The process of an arrest

[Bigkarch]

In chronoligical order..what it is, what it means and what to do....


Chronology: The Arrest Process

When someone is arrested by the police, a specific series of events follows. The police must follow legal procedures during the actual arrest process, and at many other stages along the way to actually placing a suspect in jail.

An arrest occurs when police take you into custody and is complete the moment you, as the suspect, are no longer free to walk away from the arresting officer.

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona, that individuals who are under arrest for suspicion of having committed a crime have certain rights that must be explained to them before any questioning may occur. The rights are designed to protect your right to be free from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are five different rights, known as the "Miranda Rights ":

You have the right to remain silent and to refuse to answer questions.

Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.

If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

Note : Miranda rights must only be read when an individual is in police custody and is under interrogation. Therefore, if the police stop you to give you a traffic ticket, and you start explaining to them why you were speeding, you cannot later protest that you were not read your Miranda rights. While the police may have been "interrogating" you in a certain sense, you were not in police custody.

If you are stopped by the police, they may frisk you by performing a "pat-down" of your outer clothing in order to determine if you are concealing a weapon. Later, after your arrest, they may perform a full-blown search of your person and immediate surroundings to ensure that you do not have any weapons, stolen items, contraband, or evidence of a crime. If the police take possession of your car, it may be searched as well.

In many jurisdictions, you have the right to make a telephone call, or calls, once you are placed into custody. In some states, you are only allowed to call someone in order to secure a lawyer or to arrange for bail, although you may be able to call a family member or friend to help you make those arrangements. Generally, you are not entitled to make a telephone call until after you have been booked.

The police may take any personal property or money that you have with you and put it in a safe place after performing an inventory. The police will ask you to sign the inventory and, after reviewing it, you should do so if you agree with the contents of the inventory.

Once you are arrested, you will be booked. During the booking procedure the police will ask you for basic informationabout yourself (such as your address and birthdate), and fingerprint and photograph you. You may also be asked to participate in a line-up, give a handwriting sample or do similar things.

If you are detained but not booked within a reasonable period of time (usually several hours, or overnight) your attorney may go to a judge and obtain a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is an order issued by the court instructing the police to bring you before the court so that a judge may decide if you are being lawfully held.

Once you are arrested by the police, the information will be provided to the appropriate prosecutor's office. The prosecutor will then review the information before making an independent decision as to what charges should be filed.

Note : If you have been arrested for a felony, a prosecutor may enlist the services of a grand jury to review the available information in order to determine what crimes you should actually be charged with.

 

[Bigkarch]

second page


If you are placed in custody, you have the right to a "speedy trial," which usually means that the prosecutor must decide within 72 hours which charges, if any, will be filed. A prosecutor is not bound by the initial charge decision, but may later change the crimes with which you will be charged once more evidence is obtained.

Note : The required time in which a prosecutor must make a charge decision varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While many state laws require the decision to be made within 72 hours, other states, such as California, require that the decision be made within 48 hours after you are taken into custody.

You will have an appearance in court called an arraignment at which point the charges against you will be read and you will be asked whether you plead guilty or not guilty.

Note : A third possible type of response to an indictment is that of "nolo contendere" or "no contest." Nolo contendere is not strictly a plea, but means that you do not contest the charges made by the government. The plea of nolo contendere cannot be used in other aspects of the criminal trial as an admission of guilt, but can be used only in the indictment phase as an implied confession of the specific offense charged and an admission of the facts stated in the indictment. A plea of nolo contendere is only accepted by a judge if they feel that it is being made voluntarily and intelligently.

If you are placed in jail, you may be able to get out prior to your trial if you "post bail." Bail is money you pay to the court in order to ensure that you will appear in court when told to do so. If you do appear as required, the bail will be refunded to you. If you do not show up, the court keeps the money and can issue a warrant for your arrest.

