Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: "Detained"

  1. #1
    Regular Member JamesB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    703

    "Detained"

    .
    Last edited by JamesB; 09-09-2012 at 01:33 AM. Reason: crappy ad spacing

  2. #2
    Regular Member JamesB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    703
    This evening I was placed in handcuffs for the simple reason of openly carrying a handgun.

    I have no other details to provide untill after I speak to my attorney.

    Just know that it can indeed happen, it can happen here, and it can happen to you.

  3. #3
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Keep us informed. It does happen quite often I'm afraid. Only those with the wealth it takes to conquer in court have any rights.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  4. #4
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652

    Re: "Detained"

    If I recall... Anytime you are physically restrained (handcuffed) it's an arrest, not a detention. It does not matter if they let you go or take you back to the station, once the cuffs are on it's an arrest. Let's start calling it what it is, not what the cops call it.

    Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  5. #5
    Regular Member Elhuero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    24
    can't wait to hear the details.

  6. #6
    Regular Member GTShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    111
    OHh man really sorry to hear. Go get em'

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Subscribed.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    The officers can call it whatever the hell they want, but by definition and court rulings, a detention is an arrest.


    DETAIN: To retain as the possession of personalty. First Nat. Bank v. Yocom, 96 Or. 438, 189 P. 220, 221. To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard, to re strain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17 Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438. (Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 535)

    ARREST: To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. Ex parte Sherwood, 29 Tex.App. 334, 15 S.W. 812. Physical seizure of person by arresting officer or submission to officer's authority and control is necessary to constitute an "arrest." Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co., 285 Mass. 344, 189 N.E. 210, 213. It is a restraints however slight, on another's liberty to come and go. Turney v. Rhodes, 42 Ga.App. 104, 155 S.E. 112. It is the taking, seizing or detaining the person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any act indicating an intention to arrest. U. S. v. Benner, Bald. 234, 239, Fed.Cas.No.14,568; State v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for Cascade County, 70 Mont. 378, 225 P. 1000, 1001; Hoppes v. State, 105 P.2d 433, 439, 70 Okl.Cr. 179.(Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 140)

    Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)
    For purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis there are basically three categories of police “contacts” with individuals: “consensual encounters,” “detentions” and arrests. (Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784 [195 Cal. Rptr. 671, 670 P.2d 325].) Consensual encounters result in no restraint of an individuals liberty whatsoever, hence, an officer is not required to have an objective justification to stop a citizen.

    Detentions are seizures...” People v. Verin (1990) 220 Cal. App.3d 551, 269 Cal,Rptr. 573 [No. A046244 Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, May 17, 1990]

    It is true a temporary detention constitutes a seizure of the person subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 [20 L. Ed. 2D 889, 902-903, 88 S.Ct 1868].)

    People v. Bremmer (1973), 30 Cal. App. 3D 1058 [Crim. No21752. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two. March 7, 1973.] The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person including those consuming no more than a minute (United States v. Brignoni-ponce, supra, 422 U.S. At pp. 879-880 [45 L. Ed.2d at pp. 615-616].)

    Reasonable suspicion is formed by “specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal activity.” Usa v Lopez Soto, 205 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2000)

    To detain a suspect, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion, or “specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is "in criminal activity” USA v. Michael R, 90 F3d 340, (9th Cir. 1996)

    ...any curtailment of a person's liberty by the police must be supported at least by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979) Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S 648, 661 (1979); United States v Brignoni-Ponce, supra ; Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146-149 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, supra; Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980)

    “If the individual is stopped or detained because the officer suspects he may be personally involved in some criminal activity, his Fourth Amendment rights are implicated and he is entitled to the safeguards of the rules set forth above.” (Id. At p. 895.)[4] The rules to which the court refers are the following. “[1]n order to justify and investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2)the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. Not only must he subjectively entertain such a suspicion, but it must be objectively reasonable for him to do so: the facts must be such as would cause any reasonable police officer in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his training and experience (People v. Superior Court (Keifer), supra. 3 Cal.3d at p. 872), to suspect the same criminal activity and the same involvement by the person in question. The corollary to this rule, of course is that an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith. (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. At p. 22...)” (Id, at p. 893.)

