This relates to the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting.
The Sanford police have repeatedly claimed that they did not arrest Zimmerman the noght of the shooting (or since) because they did not have sufficient probable cause. Yet, on the videotape of Zimmerman arriving at the police station, he is clearly in handcuffs.
Is there a contradiction between the statement and the video? Could Zimmerman have been handcuffed and brought involuntarily to the police station without being arrested? If he volunteered to come in and be interviewed, would he have been handcuffed?
Or could he be somehow un-arrested after giving a statement?
Slapping cuffs on does not indicate arrest. An officer may cuff someone for safety reasons, or because the individual is being detained. You might also get cuffed and thrown into a cell for not paying parking tickets - but not paying parking tickets is not (in most jurisdictions) a crime - just a violation.
Then you are saying he voluntarily agreed to be cuffed? Presumably, had he not been under arrest, he could have declined to go to the police station, correct?
However, there is another level between “volunteered” and “arrested.”
This called “detention.” Police may, without probable cause, briefly detain you to investigate a situation. The length of detention must be reasonable to the situation.
When is detainment not an arrest, in light of the above?
If I am detained and not free to leave, it seems to me I still retain the physical ability to make a run for it (except in those cases being cuffed at the scene for the protection of all present) and immediately risk being arrested once caught. On the other hand, once arrested I have lost that free choice to make a run for it.
So can one be cuffed, transported to jail, put in lockup, and be classified as detained and not arrested? How long can one be “detained” in lockup before the DA is required to have you released or charged?
Handcuffing is pretty much standard procedure if you are going to the station in a police vehicle, yes you can be detained without being arrested, this is to protect the officer and to keep you close until they can determine if a crime has actually occurred. I can give you an example to which I was a direct witness, I live in Texas so this might not apply everywhere. A friend D. who runs a gas station shot and killed a guy who was robbing his store(I happened to be about 50 feet away) I saw the whole thing. I was interviewed and so were other witnesses at the scene, D was not questioned at length at the scene, he was cuffed and went downtown, I assumed he was arrested, nope just detained. They checked if his gun was legal, he made a statement about the incident, they looked into who the robber was, they watched the store video, dropped D. off at the store about 6 hours later, the Grand Jury no billed it(no indictment) several weeks later. Arrest records are public info, I suspect that this has something to do with it, I mean that an arrest for Murder can seriously hamper someones job hunting abilities even with no conviction, so D was detained so an investigation could be started, sent home with no arrest and the GJ decided no crime, closed case. Hope that helps
Being arrested tends to mean you’re not going home that night and will soon be facing criminal charges. Being detained yes may be against your will, but you can rest easy, even if in a jail cell for a night or two, knowing you’ll still be going home. That is, until you’re officially arrested.
At what point in the volunteer/detain/arrest continuum is the subject best advised to STFU and not say anything more? Should your friend D (who shot the gas station robber) have talked to the cops at any time? Should Zimmerman have talked to the cops at any time?
ETA: Most impotantly: If cops stop ME at any time, any place, for any reason and start asking questions, should I STFU immediately? If not, when?
The general consensus from legal-types is that you shouldn’t talk to the police, ever, without a lawyer, even voluntarily. If you have plans to intentionally speak with the police about your involvement in an event, you go with a lawyer. If you get picked up by the police against your will, the only words out of your mouth should be, “I want to speak to my lawyer before answering any questions.” or thereabouts.
There was a good video posted on YouTube from a defense attorney explaining in more depth as to why this is generally a good idea. I’ll be damned if I saved it though or can navigate through that site’s ironically shitty search engine.
I wonder if these Stand Your Ground self-defense cases are the exceptions to the rule about defendants never talking to police? Apparently you say the magic words, “I feared for my life and I was defending myself”, and unless an eyewitness is around to contradict you, you walk. Kind of like an express murder trial, without the trial part.
There are several factors. Police can bring someone in for questioning. He is legally considered under arrest if a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to go. That does not mean that he is in fact under arrest. It means that all the legal protections that an arrestee has come into effect. No need to unarrest if they decide to not charge at that time since according to the police there was no arrest. But in the eyes of the court he would be considered under arrest. So you can’t bring someone into the police station in handcuffs and then have a casual conversation. Miranda must be given before any questioning. Any physical evidence must be obtained with consent or a warrant. Any evidence or statements obtained without 4th amendment protections would get thrown out. An investigatory stop that lasts too long turns into a de facto arrest that must comply with the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
*Speaking in generic terms. I don’t know what was said to Zimmerman at the station or if he was ever told he was under arrest or ever considered to be by those officers.
I was once suspected of murder by the police while I was in San Diego for the holidays, and they took me downtown, without arresting me–in handcuffs, without asking for my permission. It was so obvious to me that it was a case of mistaken identity, and that I had an alibi, I did talk to them, because I wanted to get the thing over with and go home.
If I’d shut up and asked to speak to “my lawyer,” I’d have been kept in there for days–simply because I didn’t have a lawyer. Once they’d satisfied themselves that it wasn’t me, they let me go, and the whole thing was over with in hours. And I didn’t have to shell out thousands of dollars for counsel.
I know that seems like a cop-out (er… no pun intended). But the Supreme Court has consistently refused to draw a bright-line rule for length of detentions. Certain states may have laws that set a time. I don’t know if Florida does.
What can be done is limited. the cops can’t even take fingerprints without probable cause (Davis v. Mississippi). They can’t detain you involuntarily for any great length of time.
A lot would hinge on whether Zimmerman accompanied the police voluntarily.
You can’t legally run for it if detained. You can, and should, clarify immediately what your status is. Police have been known to claim, piously and after the fact, that a detention had ended and the subject was free to go, and the encounter had been transformed into a consensual one, when the reality was that if the subject had tried to leave, he would have been stopped.
“Am I free to go?” is the question to ask. I have inveighed before against the idea that he has “magic words,” but if such exists, these are they. “Am I free to go?” requires that the police detaining you either can justify their continued detention by reasonable suspicion, according to facts known to them at that moment, or admit that you are free to leave.
As I understand it the fact that someone intially volunteered to go isn’t the point. The courts have used a reasonable person standard in these cases. If a reasonable person believed he was free to go at anytime. If a reasonable person would not believe he was free to go then it is a de facto arrest. But the courts have recognized that police need a certain amount of time to do their job. So a traffic stop in which it takes 10 minutes to check your license and write you a ticket is not an arrest even though you can’t just leave. Hence the lack of a bright line.
There are really two issues here. Whether the Sanford Police considered him under arrest and if he was legally under arrest.
The Police of course would need to bring him in for questioning. He may have volunteered to come in. They may have been following department proceedure by cuffing him. If they did not consider him under arrest but brought in for further questioning, he would not need to be booked, photographed, fingerprinted… He could be questioned for ten hours as long as he agreed to talk. And he could be allowed to leave without being “unarrested” while the investigation continued.
If a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to go at any time it is a de facto arrest. Being brought in handcuffed and kept for 10 hours would be a pretty good indication that it was a de facto arrest. It would have to be looked at closer by a court if the issue ever came up. But really all that means is that all the protections of the 4th amendment (and other court rulings such as Miranda) must be followed. It doesn’t mean that a warrant must be issued or any department arrest proceedures must be followed.
From what others have told me it’s standard procedure to handcuff mental cases too when driving them to the hospital. Someone I know got the joy of being cuffed and stuffed during a 5150 transport. She said it’s distressing enough even when you don’t consider whatever caused it.
Depends on what you mean by standard. I suppose it could be standard some places. Where I work it is an option but only happens if the patient is violent.