DOCSLIB.ORG

PROBABLE CAUSE for ARREST WASHINGTO •• D.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PROBABLE CAUSE for ARREST WASHINGTO •• D.C If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. .' '.'" r ! .CAROLINA LAW' . ENFORCEMENT ETV T~is lIicr.lich ••s ,r"lIcd fro. '.eu ••lts r.c.iVl' I.r "TRAINING PROGRAM ilciusio" ill thl HCUtS ••t. "st. Siln NCJRS caln.t 'IIrcist untrol oVlr the ,~,s~~.1 c... iti .. '., th .OCU ••ltS s.'.itt." thl i~~i'i'UlI lu•• quality will ,.ry. The nuluU.. chrt II this In•••• y h ust' t. lulut. th ·.icu ••at ~ ..lity .. < - ~ •••• 0« "•• J... J-l"!'l 1.' J :'1 ~ .~ 0,.\ , ' .~ W 11II12~ 111112.5 .. ~ f Ii£ HH!§.""" 1>== W ~~ 22 .j ~ . w liii ~ Col I:.i 14.0 LlLo. u - "'" .. 11111~?5 111111.4 111111.6 .".;, MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-J963-A Micr.'~llIill ,reedur.s usd t. cn.t. Uis fich c•• ,lp .it~ the stald.r's $It I.rth il 41en 101·11.504 Poillts .f ,i'l! .r '"liIlS statd il this ~1C ••'lt Ir. titSl ., tbl IlIthr( s) II' •• I.t rl,rlSllt th IUiei.1 p"ati'l .r I!.licils ., t~1 U.S. DI,.rt .....f Jutin. u.s. DEPART~!~rY' OF JUSTICE lAW ENFO~CEMENl ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL CR;MIN~t JUSTICE REFERENCE SERVICE PROBABLE CAUSE For ARREST WASHINGTO •• D.C. 205!1 PART II \ 1/27/76 t. I II . ";1L:: ii___ .•_ ._~ I___ i I .. __ -11" ._~J ...... itt "'11 u-.. LAW E_--.n DM$IGII. 111 coopiratillft *Ith SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATIOHAL TELEVISION NETWORK ~_. ____........... _____""'- ___~f\;.;.. .. ;.i:....... ;· ..... i.'""".·(....;....;~C/#.>tkf ... ;~:;;.;.~:,.;..;· >,~·'j'~..w'i~~.i.Wft1i1ii;~t:M; ...',~·;;..,:'r' .. · .'_,,;..' ..,j;r .... ';·... ·.:.;;:.;,j·,.j,;·· ~~.. <;MoiIII"·~i:liiiol·~iIiiii'·~··_'~_· '_-' .. t..... ______ o.- .... ,f , ri""';· . (' . ,;;,~ ,~ " (; (')' 'C" , .' , .' .; <:: ,~t,t!J'!l ". J. I, ",'I "'_ ........c t: , . S:, l .. -th Co. WI \ I )\CI LA W ENFORCEMENT - ~ TRA INING PROGRAM tr"orn c..rime -IT> Couo-t-­ .. ;: PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST) PART No.Q.,.r By: Dwight J. Dalbey Inspector- FBI Sponsored by: , ' South Carolina Law Enforcement Division in cooperation with South Carolina Educational Television Network '. "~. .: Endorsed by: South Carolina Governor Robert E. McNair South Carolina Sheriffs' Association South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers' Association South Carolina Police Chiefs' Executive Association South Carolina F. B. I. National Academy Associates South Carolina Southern Police Institute Associates .. ' , " }" Program Objective: This material will present circumstances and procedures relative to "Probable Cause" for emergency arrests. Ii T THE FEDERAL LAW ON PROBAB'LE CAUSE FOR ARREST (Part II) TABLE OF CONTENTS ( OUTLINE) 1. The Emergency Arrest Is the Imperfect Case - It Presents the Most Difficult Problem of Probable Cause 2. Some Typical Emergency Arrest Cases in Which the Courts Found Probable Cause for the Arrest A. Bell v. U.S., 280 F2d 117 (1960) B. Bell v. U.S., 254 F2d 82 (1958). cert. den. 358 U.S. 885 C. Dixon v. U.S., 296 F2d 427 (1960) D. Analysis of these Emergency Arrest Cases 3. Danger to the Officer in Finding Probable Cause for Emergency Arrest 4. The General Rules on Finding Probable Cause in All Cases A. Probable Cause is More Than Suspicion B. Probable Cause is L~ss Than the Evidence Needed to Convict C. Probable Cause is Ju~ged on Facts Known at Moment of Arrest D. The Facts of Probable Cause are Judged by Their Significance to an Experienced Law inforcement Officer E. Facts of Probable Cause Diffe~ from One Offense to Another F. Arrest Without Warrant R~quires as Much Probable Cause Information As Needed to ~et a Warrant G. Probable Cause Requires En~ugh Information to Identify the Suspect Before Arrest H. Probable Cause Is Best Found by Judge or Magistrate I. Probable Cause Does Not Require that the Officer-Know Exactly Which Criminal Offense Was Comn:itted J. Probable Cause Does Not Require the Officer to List the Correct Legal Charge When rooking the Suspect K. If Probable Cause Exists the Arres~ing Officer Need Not Possess It Personally L. Probable CausE Does Not Require Absolutely Correct in All of His Facts 5. Knowledge and Skill in Developing Probable Cause 6. Proba.ble Cause and the Police Administrator ,------,--------------~~---------------------------~-------------------------------------------=-~========-=-=-===~~~~ ... , THE FEDEF.AL LAW ON PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST - PART II 1. The Emergency Arrest Is The Imperfect Case - It Presents The Most Difficult Problem of Probable Cause The planned arrest, which allows the officer to follow a systematic plan in building probable cause, is the perfect case. The emergency arrest is the imperfect case. It is imperfect because the officer has little control over the facts upon which he must act. He must make his decision on probable cause, which is his decision to arrest or not arrest, without the benefit of careful investigation between the time he first learns of the offense and the time when he must decide the question of arrest. This type of case requires a special fO! :nula for use in determining probable cause. It is a simple formula, short on rules and long on good judgment. 