Bail may be paid in cash or in a cash equivalent. You may also be allowed, depending upon the circumstances, to post a bond. A bond is a guarantee of payment of the full bail amount should the need arise. In other situations, you may be allowed to be "released on one's own recognizance." This means that the payment of bail is waived on condition that you appear in court when required. This is generally only used in crimes which are minor in nature or where the judge is of the opinion that you are a trustworthy individual who is unlikely to flee the jurisdiction.

Not every arrested individual is entitled to bail. In particularly heinous crimes, or where there is a risk that the defendant will flee the jurisdiction or harm members of the public, bail may be denied and the defendant will be kept in jail as a "pre-trial detainee." You may also be considered a "pre-trial detainee" if you are unable to post bail for your release.

The judge is responsible for setting your bail. In many jurisdictions, there is a pre-set schedule listing the bail amounts for particular crimes. In other situations, bail may be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that bail not be excessive.

 

[biffbiffington]

Good post BigK...I might add that personally I would not wait for my 5th ammendment to be read to me. I would communicate and invoke it immediately. Point is once something is said it is record. If you know your going to spend the "night" may as well shut the pie hole and use the night to think over what needs to be said.

The below is FYI

How We Got Our Miranda Rights

On March 13, 1963, $8.00 in cash was stolen from a Phoenix, Arizona bank worker. Police suspected and arrested Ernesto Miranda for committing the theft.

During two-hours of questioning, Mr. Miranda, who was never offered a lawyer, confessed not only to the $8.00 theft, but also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days earlier.

Based largely on his confession, Miranda was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in jail.

 

[J DUB]

How often are people read the Miranda rights, etc. but not actually taken into custody?

 

[MANWHORE]

when i read the title of the post i thought someone was actually in the proccess of getting arrested but had time to ask the board what they should do ........

 

[Fatsuperman]

This actually is a pretty good point.

LE have been known when their case is very weak to go out and "interview" people. They will pretend as though YOU the person being intereviewed is NOT a suspect. What they actually are up to is trying to let you lower your gaurd down, so you will tell on your buddies or yourself in the HOPES that you will make their weak case for them.

LE is under no obligation to tell you that you ARE THE SUBJECT of the investigation, they can lie and say you aren't. IF THEY READ YOUR MIRANDA before this "interview" no matter WHAT they tell you, YOU ARE A POSSIBLE SUSPECT. Immediately cease talking. IMO a person, no matter how innocent, should continue speaking or cooperating once MIRANDA has been read.

I have been arrested for a crime I was innocent of because I cooperated, because I had not commited a crime. Regardless of what you hear people are forced with the sheer scaryness of the situation to plea to lesser charges when they in FACT are innocent of any crimes.

When LE goes out an interviews people while reading miranda, but not arresting anyone they are actually tipping you off that their case is weak. They are telling you that they have no evidence but they are hoping someone will run their mouth and make their weak case for them. DONT fall for it!

 

[pikky knee]

deleted

 

[billyb1966@hushmail.com]

sounds great but, the L.E. doesnt not have to read u ur miranda rights. its done out of repetition. truly. it will give u zero leverage. its looked at it like most peopple who have been arrested know the deal and others have heard the speech on tv, movies, etc.

look it up

 

[Unrealownz]

sounds great but, the L.E. doesnt not have to read u ur miranda rights. its done out of repetition. truly. it will give u zero leverage. its looked at it like most peopple who have been arrested know the deal and others have heard the speech on tv, movies, etc.

look it up

Lol you're an idiot.

 

[BBC3]

No, YOU are the idiot... Billy is correct.

Lol you're an idiot.

 

[BBC3]

WHere's Karch??? You out there. Long time no see in other columns....

