Breaking News...FAR right wing Supreme Court strikes down Miranda rights 5-4

[Tech_Esq]

Actually, this is NOT a plus for suspects because, formerly, if they said nothing, the cops had to give up. Now, if they say nothing, the cops can keep after them and keep after them until they either invoke or (more likely) start talking.

The more opportunity the police have to lie to the suspects by telling them how they are going to "help" them if only they will tell them "their side of the story," or by threatening them with "ruse" evidence, i.e., evidence they don't have, the greater the chance that the suspect will crack and talk.

As I read this decision, what you say can no longer be done seems to me to be PRECISELY what the police now CAN do whenever the suspect fails to articulate his right to remain silent. Formerly, it didn't matter whether the suspect said he wanted to remain silent or merely remained silent without saying anything. Now, it does.

Prior to this ruling, the police had to cease interrogation if the defendant EITHER remained silent without announcing his intention to do so (i.e., he just sits there and says nothing) OR if the defendant announced his intention not to want to talk to the police.

Now, the police only have to cease interrogation in the latter case - where the defendant invokes his right to silence in an affirmative manner. Now, if the defendant merely sits there, saying nothing, the police can keep hammering on him until he either invokes or talks. I don't view this as a step forward for suspect's rights under the Miranda decision.

This provides a bright line rule and is consistent with the court's other decision on right to counsel under Miranda. I think getting those in sync is a good thing. I also think it's a good thing to have a bright line for both the arrestee and the police.

The former situation provided just as much of a bright line rule as the present one. The present one is just allows more room for the police to get confessions out of suspects.

I didn't say other court, I said the court's other decision. It's mentioned earlier in this thread. Jillian brought it up. It was their ruling in (without looking back, but you are free to, in Davis that requires the accused to affirmatively request assistance of counsel.

My point in all this is that it didn't REALLY work the way you are saying it did. It's not like the accused just sat there saying nothing and the police said, "Oh this guy isn't saying anything so we can't ask him any questions." That's ludicrous.

In situations like that the court had to do a balancing test to determine in the totality of the circumstances whether the accused was availing himself of his Miranda rights, whether the police overstepped by continuing questioning etc. It was not bright line at all. Any suggestion that is was is specious.

Now, it's clear. You want to stop answering questions, you say, "I'm availing myself of the right to remain silent." Then everyone knows, game over. Same as saying the magic words, "I want to see my lawyer." Game over.

The real trick was, in the past, when the police would blend "booking questions" into non-booking questions. So the accused would be confused as to which questions he had to answer and which questions he could remain silent on. Now he can invoke his right up front and prohibit the police from asking non-booking questions (the next court case).

I understand your position and the sentiment, but I don't think the rights of the accused are better off in muddy waters.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Wake up. In most instances in this country you ARE guilty until proven innocent in actual practice. Miranda is just lip service, and damned sure isn't the right paying that lip service.

The police don't have the right to hold you endlessly hammering you with questions, but they do.

If your spouse is murdered, you best damn-well be able to prove your whereabouts 3 states away, and you best hope you aren't in a position to easily be railroaded.

You can be held endlessly without bond.

That's our justice system in practice. You're just to busy crying "the sky is falling" to pay attention to it. Suspects ALWAYS have had to invoke the right to remain silent and lawyer up. The police get around it by not arresting you until after they interrogate you. You have no Miranda Rights at that point, and never have.

True, but if you aren't under arrest, you can always leave whenever you want to. You just ask the magic words, "Am I under arrest now?" If they say no, you say, "Then this interview is over, goodbye." Works sometimes, not others. But it does force their hand. They have to either arrest you at that point or let you go. You have to judge which they will do.

 

[Gunny]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Wake up. In most instances in this country you ARE guilty until proven innocent in actual practice. Miranda is just lip service, and damned sure isn't the right paying that lip service.

The police don't have the right to hold you endlessly hammering you with questions, but they do.

If your spouse is murdered, you best damn-well be able to prove your whereabouts 3 states away, and you best hope you aren't in a position to easily be railroaded.

You can be held endlessly without bond.

That's our justice system in practice. You're just to busy crying "the sky is falling" to pay attention to it. Suspects ALWAYS have had to invoke the right to remain silent and lawyer up. The police get around it by not arresting you until after they interrogate you. You have no Miranda Rights at that point, and never have.

True, but if you aren't under arrest, you can always leave whenever you want to. You just ask the magic words, "Am I under arrest now?" If they say no, you say, "Then this interview is over, goodbye." Works sometimes, not others. But it does force their hand. They have to either arrest you at that point or let you go. You have to judge which they will do.

