _____ _ 159 Peoplev.Berve, 51 Cal. 2d 286 __ --------- 237 People v. Best, 172 A.C.A. 139 People v. Blankenship, 171 A.C.A. 64_ _______ _ People v. Blodgett, 46 Cal. 2d 114-_________ ------- People v. Bock Leung Chew, H2 Cal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • COVID-19 Is No Excuse for Suspicionless Searches of Electronic Devices at the Border by Blaine H
    COVID-19 Is No Excuse for Suspicionless Searches of Electronic Devices at the Border By Blaine H. Evanson, Daniel R. Adler, and William F. Cole June 19, 2020 The coronavirus is not in your phone. Why travelers’ electronic devices without a warrant should it be used to justify border searches? supported by probable cause, or even without reasonablesuspicion that the traveler has been For the last four years, the U.S. border has exposed to COVID-19 or has violated related been a flashpoint for bitter public policy public health measures. disputes over immigration, the character of the country’s sovereignty, and the nature Such a breathtaking claim of unbounded and extent of constitutionally guaranteed investigatory authority would hardly be civil liberties. Many of these border- unprecedented for CBP. To the contrary, related disputes have receded from public it would be of a piece with CBP’s policy of consciousness as a result of 2020’s trifecta conducting suspicionless searches of electronic Blaine H. Evanson Partner of a presidential impeachment, a global devices—CBP already conducts tens of health pandemic, and racial tension over thousands of such searches every year. And policing. Yet as the country begins to emerge CBP would not be the only law enforcement from COVID-19 lockdowns, America’s agency to sift through digital data in an effort international borders are likely to resurface to trace the spread of COVID-19. State and as a key battleground for civil libertarians local law enforcement authorities have been and law enforcement officials. The cause? trawling through social media posts to arrest The “border search exception,” a little- travelers for violations of social distancing known loophole to the Fourth Amendment’s orders.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE for ARREST, JAIL TIME/DETENTION, TRIAL/HEARING, and SENTENCING STAGES (Guide 1 of 3)
    Guide for Families Experiencing the Criminal Justice System GUIDE FOR ARREST, JAIL TIME/DETENTION, TRIAL/HEARING, AND SENTENCING STAGES (Guide 1 of 3) HTTP://WWW.YOUTH.GOV/COIP Families have unique needs and challenges when a parent is arrested. When this happens, family FAMILIES WILL TALK TO MANY members—including the children—are affected. PEOPLE DURING THESE FOUR This guide is the first in a series of three guides STAGES: that cover a family’s journey as the family goes through the stages of, and copes with, a loved • Lawyer or public defender one’s involvement in the justice system. • Judge and court personnel This guide covers the first four stages in the • Probation officer typical criminal justice process, and the other • Law enforcement two guides cover incarceration and reentry: • Jail or detention facility staff • Arrest (entry into the system) • Jail or detention case worker • Jail Time/Detention (prosecution • Child welfare (in some cases) and pretrial services) • Hearing/Trial (adjudication) Families can use the worksheet on the last page of this guide to keep track of • Sentencing (before incarceration) important names, phone numbers, and • Incarceration (Guide 2) e-mail addresses. • Reentry (Guide 3) This guide starts with descriptions and definitions guide. The questions are designed to help of the stages to help families understand the families and caregivers anticipate and respond to legal terms and processes. Having a better thoughts and concerns their children may have. understanding may help families feel less The tips offer suggestions to help caregivers overwhelmed. It may also help families know support and care for the children of parents who what to expect and what will happen next.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: Pre-Trial Detention
    Detention Monitoring Tool Factsheet Pre-trial detention Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment ‘Long periods of pre-trial custody contribute to overcrowding in prisons, exacerbating the existing problems as regards conditions and relations between the detainees and staff; they also add to the burden on the courts. From the standpoint of preventing ill-treatment, this raises serious concerns for a system already showing signs of stress.’ (UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture)1 1. Definition and context 2. What are the main standards? Remand prisoners are detained during criminal Because of its severe and often irreversible negative investigations and pending trial. Pre-trial detention is effects, international law requires that pre-trial not a sanction, but a measure to safeguard a criminal detention should be the exception rather than the procedure. rule. At any one time, an estimated 3.2 million people are Pre-trial detention is only legitimate where there is a behind bars awaiting trial, accounting for 30 per cent reasonable suspicion of the person having committed of the total prison population worldwide. They are the offence, and where detention is necessary and legally presumed innocent until proven guilty but may proportionate to prevent them from absconding, be held in conditions that are worse than those for committing another offence, or interfering with the convicted prisoners and sometimes for years on end. course of justice during pending procedures. This means that pre-trial detention is not legitimate where Pre-trial detention undermines the chance of a fair these objectives can be achieved through other, less trial and the presumption of innocence.
