But 800 years ago in the Black Forest…
”I’m going on a break”
If you get paid for your breaks, then technically you are still an agent of the state.
Since my police powers don’t go away when I’m off shift most likely the court will always consider me an agent of the court. In my state all full time officers have statewide 24/7 arrest powers. That’s not to say we are allowed to go rogue and conduct investigations everywhere but we are authorized to act as a police officer whenever we witness someone breaking (because I have to say it in this thread) state law.
There are Special Officers that are part time that do not have police powers when off duty. New Jersey has 3 classes of Special Officers.
Class 1: can not carry a gun. Can only enforce traffic laws and ordinances. They are used for traffic control and security.
Class 2: do get issued a gun but have to turn it in at the end of the shift. They have full police powers but only during duty hours. Most Class 2s fall into two categories, retired guys who want to still make a little extra money and young guys trying to get hired full time somewhere. By far the biggest employers of Class 2 Specials are shore towns who hire them seasonally.
Class 3: this is a relatively new class in response to school shootings. Only retired police officers can become Class 3 Specials. They are armed security in schools. Not every town has them. My town does not. They also have no police powers outside of work.
kaylasdad99 dejectedly assigns himself to the category of people who apparently just don’t know how to tell a joke…
Plus, we all know how that “we were on a break” thing worked out for Ross (even if it embarrasses us to admit it).
Yes, thanks. This has been my point too - even if not explicit in state law, I would think the courts would have a hard time believing that someone subject to a “citizens arrest” by someone driving a police car and wearing a state police uniform was actually a private citizen and they could object to the arrest in the same manner as if they were another ordinary citizen. Plus, they’d been detained (?) by the officer in his squad car with flashing lights in his capacity as state policeman, adding to the ambiguity.
(IIRC I’ve seen mention of cases where the judge basically said “you arrested this person” because the policeman detained them too long at a roadside stop - and so threw out the case for lack of probable cause. Once the policeman turns into private citizen you are no longer detained, I assume, and can drive off on your merry way before he gets around to dragging you out of the car and arresting you.)
Dumb question, but with instances of “the authorities must indict or produce evidence within X number of days after arresting you or else must release you,” what prevents them from simply “releasing” a suspect and then promptly re-arresting him again on the spot to give themselves a fresh new 3, 7 or 30 days to get the indictment?
The Japanese police do that all the time.
I presume the same “magic words” exception applies. Like people who think certain magic words exclude them from being liable for this that or whatever - if the re-arrest is challenged in court, certainly by the third arrest the judge will say “you can’t use serial arrest on the same grounds to effectively perform a long-term detention and pretend it’s brand new each time - put up or shut up.”
If the judge ignores basic justice, well that’s the system screwing with your rights.
I don’t know exactly all the details - but in my jurisdiction it is at the very least going to depend on what is meant by “the authorities must indict or produce evidence within X number of days after arresting you or else must release you”. For example, in my state someone held in custody on a felony must be indicted within 120 hours ( 144 if there is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday) and if the indictment doesn’t happen within that time, the person must be released. But the case itself is not dismissed simply because an indictment was not obtained within the deadline , and I don’t see how the police could re-arrest someone for charges that are already pending.
Yeah that’s very much dependent on location. Here an indictment happens only when the case is put in front of a grand jury. That can be weeks or months after the arrest. Many other things happen between arrest and indictment. We don’t hold anyone without a warrant. The warrant is produced either before the arrest from an investigation or within hours of the arrest.
There’s theory and then there’s practice:
I presume too, that somewhere in that first few days after arrest is a bail hearing in front of a judge?
Right, that’s what I was wondering:
It seems there are two things that can be unfairly taken advantage of.
If the authorities “release,” then promptly re-arrest so they get a fresh 30 days (or whatever,) that’s abusing the system.
But if the authorities do release, then the suspect has every reason to flee. He knows that he’s wanted for a crime and it’s only a matter of time before the authorities re-arrest him again.
In my state, a person can be charged with a felony by indictment or by information (a way for a prosecutor to basically swear out a complaint). If charged by information, the person has a right to have a probable cause hearing before a judge. If indicted, no p.c hearing because the grand jury determined p.c.
So, a person is usually charged pretty quickly by information. Then, they might be asked if they’ll waive the preliminary hearing, which would be speedier, but defendants like preliminary hearings. But, if the defendant won’t waive, then the prosecutor will most likely go get an indictment, because prosecutors don’t like preliminary hearings. But people don’t tend to sit around in jail without being charged.
I wasn’t clear - the police can’t re-arrest someone on a case that is already pending if a judge has ordered release because there was no indictment by the deadline. It’s not the police who are releasing the person - he or she is already in jail and therefore not in police custody. A judge releases them on their own recognizance but the case hasn’t been dismissed.
As far as fleeing, the person could have fled if the judge released them on their own recognizance or set bail at the arraignment.(which happens before the grand jury gets the case). I was stuck on a grand jury three times (every other day for four weeks) and I would say that no more than 20% of the defendants were in custody at the time of the grand jury proceeding (probably fewer). And they kept us there as late as necessary to hear all the cases with defendants in custody.
But they still have grounds to ask for a bail hearing within a few days of arrest? At which time the prosecutor would, I assume, have to show reason (sufficient evidence) to hold the person plus explain why they would be a flight risk or menace to society or danger to the witnesses, etc. etc.?
They get arraigned, get an attorney appointed if eligible, and have a release hearing. If they are charged by information, then a preliminary hearing is scheduled, at which the prosecutor has to show p.c. Usually, the person gets indicted before the hearing, so no p.c. hearing is necessary.
Yes but it’s called a status hearing. As I mentioned before we have “bail reform” in my state. The reform is basically a bail prohibition. Warrants with bail are only used if there is a failure to appear for a charge.
When arrested it is first determined by whoever arrests the defendant if they are going to put the charge on a summons or warrant. It’s presumed that most charges will be a summons. If a warrant is approved there is no bail. They go to the county jail. Within 48 hours they have to be seen by a judge who determines if pretrial detention is continued or some other control measures are used.