    People v. Schoennauer (1980) 103 Cal. App. 3D 398 “While a detention of a citizen by a Police Officer based on [9 Cal. 3D 798] a 'mere hunch' is unlawful, if there is a rational suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is taking place, and some suggestion that the activity is related to crime, a detention is permissible.

    People v. Renteria, 2 Cal. App.4th 440 [No. B055019. Second Dist, Div, Six Jan 7, 1992] ...a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity is needed to justify a detention
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4
    As someone training to be a police officer:

    The laws posted above are, as often is seen with the law, not terribly clear. In detaining someone, they are actually not yet under arrest. You can detain someone by controlling their escape routes to the point that a reasonable person would not believe they can simply walk away from the contact. This does NOT mean that you are under arrest, however. You are not under arrest until you are actually notified that you are under arrest. Even though the officer may have you sit on the ground and not allow you to get up or move around.

    I disagree with "a detention is an arrest". As a police officer, I can detain you without ever placing you under arrest. When the legal definition of detention mentions the term arrest, it is not in the "under arrest" meaning. It is under the "arrest the movement of an individual" meaning. I can go from contacting an individual to detaining them for whatever reason to letting them go.
    Last edited by DillonT; 12-25-2012 at 08:54 PM.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by DillonT View Post
    As someone training to be a police officer:

    The laws posted above are, as often is seen with the law, not terribly clear. In detaining someone, they are actually not yet under arrest. You can detain someone by controlling their escape routes to the point that a reasonable person would not believe they can simply walk away from the contact. This does NOT mean that you are under arrest, however. You are not under arrest until you are actually notified that you are under arrest. Even though the officer may have you sit on the ground and not allow you to get up or move around.

    I disagree with "a detention is an arrest". As a police officer, I can detain you without ever placing you under arrest. When the legal definition of detention mentions the term arrest, it is not in the "under arrest" meaning. It is under the "arrest the movement of an individual" meaning. I can go from contacting an individual to detaining them for whatever reason to letting them go.
    Rubbish. All a cop would have to do is refrain from saying "you're under arrest." Under your standard, I can be cuffed, transported, presented to a magistrate, booked, and put in a cell; but if the cop doesn't say "arrest", then I am not arrested. Phffft.

    I suspect the distinction here is the difference between whether a custodial arrest occurred for the purposes of search, seizure, and self-incrimination determinations at a suppression hearing and whether a civil rights violation occurred under Title 42.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-25-2012 at 09:03 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Rubbish. All a cop would have to do is refrain from saying "you're under arrest." Under your standard, I can be cuffed, transported, presented to a magistrate, booked, and put in a cell; but if the cop doesn't say "arrest", then I am not arrested. Phffft.
    Actually, this is very much incorrect. If you aren't placed under arrest (read as: informed of your rights and the fact that you are being placed under arrest) and I "arrest" you, that "arrest" goes right out the window because it was not properly executed. So no, you couldn't be.
    Last edited by DillonT; 12-27-2012 at 05:06 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by DillonT View Post
    Actually, this is very much incorrect. If you aren't placed under arrest (read as: informed of your rights and the fact that you are being placed under arrest) and I "arrest" you, that "arrest" goes right out the window because it was not properly executed. So no, you couldn't be.
    You didn't study very well did you? Have you gone past your probationary period yet? A police officer is not allowed to detain unless there is RAS, and if that person is in handcuffs they are in custody. Technically a traffic ticket is a arrest. At times people are handcuffed for safety reasons, BUT it is because a crime has been committed or suspected of being committed. A person cannot be arrested or detained for a lawful act, it is a violation of civil rights. The difference is whether a person has been formally charged with a crime, once that happens the clock starts ticking.

    I do not care whether it is called a arrest or a detention. In certain cases people are detained and not arrested because there is no authority for an arrest. These are very sticky circumstances that can bite the detainer in the arse, possibly result in criminal charges. Damn I miss Jimmy Carter, police officers used to go to prison for this sort of **** under his presidency.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  13. #13
    Regular Member Vader33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    65

    "Detained"

    I think folks tend to get "arrested" and "detained" confused for being one in the same. In Layman's, "to be placed under arrests" simply means being held for suspicion of a crime and read your Miranda Rights. To be "detained" is simply that. The officer(s) is/are preventing any means of viable escape while they conduct their investigation of whatever suspected crime or incident (placing someone in cuffs is one of the most effective ways, btw, even IF they are not under arrest. And it's totally within the law to do it).