2. Some Typical Emergency Arrest Cases In Which The Courts Found :Probable Cause For The Arrest The use of the probable cause formula for emergency arrest can best be illustrated by showing how it worked in a few actual police cases in which the Federal courts agreed with the officer's decision that he had found probable cause to arrest without a warrant. - 1 - Ir 1 T I ~ A. Bell v. U. S., 280 F2d 717 (1960) B. Bell v. U. S., 254 F2d 82 (1958), cert. den. 358 U. S. 885 In the first case, two District of Columbia police officers, In the second interesting case of probable cause for using an unmarked robbery squad car, were parked in a residential area at emergency arrest, two District of Columbia officers cruising at 3:30 a. m. 4:30 a. m. They heard a woman's continuing screams. Then they saw a saw a car pull away from the curb in front of a grocery store and drive two man run out of an alley in the area in which the screams seemed to originate. blocks without lights. The officers stopped the car and asked to see the When the man saw the officers he slowed to a walk. An officer stopped the driver'S license and registration. One officer flickered his flashlight toward man, identified himself by showing his badge, and asked the man to explain. the rear seat and saw about forty cartons of cigarettes. He asked the men The man said he was going home from a party. The officer asked him where where they got the cigarettes. One man replied "At a place in Maryland. " he liwed, and the man gave an address in the opposite direction from that The man opposite the driver made a motion to reach under the seat, and the which he was taking when stopped by the officer. The man was arrested officers then arrested th~m. and convicted of housebreaking and larceny. On appeal, he claimed that After convlction for housebreaking and larceny an appeal was the arrest was illegal because the officers acted without enough information filed, claiming illegal arrest. The appeals court agreed with the officers. to make probable cause for belief of guilt. But the appeals court agreed with The court said the officers had a right to stop a car without lights at 3:30 the officers. Here is a part of what they said: in the morning, a right to examine the license and registration, and a right to "When the officers heard screams for help at 4:30 a. m. shine the flashlight into the back seat for their own prJtection. ,The reply and at once saw appellant running near the point from which the cries came, minimum prudence and diligence which the men gave to the officer's question on wher/~ they got the cigarettes dictated that the person in seeming flight be stopped and interrogated. When his statement that he was on was "less than satisfactory) ".the court said. And then one man reached under his way home from a party was found not be coincide with the direction of his travel, further investigation the seat as if to get a weapon. All of this, taken together, made probable was called for to determine whether appellant's seeming flight was connected with the cries for help. cause for arrest. 56 At this juncture, there was abundant probable cause for arrest. Indeed, it would have been an astonishing lack of sound judgment for. the police to act otherwise. ,,55 56Bell v. U. S., 254 F2d 82 (1958), cert. den. 358 U. S. 885 558e11 v. U. S., 280 F2d 717 (1960) - 3 - .~ ", - 2 - l. 1 I D. Analysis of These Emergency Arrest Cases C. Dixon v. U. S., 296 F2d 427 (1960) Analyzing these three cases, look at the weak spots first. In the third case, the officers were on patrol about midnight i In each case it was not humanly possible for the officers to be positive when they saw a car containing two men, one of them known to the officers 1 that any crime had been committed. A woman may scream in the middle as a safebreaker. An unknown man on the curb beckoned to these two men I of the nil~ht because there is a mouse in the house, or for other reasons and they drove over, talked briefly with him and then turned and went down 1 not connected with any crime. A man can have 40 cartons of legal another street.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Probable Cause for Arrest in Indiana: a Prosecutor Hoist with His Own Kinnaird