 

[billydidit]

NEVER talk to the cops. Not one word. Never take a field sobriety test. Never take a breathalizer unless you know 100% you will pass. If you are the least bit unsure, you have the right to be tested on the DATAMASTER which is a machine downtown that provides accurate results. You will have time in the cop car to wait for the tow truck to come and tow your car, you will have time on the trip to the police station. You will have time to contact and consult with an attorney. Then there is a 15 minute observation period before the DATAMASTER breathalizer test can be given. So as these hours have passed you have been taking deep breaths pumping oxygen into your blood, which will help with the test results. If you feel that you will pass the breathalizer then take it, but refuse a blood test if you pass the breathalizer. You have a pretty good chance of not losing your liscense for refusing a blood test, but you will lose it for a year of you refuse the DATAMASTER. If you know that you will fail the DATAMASTER even after all that time, refuse it. Take the loss of your license for one year. Since there will be no evidence, you did not say one word, you did not take a field sobriety test, you did not take a breathalizer, you did not take a blood test, then they do not have a case for drunk driving. You are out the cost of the tow and you take the bus for a year. Peanuts compared to what happens to you with a DUI. I learned this from Business Law class at CWU from an attorney who on the first day of class said, "throw away your textbooks, sell them, whatever you want because we won't be using them. I am going to teach you what you really need to know."

peace

-bj

 

[Deacon]

NEVER talk to the cops. Not one word. Never take a field sobriety test. Never take a breathalizer unless you know 100% you will pass. If you are the least bit unsure, you have the right to be tested on the DATAMASTER which is a machine downtown that provides accurate results. You will have time in the cop car to wait for the tow truck to come and tow your car, you will have time on the trip to the police station. You will have time to contact and consult with an attorney. Then there is a 15 minute observation period before the DATAMASTER breathalizer test can be given. So as these hours have passed you have been taking deep breaths pumping oxygen into your blood, which will help with the test results. If you feel that you will pass the breathalizer then take it, but refuse a blood test if you pass the breathalizer. You have a pretty good chance of not losing your liscense for refusing a blood test, but you will lose it for a year of you refuse the DATAMASTER. If you know that you will fail the DATAMASTER even after all that time, refuse it. Take the loss of your license for one year. Since there will be no evidence, you did not say one word, you did not take a field sobriety test, you did not take a breathalizer, you did not take a blood test, then they do not have a case for drunk driving. You are out the cost of the tow and you take the bus for a year. Peanuts compared to what happens to you with a DUI. I learned this from Business Law class at CWU from an attorney who on the first day of class said, "throw away your textbooks, sell them, whatever you want because we won't be using them. I am going to teach you what you really need to know."

peace

-bj

not good advice - if you have implied consent in your state not taking the test is an on the spot refusal and automatic revocation of your license - and you can still be found guilty of operating under the influence if the cop did his job right - when you get your license you sign away your rights to refuse a test in states like Wi where I live

 

[BBC3]

That MAY work in a large city, but in a smaller town you are only making an ass of yourself. They are usually after your $$ in the end anyway. A cop does not even need to prove you were drunk to get you convicted of "driving under the influence". His judgement is good enough many times for the judge.

FYI, waiting for to get to the station is only going to increase your buzz in most cases, as you still have plenty of boose to digest. Sometimes if you JUST left the bar, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE COUNT MEASURED. Consider if you just did a bunch of shots. The difference in a .14 and a .17 is night and day in a judges eyes many times. So in that case you would want to be measured prior to letting those shots you just pounded soak it. All cases have individual circumstance. Best case would be to get out and VOMIT IMMEDIATELY.... Finger down your throat. Really....

But there is not line in the sand to draw when it comes to taking the field sobriety test. The will take you to jail regardless...

And I am not saying that refusal is not the right decision in some cases. But I did think they could forceably take blood at the hospital???

 

[Deacon]

That MAY work in a large city, but in a smaller town you are only making an ass of yourself. They are usually after your $$ in the end anyway. A cop does not even need to prove you were drunk to get you convicted of "driving under the influence". His judgement is good enough many times for the judge.

FYI, waiting for to get to the station is only going to increase your buzz in most cases, as you still have plenty of boose to digest. Sometimes if you JUST left the bar, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE COUNT MEASURED. Consider if you just did a bunch of shots. The difference in a .14 and a .17 is night and day in a judges eyes many times. So in that case you would want to be measured prior to letting those shots you just pounded soak it. All cases have individual circumstance. Best case would be to get out and VOMIT IMMEDIATELY.... Finger down your throat. Really....