I am aware of that. Our judicial system and its enforcement arm prey on the ignorance of others. Just like Bfrgn is trying to do with his "Chicken Little" acts. It DOES force their hands, but the second they think my spouse dies in Miami and I'm in San Antonio and they start accusing me, the interview ends.

The point is, Bfrgn is trying to act like law enforcement wasn't already skirting Miranda as a matter of procedure and this is some big revelation of politically partisan wrongdoing.

 

[Father Time]

Once the actual criminals figure this new rule out, I don't believe it will take very long, at all, for them to pass the info along to their cohorts,

and BEFORE, if the person just sat there, the police WERE allowed to continue to browbeat and deceive them.

NOW, all the person has to say is "I choose to remain silent," and the police MUST cease and desist in the interrogation.

See how that could work FOR the suspect? And work a LOT better than just sitting there, taking whatever abuse the police taunt them with?

Of course, I'm thinking of it from both sides of the "suspect" coin ~ heads, guilty, as well as tails, INNOCENT.

Look at the case this was based on. The guy sat in a room for hours and didn't talk, and yet the cops were somehow clueless enough to not figure out he was invoking the right to remain silent.

And now those fuckers have the law behind them.

Again, BS. He did NOT sit in a room silent for hours. He expressed limited communication, some yes and no answers and the like. THAT IS NOT SILENCE. That is the problem here. Now we are wasting time in court wondering if the spurts of silence count precisely because the old Miranda method was so damn ambiguous. Now it is not, there is a clear delineation of where your right to remain silent is evoked and that can even be within seconds of the questioning.

Yeah yes and no answers to trivial questions like 'is the chair too hard', at least from what I heard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Look at the case this was based on. The guy sat in a room for hours and didn't talk, and yet the cops were somehow clueless enough to not figure out he was invoking the right to remain silent.

And now those fuckers have the law behind them.

The facts of the case say otherwise. The suspect was interrogated for a few hours, and remained mostly silent, not completely silent. If he had remained completely silent the police would probably have stopped asking him questions, as most departments teach that this invokes the right to remain silent implicitly. That is no longer good enough in court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

True, but if you aren't under arrest, you can always leave whenever you want to. You just ask the magic words, "Am I under arrest now?" If they say no, you say, "Then this interview is over, goodbye." Works sometimes, not others. But it does force their hand. They have to either arrest you at that point or let you go. You have to judge which they will do.

You can be detained without being under arrest, it is better to ask if you are being detained, and leave if they do not answer affirmatively. That "Am I under arrest" stuff only works on TV.

 

[Liability]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Wake up. In most instances in this country you ARE guilty until proven innocent in actual practice. Miranda is just lip service, and damned sure isn't the right paying that lip service.

The police don't have the right to hold you endlessly hammering you with questions, but they do.

If your spouse is murdered, you best damn-well be able to prove your whereabouts 3 states away, and you best hope you aren't in a position to easily be railroaded.

You can be held endlessly without bond.

That's our justice system in practice. You're just to busy crying "the sky is falling" to pay attention to it. Suspects ALWAYS have had to invoke the right to remain silent and lawyer up. The police get around it by not arresting you until after they interrogate you. You have no Miranda Rights at that point, and never have.

Absolute bullshit.

Gumby used to think before he mouthed off.

Now, sadly, it looks like Gumby cannot even think.

There is absolutely NO truth to his utterly baseless claim that cops can hold a suspect endlessly. They simply cannot.

Now, Miranda warnings are bullshit, but not for the reason espoused by Gumby.

And nobody has to prove their whereabouts, either. It may be helpful if you can prove your actual innocence, but nobody has to provide that proof to the police in this nation.

Gumby is hallucinating.

(But the last part of his last paragraph is true. Until a suspect is "in custody" there is no Miranda requirement.)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They had the guy in the room for hours and he refused to talk. If the cops didn't realize he was using his right to remain silent then they're fucking morons who shouldn't be on the force.

They were looking for a loophole to continue grilling the guy and now they have one.

Who wants to bet they'll conveniently forget to tell suspects they have to assert their right to remain silent?

Good thing you didn't bother to read the case. He murdered, fled the state and changed his identity. But the poor man had to sit in a room for "hours!"

And yet he still has the right to remain silent.

It's quite simple, if you remain silent for a long time the police should have the common sense to realize you're invoking the right to remain silent.

Yes, it such an effort to say, "I want a lawyer" or "I'm not talking"

Such a hardship! The poor dear!