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 45 Issue 1 Article 3 Fall 1969 Probable Cause for Arrest in Indiana: A Prosecutor Hoist With His Own Kinnaird F. Thomas Schornhorst Indiana University Maurer School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Schornhorst, F. Thomas (1969) "Probable Cause for Arrest in Indiana: A Prosecutor Hoist With His Own Kinnaird," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 45 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol45/iss1/3 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST IN INDIANA: A PROSECUTOR HOIST WITH HIS OWN KINNAIRD F. THOMAS SCHORNHORSTt For'tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his own petar.... HAmtLET, ACT III, SCENE IV A judicial decision that an arrest warrant must be supported by an affidavit alleging facts and circumstances sufficient to justify a magist- rate's finding of probable cause in order to make lawful an arrest and incidental search based on that warrant would not seem worthy of law journal commentary in 1969. One would think that this issue had been settled in the stormy period following Mapp v. Ohio" in Ker v. Cali- fornia,' Beck v. Ohio,' Wong Sun v. United States4 and Aguilar v.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures Under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 78 Article 3 Issue 4 Winter Winter 1988 Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Elsie Romero, Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 763 (1987-1988) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/88/7804-763 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 78, No. 4 Copyright @ 1988 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. FOURTH AMENDMENT-REQUIRING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE Arizona v. Hicks, 107 S. Ct. 1149 (1987). I. INTRODUCTION The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution pro- tects individuals against arbitrary and unreasonable searches and seizures. 1 Fourth amendment protection has repeatedly been found to include a general requirement of a warrant based on probable cause for any search or seizure by a law enforcement agent.2 How- ever, there exist a limited number of "specifically established and
    [Show full text]
  • Drawing a Line Between Terry and Miranda: the Degree and Duration of Restraint Katherine M
    Drawing a Line between Terry and Miranda: The Degree and Duration of Restraint Katherine M. Swifit INTRODUCTION A felon answered the door in his underwear. Three police officers and three parole officers were there to search his apartment for a gun on the basis of a tip from his mother.! The police handcuffed him in the hallway outside his apartment, but told him he was not under ar- rest; the handcuffs were for his safety and the safety of the officers. Then they took him inside and asked about the gun, which he told them was in a shoebox on the table. The police never read the suspect his Miranda warnings. Was he "in custody"? Or was this merely a tem- porary detention? Mirandav Arizona' held that police may not interrogate a suspect who has been taken into custody without first issuing the familiar warnings Investigative stops, valid under Terry v Ohio,' are not sub- ject to Miranda's notice requirements.! Courts have not settled on a workable rule for determining custody in Terry stop cases. Part of the problem is that custody cases involve so many factors.! But more im- portant, coercive police behavior that would have required Miranda warnings in 1966 often is deemed reasonable under Terry today. This has led to a circuit split over whether coercive Terry stops constitute Miranda custody. The First, Fourth, and Eighth circuits hold t B.A., BJ. 1998, University of Missouri-Columbia; J.D. 2006, The University of Chicago. I The facts used in this example are drawn from United States v Newton, 369 F3d 659, 663 (2d Cir 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • New Haven Department of Police Service General
    GENERAL ORDER 5.01 Page 1 of 9 NEW HAVEN DEPARTMENT OF POLICE SERVICE GENERAL ORDERS GENERAL ORDER 5.01 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2016 5.01.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this General Order is to provide officers of the New Haven Department of Police Service with basic guidelines for conducting arrests. 5.01.02 POLICY It is the policy of the New Haven Department of Police Service that all arrests made by departmental personnel shall be conducted professionally and in accordance with established legal principles. In furtherance of this policy, all officers of this department are expected to be aware of, understand, and follow the laws governing arrest. This policy sets forth the fundamentals of the arrest procedure. 5.01.03 DEFINITIONS ARREST: Actual or constructive seizure or detention of a person, performed with the intention to effect an arrest and so understood by the person detained. ARREST WARRANT: A written order issued by a judge or other proper authority that commands a law enforcement officer to place a person under arrest. GENERAL ORDER &O1 Page 2 of 9 PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST: The existence of circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime was committed and the individual to be arrested has committed the crime. REASONABLE SUSPICION: The existence of circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe that an individual is engaging in criminal activity. INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION (“TERRY STOP”): Temporary detention for investigative purposes of a person based upon reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, under circumstances that do not amount to probable cause for arrest.