But there is not line in the sand to draw when it comes to taking the field sobriety test. The will take you to jail regardless...

And I am not saying that refusal is not the right decision in some cases. But I did think they could forceably take blood at the hospital???

they can - even most lawyers will tell you to take the test

 

[billydidit]

they can - even most lawyers will tell you to take the test

Wrong wrong wrong. I just did this as per the exact advice given to me by an attorney teaching me my Business Law class which was a requirement for my BS in Mathematics. I also have gone over this topic in Law classes for my MBA.

You see your body processes 1 oz of alcohol every hour. Three hours after they finally got me to the DATAMASTER I blew a 0.000. So then the officer changes his story from drunk to "on drugs" and pushes the piece of paper in front of me for a blood test and I say "no thank you"

They keep me in jail, make life hell, but I get bailed out. They could have my license for a year for all I care. Next day I buy syntheitc urine and go to a licensed place and take a piss test with 10 drug panel showing clean results. I walk into the PA and get a meeting, show the drug test results, and say that I have a fear of needles. They could not charge me with shit and I told the PA that I would take this to jury trial. Guess what. All charges dropped with one year probation of no criminal offenses. I signed the deal and kept my liscense.

If I had let them take blood, then they would have something called "evidence." I may have had a number of things in my system. I mean have any of you ever taken a Soma for a muscle spasm? Or a pain pill that a buddy had. Had a toke of weed every now and then?

Not only would I have lost my liscense, I would have incurred 5,000 dollars in fines and attorney fees, would have to take one or two years of drug and alcohol classes and possibly go to rehab. Not to mention have a criminal record which is permanent.

So perhaps my advice is good. After all, my dad was a cop. My uncle is a retired undercover narcotics agent and DEA agent, and my brother in law is currently a cop.

If it is true that they can force you to provide a blood sample...well I have never seen that happen nor heard of anyone. I call BS, but then again I live in a liberal state.

I would never live in a state where they could take my blood/urine without my consent. Like I said, I'll ride the bus before handing over evidence.

peace

-bj

 

[billydidit]

That MAY work in a large city, but in a smaller town you are only making an ass of yourself. They are usually after your $$ in the end anyway. A cop does not even need to prove you were drunk to get you convicted of "driving under the influence". His judgement is good enough many times for the judge.

FYI, waiting for to get to the station is only going to increase your buzz in most cases, as you still have plenty of boose to digest. Sometimes if you JUST left the bar, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE COUNT MEASURED. Consider if you just did a bunch of shots. The difference in a .14 and a .17 is night and day in a judges eyes many times. So in that case you would want to be measured prior to letting those shots you just pounded soak it. All cases have individual circumstance. Best case would be to get out and VOMIT IMMEDIATELY.... Finger down your throat. Really....

But there is not line in the sand to draw when it comes to taking the field sobriety test. The will take you to jail regardless...

And I am not saying that refusal is not the right decision in some cases. But I did think they could forceably take blood at the hospital???

Why would anyone take a bunch of shots then go dirving? OMG What I am talking about is the casual few drinks over a period of time that may result in failing a hand held breathalyzer. Like perhaps you might be a few points over but you decide it is not worth the risk. Then follow my advice. It buys you the time you need to process the alcohol. When you pass at the station they let you go unless they want blood which is normally reserved for drug suspects. The DATAMASTER is very accurate for alcohol.

And never ever ever take a field sobriety test. You are already under arrest by the time he asks you to take it.

None of my advice will make you look like an ass. Be polite. say yes and no sir/mam. and my advice will make you look smart. In my police report the officer said that I was very cooperative and followed all directions. If you want to be an ass stumble around for the field sobriety test or start talking to the officer (he already hates you and does not want to hear shit that you have to say).

By the way. Several cases have been overturned in my area as of late because those hand held devices do NOT give accurate readings. This has been known for some time. They can be off in both directions. You have the right to use the machine downtown.

peace

-bj

 

[Millard]

Flawed science behind alcohol breath tests?

