Legal Dopers - A Question About Detention Vs. Arrest

[Zeke_N.Destroi]

@lawbuff

… “the length of the detentions effectively transformed them into de facto arrests without bases in probable cause, unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment.”

So it’s based entirely on a subjective judgement made after the fact?

@lawbuff

Miranda is only triggered basically for courtroom purposes. A police officer can ask any question before mirandizing a detainee, pre or post arrest.

I get that they can ask, but my -quite possibly misinformed - belief is that once a suspect is officially under arrest they must be Mirandized or anything they say is inadmissible.

Assuming I’ve got this fundamentally right (I’ve no doubt there are nuances) then when detention evolves into de facto arrest the suspect should be Mirandized or anything they say would be inadmissible. But since the decision about detention evolving into arrest is determined subjectively at a later date how do they determine when Miranda should have been triggered and what is, therefore, inadmissible?

[LinusK]

@Zeke_N.Destroi

So it’s based entirely on a subjective judgement made after the fact?

I get that they can ask, but my -quite possibly misinformed - belief is that once a suspect is officially under arrest they must be Mirandized or anything they say is inadmissible.

Assuming I’ve got this fundamentally right (I’ve no doubt there are nuances) then when detention evolves into de facto arrest the suspect should be Mirandized or anything they say would be inadmissible. But since the decision about detention evolving into arrest is determined subjectively at a later date how do they determine when Miranda should have been triggered and what is, therefore, inadmissible?

They have a hearing. If the defense attorney thinks there are statements that should be suppressed, he’ll file a motion with the court and ask for a hearing. Then the judge will make a ruling.

There is no bright line or special words that separate a “detention” from an arrest.

However, this is a good practical explanation by a cop:

Detentions are shorter in duration and scope than arrest, and require a lower burden of proof.

If I have Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur, and reasonably believe that a person may have information about this, I can detain them for a short period of time to investigate the matter. As part of my investigation, I can conduct a pat down for weapons (if I reasonably believe that they may be present) and seek information to determine exactly what is, has, or will happen. The timeframe can vary a bit due to each set of circumstances, but 20 minutes or so has been ruled to be a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone.

If I have Probable Cause to believe a specific person has committed a crime, I can arrest that person. At that point, I can conduct a complete search of their person for weapons, evidence, and contraband, as well as their vehcile if they are or have been near it recently. I can remove them from the scene and hold them (in jail) for 24 hours or until I get a warrant issued for the charges.

If anyone resists an arrest or detention, I am authorized to use force to apprehend them (in addition, resisting an arrest or detention is a crime, so resisting immediately gives me probable cause to make an arrest).

Normally I don’t have to use any “meaningful” physical force to restrain someone I am detaining or arresting. Most people cooperate on their own.

A person can usually tell (with me) because I’ll tell them when they are under arrest. If a case arises when I handcuff someone who is merely detained, I will tell them, “You’re not under arrest at this time; you are being detained while I investigate what’s going on.”

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/81879-detained-vs-arrested.html

The only thing I’d argue about is the 20 minutes thing. DWI detentions routinely go on longer than that.