    Source: I used to be a military police officer. While military law enforcement differs slightly than civilian, the rules pertaining to arrest/detention are pretty much universal.

    Maybe instead of running this guy through the mud, becoming educated on your municipality's definition of the terms would make it clearer. Not every law is the same everywhere. And remember, cops have to follow the law, too.
    Last edited by Vader33; 01-02-2013 at 08:07 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    "Detained"

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader33 View Post
    And remember, cops have to follow the law, too.
    you would think that but you would be wrong.

    what is said compared to what is done are at many times two different truths
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  15. #15
    Regular Member Vader33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    65

    "Detained"

    I said they have to, as in required. I agree that too often they don't.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by DillonT View Post
    Actually, this is very much incorrect. If you aren't placed under arrest (read as: informed of your rights and the fact that you are being placed under arrest) and I "arrest" you, that "arrest" goes right out the window because it was not properly executed. So no, you couldn't be.
    Perhaps Colorado has a differing definition of "Arrest" O.C.G.A. 17-4-1 (2010) 17-4-1. Actions constituting an arrest An actual touching of a person with a hand is not essential to constitute a valid arrest. If the person voluntarily submits to being considered under arrest or yields on condition of being allowed his freedom of locomotion, under the discretion of the officer, the arrest is complete. __________________________________________________ _________________________________ No words required No touching required No Miranda rights required So either the definition you gave is incorrect; or each state has it's own rules, or there haven't been any valid arrests in Georgia since Colonial times. __________________________________________________ _________________________________ Recently, (well mid-summer last year) I was arrested for trespassing because I was walking for exercise in a public park, on the walking pathway, while the park was open. No "You're under arrest" statements, No Miranda warnings, just "turn around" as an officer withdrew his handcuffs. _______________________________________________ Weird... the board appears to be having a problem separating paragraphs.....
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-02-2013 at 09:05 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    If one accepts the premise that this site accurately reflects current Colorado law then, Authority Of Peace Officer To Make An Arrest — C.R.S. 16-3 would seem to disagree that a detention is not an "arrest". Detention held a full-scale arrest. People v. Severson, 39 Colo. App. 95, 561 P.2d 373 (1977).

  18. #18
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Vader33 View Post
    I think folks tend to get "arrested" and "detained" confused for being one in the same. In Layman's, "to be placed under arrests" simply means being held for suspicion of a crime and read your Miranda Rights. To be "detained" is simply that. The officer(s) is/are preventing any means of viable escape while they conduct their investigation of whatever suspected crime or incident (placing someone in cuffs is one of the most effective ways, btw, even IF they are not under arrest. And it's totally within the law to do it).

    Source: I used to be a military police officer. While military law enforcement differs slightly than civilian, the rules pertaining to arrest/detention are pretty much universal.

    Maybe instead of running this guy through the mud, becoming educated on your municipality's definition of the terms would make it clearer. Not every law is the same everywhere. And remember, cops have to follow the law, too.
    There is no requirement to read Miranda rights while affecting an arrest, only before asking questions. In fact cops were arresting people long before there was a Miranda ruling. If a person is NOT under arrest police have no authority to prevent an escape.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  19. #19
    Regular Member Vader33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    If one accepts the premise that this site accurately reflects current Colorado law then, Authority Of Peace Officer To Make An Arrest — C.R.S. 16-3 would seem to disagree that a detention is not an "arrest". Detention held a full-scale arrest. People v. Severson, 39 Colo. App. 95, 561 P.2d 373 (1977).
    Look one above that one...

    Stopping of defendant held not arrest but proper temporary detention in nature of field investigation. People v. Cruz, 186 Colo. 295, 526 P.2d 1315 (1974)

    There's this too...

    Protective search for weapons is justified only when circumstances of an otherwise valid stop provides the officer with a reasonable basis to suspect person stopped may be armed and dangerous. People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1989); People v. Sutherland, 886 P.2d 681 (Colo. 1994).