    [Show full text]
  • Hunters and the Hunted: Rights and Liabilities of Bailbondsmen Michael Goldstein
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 6 | Number 2 Article 6 1978 Hunters and the Hunted: Rights and Liabilities of Bailbondsmen Michael Goldstein Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Accounting Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Goldstein, Hunters and the Hunted: Rights and Liabilities of Bailbondsmen, 6 Fordham Urb. L.J. 333 (1978). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol6/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE HUNTERS AND THE HUNTED: RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF BAILBONDSMEN I. Introduction For over 150 years bailbondsmen have had the right to arrest their principals' whenever and wherever they chose, and to recommit them to government custody in order to avoid forfeiture of their bond.2 This right was upheld when a bailbondsman forcibly entered his principal's home in the middle of the night,3 when the bondsman pursued his principal beyond state lines4 and even when the bonds- man used physical force in the act of apprehension.5 This Note will examine the development of this extrajudicial power to make arrests, the manner in which it is handled in the 1. Read v. Case, 4 Conn. 166 (1822); Nicolls v. Ingersoll, 7 Johns. (N.Y.) 145 (1810). 2. In this area of the law, the principal is the party who has been arrested and is seeking release from prison pending his scheduled court appearance.
    [Show full text]
  • Bail Bond Division
    OMCCA Bail Bonds Oklahoma Insurance Department May 17, 2016 1 Bail Bondsman License Requirements • At least Twenty-One (21) years of age • US Citizen • High School diploma or equivalent • Good character and reputation • No felony or certain misdemeanor convictions 2 Bail Bondsman Education Requirements • Pre-Licensing Education – 16 hours • Continuing Education – 8 hours annually • The Oklahoma Bondsman Association provides the PLE and CE 3 Lines of Authority (LoA) • 578 licensed bail bondsmen • Cash (83) • Professional (60) • Property Bail (2) • Surety Bail (549) • Multi-County Agent (25) As of 04-05-2016 4 Reporting Requirements • Bail bondsmen are required to electronically submit a report each month • Reports include appearance bonds written and discharged for reporting month • Bail bondsmen pay a reviewal fee to Department which is $2.00 per every $1,000 in appearance bonds written 5 2015 • Professional & MCA bail bondsmen appearance bonds written = $365,209,998.92 • Insurance companies appearance bonds written = $152,949,604.70 • Cash appearance bonds written = $1,088,721.74 • Property appearance bonds written = $120,000.00 6 Bail Bond Division Staff - • Communicate with bail bondsmen, court clerks, sheriffs, judges, and the public providing assistance and education concerning bail bonds • Review approximately 630 reports each month for accuracy • Review Court Clerk reports to ensure bail bondsmen report all appearance bonds 7 Bail Bond Division Staff - • Review and process approximately 65 new licenses each year and 369 license renewals in 2015 (biennially per birth month) • Recommend statute and rule changes to Department’s legislative staff • Testify at administrative hearings • Investigate complaints against bail bondsmen 8 Types of Complaints • BBF – Notice of Non Payment of Bond Forfeitures received from Court Clerks • BBI – Complaints from Consumers, Court Clerks, Sheriffs, & bail bondsmen • BBD – Bail Bond Division referrals to Legal Division 9 Complaints & Disciplinary Actions • Non Payment of Forfeiture notice (BBF).