    [Show full text]
  • Informer January 2017
    Department of Homeland Security Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers Office of Chief Counsel Legal Training Division January 2017 THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT -INFORMER- A MONTHLY LEGAL RESOURCE AND COMMENTARY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND AGENTS Welcome to this installment of The Federal Law Enforcement Informer (The Informer). The Legal Training Division of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers’ Office of Chief Counsel is dedicated to providing law enforcement officers with quality, useful and timely United States Supreme Court and federal Circuit Courts of Appeals reviews, interesting developments in the law, and legal articles written to clarify or highlight various issues. The views expressed in these articles are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The Informer is researched and written by members of the Legal Division. All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding The Informer can be directed to the Editor at (912) 267-3429 or [email protected]. You can join The Informer Mailing List, have The Informer delivered directly to you via e-mail, and view copies of the current and past editions and articles in The Quarterly Review and The Informer by visiting https://www.fletc.gov/legal-resources. This edition of The Informer may be cited as 1 INFORMER 17. Join THE INFORMER E-mail Subscription List It’s easy! Click HERE to subscribe, change your e-mail address, or unsubscribe. THIS IS A SECURE SERVICE. No one but the FLETC Legal Division will have access to your address, and you will receive mailings from no one except the FLETC Legal Division.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Procedure in Perspective Kit Kinports
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 98 Article 3 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2007 Criminal Procedure in Perspective Kit Kinports Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Kit Kinports, Criminal Procedure in Perspective, 98 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 71 (2007-2008) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9801-0071 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol, 98, No. I Copyright 0 2008 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN PERSPECTIVE KIT KINPORTS* This Article attempts to situate the Supreme Court's constitutional criminal procedure jurisprudence in the academic debates surrounding the reasonable person standard, in particular, the extent to which objective standards should incorporate a particular individual's subjective characteristics. Analyzing the Supreme Court's search and seizure and confessions opinions, Ifind that the Court shifts opportunisticallyfrom case to case between subjective and objective tests, and between whose point of view-the police officer's or the defendant's-it views as controlling. Moreover, these deviations cannot be explained either by the principles the Court claims underlie the various constitutionalprovisions at issue or by the attributes of subjective and objective tests themselves. The Article then centers on the one Supreme Court opinion in this area to address the question of "subjective" objective standards, Yarborough v.
    [Show full text]
  • Warrant for Arrest of Alien
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Warrant for Arrest of Alien File No. ________________ Date: ___________________ To: Any immigration officer authorized pursuant to sections 236 and 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and part 287 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, to serve warrants of arrest for immigration violations I have determined that there is probable cause to believe that ____________________________ is removable from the United States. This determination is based upon: the execution of a charging document to initiate removal proceedings against the subject; the pendency of ongoing removal proceedings against the subject; the failure to establish admissibility subsequent to deferred inspection; biometric confirmation of the subject’s identity and a records check of federal databases that affirmatively indicate, by themselves or in addition to other reliable information, that the subject either lacks immigration status or notwithstanding such status is removable under U.S. immigration law; and/or statements made voluntarily by the subject to an immigration officer and/or other reliable evidence that affirmatively indicate the subject either lacks immigration status or notwithstanding such status is removable under U.S. immigration law. YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and take into custody for removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the above-named alien. __________________________________________ (Signature of Authorized Immigration Officer) __________________________________________ SAMPLE (Printed Name and Title of Authorized Immigration Officer) Certificate of Service I hereby certify that the Warrant for Arrest of Alien was served by me at __________________________ (Location) on ______________________________ on _____________________________, and the contents of this (Name of Alien) (Date of Service) notice were read to him or her in the __________________________ language.