    We could go on for hours and hours about case studies and the like. Seeing as how JamesB is from Lakewood, here is the Lakewood Municipal Code on Open Carry.

    9.32.050 Open carrying of a firearm prohibited parks, community centers, and recreational facilities
    A. The open carrying or wearing of a firearm within or upon the grounds of any community center, recreational facility, the Lakewood Civic Center, City park, City trail, or City open space including any City owned, operated, or leased building or property is unlawful when said City building or City property is posted with a sign at the entrance to any City building or City property informing persons that the open carrying of a firearm is prohibited in such building or area.
    B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the following:
    1. A peace officer from openly carrying or wearing a firearm as shall be necessary in the proper discharge of his or her duties;
    2. An employee of any armored car service agency providing money transport services pursuant to a contractual arrangement with the City from openly carrying or wearing a firearm as may be necessary in the proper discharge of his duties so long as the employee has been duly authorized by his employer to carry firearms and the employee is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment at the time the firearms are being carried or worn;
    3. A person from openly carrying or wearing a firearm while upon the grounds of the Rooney Valley Law Enforcement Training Facility who is acting in compliance with the rules and regulations of the shooting range facility; or
    4. A person from openly carrying or wearing a firearm when authorized by the Director to do so for the purpose of presenting a public demonstration or exhibition or for the purpose of participating in an athletic event.
    C. Possession of a valid concealed handgun permit shall not constitute a defense to a charge of open carrying of a firearm in violation of this section.
    D. "Firearm" means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges. (Ord. O-2009-37 § 5, 2009; Ord. O-2000-44 § 1, 2000; Ord. O-97-31 § 5, 1997; Ord. O-92-25 § 10, 1992; Ord. O-86-38 § 4, 1986; Ord. O-83-2 § 1 (part), 1983).

    So, according to LMC, OC'ing just for the sake of doing so, is LEGAL as long as it is not on City property or otherwise posted. I'm only citing Lakewood Municipal Code because he didn't say where it happened.


    Furthermore...

    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    The officers can call it whatever the hell they want, but by definition and court rulings, a detention is an arrest.


    DETAIN: To retain as the possession of personalty. First Nat. Bank v. Yocom, 96 Or. 438, 189 P. 220, 221. To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard, to re strain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17 Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438. (Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 535)

    ARREST: To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. Ex parte Sherwood, 29 Tex.App. 334, 15 S.W. 812. Physical seizure of person by arresting officer or submission to officer's authority and control is necessary to constitute an "arrest." Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co., 285 Mass. 344, 189 N.E. 210, 213. It is a restraints however slight, on another's liberty to come and go. Turney v. Rhodes, 42 Ga.App. 104, 155 S.E. 112. It is the taking, seizing or detaining the person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any act indicating an intention to arrest. U. S. v. Benner, Bald. 234, 239, Fed.Cas.No.14,568; State v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for Cascade County, 70 Mont. 378, 225 P. 1000, 1001; Hoppes v. State, 105 P.2d 433, 439, 70 Okl.Cr. 179.(Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 140)

    Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)
    For purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis there are basically three categories of police “contacts” with individuals: “consensual encounters,” “detentions” and arrests. (Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784 [195 Cal. Rptr. 671, 670 P.2d 325].) Consensual encounters result in no restraint of an individuals liberty whatsoever, hence, an officer is not required to have an objective justification to stop a citizen.

    Detentions are seizures...” People v. Verin (1990) 220 Cal. App.3d 551, 269 Cal,Rptr. 573 [No. A046244 Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, May 17, 1990]

    It is true a temporary detention constitutes a seizure of the person subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 [20 L. Ed. 2D 889, 902-903, 88 S.Ct 1868].)

    People v. Bremmer (1973), 30 Cal. App. 3D 1058 [Crim. No21752. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two. March 7, 1973.] The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person including those consuming no more than a minute (United States v. Brignoni-ponce, supra, 422 U.S. At pp. 879-880 [45 L. Ed.2d at pp. 615-616].)