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Trial Detention Addressing Risk Factors to Prevent Torture and Ill-Treatment
    Detention Monitoring Tool Second edition FACTSHEET Pre-trial detention Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment ‘Long periods of pre-trial custody contribute to overcrowding in prisons, exacerbating the existing problems as regards conditions and relations between the detainees and staff; they also add to the burden on the courts. From the standpoint of preventing ill-treatment, this raises serious concerns for a system already showing signs of stress.’ (UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture)1 1. Definition and context 2. What are the main standards? Remand prisoners are detained during criminal Because of its severe and often irreversible negative investigations and pending trial. Pre-trial detention is effects, international law requires that pre-trial detention not a sanction, but a measure to safeguard a criminal should be the exception rather than the rule. procedure. Pre-trial detention is only legitimate where there is a At any one time, an estimated 3.2 million people are reasonable suspicion of the person having committed behind bars awaiting trial, accounting for 30 per cent of the offence, and where detention is necessary and the total prison population worldwide. In some countries, proportionate to prevent them from absconding, pre-trial detainees reportedly constitute the majority of committing another offence, or interfering with the course the prison population, and in some settings even over of justice during pending procedures. This means that 90 per cent of detainees.2 They are legally presumed pre-trial detention is not legitimate where these objectives innocent until proven guilty but may be held in conditions can be achieved through other, less intrusive measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia
    (not official copy) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA GENERAL PART Section One : GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1. LEGISLATION ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Article 1. Legislation Governing Criminal Proceedings Article 2. Objectives of the Criminal-Procedure Legislation Article 3. Territory of Effect of the Criminal-procedure Law Article 4. Effect of the Criminal-Procedure Law in the Course of Time Article 5. Peculiarities in the Effect of the Criminal-Procedure Law Article 6. Definitions of the Basic Notions Used in the Criminal-procedure Code CHAPTER 2. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Article 7. Legitimacy Article 8. Equality of All Before the Law Article 9. Respect for the Rights, Freedoms and Dignity of an Individual Article 10. Ensuring the Right to Legal Assistance Article 11. Immunity of Person Article 12. Immunity of Residence Article 13. Security of Property Article 14. Confidentiality of Correspondence, Telephone Conversations, Mail, Telegraph and Other Communications Article 15. Language of Criminal Proceedings Article 16. Public Trial Article 17. Fair Trial Article 18. Presumption of Innocence Article 19. The Right to Defense of the Suspect and the Accused and Guarantees for this Right Article 20. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (not official copy) Article 21. Inadmissibility of Repeated Conviction and Criminal Prosecution for the Same Crime Article 22. Rehabilitation of the Rights of the Persons who suffered from Judicial Mistakes Article 23. Adversarial System of Criminal Proceedings Article 24. Administration of Justice Exclusively by the Court Article 25. Independent Assessment of Evidence CHAPTER 3. CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CASE Article 26. Conduct of Criminal Case Article 27. The Obligation to institute a criminal case and resolution of the crime Article 28.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law - Confessions - Evidence Obtained Pursuant to an Illegal Arrest Is Inadmissable at Trial - Taylor V
    UCLA National Black Law Journal Title Constitutional Law - Confessions - Evidence Obtained Pursuant to an Illegal Arrest is Inadmissable at Trial - Taylor v. Alabama Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1q11z9h8 Journal National Black Law Journal, 8(2) ISSN 0896-0194 Author Palmer, Debra D. Publication Date 1983 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-CONFESSIONS- EVIDENCE OBTAINED PURSUANT TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST IS INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL Taylor v. Alabama' I. INTRODUCTION The fourth amendment2 commands that every individual is protected against unreasonable searches and seizures and that this right shall not be violated. The amendment also provides that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. This note will examine the history, development, and current status of the fourth amendment exclusionary rule. Emphasis will be placed on Taylor v. Alabama,3 which is consistent with the Supreme Court's prior decisions.' The United States Supreme Court announced, through the opinion of Justice Marshall, that evidence obtained pursuant to an illegal arrest is inad- missible at trial. The controversy in Taylor was whether petitioner's confes- sion,5 which was obtained after a warrantless arrest6 based on less than probable cause,' should have been excluded from evidence as "fruit of the illegal arrest." Prior to petitioner's arrest there had been a number of robberies in the area and the police had initiated an intensive manhunt in an effort to appre- hend the robbers. An individual, who was at the time incarcerated, told an officer that he had heard that petitioner was involved in the robbery.
