I’ve heard this multiple times on multiple TV shows, some variation on “don’t leave the city.”
Given the right of freedom of movement we have in America, is there any penalty for somebody who then leaves the city?
If you are not charged with any offense, nor under subpoena, I don’t believe the police can stop you from leaving town. They might say it, but it has no legal force.
IANAL.
Regards,
Shodan
The idea, as I understand it, is “If you run, you’re going to prove your guilt and we’re going to arrest you. We believe you’re innocent just enough to let you walk around… but don’t go too far.”
It’s not a legal injunction; it’s a friendly loosening of the leash.
If they don’t have grounds to arrest you, leaving town won’t change that.
Regards,
Shodan
Does Miranda have anything to do with it (anything you say can and will be used against you), or is that specifically for things you say? Or do they just not want to have to track you down and have you hauled back if they have any more questions?
My understanding is that there is no formal penalty imposed by the legal system. BUT if they decide they want to talk to you some more, and you’ve made that difficult for them, they’ll make things difficult for you in turn.
Like what Amateur Barbarian said. They’re trying to be friendly, but if you don’t respond similarly, their friendliness will end.
Also, people who are actively on probation or parole can be restricted from freedom of movement. The legal theory is that these people are actually in the process of serving a judicial sentence and are not truly free - they have been given a sentence (e.g. 2 years in prison) and the government has offered to let them serve it without having to be physically behind bars. But they are still serving that 2 year sentence and running away to another jurisdiction without permission is analogous to sneaking out the prison garbage chute.
Generally you are correct, but if you are just missing PC for an arrest, being able to put “guilty suspect guiltily fled the city in a haste, like a thief in the night, similar to the thief he is, after being questioned by police officers and being asked not to leave the city” on the arrest warrant application is something that might add the bump needed to convince a reluctant judge.
is there such a thing as a reluctant judge?
I have talked to some judges, and they assure me that they send warrents back because they aren’t properly filled out. Never do they reject them because they didn’t think the police met some threshold. I know that is the theory, but I would like to hear that it actually happens.
The phrase predates Miranda. I’ve heard it in gangster movies of the 30s, and it became very common due to Dragnet in the 50s. Given the fact that Jack Webb tried to be as authentic as possible with Dragnet, it’s likely the police did use the phrase as a warning.
If it’s an active investigation and you’re involved, you could be charged with obstructing the investigation by leaving town.
Why not just call them, tell them mama died & you are going to the funeral 100 miles away & will be back Friday. This is my cell number.
Bet you they would say sure…
Nice begets nice.
Asshat begets asshat.
Of course if you are guilty, run like hell. 
So what happens if staying in town imposes a significant cost on you? Will the police foot your hotel bill? Will they compensate you for business losses?
or a reluctant jury.
The conditions of parole or probation are laid out prior to release or soon after sentencing. The state can’t impose restrictions willy nilly. There are often travel restrictions but if not an investigating officer can’t impose more.
I’ve never had a warrant turned back. But our assistant prosecutors are such nitpicky pains in the ass that nothing gets to the judge unless it’s air tight.
Could. I guess. It’s a stretch. A big stretch. There would have to be a lot more to it.
A police officer can not force you to stay in town or restrict your movements. A judge can as part of bail. They can do things like force you to turn over your passport. A police officer can’t.
Disagree. Oh and I am not saying could not as in illegally, as police do illegal things at times, we all know, but legally no PC would exist. IF a person is arrested as a material witness, that is VERY rare.
If they are the center of the questioning, a material witness arrest of course does not apply.
Yeah pretty much. I was weaseling because I thought there might be a way to shoe horn it into an obstruction charge. But I can’t think of how.
You see a lot of drama on TV. I sometimes see police say they have a warrant to take someone in for questiong. This is a so called “Pocket Warrant”, but they are not constitutional, see Kaupp v. Texas.
Police can and will do almost anything during an investigation to convince you to talk. If they intimidate you with “don’t leave town” then maybe it will help you crack. (you know the old story “your partner is already telling us all the details, if you don’t talk you’re the only one going down…”)
IIRC, there are some jurisdictions where “flight” can be entered during a trial as additional evidence of guilt, but I seem to remember this as only if the police come to arrest you and you run away from them.
Certainly L&O, our source of all legal wisdom, has perps skipping town all the time (and never tries to tell them “don’t leave town”.) They use this activity in describing why they think the person is guilty, but IIRC it never comes up in court except in the case of arguing bail and bail conditions.
That is not true. People hear that the police can lie and think that means they can do pretty much anything to get someone to talk. In reality, statute and legal precedents tightly control what can and can’t be done.