 

[Tech_Esq]

True, but if you aren't under arrest, you can always leave whenever you want to. You just ask the magic words, "Am I under arrest now?" If they say no, you say, "Then this interview is over, goodbye." Works sometimes, not others. But it does force their hand. They have to either arrest you at that point or let you go. You have to judge which they will do.

You can be detained without being under arrest, it is better to ask if you are being detained, and leave if they do not answer affirmatively. That "Am I under arrest" stuff only works on TV.

That would be an incorrect statement of the law. Just ask if you want a cite to the Supreme Court case.

 

[Father Time]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Wake up. In most instances in this country you ARE guilty until proven innocent in actual practice. Miranda is just lip service, and damned sure isn't the right paying that lip service.

The police don't have the right to hold you endlessly hammering you with questions, but they do.

If your spouse is murdered, you best damn-well be able to prove your whereabouts 3 states away, and you best hope you aren't in a position to easily be railroaded.

You can be held endlessly without bond.

That's our justice system in practice. You're just to busy crying "the sky is falling" to pay attention to it. Suspects ALWAYS have had to invoke the right to remain silent and lawyer up. The police get around it by not arresting you until after they interrogate you. You have no Miranda Rights at that point, and never have.

Absolute bullshit.

Gumby used to think before he mouthed off.

Now, sadly, it looks like Gumby cannot even think.

There is absolutely NO truth to his utterly baseless claim that cops can hold a suspect endlessly. They simply cannot.

Now, Miranda warnings are bullshit,

How is it BS to inform a suspect of their rights? It gives police less of a chance to fuck with them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How's this:

1. Don't murder people
2. If you must murder somebody, don't get caught
3. If you murdered somebody and got caught, shut the fuck up.
4. If you murdered somebody and got caught and can't shut the fuck up, ask for a lawyer
5. If you murdered somebody, got caught, talked and didn't ask for a lawyer, pray that a Liberal SCOTUS will rule in your favor.

 

[George Costanza]

True, but if you aren't under arrest, you can always leave whenever you want to. You just ask the magic words, "Am I under arrest now?" If they say no, you say, "Then this interview is over, goodbye." Works sometimes, not others. But it does force their hand. They have to either arrest you at that point or let you go. You have to judge which they will do.

You can be detained without being under arrest, it is better to ask if you are being detained, and leave if they do not answer affirmatively. That "Am I under arrest" stuff only works on TV.

That would be an incorrect statement of the law. Just ask if you want a cite to the Supreme Court case.

If you are saying that you can be detained without being under arrest, is an incorrect statement of the law, then YOU are the one who is incorrect. You can most certainly be detained without being formally arrested. Furthermore, if you are being detained, Miranda applies.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You can be detained without being under arrest, it is better to ask if you are being detained, and leave if they do not answer affirmatively. That "Am I under arrest" stuff only works on TV.

That would be an incorrect statement of the law. Just ask if you want a cite to the Supreme Court case.

If you are saying that you can be detained without being under arrest, is an incorrect statement of the law, then YOU are the one who is incorrect. You can most certainly be detained without being formally arrested. Furthermore, if you are being detained, Miranda applies.

Interesting. Please distinguish this holding then:

Where there was no probable cause to arrest petitioner, no consent to the journey to the police station, and no prior judicial authorization for detaining him, the investigative detention at the station for fingerprinting purposes violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth; hence the fingerprints taken were the inadmissible fruits of an illegal detention

HAYES v. FLORIDA, 470 U.S. 811 (1985)

Essentially, the court is saying that any evidence gained from a non-consensual "investigative" detention, is the fruit of the poisonous tree. You can't even, apparently, ask booking questions or take fingerprints which are normally held not to violate a person's rights.

But, if I understand your contention, it is that the police may detain you without probably cause where you are not free to leave. That position and the court's above seem at odds, but please, feel free to set me straight and cite a case or two if you don't mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting. Please distinguish this holding then:

Where there was no probable cause to arrest petitioner, no consent to the journey to the police station, and no prior judicial authorization for detaining him, the investigative detention at the station for fingerprinting purposes violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth; hence the fingerprints taken were the inadmissible fruits of an illegal detention

HAYES v. FLORIDA, 470 U.S. 811 (1985)

Essentially, the court is saying that any evidence gained from a non-consensual "investigative" detention, is the fruit of the poisonous tree. You can't even, apparently, ask booking questions or take fingerprints which are normally held not to violate a person's rights.

But, if I understand your contention, it is that the police may detain you without probably cause where you are not free to leave. That position and the court's above seem at odds, but please, feel free to set me straight and cite a case or two if you don't mind.

