Does the arresting officer have to tell you "on what charge"?

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=Gfactor]
From the case, instead of the syllabus:

(Emphasis added). County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44, 53 (1991)

And see, http://www.acgov.org/da/pov/documents/postarrestsummer2003.pdf (Note that in calculating the time limit, no allowance is made for weekends or holidays. It’s a straight 48 hours)
[/QUOTE]

Gfactor, while that may be the language of the case, since the California Penal Code appears to provide otherwise,

, unless there is a specific reason to believe that the code section has been ruled unconstitutional, California may not be quite following the stated rule of the case you are citing.

Upon preview, I see this is under further discussion. And upon edit, it appears that apples and oranges are under discussion. :stuck_out_tongue:

22

[QUOTE=askeptic]
We need to distinguish between a probable cause determination which must be made within 48hrs period and arraignment which is often the fist time the defendant is informed of the charges.
[/QUOTE]

Correct. I was responding to Quercus’s question, which was about probable cause review and *McLaughlin *, which was about probable cause and not arraignments. As far as I know the Court hasn’t placed a time-specific limit on time for arraignment. Although one could read Scalia’s opinion in Devenpeck (post #8) as saying the Gerstein 48-hour-including-weekends-and-holidays rule applies. I certainly don’t read *McLaughlin * that broadly.

23

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Gfactor, while that may be the language of the case, since the California Penal Code appears to provide otherwise,
[/QUOTE]

As far as I know, Supreme Court Case trumps California statute. :smiley:

And it’s possible, that Justice Scalia thinks apples *are * oranges. :wink:

24

[QUOTE=anson2995]
If you are being held without charges, you can file a habeas corpus petition, asking that the government be required to identify what crime you’re charged with. That’s what Padilla did, and before the court could rule on that matter, he was declared an enemy combatant, making his case moot (although some would disagree).

The case has been heard in several venues including the Supreme Court (which kicked it back down the chain), at which point the 4th circuit ruled that the President had the constitutional authority to order Padilla held without charges. The Supreme Court denied Padilla’s appeal of this ruling. Shortly after that, he was indicted in federal court on a variety of charges, and he was found guilty on all of those charges last month.
[/QUOTE]

But I guess my question was whether they have to inform you that you’re being held as a material witness under the same rules as when they have to inform you of charges.

25

[QUOTE=Gfactor]

And it’s possible, that Justice Scalia thinks apples *are * oranges. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

Well if that is the case then you know Thomas thinks that also.

26

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
But I guess my question was whether they have to inform you that you’re being held as a material witness under the same rules as when they have to inform you of charges.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. To hold you as a material witness they need to first obtain a warrant. Such a warrant is often sealed, but you can request a hearing to challenge it’s validity.

27

In Japan, they can hold you for either 17 or 21 days, (I forgot) and then apply for an additional similar length of time. After this time has expired, police will often arrest suspects on a different charge, then apply for addition time, rinse and repeat.