Grits for Breakfast: Flawed science behind alcohol breath tests?

We tend to think of flawed forensics happening in high-profile rape and murder cases because that's largely who DNA exonerations have let out when bad forensics falsely convicted them. But the truth is many forensic methods and technologies in use today have not been vetted to a high standard of certainty, including forensics in more common cases like alcohol breath tests used at DWI stops.

Walter Reaves out of Waco points to this recent article by Dr. Michael P. Hlastala from the Journal of Forensic Sciences titled "Paradigm Shift for the Alcohol Breath Test" (pdf) that raises questions about DWI breath test technology. Writes Hlastala:

The breath test is an indirect test, but has been considered to be a good estimate of the BAC because of the assumption that an end-exhaled breath sample accurately reflects the alveolar (or deep lung) air alcohol concentration which is thought to be in equilibrium with the blood in the pulmonary circulation. In spite of the considerable effort that has gone into the studies attempting to validate the breath test, forensic scientists and toxicologists still have only a very basic understanding of the physiological aspects of the alcohol breath test (ABT) and associated limitations.

As Reaves summarizes the research:

The "old paradigm" assumes the amount of alcohol in the breath remains constant as it goes through the lungs. It turns out that is not accurate. In fact, the amount varies - sometimes significantly. The result is that the actual blood alcohol level may be over or under-represented.

The new paradigm recognizes that alcohol is deposited in the airway surfaces during both inspiration and expiration. It also recognizes that the alcohol that comes out in the breath test comes from airway surfaces rather than the alveolar region.

Indeed, found Dr. Hlastala:

All of the alcohol exhaled at the mouth comes from the airway surface via the bronchial circulation. Very little, if any, alcohol originates from the pulmonary circulation surrounding the alveoli. The fact that alcohol comes primarily from the airways is the reason why the BrAC depends on the breathing pattern. This contributes to the very large variation in the ABT readings obtained from actual subjects.

So air breath tests are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation between alcohol in the breath and the bloodstream - a false belief that the exhaled air comes from the deep lungs. The researcher suggests potential policy implications for this updated understanding of breath patterns, concluding that:

Given the variation in the breath alcohol test, it might be appropriate to consider decreasing the importance of threshold levels for penalties. After further experimentation, it might be possible to define the variation due to breathing-related variables and to allow for a magnitude of error in the breath test. Penalties could be graded with a sliding scale that allows for error in the breath test and a continuously graded scale of penalties as the BrAC increases. In any case, this new recognition of the limitations of accuracy of the ABT warrants reconsideration of the breath test protocols used.

In other words, there's a margin of error on the test that's not recognized in the law but which makes using breath tests as the threshold for penalties problematic. Reaves concludes:
In Texas, limits are important for not only determining whether someone is guilty or not, but also for determining whether certain conditions are going to be imposed - such as a interlock device. The validity and accuracy of the breath test results is therefore critical.

This article does not break new ground - problems with breath testing have long been recognized. Those problems must be explored - especially in marginal cases. Where someone's future hinges on a machine, the least we can do is make sure the machine is accurate.

 

[billydidit]

Flawed science behind alcohol breath tests?

Grits for Breakfast: Flawed science behind alcohol breath tests?

We tend to think of flawed forensics happening in high-profile rape and murder cases because that's largely who DNA exonerations have let out when bad forensics falsely convicted them. But the truth is many forensic methods and technologies in use today have not been vetted to a high standard of certainty, including forensics in more common cases like alcohol breath tests used at DWI stops.

Walter Reaves out of Waco points to this recent article by Dr. Michael P. Hlastala from the Journal of Forensic Sciences titled "Paradigm Shift for the Alcohol Breath Test" (pdf) that raises questions about DWI breath test technology. Writes Hlastala:

The breath test is an indirect test, but has been considered to be a good estimate of the BAC because of the assumption that an end-exhaled breath sample accurately reflects the alveolar (or deep lung) air alcohol concentration which is thought to be in equilibrium with the blood in the pulmonary circulation. In spite of the considerable effort that has gone into the studies attempting to validate the breath test, forensic scientists and toxicologists still have only a very basic understanding of the physiological aspects of the alcohol breath test (ABT) and associated limitations.

As Reaves summarizes the research:

The "old paradigm" assumes the amount of alcohol in the breath remains constant as it goes through the lungs. It turns out that is not accurate. In fact, the amount varies - sometimes significantly. The result is that the actual blood alcohol level may be over or under-represented.

The new paradigm recognizes that alcohol is deposited in the airway surfaces during both inspiration and expiration. It also recognizes that the alcohol that comes out in the breath test comes from airway surfaces rather than the alveolar region.

Indeed, found Dr. Hlastala:

All of the alcohol exhaled at the mouth comes from the airway surface via the bronchial circulation. Very little, if any, alcohol originates from the pulmonary circulation surrounding the alveoli. The fact that alcohol comes primarily from the airways is the reason why the BrAC depends on the breathing pattern. This contributes to the very large variation in the ABT readings obtained from actual subjects.

So air breath tests are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation between alcohol in the breath and the bloodstream - a false belief that the exhaled air comes from the deep lungs. The researcher suggests potential policy implications for this updated understanding of breath patterns, concluding that:

Given the variation in the breath alcohol test, it might be appropriate to consider decreasing the importance of threshold levels for penalties. After further experimentation, it might be possible to define the variation due to breathing-related variables and to allow for a magnitude of error in the breath test. Penalties could be graded with a sliding scale that allows for error in the breath test and a continuously graded scale of penalties as the BrAC increases. In any case, this new recognition of the limitations of accuracy of the ABT warrants reconsideration of the breath test protocols used.

In other words, there's a margin of error on the test that's not recognized in the law but which makes using breath tests as the threshold for penalties problematic. Reaves concludes:
In Texas, limits are important for not only determining whether someone is guilty or not, but also for determining whether certain conditions are going to be imposed - such as a interlock device. The validity and accuracy of the breath test results is therefore critical.

This article does not break new ground - problems with breath testing have long been recognized. Those problems must be explored - especially in marginal cases. Where someone's future hinges on a machine, the least we can do is make sure the machine is accurate.

Thank you Mr Baker.

peace

-bj

 

[Stretch]

Wrong wrong wrong. I just did this as per the exact advice given to me by an attorney teaching me my Business Law class which was a requirement for my BS in Mathematics. I also have gone over this topic in Law classes for my MBA.

You see your body processes 1 oz of alcohol every hour. Three hours after they finally got me to the DATAMASTER I blew a 0.000. So then the officer changes his story from drunk to "on drugs" and pushes the piece of paper in front of me for a blood test and I say "no thank you"

They keep me in jail, make life hell, but I get bailed out. They could have my license for a year for all I care. Next day I buy syntheitc urine and go to a licensed place and take a piss test with 10 drug panel showing clean results. I walk into the PA and get a meeting, show the drug test results, and say that I have a fear of needles. They could not charge me with shit and I told the PA that I would take this to jury trial. Guess what. All charges dropped with one year probation of no criminal offenses. I signed the deal and kept my liscense.

If I had let them take blood, then they would have something called "evidence." I may have had a number of things in my system. I mean have any of you ever taken a Soma for a muscle spasm? Or a pain pill that a buddy had. Had a toke of weed every now and then?

Not only would I have lost my liscense, I would have incurred 5,000 dollars in fines and attorney fees, would have to take one or two years of drug and alcohol classes and possibly go to rehab. Not to mention have a criminal record which is permanent.

So perhaps my advice is good. After all, my dad was a cop. My uncle is a retired undercover narcotics agent and DEA agent, and my brother in law is currently a cop.
If it is true that they can force you to provide a blood sample...well I have never seen that happen nor heard of anyone. I call BS, but then again I live in a liberal state.

I would never live in a state where they could take my blood/urine without my consent. Like I said, I'll ride the bus before handing over evidence.

peace

-bj

ya so....I'm gonna go ahead and make it a point not to talk to this guy...[)]