Police can detain you by placing you in the back of a vehicle, or simply telling you not to go anywhere while they investigate a potential crime. Arrest is part of the process of formally charging you. The case you cited simply stated that the police did not have the right to fingerprint the suspect because he was not under arrest, which made those prints inadmissible. Police do not have a right to print you simply because they think you did something and they need proof.

That does not mean they cannot detain you with the intent of asking questions, as most people rarely insist on invoking their right to remain silent, or have an attorney, simply because the cops respond to a complaint about a fight.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Interesting. Please distinguish this holding then:

Where there was no probable cause to arrest petitioner, no consent to the journey to the police station, and no prior judicial authorization for detaining him, the investigative detention at the station for fingerprinting purposes violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth; hence the fingerprints taken were the inadmissible fruits of an illegal detention

HAYES v. FLORIDA, 470 U.S. 811 (1985)

Essentially, the court is saying that any evidence gained from a non-consensual "investigative" detention, is the fruit of the poisonous tree. You can't even, apparently, ask booking questions or take fingerprints which are normally held not to violate a person's rights.

But, if I understand your contention, it is that the police may detain you without probably cause where you are not free to leave. That position and the court's above seem at odds, but please, feel free to set me straight and cite a case or two if you don't mind.

Police can detain you by placing you in the back of a vehicle, or simply telling you not to go anywhere while they investigate a potential crime. Arrest is part of the process of formally charging you. The case you cited simply stated that the police did not have the right to fingerprint the suspect because he was not under arrest, which made those prints inadmissible. Police do not have a right to print you simply because they think you did something and they need proof.

That does not mean they cannot detain you with the intent of asking questions, as most people rarely insist on invoking their right to remain silent, or have an attorney, simply because the cops respond to a complaint about a fight.

Interesting, however, Mr. Justice White used the term "illegal detention." Please tell me why your hypothetical detention is legal and the detention in Hayes was and illegal detention.

Hint: it has nothing to do with the fingerprinting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From what you posted, it was the fact that he was taken to the police station. I would have to read the whole opinion to actually answer that question though, so if I am wrong please just realize that I have not read it all, and feel free to educate me. I am playing "gotcha" with some idiots in another thread, and don't really think you and I need to do it here. I am just trying to fill in in the lack of expert posters like George who make their living at unraveling the laws, I am only an amateur.

 

[Tech_Esq]

From what you posted, it was the fact that he was taken to the police station. I would have to read the whole opinion to actually answer that question though, so if I am wrong please just realize that I have not read it all, and feel free to educate me. I am playing "gotcha" with some idiots in another thread, and don't really think you and I need to do it here. I am just trying to fill in in the lack of expert posters like George who make their living at unraveling the laws, I am only an amateur.

I'm not trying to play gotcha. I'm just trying to be sure I understand what people are talking about. Sometimes terms get a little loose. It may well be that it was the unauthorized trip to the police station (sounds like kidnapping a little doesn't it?) You aren't under arrest, but I'm going to take you somewhere against your will.

However, if you dig a little deeper, kidnapping can also be merely holding you someplace against your will. Different places have different terms, false imprisonment, kidnapping etc. So, it seems to me that you can detain me, for your "investigation," for as long as I allow you to detain me. If, however, I say that I'm not going to sit here anymore, I'm leaving, you must either arrest me, or let me go. Otherwise, the state has no authority to just "hold me" without probable cause. That's what makes it an "illegal detention."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From what you posted, it was the fact that he was taken to the police station. I would have to read the whole opinion to actually answer that question though, so if I am wrong please just realize that I have not read it all, and feel free to educate me. I am playing "gotcha" with some idiots in another thread, and don't really think you and I need to do it here. I am just trying to fill in in the lack of expert posters like George who make their living at unraveling the laws, I am only an amateur.

I'm not trying to play gotcha. I'm just trying to be sure I understand what people are talking about. Sometimes terms get a little loose. It may well be that it was the unauthorized trip to the police station (sounds like kidnapping a little doesn't it?) You aren't under arrest, but I'm going to take you somewhere against your will.

However, if you dig a little deeper, kidnapping can also be merely holding you someplace against your will. Different places have different terms, false imprisonment, kidnapping etc. So, it seems to me that you can detain me, for your "investigation," for as long as I allow you to detain me. If, however, I say that I'm not going to sit here anymore, I'm leaving, you must either arrest me, or let me go. Otherwise, the state has no authority to just "hold me" without probable cause. That's what makes it an "illegal detention."

As long as we are both on the same page, I have no problem with you asking me to clarify my position.