    [Show full text]
  • B-103 – Criminal Process/Arrest Procedures 1 of 6
    DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE Policy and Procedure Specific Policies P&P-B-103 Criminal Process/Arrest Procedures Effective Date: 11-10-16 Approval: Sheriff Number of Pages: 6 Supersedes: 01-15-13 References: Reevaluation Date: Standards: CALEA LE 1.1.4, LE 1.2.1, 16-3-101 to 16-3-110 C.R.S. Annually or as needed LE 1.2.5, LE 1.2.6, LE 1.2.7, LE 61.1.2, LE 74.3.1-2 I. POLICY It is the policy of this Office that members should make all arrests quietly, without attracting unnecessary attention or subjecting any prisoner to needless exposure, humiliation or severity. Every arrest shall be made in accordance with the law of the State of Colorado and in strict compliance with all applicable laws and the Constitution of the United States. <LE 1.2.1>, <LE 1.2.5>, <LE 1.2.6>, <LE 61.1.2>, <LE 74.3.2> II. CRIMINAL PROCESS PROCEDURE <LE 74.3.1> A. For the purposes of this order, an arrest is the taking of a person into custody, as authorized by law. Commissioned personnel, as peace officers, may make an arrest with or without a warrant. An arrest warrant is a court issued document authorizing the arrest of an individual for a specified criminal charge based upon sufficient probable cause. <LE 1.2.6><LE 74.3.1><LE 74.3.2>. B. The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him or her, of the cause of the arrest, and the authority to make the arrest, except when the member making the arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or the attempt to commit an offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after its completion, or after an escape.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 629 Extradition, Detainers, Arrest, Bail
    MINNESOTA STATUTES 1980 8883 EXTRADITION, DETAINERS, ARREST, BAIL 629.02 CHAPTER 629 EXTRADITION, DETAINERS, ARREST, BAIL EXTRADITION 629.362 Escaped prisoner recaptured. 629.01 Definitions. 629.363 Conductor; authority to arrest. 629.02 Duties of governor in extradition matters. 629.364 Arrests. 629.03 Demand in writing. 629.365 Definitions. 629.04 Attorney general to investigate. 629.366 Theft in business establishments; 629.05 Extradition by agreement. detention of suspects. 629.06 Extradition of persons committing crime. 629.37 Arrest by private person. 629.07 Warrant of arrest. 629.38 Disclosure of cause; means used. 629.08 Accused turned over to demanding state. 629.39 Private person making arrest, 629.09 Powers of officer. proceedings. 629.10 Accused taken before court. 629.40 Arrests, anywhere in state. 629.11 Violation a gross misdemeanor. 629.401 Delaying to take prisoner before 629.12 Accused may be confined in jail. magistrate. 629.13 Who may be apprehended. 629.402 Arrest without authority. 629.14 Arrest without warrant. 629.403 Refusing to make arrest or to aid officer. 629.15 Court may commit to jail. 629.404 Counties or municipalities causing arrest. 629.16 Admit to bail. WARRANTS; BAIL BONDS 629.17 Discharge. 629.41 Process, issuance. 629.18 Bond forfeited. 629.44 Recognizance by offender, duty of 629.19 Prisoner held or surrendered. magistrate. 629.20 Guilt or innocence not inquired into. 629.45 Bail refused; proceedings. 629.21 Recall of warrant. 629.47 Hearing or trial adjourned; recognizance. 629.22 Warrant for parolees or probationers. 629.48 Proceedings on failure to appear.
    [Show full text]
  • Detention Prior to Adjudication
    CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL MEASURES Detention Prior to Adjudication Criminal justice assessment toolkit 2 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL MEASURES Detention Prior to Adjudication Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit UNITED NATIONS New York, 2006 The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations, the Secretariat and Institutions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Belgian 2006 OSCE Chairmanship concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has not been formally edited. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................ 1 2. OVERVIEW: GENERAL AND STATISTICAL DATA.................................................... 5 2.1 DETENTION TRENDS AND PROFILE OF PROCESS .................................... 5 2.2 LEGAL REPRESENTATION ............................................................................. 6 2.3 PROFILE OF DETAINEES................................................................................ 7 2.4 KEY CHALLENGES: OVERCROWDING, TB, AND HIV .................................. 7 2.5 QUALITY OF DATA........................................................................................... 8 3. LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 9. Arrest Warrant Or Summons on an Indictment Or Information (A) ISSUANCE
    Rule 9. Arrest Warrant or Summons on an Indictment or Information (a) ISSUANCE. A judge must issue a warrant—or at the government's request, a summons—for each defendant named in an indictment or named in an information if one or more affidavits accompanying the information establish probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it. The judge may issue more than one warrant or summons for the same defendant. The judge must issue the arrest warrant to an officer authorized to execute it or the summons to a person authorized to serve it. If a defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, the court must issue a warrant. (b) FORM. (1) Warrant. The warrant must conform to Rule 4(c)(1) except that it must be signed by the clerk and must describe the offense charged in the indictment or information. The terms of release or detention may be fixed by the judge and endorsed on the warrant. (2) Summons. The summons must be in the same form as a warrant except that it must require the defendant to appear before the court at a stated time and place. (c) EXECUTION OR SERVICE; RETURN; INITIAL APPEARANCE. (1) Execution or Service. (A) The warrant must be executed or the summons served as provided in Rule 4(d). (B) The officer executing the warrant must proceed in accordance with Rule 5(a)(1). (2) Return. A warrant or summons must be returned in accordance with Rule 4(d)(5). (3) Initial Appearance.
    [Show full text]