If a police officer approached me on the street and asked me if I knew what time it was, I would refuse to answer without counsel being present.
The Police can NOT take somone in for questioning involuntarily absent probable cause.
The transportation of a person to a police station, whether characterized as an arrest or not, IS an arrest, and must be supported by PC.
IF zimmerman did not go voluntarily, he was under arrest, period.
The question is, did he agree to go, or were the police, by a show of authority, forceful enough for him to believe he was under arrest?
Unknown, but arguendo, say Zimmerman stated he was not going voluntarily, and still taken in, he was under arrest, per the 4th AM.
While someone can be handcuffed, say in the field, that is definitely a Siezure. Can it be a technical arrest? Maybe, as some jurisdictions term it that, just as placing a detainee in the back of a patrol car can be.
I live in the 6th Circuit and the Appeals court has ruled that placing a person in the back of a police car requires probable cause, except for a safety reason I think. I have the case in my head, I’ll try to come up with it.
The reason I asked this question is that it’s very difficult for me to believe Zimmerman (or anyone else) would voluntarily submit to being handcuffed after accepting an “invitation” to come to the station and be interviewed.
But I don’t know for a fact it wasn’t voluntary. Had it been me, I would have agreed to go in and make a statement, but when they pulled out the cuffs I probably would have said something like, “Whoa. I’ll take my own car.”
That I don’t know, but absent PC they could not take him in for investigative detention INvoluntarily.
Let’s say he was taken in against his will, he was under arrest, period.
If that happens, he is considered under arrest, that would have been without a warrant, and must be afforded a PC hearing within 48 hours, weekends notwithstanding. If FL has a quicker time, I did not check.
The detainment investigations spoken of, only relate to field detentions. U.S. v Sharpe comes to mind.
Sure, one can be arrested as a “Material Witness” the feds have a statute on that, so does Ohio, but that is RARE. This however, does not require PC.
Regarding “detention” – my primitive non-legal brain thinks of it as being told not to leave the scene un til some determination is made. It seems to me that cuffing someone and hauling them into the police station is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Perhaps the question is moot, as we don’t know whether Zimmerman took the ride and the cuffs voluntarily or not.
The people on Cops seem to voluntarily submit to the police quite frequently.
My thanks to the legal eagles and legal beagles in this thread. Quite informative.
Are you suggesting that the police could have detained him at the scene. or perhaps later detained him at the station, but could not have involuntarily cuffed and transported him while continuing to call it detention rather than arrest?
Did you read the case I cited?
Sure, because all the suspects on Cops were the refined upper crust of society who wouldn’t dream of questioning authority. I mean – only the absolute cream of the trailer parks were ever allowed on the show.
If my friend had not talked to the cops he would surely been arrested, I for one don’t think of the police as adversarys, but as simple advice if you are being questioned by the police and you believe that you are a suspect to them STFU, if not chat away. There is a delicate balance here and no answer from anyone can tell you what to do in every situation
About the Zimmerman/Martin thing, I think some patience is required. I suspect that more info will come out and we will discover that Zimmerman is going to jail because he shot someone with little or no reason or that Martin assaulted him and no charges will be filed. I wish everyone would chill out. I cannot and will not believe that any police dept or DA office would let this pass except NOLA
No, because I was responding to Bricker, not you. And Bricker has been a practicing criminal defense attorney
Also, if my interpretation of Bricker’s comment was correct, it may be there is no fundamental disagreement between him and you, But if there is, then your two opinions seem directly contradictory and mutually exclusive. Then I could sit back and watch a dog fight between legal beagles. 
From Dunaway:
Held:
- The Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they seized petitioner and transported him to the police station for interrogation. Pp. 442 U. S. 206-216.
(a) Petitioner was “seized” in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station, and the State concedes that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him before his incriminating statement during interrogation. P. 442 U. S. 207.
There is no such thing as, and I am not home, but my law dictionary terms it as “investigative detention” if I remember right, citing Dunaway by citation #'s, absent PC.
If we look at Florida v. Royer, not mentioned in Dunaway though, we will see that a field investigative detention and or traffic stop must only last as long as the original purpose of the stop requires and I cited U.S. v. Sharpe.
This however, does not include as you inquire, since an INvoluntary transport is an arrest, not a detention.
That is incorrect. The threshold for investigative detention is reasonable suspicion not probable cause. If at sometime during the detention it goes beyond the scope of an investigative detention then the threshold rises to probable cause. If at some point the detention goes from investigative detention to de facto arrest and probable cause does not exist then it becomes unlawful. It is not possible to point exactly to what circumstances occur to make it change from investigative detention to de facto arrest because SCOTUS has refused to name that bright line. Just the length is not enough. Just the fact that he was handcuffed is not enough. A court would look at the entire circumstances. In the Zimmerman case the only way we would know if the line was crossed is if there is a later arrest and his lawyer attempts to suppress some evidence because it was an unlawful arrest. That is assuming that the police are at this time characterizing it as a detention not an arrest.
Warning PDF
Loach, if you read Dunaway, how do you draw the conclusion you do?
c) The treatment of petitioner, whether or not technically characterized as an arrest, was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest, and must be supported by probable cause. Detention for custodial interrogation – regardless of its label – intrudes so severely on interests protected by the Fourth Amendment as necessarily to trigger the traditional safeguards against illegal arrest. Cf. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721; Brown v. Illinois, supra. Pp. 442 U. S. 214-216.
If a person is taken in INvoluntarily for questioning/investigative detention, he is under arrest, and that MUST be supported by PC. This action is more than a detainment.
My friend (who is a Superior Court Judge) has said the exact same thing. He adds one more “magic phrase” if the answer to “Am I free to go?” is “no”. That is “I want to spoke to my/a attorney”. Then stfu. The ACLU sez about the same.
I think many people are confusing “arrested” with “charged”.
I don’t know if they are characterizing it as detention, but they are absolutely NOT calling it an arrest.
Let’s say Zimmerman later claims that the transport WAS an illegitimate arrest, and a court agrees. Would there be any implications to that – beyond perhaps tainting what he said in the interview that night so it couldn’t be used at trial?
That does not cite any case law. Additionally, it addresses FIELD detentions only, not a transportation to a station as in Dunaway and Zimmerman, if he went INvoluntarily that is.
To quote though from your link though:
Detentions vs. de facto arrests: If a detention is deemed a de facto arrest, it becomes unlawful unless the officers had probable cause.
While some may disagree on the exact verbiage, an arrest is a charge, period.
As stated before, if arrested without a warrant, there is MAX 48 hour time frame to “officially” charge, or release.
Since he was let go, the trial Judge, if it gets to that, will not make a ruling on that.
If he wishes to sue for false arrest, that is a Civil 4th AM complaint, among others.
The court then would decide the issue.