If the police show up at a murder scene at, for example, a seminar that is closed to the public, they can reasonably assume that someone there committed the murder. They can detain everyone there until they identify them, and ask them all what they have seen, and refuse to allow them to leave, even though they would not have probable cause against any one individual to arrest him.

They can also detain you if they receive a call about a crime, and you match the description of the person who witnessed it. They do not have probable cause to arrest you based solely on the description, but they can detain you for a short while. How long is open to debate, but they do have a window of time between detention and arrest.

 

[George Costanza]

That would be an incorrect statement of the law. Just ask if you want a cite to the Supreme Court case.

If you are saying that you can be detained without being under arrest, is an incorrect statement of the law, then YOU are the one who is incorrect. You can most certainly be detained without being formally arrested. Furthermore, if you are being detained, Miranda applies.

Interesting. Please distinguish this holding then:

Where there was no probable cause to arrest petitioner, no consent to the journey to the police station, and no prior judicial authorization for detaining him, the investigative detention at the station for fingerprinting purposes violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth; hence the fingerprints taken were the inadmissible fruits of an illegal detention

HAYES v. FLORIDA, 470 U.S. 811 (1985)

Essentially, the court is saying that any evidence gained from a non-consensual "investigative" detention, is the fruit of the poisonous tree. You can't even, apparently, ask booking questions or take fingerprints which are normally held not to violate a person's rights.

But, if I understand your contention, it is that the police may detain you without probably cause where you are not free to leave. That position and the court's above seem at odds, but please, feel free to set me straight and cite a case or two if you don't mind.

When Miranda was first decided, the test for whether or not its warning had to be given was whether or not the suspect was in a "custodial interrogation" situation while he was being questioned. If he was, then Miranda warnings had to be given or the suspect's answers to questions were inadmissible.

Over the years, what was considered to be a "custodial interrogation" has been subject to varied interpretations by the courts. Today, the "state of Miranda" is, that Miranda warnings are required if the suspect is being "detained" in any way by the police at the time questions are asked. If he is being detained, then Miranda warnings must be given.

It is clear that a suspect can be legally detained short of being formally arrested. Cop stops a car and sees what appears to be stolen property in the back seat. He can detain the driver of the car pending further investigation to determine the origin of the property. Once he learns it is stolen, he can then arrest the driver for possession of stolen property.

Detention is most commonly seen by some form of physical restraint, i.e., the suspect is place in handcuffs and/or placed in the back seat of the police car.

Now - someone (might have been QW) was saying that you can be detained without being formally arrested and you commented that this was an incorrect statement of the law. It is not an incorrect statement of the law - you can most certainly be detained without being formally arrested.

The case that you cite has no bearing on the narrow issue under discussion, i.e., whether or not a detention can occur short of formal arrest. In the case you cite, the person was illegally detained and evidence obtained during the illegal detention was suppressed. OK, so what? The cited case offers nothing on the issue of whether or not a detention can occur without an arrest taking place.

And the decision in the cited case is not "at odds" with the issue under discussion. If a suspect is being LEGALLY detained, then he can be compelled to give fingerprints or blood samples or lots of other things - but, in the cited case, the suspect was not legally detained. Big difference.

Booking questions raise an issue. Obviously, a person who is being booked is both detained and arrested. The booking officer is limited to asking standard, booking questions, i.e., name, rank and serial number. He cannot question the arrestee about the facts of the case absent a Miranda warning.

I'm not sure you fully understand the concept of detention v. the concept of arrest. I hope this has helped some.

 

[George Costanza]

So, it seems to me that you can detain me, for your "investigation," for as long as I allow you to detain me. If, however, I say that I'm not going to sit here anymore, I'm leaving, you must either arrest me, or let me go. Otherwise, the state has no authority to just "hold me" without probable cause. That's what makes it an "illegal detention."

OK - now I think I see. There is a thing called a "Terry stop," which gives officers the right to detain people to investigate a possible crime short of probable cause to arrest. A suspect held during a Terry stop is NOT free to go, even though he is not under arrest. Consensual interviews, on the other hand, can be terminated at any time by the suspect.

I suspect you are presupposing a consensual encounter with the police to begin with in the example you give. That's fine - but if the police are detaining you involuntarily because they have probable cause to think you may be involved in a crime (an "investigative detention" as per the Terry case), then they most certainly DO have the authority to hold you (i.e., detain you) short of probable cause to arrest.

But keep in mind - there has to be SOME probable cause for a Terry stop to take place. It is not as much as that required for arrest, but there still has to be something.