    [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]
  • Questioning a Charged Suspect
    QUESTIONING A CHARGED SUSPECT "The police have an interest in investigating new or additional crimes after an individual is formally charged with one crime."(1) After a suspect has been arrested for one crime, officers who are investigating another crime may want to question him. In fact, this happens a lot because for some people committing crime is a way of life. They may be career criminals, they may have gone on a crime spree, or they may just commit crimes whenever it suits their purposes. In any event, when they are eventually arrested for one of their crimes, officers who are investigating other crimes may be lined up, waiting to question them. Can they lawfully do so? The answer depends mainly on whether the suspect has been charged with the crime that will be the subject of interrogation. If not, officers will ordinarily be free to question him so long as they comply with Miranda. On the other hand, if the suspect has been charged, officers must also comply with a set of rules that come from an area of law known as the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Under the Sixth Amendment a suspect has a right to have counsel present whenever he is questioned about a crime with which he has been charged.(2) As we will explain, the suspect may, however, waive this right or he may invoke it. Although this may sound a lot like Miranda, it is quite different. For example, Miranda and Sixth Amendment rights attach at different times during an investigation, they are invoked in different ways, and the consequences of an invocation differ.
    [Show full text]
  • Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant Armenia*, ** International Covenant On
    United Nations CCPR/C/ARM/2-3 International Covenant on Distr.: General 22 November 2010 Civil and Political Rights Original: English Human Rights Committee Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant Joint second and third periodic reports of States parties Armenia*, ** [28 April 2010] * In accordance with the information transmitted to States parties regarding the processing of their reports, the present document was not formally edited before being sent to the United Nations translation services. ** Annexes can be consulted in the files of the Secretariat. GE.10-46857 (E) 031210 CCPR/C/ARM/2-3 Contents Paragraphs Page I. Introduction........................................................................................................ 1–12 3 II. Implementation of the Covenant.......................................................................... 13–670 5 Article 1 ............................................................................................................. 13–66 5 Article 2 ............................................................................................................. 67–106 12 Article 3 ............................................................................................................. 107–152 18 Article 4 ............................................................................................................. 153–175 24 Article 5 ............................................................................................................. 176–179
    [Show full text]
  • Out of County Felony Arrests
    Out of County Felony Arrests What is the procedure when a suspect is arrested for a felony that occurred in another county? Specifically, may officers immediately transport the suspect to the county in which the crime occurred, or must they first take him before a judge in the county of arrest? As we will explain in this article, it depends on two things: (1) Did the suspect have a right to a bail hearing in the county of arrest? (2) If the suspect is transported, will he be arraigned within the required time limits? There are a few other issues that might arise, and we will cover them, too. No-bail warrant If the suspect was arrested on a no-bail felony warrant, he does not have a right to a bail hearing in the county of arrest.1 He may therefore be transported without delay to the county in which the crime occurred. If the arrest was made by local officers, they must “immediately” notify officers in the county in which the warrant was issued that their suspect is in custody.2 Those officers must then pick up the suspect without unnecessary delay but, in any event, within five calendar days if the two counties are 400 miles apart or less, or within five court days if the two counties are over 400 miles apart.3 What about arraignment? A suspect must ordinarily be arraigned within 48 hours of his arrest.4 Although the courts will give officers some flexibility when the arrest occurs in a distant county,5 officers should attempt to comply with the 48 hour time limit.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Are Suspected of a Criminal Offence If You Are Suspected of a Criminal Offence
    If you are suspected of a criminal offence If you are suspected of a criminal offence Contents About this brochure 3 Arrest and questioning 3 Police custody 3 Your lawyer 4 The Probation Service 5 Rights and restrictions 5 Appearance before the Officer of Justice 6 What happens next? 6 Detention 7 Remand 7 Release 8 Preliminary hearing 9 Prosecution 10 Dismissal 10 In court 10 Compensation 11 Assistance 12 Other brochures 13 Further information 13 2 If you are suspected of a criminal offence About this brochure This brochure provides information about what to expect if you have been arrested for a criminal offence. It explains the role of the various people involved in the criminal justice system, how long you can be held in custody or on remand, and sets out your rights and responsibilities. It also tells you where you can obtain further information at each stage of the procedure. You can also contact your own lawyer or the local office of the Juridisch Loket (Legal Advice Centre). Details of other brochures and useful addresses are given at the rear of this brochure. Arrest and questioning You have been arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence. The police may wish to question you further at the police station. If so, they are entitled to hold you for up to six ‘working’ hours. The hours between midnight and 9 am do not count towards this period. For example, if you are taken to the police station at 9 o’ clock in the evening, the police can detain you for questioning until 12 noon the following day.
    [Show full text]