    Reasonable suspicion is formed by “specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal activity.” Usa v Lopez Soto, 205 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2000)

    To detain a suspect, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion, or “specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is "in criminal activity” USA v. Michael R, 90 F3d 340, (9th Cir. 1996)

    ...any curtailment of a person's liberty by the police must be supported at least by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979) Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S 648, 661 (1979); United States v Brignoni-Ponce, supra ; Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146-149 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, supra; Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980)

    “If the individual is stopped or detained because the officer suspects he may be personally involved in some criminal activity, his Fourth Amendment rights are implicated and he is entitled to the safeguards of the rules set forth above.” (Id. At p. 895.)[4] The rules to which the court refers are the following. “[1]n order to justify and investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2)the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. Not only must he subjectively entertain such a suspicion, but it must be objectively reasonable for him to do so: the facts must be such as would cause any reasonable police officer in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his training and experience (People v. Superior Court (Keifer), supra. 3 Cal.3d at p. 872), to suspect the same criminal activity and the same involvement by the person in question. The corollary to this rule, of course is that an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith. (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. At p. 22...)” (Id, at p. 893.)

    People v. Schoennauer (1980) 103 Cal. App. 3D 398 “While a detention of a citizen by a Police Officer based on [9 Cal. 3D 798] a 'mere hunch' is unlawful, if there is a rational suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is taking place, and some suggestion that the activity is related to crime, a detention is permissible.

    People v. Renteria, 2 Cal. App.4th 440 [No. B055019. Second Dist, Div, Six Jan 7, 1992] ...a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity is needed to justify a detention
    You just listed several definitions of "Detain" as it is NOT the same as "Arrest." In the first line of your definitions, "To Arrest" is not the same definition as "To be placed under arrest." Every definition given here outlines WHEN a police officer can place a person "under lawful arrest" and WHAT criteria MUST be met.


    Here's Webster's definitions of both terms...

    Definition of DETAIN

    1: to hold or keep in or as if in custody <detained by the police for questioning>

    2 obsolete : to keep back (as something due) : withhold
    3: to restrain especially from proceeding <was detained by a flat tire>


    Definition of ARREST

    1a : to bring to a stop <sickness arrested his activities>
    b : check, slow
    c : to make inactive <an arrested tumor>

    2: seize, capture; specifically : to take or keep in custody by authority of law

    3: to catch suddenly and engagingly <arrest attention>

    Can we PLEASE stop kicking the dead horse now?
    Last edited by Vader33; 01-02-2013 at 11:40 AM. Reason: EDUCATING MY FELLOW MAN!!

  20. #20
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    "Arrested", "Detained", "Stopped"... the only thing that matters is what is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, and that is "Seizure".

    Was he, you, your friend, the friend of a friend, whatever "seized"?

    Paragraphing fixed... apparently WYSIWYG on this board and FireFox aren't getting along very well.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-02-2013 at 12:04 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    "Detained"

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader33 View Post
    I said they have to, as in required. I agree that too often they don't.
    didnt mean to be an attack, but we both agree on it.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  22. #22
    Regular Member Vader33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by PFC HALE View Post
    didnt mean to be an attack, but we both agree on it.
    I didn't take it as such. +1

  23. #23
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    "Detained"

    cool man
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Cuffed for your own safety, the safety of the officer, and the safety of bystanders.

    Good luck.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by DillonT View Post
    As someone training to be a police officer:

    The laws posted above are, as often is seen with the law, not terribly clear. In detaining someone, they are actually not yet under arrest. You can detain someone by controlling their escape routes to the point that a reasonable person would not believe they can simply walk away from the contact. This does NOT mean that you are under arrest, however. You are not under arrest until you are actually notified that you are under arrest. Even though the officer may have you sit on the ground and not allow you to get up or move around.

    I disagree with "a detention is an arrest". As a police officer, I can detain you without ever placing you under arrest. When the legal definition of detention mentions the term arrest, it is not in the "under arrest" meaning. It is under the "arrest the movement of an individual" meaning. I can go from contacting an individual to detaining them for whatever reason to letting them go.
    Detainment is "arrest of a person's right to peaceful transit." It is exactly the same as arrest for purposes of filing suit against you under the 4th Amendment. Unless you have RAS or PC, you "detain" someone" at your own risk. Willful and knowing violation of constitutional rights forfeits qualified immunity in Federal Court. I would file suit against you and your department within 24 hours. Arrest differs only in that a formal process will commence from that point. I suggest you get more "training."
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •